Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVillas at the Lake Subdivision FP 99-002HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY hfayor ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT o,n~~t M m ra CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83 c2os> ss7-2a t t RON ANDERSON Phone (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 8i~,~1~~~D _ PLANNING AND ZONING [{EITH BIRD ,+- DEPART~(ENT JAN 1 9 1999 (208) 881-5533 City of i~Ieridian City Clerk ~~ifira TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMEN T PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian City Council, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: February 9, 1999 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 15, 1999 HEARING DATE: February 16, 1999 FILE NUMBER: FP-99-002 REQUEST: FINAL PLAT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY: STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NW OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 _ TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) MARK NELSON, P/Z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT BYRON SMITH, P/Z ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION KEITH BORUP, P/Z CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH R08ERT CORRIE, MAYOR NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT RON ANDERSON, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) KEITH BIRD, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) GLENN BENTLEY, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM &FINAL} SEWER DEPARTMENT IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT ADA COUNTY (ANN TIO FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER CITY FILES ~ q_ • Mss ® -. REALTOR® f-,.~- -1 HZ5 LAND realtv~n~. National Relocation Service ~ MEMORANDUM May 22, 2001 208/336-3393 4720 EMERALD STREET, SUPI'E 116 BOISE, IDAHO 83706 TO: Shari Stiles, Planning Director & Zoning Administrator City of Meridian From: Nick Oddo RE: Lots atEBrenda.Estates; Meridian, Idaho --------------------------------------------- Dear Shari, Thank you for spending so much time with me on the phone last Friday. Sharing your insights with me regarding the on-going situation at Brenda Estates was very helpful. Since talking to you I have had several phone conversations with the developer, Steiner Development, Inc, (SDI). Also, on Monday I met again with the two builders who'would like to take control of the subdivision and build out all the remaining 17 lots. At the end of our phone conversation you suggested that I prepare a written summary of the present situation at Brenda estates and drop it off at your office. Below is a brief outline of what is currently happening. Background The Final Plat of Brenda Estates Subdivision shows a total of 43 single-family lots. Attached is a reduced copy labeled Exhibit "A". Of these, 10 lots are Townhomes, the remaining 33 are designated single-family detached. Currently all 10 Townhomes have been constructed. In addition, ~8 single-family homes have been built and 3 are under construction. Of the remaining 23 lots, SDI informs me Memo dtd 5/22/01 TO: Shari Stiles Page 2 of 3 Pages that 5 of them are sold, leaving a total of 17 to#s currently unsold. Attached is a Site Plan, Exhibit "B," showing the location of sold lots and existing homes. They are color-coded for easy reference. Current Status The two local builders, CAPITAL HOMES and SMITH. BROTHERS BUILDERS, would like to acquire the remaining 17 lots immediately. The problem is that 10 of the lots are going to be very difficult to build on. They are outlined in red on the Site Plan. The lots in question are: 11,12,13,14,16,21,41,44,45 and 36. Lot 47, the 17th lot is probably the most difficult of all. Lot 47 is uniquely located at the entrance. If the driveway to this lot is placed on W. Daly Lane, there is a total of 2889 square feet of buildable space. But the way the footprint tails off to the East, the useable space drops below 2000 square feet. No matter what type of house is designed, it is probably going to look rather strange. To resolve this problem SDI has tentatively agreed to dedicate this lot to the homeowners as open space. The Builders in turn have said they are willing to plant trees and grass and turn this lot into a small park. Of the remaining 10 problem lots only one lot, No. 36, backs up to any existing homes. All of the remaining problem lots either back up to the golf course or are in the interior. Most of these lots have less than 2500 square feet of total buildable area. Each of these lots currently requires a minimum 1600 square foot house. Adding a minimum 420 square foot garage raises the total to over 2000 square feet. The problem is aggravated by the fact that many of the potential home buyers are seniors. Given a choice, many of them would prefer a somewhat smaller home with a larger than minimum garage. A utility vehicle or small van needs a garage that is at least 23 feet in depth. Also, many buyers would like a garage expanded in width to accommodate a small shop or storage cabinets. In any case, it would be most helpful to be able to attach a 500 to 600 square foot garage. However, if you study the footprints, you can see how difficult it will be to design even a 420 square foot garage plus a 1600 square foot house on these lots. Suggested Solution In order to provide some flexibility in design we are asking that you consider reducing the square footage requirement on these ten lots from 1600 to 1400 square feet. • Memo dtd 5/22101 TO: Shari Stiles Page 3 of 3 Pages Attached as Exhibit "C" are color copies of several. houses built by these Builders. Each of the homes is only around 1400 square feet. The quality of these homes, both inside and out, would compare favorably with the existing homes at Brenda Estates. Since the City's minimum square footage requirement is 1400 square feet, we are hoping that such a change can be made without requiring a lengthy delay. In any case we have gone about as far as we can without additional input from your office. Please let me know what, if anything, we can do to assist you in helping us solve this problem. You can reach me on my cell phone at (208) 888-5928. Or, as we discussed, I will call you later in the week. J~ NICK ODDO enc. CG: Capital Homes Smith Brothers Builders Steiner Development, Inc. ~I Q~ .__ _ I ~ _. ..`4 ..... . of $§: ~3 Y_ i i e =i ~ ~ i e € : ~ fi ~ i _ ~ Y s ° j ~ i ~ 6S LQ a . w I I ' ~ ~ 1 W I I ~ I I 1 i I I i 1, I ~ i . ( 1 I ,: 1 ` .~ ¢, s '~ { ~~ . ~ ~ ~.1 . g ~ ~~ ` ~ ,a xp a ,~_~' . ~• `~ °Z o r.. ' ~ 1 ~Q 'O ~ . .. VI =, ,O~ ~ m = .f _a mH3O ~o~r Q ~`~ J ~ j J Q -Op atiWYZC~o a°~w'''aN Z ~ 0 1= °a (n~M Z W~Za aZ~w ~~w~L N O Yb m ~ M a~. t 0 Q ~~ I I ° JAR Il 11 II I ~ 1 I, .. ~li~ ~ I -° I I at ~ ~/ , ' ~ ). ~[ ~ s ~ ~• 3 I i a 1,1 ~. 1 s 3 . ~ ~3 ~ 18e r ~., ° _ ~ ~ ,~ .._ r_....~ _~.,-.oti.., r _ _..-. ~ ~, _._,. . ~ _. t i ~ ~ i z--~[-_- E ~ifis,~ra ~ Sgeaa .' ~~ ~~' ,§ _ =°hkY : g-' '~ 3~g, $~ €= F ~3 1 ~09yy~S""' ^'=•~j ° 6g a i ~ °fi ~ $ ~Y Yisng ~~ .t$ i^ :z~ .E,~i ~T6:4. .3s j ~~ ~~ 3~ • S~iE ~ ~r {y'~ $ : "~ : g3 .~f. :_s° ~°s ~ ~5~ ~ .~ !_ " _ i s ~=z, f ~~ is 3i~•~; :~ ~ ~: ;~ ~i.pp1 •~~~'„=s 5 :3.3,..3 ~~E fi• `~ s _E ~' ,~ ~~ '4 'i~•~~ °.~ n3 ~° ~' - cs~i3 s a •: _ 9~ _ 3 =• i _ = s 7 ~' a ~~~so~"~~ ~~ ~°~~=s~ fg =~3 5i~ E s ~;bx_'~,3fi ~~E T~°~'~ U~~ g ~s ~. ~~ '" Z §~~~~a~~~ ~~ ~~a~~s~L~~ ~~g ~ ~ ' ~g ~t-~~ g°y ~~4'~{'e ~~ <'s ~~_ i~ Y ~ a ~ E'`'~ ~a $'s a~ ~ ; ~,,~ Tai s ~~ !Ea-~ ~~ ~. 1~ C +:° ~$4~ _ $$~~~ ..{{}} ~.~ SS°~ ie~$ ~ F 5" 8S3' s fRz° .e ssi3 &. 6~` iiN ~~i '~$e~~3 ~ =j u^ ~~dS ~.,~_• = p-s ~ ~p}.S > ~ Y~ F ^~ •'•LS~E~g^"E$ ~;.~s gi = °~.~~~ i°a - s ^s5+ .i~Sy~si+ ~~'°' -~~ =~3'~° 3$S Egi .SE ~~ i S ~ ~ ~ ^'E 3~• 8FOE5E s3 sEi ^- ^ 3~~~n"•~- ~' ~s=i~t~ ~~ ~~:z ~~~a s ^~ ~~~9a 9 s~' s:F :ss~~~ ~s~ ~s: 3.~ 3a= ~ ' a. sus. .. ~ s ' .. ..;... :; ~tyyv ! Y W r /~ ~ { \~ Yn ~-~ ~ $ ~i gyp" ~' $ a ~a Q _ " 191 ~ • '~'~ R ~ ~~ ~ a ~ ~ `~i • .. ^~, r 3 ,,,rte' ......... ~~ E ~A ~dy .30 • J' `~ _ + i ~ ••^ a u~ °' t x ~~~:, ^i. e0~• n ~ ~3¢ ~~ ~~x=nR~"$~ o8r°O3n+.l ~ w /P W ° .~. ~ ~ A7 ` " u. h '°'r ~ ~ ~ `•.I ~ $zzzzn z~•z zzw~+• pi l .w.•..~ • M i ^ H n 3 ~ d aezr ~ ~ C9'YlL 3 .ttA000 N r~ _ t ~`: Y9.{(r1dN11 ~ . •.. L. W m ~ ~- - _ _ } f w IC ..1 H ] S Ft ~ W i, 1 = --~---'------ f, ~ r t , f, ; ~€~ s .. GrOi 1rJ1~Yii 'N ppyr=y /O S751Y 3 4 °~ss _ _ ' F O J , # e R o ~r ,. ____ _ 't r YP _~1 °° ~ ~ {O . ~ ~ r" r y~ ~ to ~ ~ , rn = tai ~ r.:. : d d .~ ~~c °' ,,/' c - - -' r ~ c ~'" o ` r ~ O N_ ~ ,~ W,f d ,~\ c~ r!N., d '" O N O N ~ ~ C7 ~~ v 'nr N ~ ~ v -+ CT / to l /y i / W N (.7~ ~ '~ /~ O !' In W 'T1 N ~ !s In H ~ ~ T1 V d~ W 1 v tT j N rn ~ ~ ~ \ / N \v/ \ ~ ~ I `'' i i i a • d i / / i .- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i; i / / y N Built in "The Village" at Bristol Heights Spring 1999 Smith Brothers Builders Sales Price: $124,900 / Square Feet: 1428 Lot Price: $24,900 .~ ,_ ~ _ ~ i _ ~ _. J Built in "The Village" at Bristol Heights Spring 1999' Smith -Brothers Builders ~ ~ ~ ., S Sales` Price: $124,450 / Square Feet: 1408 ,y ~~ ~:; Lot Price: $24,900 ~ - • ~` -jc_H 1 tai ~-- --.~ :_3 ___ Built in "The Tillage" at Bristol Heights Spring 1999 Smith Brothers Builders Sales Price: $125,600 / Square Feet: 1336 Lot Price: $24,900 Built in "The Village" at Bristol Heights Spring 1999' Smith Brothers Builders Sales Price: $125,000 / Square Feet: 13.36 Lot Price: $24,900 _. a i r . ' ~. a ~•.... ' ~ . .1 .i. J _. i~ Smith Brothers Builders New Conetruadon 8 Rertwdele PHIL 8MITH CELL 86D-7~3a (208) 343-b287 I. .. I - j'J.t~ ~ r .__ i . I 1752 50. FT. Ist FLOOR ~T76 50. Ft. 2rd FLOOR 292 SQ. FT. DOM.IS RM 252o so. FT. TorH. .,~~,~,~ i { .m~K eas[.uwfD ~an~ ao~srsoNf ~ ssosr i i 1 OCT 04 '00 12 00 FR CITY OF MERIDIAN 208 884 4259 TO P-AND-Z P'.01i01 !!Ul.~ OF TRF.A.S(JRE VALLEY MAYOR LE,GAL•i~Cf'ARTMFNT Itobcrc ~~ Corrio r A Good Place to i,.ive , , ezos) 2RR•za99 • Fax zas-2501 CITY COUNCIL MBMBERS vITY OF 1VIE~tIDIAN Pu13uC WORKS 33 EAST•IDAHO DUILDING DEPpRI~MLNT Ron Andcrsim (ZO8) RR7-221) • I~ax RR7,1297 Keith Bird MEIt(piAN, IDAHO 83642 Tamm deWeed (208) 888-4433 - F.~tx (208) 887-4813 PLANNING ANU'LC.)NING Y City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 pF..PARTMtiN•I• Cherie McCandless •"(20R) A84-5513 -fax R$$•GK54 Y i ` { t ~ k • ~~ w ~ ' I Ocfober 4, 2000 Mr. Doug Campbell Steiner Development •4085 W. Ustick Road '' • Meridian, 10 83642 884-2076 ' Re: Return Letter of Credit for The Villas Subdivision After a site inspection and review of the Villas Subdivision Project by the Planning ~ Zoning Department, it has been determined to release the Letter of Credit of $391,838-00 to you`for the completed,ste improvements. Please use. this letter as authorization for Mountain West Bank to release the Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 22. , . ,. • If you have any questions please contact me. Thank you for your cooperation. ~ ~, Sincerely ~ ` Y 1. ~ ~ .. I~/ William G. Berg, .lr. • City Clerk Enclosure 5 1. •Sk t K x 1 Y! ` 'T •. G~ x n MAY 31 '00 11 57 FR CITY,~OF MERIDIAN 208 884 4259 TO P-AND-Z P.01i01 'aNJI~TOZ ~~h'~"Id , I~IQI2I 30 ~.LIO oooa g o N n r ~~?~~~ Q~.AI~~~~. MAY 3 0 2000 CITY OF Nf~IDL~N i~2~r~ d~C l~ ~ t ~ 1503 FIRST STREET 50UTH • NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 , y FAX # 208.463-0092 May Z5, ~OQ Phones: Area Code 208 LOUIS' Stein@r OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 • SHOP: Nampa 466-Ob63 Steiner Development Inc. - ~ 4085 W, Ustlck Road Meridian, ID 83642 .~ . R,e: iVillas aat the Lakes Subdivision • Dear Mr. Steiner. a The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has completed a prnssure test on the irrigation system for the above-mentioned subdivision, The system. appears to meet the District's specifications; therefore, the District accepts this system for operation and maintenance. Sincerely, ~,~ ~ f~% Bill Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent • NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT BH: din Cc: File. Board of Directors Secretary Treasurer , Water Superintendent PreSSUre Irrigation Specialist -Ted Clinton Gty of Meridian a ~' APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES ' RIVER FLdW RIGHTS • 23,000 •• BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS • 40,000 Bc~Ic Tf1TAl PArF. R1 ~* 7 q<~ ~ a,^.n~n I~l'17 I~v~ C~1 1 ~!' ~/3 ~:3sl`LL~ f~f ~/- 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 Phones: Area Code 208 May 21, 1999 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Mr. Keith Jacobs Pacific land Surveyors 1295 S. Eagle Flight Way - Boise, ID 83709 Re: The Vlilas at the Lakes Subdivision ~~ Dear Keith: The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has reviewed the above-mentioned project for storm water run-off and pressure irrigation. The run-off plans indicted that everything will be retained on site and this meets the Districts requirements. The pressure system appears to be adequate also which is shown bo be connected to The Lakes at Cherry Lane. The District will need to do an inspection for proper installation, operation, and a pressure test, please contact us when the system is installed. Also, please have the owners contact the District's attorney, Ms. Laura Burri at 342-4591 and ask that she prepare a contract for operation and maintenance of this system. Please feel free to contact me if you feel further discussion is required. Sincerely, t j ~L%~,rJ~~~ John P. Anderson, Water Superintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT JPA:din Cc: File Each Director Secretary Treasurer Asst. Water Superintendent Sharp & Smith -John Sharp City of Meridian -Will Berg Ada County Highway District APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS • 40,000 y.I,-4 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF STEINER DEVELOPMENT, APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION, MERIDIAN, IDAHO FP-99-002 ORDER OF CONDITIONA~~°~E APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT ' APR ~ ~ ~~ PCj~C'i v~~~~<ir This matter coming before the City Council for Final Plat approval pursuant to § 11-9-604 H Municipal Code of the City of Meridian this 6`'' day of April, 1999, and the Council finding that the Administrator Review is complete which has included certain comments and conditions as stated in a letter to the Mayor and Council from Bruce Freclcleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, listing 7 General Comments and 14 Site Specific Comments, which are herein found fair and reasonable, and Shari Stiles having appeared on behalf of the City of Meridian, and Steve Bradbury appearing on behalf of the developer, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat the Council takes the following action: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1.) The Final Plat of "Villas at the Lalces Subdivision" as evidenced in Plat bearing the job reference ACAD DWG. FILE: 549272\VILASUB l ,DES. BEB, DR: ~BEB, ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION - 1 CIS. IQ..J, SHEET 1 OF 12, DATE: APRIL 5, 1999, DWG. N0.990405, PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS, is Conditionally Approved subject to those conditions of Staff comments as set forth in the Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council from Bruce Frecldeton, Assistant to the City Engineer and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, dated February 16, 1999, listing 7 General Comments and 14 Site Specific Comments, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein. 2.) The final plat upon which there is contained the Certification and signature of the City Cleric and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: a. The Plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and b. The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate performance bond has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site improvements. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the '~ ~ day of 1999. By: BERT D. CORRIE yor, City of Meridian ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION - 2 Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department and the Public Worlcs Department. C' v ~ ~- ~! ~ By: Dated: ity Cleric msg/Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\VillasLakesSubFPOrder E r 1 i ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION - 3 , HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Mayor ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPART>vtENT o to it M m rs CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 c2osl ss~-2'_ t t RON ANDERSON Phone (208) 888--31133 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PL,aNNING AND ZONhNG KEITH BIRD DEPARTMENT (203) 33-3->j?.i MEMORANDUM: February lb, 1999 To: Mayor and City Council From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer~s~~ Shari Stiles, P&Z Administrator Re: THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION (Final Plat by Steiner Development LLC) We have reviewed this submittal and offer the followvng comments, as conditions of the final plat. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: 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-bO5.M, unless a variance has been granted', 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. ?. Any existing domestic wel]s andlor 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. Submit a plan approval letter to the Public Works Department from the entity having jurisdiction over design and construction of the pressurized irrigation system. A letter of credit or cash will be required for these improvements prior to signature on the final plat. 4. Indicate on the final plat map any FEMA Flood Plains affecting the area being platted, and detail plans for reducing or eliminating the boundary. 5. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 6. Please submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's final approval letter for the subdivision name, lot and block numbering, and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. Yllas at the[. kes Subdivision.FP Mavor and City Council 2/16/1999 Page 2 7. Please address all items contained in this memorandum (both General and Site Specific) during presentation of the final plat at Meridian City Council. Due to the lateness of staff comments, applicant will probably need time to review and prepaze appropriate response. Prior to development plan approval, three copies of the revised plat must be reviewed by the Public Works Department for. compliance with all conditions of plat approval. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS. 1. This final plat needs modification to conform to the approved preliminary plat. 2. Six-foot-high, non-combustible, permanent fencing is required to be in place along the subdivision boundary prior to obtauung building permits. Fencing shall be installed on lot lines and not within common areas. Detailed fencing plans need to be provided for review and approval A letter of credit or cash will be required for these fences prior to signature on the final plat. 3. Submit for approval detailed landscaping plans, including sizes and species of vegetation, fencing details, and walkway details for all common areas. A letter of credit or cash will be required for these improvements prior to signature on the final plat. All landscaping and pedestrian walkways are to be completed prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 4. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 5. Sanitary sewer service to this site will be via an extension of existing mains. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of centerline. 6. Water service to this site will be via an extension of e.~cisting mains. 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. 7. All street signs, road base, street lights, pressurized irrigation system, domestic water system (activated fire hydrants), and fencing are to be installed prior to obtaining building permits. 8. What is the purpose ofthe 15-foot-wide utilities and drainage easement adjacent to the private road? 9. Graphically depict ten-foot-wide public utilities, drainage and irrigation easements adjacent to rear lot lines and in other locations as shown on the attached plat copy. Vi1Lts u the Lakes Subdivision.fP Mayor and City Council 2/ 16/ 1999 Page 3 10. Given that this .subdivision will not be gated. what is proposed for the e:ctra width at the entrance to the subdivision? 11. Five pazlcing~spaces were to be included on Daly Lane as a condition of the preliminary plat These spaces should be detailed on the plat. 12. A condition of approval of the preliminary{ plat was that 29 of the homes' within this subdivision were to be 1,600-square-foot minimum, e:cclusive of garage. This leaves a total of four lots that were approved with a minimum house size of 1,304 square feet. Note 3 indicates that only 11 lots have the 1,600-square-foot designation. Revise Note 3 to reflect conditions of approval. It will be physically impossible for some of these lots to have a 1,600- squaze-foot minimum house with atwo-car garage unless they are made two-story units. Applicant needs to provide building envelopes on all lots to ensure compliance'is possible. No two-story units were presented with the conditional use permit. 13. All lot numbers will change as a result of the Ada County Street Name Committee's review. Staff recommends that approval of the final plat be tabled until a final plat map is submitted that incorporates the requested changes and conditions of the approved preliminary plat. 14. Staff does not propose these comments to be all-encompassing and reserves the right to impose additional conditions upon further review of the revised final plat submittal. Yllas az the Lakes S~bdivision.FP Post-it' Fay tvct;,> Iii: 1 I iaY.~~r~ul. .I xc 1 f.,J ~ ice..-t..-~...1.-. "' . __.___._~_~ ~ I ~1~ ~ t'm,nn a , l .i:•I~ I•li.~l:. March 9, 1099. Vlayur an11 City ('uuncil l•ity ol•1\ricridia~~ > 1;:>,tit Idaho Averntt tilcridian, ID 8.3Fi42 Suh•je:cL ~49?7~-OG 'I•he Villas at tl~e I.akcs Sulxlivi.iun Lear h9cryor and (.'ity ('nuncil: ..L.iF..•iy ~ .... _.~ i ,, T~' ; / 1'tl~.rr y. .._ _ ~ ~• ~_-~.__-_- a. ~_.-..._.._._. This letter is in naponse to the ci~mrncnt~ by yuur statY•datcd fehn,ary 16. il~c)9 ort the linai plat of l he Villas at the LakcS Suhdivisiun 1. •Tltc twu c?cistitl~; irriu.ttiun ditches, ~taflard dub anti bis:ttt Mile laterals, 31ong the prujre:t boundary an: to remain upon and will not be piped in aecurdance with City Ordinance Secliun 1 I-9-GUS:M. No c,thcr irrigation ditches cross this prujccl. 1 2. '17iis property does not have <uty wcll~t ctr septic talnks on it. C'ity's sewer and water system ;e,•vc;s the rxisting C'henv Lana golf clubhausc. The cluhhuusc ,vil) lx: rentovcd and sewer <vtd water scaviccs will he: ahande,ncd in accurJance with the Ciry's requirements. ~ ~. Nampa ~'c Meridian lrri;atian nist.rict has.jurisdi~ticm uvL:r the; pressure irrigation systcr,t. I'rcasUre in•ilation will he sn extcrtmiun u!•thc.yste;rn that serves l'he l..ztl;es at Cherry I.anc ~uhciivisil~m. 'I he system tic owned artd maintained by the Nampst ~ N•leridian IrriC;ation District. An apprt>v:i) deuer lilt the sysiCm exfc:nsit~n to scrvc'I'hc Vilhis at the Lakts 5ubdivisiun will be subrnittcd to Qtc Nlrridian Puhlic Wurks 1)e.•pertmcnt prior ltl sche;dufing thr pt•e-construction nteetin~. A Icttcrc>fcm.lit, cash, ~n• • appmpri;rte h<,nding for thc~c: irrtpruvcrnents will be' in place prior to the City si~,ning the fitfll plat. -1. •llte f+'~N1A tJoodplain does not atfiect arty Il~ts within this suhdivisiun. 5. 1•he tiro hydrttitt locations wen: cc~ordinatcd with the ~te.7idian Puhlic Wurks I)cpsrtmcnl. ti. A copy of the ,'1da County Street Name (:omrnittre's approval letter will be subrniUed to tlc Meridl<ut !'ublic Wurics Uepartmrnt when lhe; lnal plat mylar is submitted for the t'ity engineer ~ sit~ttattu•e. 7. A11 i-ems cont:~inul in the memc,r:,ndwn dated 1=ebn,ary 16, 1999 will be adctressed in this latter and at the: March 24. 1999 Meridian City C'c~uncit mccKing. "I•hrce copies of the final plat Tor 1•he Villa, at thlc lakes Suhdivisie>n will be submitted tl~ Mr. l3rucc ~rechleton. Ml:ridi~n Public Work; 171:p.:irtment, liar review prior tr, development plan apltmval. 11111 !3 IIIILS MAR 09 ~ ~q ~ Q: 4q ~PQ ~'?O C7+O ^r1r'^ n~ ~- i ' ~ 1295 S. Este Flight `Nay B~1SC, 1L) 83709 (208) 378-b387 Fsx 1203) 373-W25 Febniary 8, 1999 NIr. Will IIerg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Avenue 3 ivieridian, Idaho 83642 Subject: 549272-06 The Vi1L~s at the Lakes Subdivision, Final Plan Dear Mr. Berg: I wish to poin"t out that Note No. 1 on the final plat of The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision is in error. the note should read as foIlows: Buildin5 setbacks and dimensional standards in This subdivision shall be in compliance with the applicable zoning regulations of the City of Meridian, except as herein modified. The house front yazd setback far Lou 2 and 29 I31ock 1 shrill be 15 feet_ The house and garage front yard setback for Lots 21, 22, and 28 Block 1 shall be 18 feet The garage front yazd setback for Lot Z9 Bluck 1 shall be 18 feet. The sideyard setback along common lot lines of Lots 21 and 22, 23 and 24, 25 and 26, 28 and 29, aad 38 and 39 Block 1 shall be 0 feet. The sttE:c:t sideyard setback for Lots 22, 45 and 47 Block 1 shall be 15 feet T1xe street sidcyard setback for Lot 41 Block 1 shall be 18 feel "11ze Note No. 1 on the final plat myiar will be corrected to read as stated above prior to submittal to the City for signature. Attached is a copy of the (setbacks) table that correlates the !ot numbers with the final plat and the preliminary plat dated September 1, 1998 far your reference. If you have questions, please call me at 378-6385. sincerely, PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS A division of PO ~ eers• ~~=• eith L. Jncabs, Jr_, P. E. KLJ:smg Attaclunutt cc• Mr. StcvC f3tacibtir~ P1 ~t3()1 3?rtt0:52 s r ui ul Pt)tVF.R GnCmrcn. 'nc . an ldihu ('.,i t±nrnuun 1',ir ,1;: L.i;ul Diu: ~• •.u1F ,r ~lrvlti r MAR 09,'99 14=51 208 379 0319 PAG~.05 {: ~(~ECEIVEp PLS Frop~sed Development Name HE VfLLAS at the LAKES- - _ City Meridian Date Reviewed_01/28/99 Preliminary Stage i__ Final XXX Engineer/Developer Pacific Land / Steiner Development The Street rrarne cornrr~ents listed below are made by the members of the AQA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE (under direction of the Ada County Engineer) regarding this development in accordance with the Boise C;ty Street Name Ordinance. The followinc existing street name is approved and shall appear on the plat. "W C}~ERRY LANE" "N. BLACK CAT ROAD" "W. OALY LANE" is approved and shall appear on the plat "W. BRENDA LANE" is approved and shall aopea~ on the plat These findings are subject to recordation of surrounding properties SUBDIVISION EVALUATION SHEET FE8 1 6 199 _ "N. INTERLACHEN WAY" j The above street name comments have been read and approved by the following agency representatives ofthe ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE. ALL of the signatures must be secured by thA representative or his designee in order for the street names to be officially approved. ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMM E, AGENCY•~REPRESENTATIV ES OR DESIGNEES ~/ ./ _ -, . ~ Ada County Engineer ~Jotu~ Priester ;i"~ ' ' ~, , ~L . Date ~ • ~ n • ~ ~i' ~ , Ada Ptenning Ass~r; Ann Hurley Date ~ _..~ `~~ <7C J City of Meridian Fire f]istrict Meridian Represen[ativ Reprosen[ati~ Date ~ "~ ~-~ Oate ! L.._`~l •~= ~- NOTE: A copy of this evaluation s}~eet must be presented to the Ada County 'Engineer at the lime of signing the 'final plat", otherwise the plat wilt not be signed III I __ Sub Index Street Index ~N 1W 3 __, _ • , ___~ Section NUMBERING OF t_OTS AND 9LOCKS_~/. ~ - ~;'-;;~/;+, ~-./~ l ~~, ~ , ± ~; ~ ,~ ~ :'pc't, ~~ : ~ ~ ~~t~: rit~SUBSISM Cr1Y.ntnn s MAR 09 ' 99 14' c8 -mac -.-,o . ~- _ _,.._ - . MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: APRIL 6 1999 ANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: APPLIC REQUEST: FINAL PLAT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES`SUBDIVISION ~ AGENCY e COMMENTS ' CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 3/16/99 f f { CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: ~ + ' _ ' w::~ CITY POLICEDEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: P CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~ MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ~` ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ' ~~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: ~. IDAHO POWER: ~~~ " U S WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian City Council March 16, 1999 Page 9 Corrie: Two noes, two ayes, and to break the tie I'll vote aye for the amended motion and direct the attorney to draw up the conditions as such. I think (inaudible). All right we've spent thirty minutes on that one. We'll never get through - Bentley: You still got to vote on the first. Corrie: Now we got to vote on the first one. The first one was the original motion by Mr. Bentley. Everybody understand the motion? All those in favor of that motion say aye? MOTION DEFEATED: 1 AYES, 3 NAYS. 3. TABLED 2/16/99: FINAL PLAT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC - NW OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: Corrie: Shari, comments from staff? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I have met with the applicant. He has provided` most of the information that I need. There is one final item that I need a little additional clarification on and the applicant has asked that we continue this to the April 6cn meeting so he can get that information. Corrie: Okay do we need to get that from the attorney or the developer? The attorney is fine. Bradbury: My name is Steve Bradbury, 877 Main Street, Boise. Yeah we agree with Shari. We've got to try to untangle one {ast little issue and hopefully we'll have; it by April 6cn for you. Corrie: Okay, thanks Steve. ' Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we table item number three Steiner Development final plat for the Villas at the Lakes Subdivision until April 6cn Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Anderson to table item number three until April 6cn meeting for the Villas at the Lakes Subdivision final plat. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Mr. Mayor I got a question back on the second item. Clarify it for me. You passed the amendment but then we defeated the motion. Rountree: No, we passed the substitute motion. Corrie: Substitution motion. Bird: Oh, it wasn't amended? Corrie: No. Bird: Okay substitution. I thought he said amended. Meridian City Council March 16, 1999 Page 10 Rountree: Bob did: Bird: Well if you have a substitution then we should have acted on the first one and then the - Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council I think as long as you all agree that you pass the motion as amended for the record that would be sufficient. As I recall the motions there was a motion to substitute I think that Councilman Rountree made and then there was a reference to a motion to amend and it's a little bit different and as long as you agree that it was treated as a substitute motion on the record, then there wont' be,any ambiguity in the minutes. Bird: I just wanted to clear it up. Gigray: I'll proceed with the agreement then. Bird: If that guy walked out of here thinking he was getting it. He would have been back 4. FINDINGS OF .FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADRIVE-THRU KIOSK IN THE PARKING LOT OF 'INTERMOUNTAIN OUTDOOR SPORTS BY BRUCE A. BENOIT D/B/A BARISTAS ESPRESSO - 1375 E. FAIRVIEW: " Corrie: Shari comments? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I have nothing in addition to what the report has. believe it was tabled because we made`some minor modifications. Corrie: Council, you have the conditional use permit in front of you. Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council we prepared this at the request at the last meeting and I believe there was some clarification of the Findings regarding signage and some minor -there was one condition we removed because it wasn't needed. And it's a pretty I think straight forward application. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order granting the conditional use permit for this application. .Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bentley to approve the item number four the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call. ROLL CALL VOTE: BIRD, YEA. BENTLEY, YEA. ROUNTREE, AYE. ANDERSON, YEA. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~\: 4T .~ 1600S/F cl~ ~~ ~{ ~~~~~ r ~~~, ~~ r Llr/-1J i~ r ~ rl t/ LAICc S ~~a. a '~~~~ ~' (;its ~~t' i~l'~riclia~ ~.~~ - ~~ APR ~ f9'99 ~ ~~~raN ~'r ~ ~~~~~, ,~ ~(11V'ING ~~~~ZV~~ ~,,~ APB Q ~ 1999 i/it ~ of Meri~?ia~ t ~~ ~~. 1612 S/F ~~C S S (i(.r~J - ;~~~z~~~ APB ~ ~ 1999 ~itT~ ~f b~ericlia~ '~'_ `v ~';lerk f,fficr; ~~-rc:Q~ Su.~_ 1627 S/F ~~~~~ APR 0 5 1999 City of Ilieridia~ -dir.+~ Clem Office east of St. Ltake's between Franklin Road and Interstate 84: City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval 9. Public Hearing: CUP 99-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for planned unit development including continuing care retirement community, single- and multi-family residential and office and retail use by~Touchmark Living Centers -Joseph A. Bilfig -east of St~ Luke's between Franklin Road and Interstate 84: City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval 10. Public Hearing: CUP 00-006 Request for a Conditional.., Use Permit for existing car dealership (2 buildings), Fairview Mini Storage, by L.B. industries -front four acres and proposed 72,000 s.f. mini-storage'on the back four acres -east of St. Luke's between Franklin the I-84: Continued public hearing to April 18, 2000 x 11. Public Hearing: AZ 99-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 150.79 acres to R-4 by Bear Creek, LLC -east of Stoddard Road and south of Overland City Attorney to prepare amended Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval 12. Public Hearing: PP 99-010 Request for preliminary plat for proposed Bear Creek Subdivision - 326 single-family lots on 150.79 acres by Bear Creek, LLC -east of Stoddard ,Road and south of Overland: City Attorney to prepare amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval 13. AP 00-001 Appeal of Planning and Zoning Administrator's denial of sign application to replace existing display with a new display cabinet with a- message center by Meridian High School: Approve to overturn the denial of Planning and Zoning Administrator's denial 14. Request°for revisions'to the Final Plat of, the' Villas at the Lakes by Keith Jacobs, Jr..~ Approventhe,:~evisio'n' 15. Resolution Amending Resolutions 277 and-286 pertaining to the "Commercial /Investment Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement ID#57176": Approve -Resolution No. 314 16. Public Hearing: VAR 00-004 Variance in requirements of hook-up to Meridian City Council Meeting -April 4, 2000 .Page 4 Materials presented at public meetings shall becomeproperty of the City of Meridian. 4 „~ i ~ Meridian City Council ~ng ~~~ Apri14, 2000 ~ Page 61 Item 14. ~~ -~ ~ ~.._ .~ .~~. ~- ~Request~for revisions-to the~Final Plat of -the-Villas.at the.-Lakes by Keith Jacobs, Jr.:r"~prorP~ ~...-~~.-- Bird: Item No. 14, request for revision to the final plat of the Villas at the Lakes by Keith Jacobs, Jr. Staff. Hawkins-Clark: Yes, President, Council, you have in your packets, I believe a letter dated March 27th from Keith Jacobs of PLS that summarizes the changes to this final plat. A commitment was made during the preliminary plat that there would be a pathway along the Eight -Mile Lateral, and it would appear that if a pathway could not exist, then they should not be able to include it as part of the 10 percent common area of a planned-unit development which is a requirement of the planned-unit development which (inaudible) Eight Mile Lateral is now not being proposed as an amenity, the City Council needs to re-think waiving the tiling requirements of the Eight Mile. I think that other than the changes that were proposed in the. letter, that's our main comment from staff. Bird: Questions of staff? Hearing none, is the applicant here? Jacobs: Good evening. Keith Jacobs, Power Engineering, 1295 South Eagle Flight Way. The main reason we're proposing the pathway was proposed initially because this development was to be a gated community. It's not gated now. That idea was rejected. We~do have free access through the subdivision to the northern west cul-de-sac, and that would allow these people accessing the golf course to move from the existing subdivisions of Cherry Lane and through this area and out that way. Our client will landscape that area between the Eight Mile Lateral and the fence on the boundary of the subdivision. What we're proposing, we would have to take out the asphalt surface along the Eight Mile Lateral primarily a liability problem with Nampa Meridian to have a pathway through that area with an open ditch. We're coming back before you before we record this plat to get your recommendation on this. I do have a map that shows the relationship, Eight Mile Lateral, the asphalt path and then a concrete sidewalk that runs through the subdivision. Present that to you now. As you can see from the map, the Eight Mile Lateral's in blue, the brown is the asphalt paths We proposed to take out the asphalt path that parallels the Eight Mile Lateral. The portion of the asphalt path that's along where the sewer easement is would remain, and then the sidewalk that's colored in red is in place. We will provide an opening through the fence at the west boundary of that cul-de-sac to 'allow pedestrians to travel through there and on into the golf course area. This is a map of the area, and as you can see, here's our proposed subdivision. There's the cul-de-sac, there's a roadway that's started to come in this way, service this area, and there will be a sidewalk in there along this area, and it'll peel back which will give them access up to the golf course parking lot and then, of course, the clubhouse which sets in here. Do you have any questions? i Meridian City Council ling • April 4, 2000 Page 62 - Anderson: I don't really have a question of you. I guess this is a comment and then a question of our legal attorney. This whole idea of removing this. path is really absurd with me because this is the area where the clubhouse -we've had golfers for over 20 years now walking up and down the edges of that ditch going out to the tee boxes, and we have golf carts that travel up and down the other side of it even now. To think that all of a sudden because we've put asphalt on one side of this ditch that it's a major liability just really baffles me. I really appreciate the fact that you guys put in the asphalt, and I think it really enhances that area, and I'd like to keep it. So my question to legal counsel would be, I thought Nampa Meridian told us that they were amenable to working out agreements that would allow us to do pathways next to the park. It would seem logical that the next step is we should set up a meeting and see if we could work out the liability issues and sign the agreement with them so that we could keep this thing paved and not be tearing it out. Bird: I agree with you, Ron. Nichols: Councilman Anderson, was that a question? Anderson: Yes, it is. Is there a solution besides tearing out this asphalt? Can something be worked out? Nichols: I would ask the applicant, has Nampa Meridian informed you that you had to tear out the asphalt paved path? Jacobs: As I understand Nampa Meridian is requiring the asphalt pavement be taken out if the Eight Mile Lateral is not piped. So you lose the amenity. when you pipe it because then it's just green; it's not -the mix we're used to at this point. So our options are to leave it in and tpipe the Eight Mile Lateral through that 'section that fronts this subdivision or take out the path and pave it. The client was pointing out as you have observed, too, that there are people using that pathway now. But that's where we're at. Nichols: This is an existing, paved pathway? Jacobs: We paved that about a month ago or so. " Anderson: It's been gravel for years. That's where the clubhouse was, but now it (inaudible) asphalt on it. Nichols: Councilman Anderson, President Bird, members of the Council, I think the issue is how can you accommodate this particular applicant not knowing,. what the outcome might be of negotiations with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District with regard to the license agreement for that path; in other words, if you hold. up a change and he can't go forward with what he' wants to do, it would seem to be better to craft something that's in the alternative that says if this agreement can't Meridian City Council~ing April 4, 2000 Page 63 be worked out, then this is what you do with the lateral. Tile it and cover it over. If one can be worked out, then you can leave it open. Does that make sense? Anderson: I think the issue really with Nampa Meridian is, and what I've heard with the other cities, is if the City is willing to take on the liability, then they don't mind the path. They want something that releases them from the liability. So I know they have in Nampa they've worked out an agreement that addresses Nampa Meridian's concerns on those liability issues, and I would think we could have a meeting with them in the next week or two and see if we could address those same issues and get this work out so they don't have to do anything different. Nichols: I don't disagree with your premise. Anderson: !would prefer taking that approach first than I would tearing it out. Obviously, it's more expensive for you guys to the this ditch than to remove the asphalt. How big of the would that take, do you know? Jacobs: Forty-two, forty-eight. Somewhere in that area. It would be reiriforced concrete pipe. Pretty spendy. deWeerd: It is their amenity for their open space: Then that opens a whole other can of worms of how are you going to replace that amenity? Certainly not with the five-foot wide sidewalk. Are you recommending, then, Councilman Anderson, that the City approach Nampa Meridian on this? 3 Anderson: Yes. deWeerd: I would support that. Bird: We need to get something resolved. Every time we come up against Nampa Meridian, it's a joke. deWeerd: So you're directing who to do this? Bird: I think the decision's going to have to wind up being to the Council if you're going to have a liability. If you're going to assume liability. That's what I believe - something definitely needs to be done. Anderson: We've got a gravel path there. Evidently they have no problem with gravel, but the minute you pave it, then it's a pathway. Bird: Got anymore questions for the applicant? Anderson: What's your situation right now? How soon do you have to have some type of action or word back on this? Meridian City Council ~ing April 4, 2000 Page 64 • Jacobs: The plat is at John Priester's office, and .I've asked him to hold that until you render a decision. So within a week or two weeks after you give the'okay to record it. deWeerd: What. is your alternative to the open space requirements if this agreement cannot be made? Jacobs: I think I have to defer to Mr. Campbell and have him address that issue. Campbell: My name is Doug Campbell, Steiner Development. As far as the alternative, we don't have one. I guess the situation that Nampa Meridian states is that they would like the City to take the responsibility, liability, and obviously the City's been working on that for the last few years and haven't come up with any solutions. I offered to come up with a bit of liability on the Homeowners Association for whatever figure they would like to come up with, and they said the Homeowners Associations aren't worth the paper they're written on or however you want to say that. We do have a professional management company that manages all of our Homeowners Associations, and it's real strong. We do have a really strong Homeowners Association. I don't know. lt's something that my - what I was thinking was to leave the asphalt down, you know, and let Nampa Meridian push me. I don't know. Or we'll tear it up, and people are still going to use it. You know, like tonight, I was out there at 7:00 tonight, and there was five or six couples walking up and down the various canal banks. The one thing, if we lift this - it's a shame that !put it down and they call it an attractive nuisance. I just don't know. They're the toughest. I've never worked with a more difficult governmental body, agency or whatever you want to call them, and- you just get frustrated. I, like Ron says, think what we've got to do, the City's got to have the City Attorney sit down with their City Attorney, they do it in Boise, they do it in Nampa. Why can't the City of Meridian come up with something? I'm not sitting here -there's just got to be some way that we could satisfy these - it's a shame we've got all these canals running through there, and everybody's got greenbelts running through their canals and their waterways, and here we're sitting in Meridian, and we can't get off the dime and do something -we're letting people push us around, and it's a shame when you walk out there in the golf course area, and we could have a really nice little pathway system if they would lef us, if they would work with us. I just think that in going back to your question, I~don't know as far as the open space. I don't know what we'll - we don't have any alternatives. If this - if you decide that you're going -where we're at righf~ now, we're ready to record -we'd like to get recorded and start selling lots. Idon't want to sit. here tonight and get some type of a game plan from the Council so we can move forward and start selling lots and maybe work toward something. I don't want to go out there tomorrow and start tearing that asphalt up. It's a shame I've got aten-foot path 700 feet long that I told City of Meridian we would do when we got the project developed, and I worked with Nampa Meridian on a licensing agreement, and you know trying to tell them that we'll put the liability Meridian City Council~ting April 4, 2000 Page 65 policy up. No. The City obviously could work on it -they've been working on i1 for the last two or three years with the various different city attorneys or what - I don't know -you guys know more about that than I do. So I don't know. I just know that I'm sitting out there with 43 completed lots, and I can't sell them. Councilman Anderson asked what -how long can we wait? Well, you know, every - I'm sitting out there with a million dollars worth of improvements, and I've done basically everything the City's wanted me to do over the years that I can and I'll do the same thing over here, but I'd like to move forward with this and get it behind. Like I say, if we ripped up the asphalt, they're still going to -like ~' Councilman Anderson was saying, they've been using that for. the last 22 years. They've been going up and down that canal bank and all of a sudden we've got - ~. since we've kind of dressed it up a little bit, we've got an attractive nuisance. As ~' Nampa Meridian calls it. Getting back to tiling it, tiling is an alternative, but tiling is $100 a foot to the that. There's 700 feet; that's $70,000 worth of tiling' there. That's a lot of money. You talk about open space, you know, the planner said his .recommendation was to recommend it to being tiled. Well, going back,. I've been out there for six years. I've donated I don't know how many acres worth of land j to the golf course, okay, for that golf course to put in that I didn't get credit on this j` piece of ground. We fought and we fought and we fought when this project was going through-'and we never got any open-area credit on this one particular spot. I've given Fire Department -fire sites for the Fire Department, I've ~ given (inaudible) for the City to put the golf course in. I think .we've done -we've been pretty -piped some of the canals out there. We're in a pickle right now,, and I just need some help. Like I say, I don't know how we can structure it to where you can get us to where we can start moving lots and we can work on this other situation. Bird: Gary? Smith: Mr. President, Council members, we do have an agreement in place with Nampa Meridian for pathways. It's not along irrigation ditch, is it? It's .along drains? That's the big difference between the two. Jacobs: That's a live water and that's adrainage -the agreement that you. have now is with the drain ditches, I think. Smith: Yes. Fothergill was the one that started it all. That was going to be~used as a model agreement for our pathway project along Five Mile Creek, too. On the other hand, another comment as Doug mentioned, if you go out to Eight Mile Lateral south of Overland Road as it parallels along Hunts Bluff and it's on the other side of Meridian Greens, there are a lot of people that walk those ditch banks all the time. Now, it's a gravel road, arguably, maybe not as attractive as a paved pathway, but they're certainly being used. ~ Campbell: Yes, the one thing that we could - I kind of side with Councilman Anderson. .You know, it's.a shame that we sit out there and we -nobody's taken 6 Meridian City Council~eting . April 4, 2000 Page 66 the effort to even try to - I guess -the City has taken the effort, but they haven't. They've felt that they didn't want to do what the Nampa Meridian would like them to do. But it's a shame to tear it up, but if we had to go lift it up, we're still going to have a nice walkway through there: The people are going to use it whether it's paved or not, 'but it's - like I say, it's- just a shame that we have got to tear it up, but I don't know what else to do unless we go headfirst into our attorney's office and try to get something to where both the City and the Nampa Meridian can - Anderson: Can you-.give us a week to maybe set up a meeting with them to see if there's any headway that can be made in working out an agreement? I would hate to lose that amenity. l think it's really - Campbell: I think it would be-okay. °I don't know if there's some -type of condition you can put on us, but let us put the map signed and put some type of =let us proceed with it while we're working with this. There's no reason why, like I said, I've been sitting out there -not your fault, it's just the way that it takes a while to get these maps signed -been sitting out there completed for two months now. We need to get some lots sold and closed, and I hate to - a week turns into another week, and you know how the -trying to get meetings set up. We'll be two weeks before we can probably .even - I don't know if there's something - we know what the problem is. Let me go ahead and get my maps signed and then put some type of -meet back in a - give a 60-day period to where we maybe can work with the Nampa Meridian and come up with some type of decision. Anderson: Mr. Attorney, could we do approval subject to -the final plat is approved right`now with us. The hold up is Nampa Meridian Irrigation. So simply do an approval with a contingency that if an agreement cannot be worked out with Nampa Meridian that it would then have to be revised - I'm searching here - for such and such standards to (inaudible) - Campbell: The one thing I was thinking - if we could work on an agreement, what we would do is just pick up -what do we have, a couple of inches up there? Two or three inches of base plus the two and-a-half inches of asphalt, is just go in there and pick it up, and what I can do is I can put some lawn in there and just make anice -instead of doing agravel - leaving a gravel there is go ahead and landscape the 15 to 20 feet, and the people that use it aren't going to drive their carts on it. They can drive their carts on the street to get over there, but they can walk if they choose to walk through that, they can, by just walking over. I think it'd be worth a shot to go back to Nampa Meridian to see if we can get some of these pathways -not just for the Villas or the Ashford Greens or the Lakes at Cherry Lane, but throughout the City I think we're foolish, as a City arid as developers, not to proceed and try to do what the Nampa City's doing and the Boise City's doing. Bird: Okay. Bill? Meridian City Counci~ting April 4, 2000 Page 67 C~ Nichols: Mr. Campbell, if I read your letter right, the City has signed the final plat. Is it Nampa Meridian that's refusing to sign the final plat? *** End of Side 5 **" Campbell: No. What -all the governmental agencies have signed the map. We're just - we came along this problem, and what we're trying to do is instead of having the City -we're trying to be up front with the City because we're- having a problem. We don't want the map signed off until we get the City Council's approval, basically. We're just°- Gary's signed it for the City, who else signs it? The Mayor? V1/ill signs it. When we couldn't get this licensing agreement worked out, that's when we kind of put a halt to the final signature. Nichols: President Bird, if I may ask a questions of Mr. Hawkins-Clark. Brad, what would be the effect of just eliminating that last sentence in Note No. 8? Hawkins-Clark: Without seeing the terms of the licensing agreement, I guess it's kind of hard to answer that question. Nichols: As I understand it, he can't get the license agreement with the paved path. My question is what if the City approves the plat without this requirement of the license agreement? What does that affect your department had in mind for this development? Hawkins-Clark: Well, I guess functionally, I don't think that was a condition put on by the Planning and Zoning Department in terms of the -obviously, the. open space. But. the - I can't see that the Department would have any issue with taking off the license agreement (inaudible) per se. Campbell: It wasn't a condition. I think the way we represented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council was that we were going to put the pathway through there, and, obviously, if everybody knows that we're going to put the path through, then we are going to have` to obtain a licensing agreement, but it was never stated in I think any of the conditions besides that we had to get a licensing agreement. We just all knew that's what had to take place in order to do what we were trying to do if that makes any sense. So it's just a formality issue that if we were going to put a cart path over Nampa Meridian easement that we would have to have a licensing agreement. We put it on the plat because I think that's what you have to do. Hawkins-Clark: Is that fuli 10-foot wide all within the easement? Campbell: Yes. It's all within the easement. Anderson: I was thinking we could make it work against them, they don't seem to mind if you have a golf course and you can walk along the edge of it while Meridian City Council ~ing April 4', 2000 Page 68 CJ you're golfing and hit your ball in it like I do and be digging in there head first trying to get your ball out. If we were to incorporate that piece of .property somehow say it's the golf course, they evidently don't have any problem with driving golf carts along the - Campbell: That's what I told them. (inaudible) golf course. What's the problem since we've been out here for 21 years, water's been going through, a,nd they come ,back and say that's that famous word "attractive nuisance." I have heard it a .hundred times. It's kind of attractive. It's kind of pretty. deWeerd: Would they allow you to grass it, then? Campbell: Yes. We could grass it, and that's the other thing I thought we could do is sign some type of agreement with the City, just take that licensing agreement off of the plat and have the - I could have my attorney draft something up and have your city attorney review it saying that if we can resolve this within a 90-day period that Steiner will come back and tear it out and sod the pathway. That would be my common area, pathway, whatever you want to call it. Anderson; That's what I think we ought to do is have a motion that if an agreement can't be worked out that it's removed and we comply with their (inaudible). That's the hang up, having the asphalt, and obviously you're willing to remove it if we can't work it out. Campbell: I'm sitting out there with quite a bit of money. I've got to make a move. I'm willing to - it would be nice to have the asphalt, but if we can't, the grass would be a nice feature. deWeerd: You would still like the City to be involved in seeing if they can get some help facilitating an agreement? Anderson: I would like to see you save the asphalt. It could be the start to future pathways. Campbell: I've got another -we've got that Wilkins Ranch project, and a lot of you are familiar with that. I could take and block up all that area up there and it's crazy. We've got a nice little project out there, and if we could sit down with these folks and -it's got to be workable because they're working everywhere else. Agreement in Nampa and agreement in Boise and structure it after that. It can't be. It's not - deWeerd: Mr. Kuntz has his hand up. Kuntz: Nampa Meridian will not allow you to fence between the canal and the pathway? Meridian City Councit~ting • April 4, 2000 Page 69 Campbell: Yes, you can put a fence up. The problem -you can put something like a -like Gary was saying, along Salmon Rapids' canal, they've got wrought iron, and you could put a wrought, iron fence up, but what we're trying,to do is we're trying to have the view from the home sites and not have to look out into a golf course and look into awrought-iron fence. That's what we're trying to preserve. We've got those lots that go around that canal that look out onto No. 1. If you put asix-foot wrought-iron fence out there, you're going to feel like they're in jail. So that's -- , Bird: Council, do you want to make a motion? Anderson: Mr. President, I would make a motion that we~approve the. revisions ~~~for tthe final plat of~the Villas at'the=Lakes°by_~Keith Jacobs,.J"r.,_:peritling the,City ~enter,~_into"some negottationsawith~Nampa..`Meridian -Irrigation~District_-to-try to7 ~:avoid`removing'tFie" paved.~path.~ !f those efforts fait, then the applicant would have to make the improvements that Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has requested. , McCandless: I'll second. deWeerd: Is that meaning that you won't -they'll put (inaudible) grass? Anderson: Grass or I don't think Nampa Meridian actually specifies. You can have a gravel path. Campbell: Like (said, Icould - Nichols: Councilman Bird and Council, I think it would be athree-quarter minus a permabark is what it would be. Bird: Okay. Anymore discussion? Roll-call vote. Ro//-ca//: deWeerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCand/ess, aye MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES Item 15. Resolution Amending Resolutions 277 and 286 pertaining to the "Commercial / Investment Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement ID#57176" Police Land Purchase: Bird: {tem 15, resolution amending resolutions 277 and 286 pertaining to the Commercial Investment Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement, ID# 57176, Police Land Purchase. This is Resolution 314. Mr. Nichols, do you - is this,what we -the last thing we had done, all word for word? k' March 31, 2000 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 4, 2000 APPLICANT KEITH JACOBS, JR. ITEM NO. ~ 1 y REQUEST REQUEST FOR REVISIONS TO THE FINAL PLAT OF THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED 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 HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: Materials presented at public meetings shah become propesiy of the City of Meridian. 1295 S. Eagle Flight Way Boise, ID 83709 (208) 378-6337 Fax (208) 378-0025 March 27, 2000 ~~-~ ~ ~- '~ ;; J 2~~~ Meridian City Council ~ ~r ~ `"~ °~ -`"~" ~''' c!o Mr. Will Berg CityClerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 ' Subject: 549272 Brenda Estates Subdivision (formally known as The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision) Dear Meridian City Council: The purpose of this letter is to inform you of significant changes that have been made to the final plat ofBrenda Estates Subdivision since the City had signed the final plat and to_ask for approval of these changes. The name "The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision" has changed to "Brenda Estates Subdivision" because the Ada County Engineer detemuned that the "Villas" could not be used. Note No. 7 was changed to read "Lot 1, Block 1 shall be owned and maintained by the City of Meridian." The words "shall be" are used in place of "is" since the note implied that the City owned Lot 1 prior to the recording of the final plat. The Developer intends to transfer ownership of Lot 1, Block 1 by deed within one week of recording the final plat. The last sentence of Note No. 8 read "Lot 2, Block 1 is subject to the restrictions as stated in License Agreement with Nampa Meridian District, Instrument No. ~ ." This last sentence has been eliminated because the asphalt surface along the Eight Mile Lateral will be removed. Since this project was proposed to be gated, Steiner Development constructed a paved asphalt path for golf course pedestrian and cart traffic to be able to travel around the gated project. Now that the project will not be gated, Steiner Development will provide access from North Interlachen Way along North Interlachen Lane sidewalk to the cul-de-sac at the west property line for pedestrian and cart traffic. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District would allow the paved path to remain only if the Eight Mile Lateral was piped. Note No. 16 was revised to reserve a parking easement over Lot 15, Block 1 (the road lot) which allows for parking as approved on the preliminary plat. The parking spots are reserved for use by BOI 32-0160 Pacific Land Surveyors, a division of POWER Engineers, Inc., an Idaho Corporation Meridian City Council City of Meridian March 27, 2000 Page 2 owners of Lots 24 through 29, Block 1. The parking stall details and layout are shown on the approved subdivision construction plans. Enclosed is a copy of the reduced revised final plat and a copy of the revised Notes on an 8~'/z-inch by 11-inch sheet. If you have any questions,,please call me at 378-6385. Sincerely, PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS ' A division of PO R ngineers, Inc. Keith L. Jacobs, Jr., P. E. KLJamg Enclosures cc: File BOI 32 - 0160 NOTES 1, Building setbacks and dimensional standards in this subdivision shall be in compliance with the applicable zoning regulations of the City of Meridian, except os herein modified. The house front yard setback for Lots '3 and 29 Block 1 shall be 15 feet. The house and garage front yard setback for Lots 22, 23, and 28 Block 1 shall be 18 feet. The gorage front yard setback for Lot 29 Block 1 shall be 18 feet. The sideyord setback along common lot lines of Lots 22 and 23, 24 and 25, 26 and 27, 28 and 29, and 38 and 39 Block 1 shall be 0 feet. The street sideyord setback for Lots 23, 45 and 47 Block 1 shall be 15 feet. The street sideyord setback far lot 41 Block 1 shall INSIDE 12"x12" BLOCK be 18 feet. E FENCE CORNER POST 2. Any re-subdivision of this plat shall comply with the applicable zoning regulations in effect of the time of the re-subdivision, 3. The minimum house size far Lots 3 through 14, Lots 16 and 17, lot 21, Lots 30 through 37, Lots 41 through 45 and Lot 47, Block 1 is 1600 square PLASTIC CAP '972" feet, excluding gorage area. The minimum house size for Lots 22 through 29, and Lots 38 and 39, Block 1 is 1250 square feet, excluding garage area. y.~ The minimum house size for all Lots except as otherwise noted is 1304 square ,~'~ cv feet, excluding garage area. All lots within this subdivision are single-family residential lots unless otherwise noted. O ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 4, Bottom elevation of house footings shall be placed a minimum of 12" above th hi h l t ~ ,~ ~ a., ~ e g norma es ground water elevation. , 4 W 5. V ~ 4~ This subdivision is within Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District. The developer h i i d t l i i ~ ~ as mo e prov ons s o suppP y rr gation water to the individual lots. Each l t ill b ' o w be su ject to the District s assessments. The developer will comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. 6. Responsibility for all drainage and irrigation facilities outside the public access right-of-way is held with the lot owners on whose land said drainage and irrigation facilities are located unless such responsibility is assumed by an Irrigation/drainage district. 7. Lot 1, Block 1 shall be owned and maintained by the City of Meridian. 8. Lot 2 and Lot 40, Block 1 are owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. 9. Lot 15 Block 1 is a private road owned and maintained by the Homeowners association. lot 15 Block 1 is subject to o blanket sewer and water easement in favor of the City of Meridian and an ingress/egress easement for access to all Lots. 10. Lots 22 through 29, and Lots 38 and 39, Block 1, are designated as duplex lots. 11. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 are subject to 0 25' irrigation easement along the Eightmile Lateral in favor of Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District. 12. Lots 2, 15 and 40, Block 1 ore subject to an existing 20' sanitary sewer easement along the pressure sewer pipe in favor of the City of Meridian, Instrument No. 9240405 13. All lot lines common to public right-of-way, and the exterior boundary of this subdivision, have o ten (10) foot wide permanent public utilities, droinoge and irrigation easement, except as dimensioned otherwise. All lot lines common to lot 15 -Block 1, the private rood, hove o fifteen (15) foot wide permanent public utilities, droinoge and irrigation easement except as dimensioned otherwise. 14. Each side of all interior lot lines have a five (5) foot permanent public utilities, drainage, and irrigation easement, except as noted below. 15. The interior lot lines common to Lots 22 and 23, 24 and 25, 26 and 27, 28 and 29, and 38 and 39 are not subject to the five (5) foot easement as described in note 14. 16. Lot 15, Block 1 is subject to a parking space easement as shown in "Detail A" for parking by the residents of Lots 24 through 29, Block 1. 17. Lot 15, Block 1 is subject to o temporary public turnaround easement as filed for record in the office of the Ada County Recorder under Instrument Number 99094327. ail N]r] ~ ~ r,~~l~ ~Jrl~1~ IJr]~ A division of POWER Engineers, Inc., An Idaho Corporation 1295 S. Eagle Flight Woy Boise, Idaho 83709 (208) 378-6387 FINAL PLAT OF BRENDA ESTATES SUBDIVISION E EN A PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF ` - ' -- 4+. ~• u. =.~~ a. SECTION 3, T. 3 N., R. 1 W., B.M. -' - - - ~~ _ uw ' S'.lr' M iDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO ________-- • - _~ - ' ~.~~.,~.,'_-_ - - - - - • TC•' 2000 « »y~ °""~..,°°3.""` 9 y ~ w ar .w w, ~a >r,K.a.•..,,..,v. OTN'~ i" E a aK. Y aw aw .Ar ~ ' :..~~ N v ...::.,,....,...~.,. F4 _ ~t~'Q¢ i ~ ~ \ I ~ ~ O ..... '~y • ••••• ~ oo xao goo ~~~ q ~ '~ G. 5 9Y~~f E n..w ~.a. -,~u~aiw" q33 ~ 9 ~ '! n i~ CURVE TAB~F ~ g~. 1 . -.~ fa:.°i~~.., .a ~,»...., ,. ,.,°~',"... g ~~~!^$..,, a .y a ~ .tea-. 11 ~ K~ ._~~~. ~ ws.a, ....~.a .+.~+wwr aaw ,w...a `M t`yu ~~u ,wvwyna4 wtwaw r~ar~r ~avr Yn yI UNE TABLE ~ ~` ~yr~ ~~~~~, `~_~~`„.~ ,~~.a~. ~a r echo ..,. aa.. ..., .>, ... .. ..._ :°a.,"S:` e:~: ,. ~ .. M .i.~.....in°,.°e.:a ~..,.. waaua. .,a ., w °~~. »4..... ,..,..~, aa~lc ~ ar~.n suay;:ya~a ~„~~ mE aK»=,,,.~., ,.~ ~ , / _ ' . 1295 S. Eagle Flight Way Boise, ID 83709 (208) 378-6387 Fax (208) 378-0025 Mazch 24, 2000 y' 1 W ~~~ ~ ~~~~+ ~~ ~~11 V' lYj~1L1L1C31~ Mr. John Priester, L.S./P.E. County Surveyor/Engineer Development Services Ada County ' 650 Main Street Boise, Idaho 83702 Subject: 549272-06 Brenda Estates Subdivision (aka The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision) Deaz Mr. Priester: This letter is to confirm my telephone conservation with Dave Couch today. Please do not sign the Brenda Estates Subdivision final plat and hold the plat mylars in your office until Meridian City Council reviews and approves the change to Note No. 8. The City Council will consider Note No.8 at their Apri14, 2000 meeting. We will provide you with a copy of the meeting minutes. - Sincerely, PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS A division of POWER Engineers, Inc. ~~.~~ ~- Don G. Payne, L.S. DSGsmg cc: Mr. Will Berg, Meridian City Clerk f/ Mr. Doug Campbell, Steiner Development Mr. Bob Kunkel, Steiner Development File BOI 32-0158 Pacific Land Surveyors, a division of POWER Engineers, Inc., an Idaho Corporation M/k~Z 2 ! 20aD ~, 1295 S. Eagle Flight Way Boise, ID 83709 (208) 378-6387 Fax (208) 378-0025 Ms. Shari Stiles Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Meridian 200 East Carlton Avenue, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83642 March 20, 2000 Subject: 549272 Brenda Estates Subdivision (formerly The Villas at the Lakes) Dear Shari: The letter is to inform you that the name of The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision has been changed to Brenda Estates Subdivision. It was discovered that the name "The Villas at the Lakes" had not and could not been reserved by the Ada County Surveyor. The last sentence of Note No. 8 reading "Lot 2, Block 1 is subject to the restrictions as stated in License Agreement with Nampa Meridian District, Instrument No. " on the final plat has been eliminated because the asphalt surface along the Eight Mile Lateral has been removed. Steiner Development constructed the asphalt pavement to provided golf course pedestrian traffic access around the project because the project was proposed to be gated. Now that the project is not gated, Steiner Development has provided an access from North Interlachen Way through North Interlachen Lane and the cul-de-sac to the property to the west. In addition, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District would allow the paved path to remain only if Steiner Development piped the Eight Mile Lateral. The parking spaces at-the westerly end of West Daly Lane are shown as a parking space easement at the request of the County Surveyor. Please provide confirmation that these three changes are acceptable to Meridian City. Other changes were made at the County Engineers' request. Copies of the first and second page of the Final Plat are included for your review. If you have any questions, please call me at 378- 6385. KLJ/SG cc: Doug Campbell, Steiner Development File BOI 32-0146 Sincerely, POWER Engineers, Inc. Keith L. Jaco s, Jr., P. E. Pacific Land Surveyors, a division of POWER Engineers, Inc., an Idaho Corporation • ~ s V oa_ '~ ~ a= s s a; o 3~ = 8 i s " 0 Soo Loeb` -^d$.~ OWE ~ ~$o ' i5 I ' Y 1VE a °E .b ~ a ~ n II a Eo °+a b ~ ._~ Y 5y si ss ~- ~ • $c - ~ -"°1'8'" :'og ° ~ ,$ i i ~ .~ € e s c €rJYRa°~- ~ "_a ~D_ 5°fr s Q o ~=_oII s „8 ov 5 ": ' ~ ~ 4 S # a$ :« 5 E ff g - n ~ ~ 0 5 L 0 = . L R - ~; ~ 6 r~ .a~~ fi°'~' ° ~ 3x8 ~ °§ °~3a`°~ .E caa ~•„. ta~L 5 °~8 a ^~ °`~ F~N~S ~+ $ X ~ =. R- , d ~ E ~ ~ n 8 _ _ 5 .III; ~ s`S 3~~ sX; '$ - t `~ $ 6c 5~ Ea 5''.8$° if'~ ~ a ~ .c z • a - i N ~ ~ a ry . $_~ ib ~ iY=' ~t ~° ~ba°" Sg ~~ a ° ;d, ° " ° m u ~5 H~ ~ w w H ~ ~a u ¢ ~ m y . ~ S . y& ' n~ c€';° ° "° ~^ .9~~"<" _ ~-~ a c Eo". ~ .z§ "4 ~ b no 5 9c o~ 5- ~o<= ° - ~ ~ ' C Z 1 ~<- s E g°~ raN~ Ro~~ _• c s, °a ~ W "ab& SEa$ ~~~ ~ °°_ ~ .v= ~~ oco~ o~ bo 5 ~ L° ~ S ~°` 3~E~0~ Ofi ~ a €QU I W 1 I O w . + -o 54 '° °s;o 3-5 pb go o'Foo •° „2 °crv h< ? ~ So - ~9„ -- a - , » E S ~s~ S I I W I ~m vNs s~ w ~ fr ' ' e ~~ "~~~ a~ "a a~w ;a6 € ~° °a, rgeaa `~ ~ $o ~,° .s: ° ~ ~S o g,~ e g3~_ Y€ ° IIS ° J I ~ b ~ . o_° y _oF v ~.~ UO s :^ J ~o b" =~@S°-.~` =~ ~ So = E€ a rE~ b N Z ° h I 0 0 • •g d :O EY ~ „ a` o ` E .: m r ; ~~ a~_ __ = I ~ a~ .~. ».II Qy :IIS7 o'~L$ _° - ~T a Y~ .g s5~=3 .40 °° as ~°B`a=a_ z °°~x~s ° fi°~ "= ~ ' ~ I i n ~ "°_n t _ -„ n _ .e ~ - _ ~~ ==N Si g ~e`, ~° ac <<&6~P§ g~ god ?~~5 S -. € 3ey ~o sb `am rao g-aa aS ` ° I _ ° „ - = N° rc Q o j -b;~, sb ae3~na ~°o5,a° 3 iS33 ~ a~z ~$o _ °a 'ss.._. °5 ~wp m° -- Ea ~ m`°'o9 S Se` :fiSII i E5 a`: °c a°O °o -_ II y _ a ." .cfi _ _..- 1= to "s: dBaO 5' .,s h~ `e s°°'b Sa a a°L hba $ _ E^ ~E ~c E~°- bag°E - - -~ nE - 3 ~tE $ -5e „n m~ -- c w _ .-n.=mma <,° ~s_o~3, ms €~s~ °°° ..:< amass ~ ~W ~._ <sb°oe €~o ~~~ g d 9 Ablyy~ ~ 8 'pN Q~S p ~ '7 ^n g 2'vP? ~y y~~p,,,,h~'LA ~~ M Sp.'°K~ 2 ~ ~~~~i ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ a g m ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ " w r~a ~i: pp8 "r ~~ ~ ~ ~/ '~ n!I .a ac~, ~ ~ S ~ .~ O ~ 3 . ~ 6 ti a„ ~m S9O ~~ ~ o m o ~ W = ~S -a v u e •\' ~ E~~a o; o~'CG am- 9 "Y9$ ~' R~ y . ~ m H ?y ~ y + ~. ~ g a ;f~y~r' yo d o~~ g9 ,~?:a Jc~r s, ~.It '^ ~ ~ r ` ~ ni° F. 7i° °~ .A ~ ,_ ~ n . Ste' ~~~'~ \~.~ O~ y ~ ~ Q F- ~// ~ ~ j y „ E ~O \~ f r @ .°' _%p ~ p _ ``.. ~.~9: 6~, o J~ ~~~ Ydd~ °y ~ y~ q,4, .,n" ' °' ~~i ~ y ` '~~ b b J d VJ Q . O O ~ ,c S g .n r . r + o . 8 Sa S c ~ s ~ o S„ g a , ~„ 3 ~ ~ °~ ., R s N o ~~~ xa ~ ~ * ~ Q O r- Q ° r ,"3 a; ~ ~a \ ~n y~~ ~'~ • -~""~`` cg ~vs'~, Og+ ' c ~ ~ ° " c ~ . 8 s r ~ ~ n W~ Q ~MI N j N J lN' ~A~ °N O O ~ -~ 3i„ry/ 8~'. ~+hqr ~ Cn_ ~A ,pa' 'y, s~ W gS ~^ w~ e^ ~~" +_wf~ e S Z H ~ bN ~H/[T$"°'+u~N ~~"F `°C fvN i ~ •~0 3 d t MW l.~ Sig ~ `O0, ° " _^• ~ +n n e~ I W Z .ct~¢N °p, ~~. iL n_~iocS1mx w " ~'I ~ s =~- d ~ OHl1.vIdN(1 Q II 2 II _„t ~ II I+I I« :I 1~ al I^ $f g . . II ~,9 „ I I 1 ~. i I [" i~ ' ~~ ~ ~~ 8 O ~x~ ~ ~- ~ Q _ cN J a .~xo s Q R K ~ „ .~s `sa W o ~~i • $Z 0 " ~e J_~~_' ~~'-- W J m Q ft U 1 6 ~~ C7l~m ~~~ ^ ~ti5N;8 _II~g$_ Z7y- iL ¢ ~i< • a . ,pa q e W n € i "~ a°~ $ N~.~o + a = n ~ n ~ . ~ .~v - w a' ~ m h Q c~ ~ ~ dpy~ ~ J p° [t m , _ pq ~ ..~... 4~% ~~x~ b~(°. ~~t' Q 3 W 3 W W W w W w W w W w W W W W W W ~„ tit. ~z. v, o„ ~ ~, § $ ~ o M 8 53 m ~ ~ ~ ~ a o pp8 ° 8 $p °te=°D~ °'~~a °sa " a o9 J a z z z z a ~ ~ ~ z z z H ~ H H Z ~ ~ " m3, aa~tc gx_ ao~t " ~ ~ y yy W 3 3 3 ; w 3 3 3 w W 3 w w 3 3 3 ; 3 3 3 ; 3 w w 3 3 3 ; w W w w w W w w W w w w 3 3 3 o w $ w " y, R a n h N ~ '~ ~ ~ Q ` " rv ° ~ ~ ° ~ n n w' r ;" ~ ~ o n ~ ° +^ ' u~ t°~ r .+ n ~ n ~ ~ n ~ ^ s+ t~ °r . b ~ z z z z z z z z ~ z z z z z z z z z z z z o, z z ~ z z z z ~ tl ~ z z z z z z ~ $ $ o o n n m o; ~ m ~ o n m a ~ .9, .°,, °m o ~ u m o ~ o n w r : m m m n ~ e `r o m w . ° .'o a ? .n. m .•y ^n F ~°o b 8 m 8 ~ : r e e h m w ~ e ^. e r r , ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ n ~ e e : r ~ ~ n R S ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ e e , _ R ^. . ~ Y r ° _ S , : ~ ~ . n .° _ _ _ ~ ° _ n a m ~ m r o o . P . 8 : - - - - ~ ~ e ~ r a o e ~ °; w a & ~ ~°. ° m a ~ e S ~ ~ a « s r $ a ~ r • ~ ~ n ~ r = .'~ a ~ '. n `" ~ ^ m - « ^ ~ 8 ~ a : 5 « R ° . : ~ m : ~ R ~ g .~, B e m e ~ ~ e ° a r n : ~ A ~ : : :, o °' S ~ . S x 8 8 8 8 8 8 5 8 „ $ 8 8 8 8 8 8 $ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 $ $ 8 8 $ $ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 $ 8 8 8 8 8 8 ~ ^ n M _ Y~ P ^ ^ n o i P m ~ - ^~' - - ~r~i P h P n p r a ~' a ^ a n r - r ~ n m Q ~ n » ~ u un u t". u u $ u u' u u' u u u u' u' u' ~ u u t~i t"i u t~i u u ~ u u a a tni t~ a u a u on u u u u t', u u` u u u' u u g R S - - - =S 0~'Otl 1~J~91g 'N 9AOA'igg JO S/Sf8 _ _ _ - _ ~ o J J B 0 ta° L' 0 c~~~ LIAR ~ ~0 24~ 1295 S. Eagle Flight Way Boise, ID 83709 (208) 378-6387 ax(208) 37.8:002 ~~ March 27, 2000 -^` ~- Meridian City Council c/o Mr. Will Berg City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Subject: 549272 ~I~ ~. ~~s .~ ~w.:~:-.,1 ('~ Brenda Estates,Subdivision (formally known as The Villas 'at the Lakes r _ __ Subdivision) Dear Meridian City Council: The purpose of this letter is to inform you of significant changes that have been made to the final plat of Brenda Estates Subdivision since the City had signed the final plat and to ask for approval of these changes. The name "The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision" has changed to "Brenda Estates Subdivision" because the Ada County Engineer determined that the "Villas" could not be used. Note No. 7 was changed to read "Lot 1, Block 1 shall be owned and maintained by the City of Meridian." The words "shall be" are used in place of "is" since the note implied that the City owned Lot 1 prior to the recording of the final plat. The Developer intends to transfer ownership of Lot 1, flock 1 by deed within one week of recording the final plat. The last sentence of Note No. 8 read "Lot 2, Block 1 is subject to the restrictions as stated in License Agreement with Nampa Meridian District, Instrument No. ." This last sentence has been eliminated because the asphalt surface along the Eight Mile Lateral will be removed. Since this project was proposed to be gated, Steiner Development constructed a paved asphalt path for golf course pedestrian and cart traffic to be able to travel around,the gated project. -Now that the project will not be gated, Steiner Development will provide access from North Interlachen Way along North Interlachen Lane sidewalk to the cul-de-sac at the west property line for pedestrian and cart traffic. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District would allow the paved path to remain only if the Eight Mile Lateral was piped. ' Note No. 16 was revised to reserve a parking easement over Lot 15, Block 1 (the road lot) which allows for parking as approved on the preliminary plat. The parking spots are reserved for use by EOI 32-016Q Pacific Land Surveyors, a division of POWER Engineers, Inc., an Idaho Corporation ,1 i Meridian City Council City of Meridian March 27, 2000 ~ Page 2 owners of Lots 24 through 29, Block 1. The parking stall details .and layout are shown on the approved subdivision construction plans. Enclosed is a copy of the reduced revised final plat and a copy of the revised Notes on an 8 '/2-inch by 11-inch sheet. If you have any questions, please call me at 378-6385. '3 Sincerely, . PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS j A division of PO R ngineers; Inc. I Keith L. Jacobs, Jr., P_. E. ,~ KLJsmg Enclosures cc: File BOI 32 - 0160 NOTES 1. Building setbacks and dimensional standards in this subdivision shall be in compliance with the applicable zoning regulations of the City of Meridian, except as herein modified. The house front yard setback for Lots 3 and 29 Block 1 shall be 15 feet. The house and garage front yard setback for Lots 22, 23, and 28 Block 1 shall be 18 feet. The garage front yard setback for lot 29 Block 1 shall be 18 feet. The sideyord setback along common lot lines of Lots. 22 and 23, 24 and 25, 26 and 27, 28 and 29, and 38 and 39 Block 1 shall be 0 feet. The street sideyord setback for Lots 23, 45 and 47 Block 1 shall be 15 feet. The street sideyord setback for Lot 41 Block 1 shall wsioE 12".~z" BLOCK be 18 feet, E FENCE CORNER POST Z. Any re-subdivision of this plat shall comply with the applicable zoning regulations in effect at the time of the re-subdivision, 3. The minimum house size for Lots 3 through 14, Lots 16 and 17, Lot 21, tots 30 through 37, Lots 41 through 45 and Lot 47, Block 1 is 1600 square PLASTIC CAP "972" feet, excluding garage area. The minimum house size for Lots 22 through 29, and Lots 38 and 39, Block 1 is 1250 square feet, excluding garage area. y~ The minimum house size for all Lots except as otherwise noted is 1304 square ~'w N feet, excluding garage area. All lots within this subdivision are single-family residential lots unless otherwise noted. O ~ ~ ' ~ 4. ~ Bottom elevation of house footings shall be placed o minimum of 12" above th hi h l t ~ ,~ ~ S v ~ e g es norma ground water elevation, W 4 5. V ~ ~ This subdivision is within Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District. The developer J has mode provisions to suppplyy irrigation water to the individual lots. Each ' ~ ~ lot will be subject to the District s assessments. The developer will comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. 6. Responsibility for all drainage and irrigation facilities outside the public access right-of-way is held with the lot owners on whose land said droinoge and irrigation facilities are located unless such responsibility is assumed by an irrigation/drainage district. ' 7. lot 1, Block 1 shall be owned and maintained by the City of Meridian. 8. Lot 2 and Lot 40, Black 1 are owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. 9. Lat 15 Block 1 is a private rood owned and maintained by the Homeowners association. Lot 15 Block 1 is subject to o blanket sewer and water easement in favor of the City of Meridian and nn ingress/egress easement for access io all Lots. 10. Lots 22 through 29, and lots 38 and 39, Block 1, ore designated as duplex lots. 11. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 are subject ton 25' irrigation easement along the Eightmile Lateral in favor of Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District. 12. Lots 2, 15 and 40, Block 1 are subject to an existing 20' sanitary sewer easement along the pressure sewer pipe in favor of the City of Meridian, Instrument No. 9240405 13. All lot lines common to public right-of-way, and the exterior boundary of this subdivision, hove o ten (10) foot wide permanent public utilities, droinoge and irrigation easement, except as dimensioned otherwise, All lot lines common to Lot 15 Block 1, the private road, have a fifteen (15) foot wide permanent public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement except as dimensioned otherwise. 14, Each side of all interior lot lines hove a five (5) foot permanent public utilities, drainage, and irrigation easement, except as noted below. 15. The interior lot lines common to Lots 22 and 23, 24 and 25, 26 and 27, 28 and 29, and 38 and 39 ore not subject to the five (5) foot easement as described in note 14. 16. Lot 15, Block 1 is subject to a parking space easement as shown in "Detail A" for parking by the residents of Lots 24 through 29, Block 1, 17, lot 15, Block 1 is subject to a temporary public turnaround easement as filed for record in the office of the Ada County Recorder under Instrument Number 99094327. ail N]r] N ~ il~~]~ ~Jr]~I ~ I Jr]~, A division of POWER Engineers, Inc., An Idaho Corporation 1295 S. Eagle Fl;ght Woy Boise, Idaho 83709 (208) 378-6387 __ i I` ~s MOP~~iY' F _~ _ _ s rssb' a un.~e _ _i+o9e. 4 - - - _! Flu s rr r' cc i~n.>: i I i I I f.Cfela 1>i A. DALY TANS rr ~~~ ~~ .~y 7 N' F P.1oJ' Q I ~ n/ ~' T I ' w• na rn a T III I4 za ~ la' ~ ~ ~ s .r F ~ I M.m I DETAIL A I Z ~ ~~~ fer ~ ~~ -I j47 B shW~ ~~~ ~~I II I , I I I I I I ~ t 1 4 0 R. CEH(i8Y [ANB i 0 10 cvu ea rmees~ Stainer tlaelopment 4LC. r~ 2 f { L f t295 S. Eagle Flight Way Boise, ID 33709 (208) 378-6387 Fax (208) 378-0025 March 24, 2000 ~~~~ ~~~ 2 7 2000 Mr. John Priester, L.S./P.E. County Surveyor/Engineer Development Services Ada County 650 Main Street Boise, Idaho 83702 Subject: 549272-06 Brenda Estates Subdivision (aka The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision) Dear Mr. Priester: This letter is to confirm my telephone conservation with Dave Couch today. Please do not sign the Brenda Estates Subdivision final plat and hold the plat mylars in your office until- Meridian City Council reviews and approves the change to Note No. 8. The City. Council will consider Note No.8 at their Apri14, 2000 meeting. We will provide you with a copy of the meeting minutes. - , Sincerely, PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS A division of POWER Engineers, Inc. ~D~~~ Don G. Payne, L.S. DSG:smg cc: Mr. Will Berg, Meridian City Clerk V' Mr. Doug Campbell, Steiner Development Mr. Bob Kunkel, Steiner Development File BOI 32-0158 Pacific Land Surveyors, a division of POWER Engineers, Inc., an Idaho Corporation i 14. Request for revisions to the Final Plat of the Villas at the Lakes by Keith Jacobs, Jr. Commitment was made during the preliminary plat that there would be a pathway along the Eight Mile Lateral. It would appear that, if the pathway cannot exist, they should not be able to include it as part of the 70% common area of a PUD and, since the Eight Mile Lateral is now not proposed as being an amenity, the City Council needs to rethink waiving the tiling requirement for fhe Eight Mile Lateral. ...~ ` ~~~ -- NC's\~ ~~c~i^~. ~.o.~8.uc~~ -~ ~"- ,np.J'~r3n c~~ `~ o• S . ~~ r_ .~.. a~ v .,~ { ~~ ~~~~ i I i I/ /~ i L, i ~ i ~ °~ o v i - • • ~ t o a t ~ - U ~' O i '~ i ~ V ~ ~I t.` ` ~ ~~'0~+`S s a~~e.• '~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: _ MARCH 16, 1999 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 3 REQUEST: FINAL PLAT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 2/16/99 SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS FROM PLS CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: 1DAH0 POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: ~ OTHER: ~ All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. a MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 34 nor their engineers had an opportunity to review or comment in writing on the letter that just went out today to them on this particular subdivision. Though I'm hesitant to table it would think that that might be something that we want to do to get the comments back and get the vacation issue resolved. Corrie: I agree. Bird: Is that a motion? Rountree: I just throw that out for discussion. If it's a flier, l'N move that'we table the Whitestone Estates Subdivision No. 3 final plat until our next regularly scheduled meeting March 2"d so that the developer and engineer can have an opportunity to respond to City's comments and resolve the issue as it relates to vacation and public right-of-way. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bird to table item number 12 until March 2, 1999 meeting. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 13~. FINAL PLAT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC - NW OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: Corrie: Shari comments? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council this is quite a bit different from the last one and Keith I apologize for not getting those - I didn't think there was anything on Whitestone that couldn't have been resolved, but the Villas at the Lake Subdivision. Unfortunately it was put on the agenda probably should not have been. It did not conform to the approved preliminary plat. There were some specific requirements in this plat and my staff did not have the adequate background on what had gone on with this project to be able to determine whether it was in compliance. Primarily we do need some easements shown on here and I guess one of the biggest issues we have is the fact they were approved 29 of the lots were required to be a minimum 1600 square feet. They've shown 11 of the lots to be 1600 square feet and also we have a question on whether all of these lots can even accommodate a house that large. There are at least four lots where it would be very, very tight. They would have fo have an absolute rectangle of a building and use every square inch available outside the setbacks to be able to meet those minimums and also have a two car garage. Lots 18 and 19 of block 1 would not be able to meet that. They do have four lots that could be the 1304. But we would like them to MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 35 come back with some building envelopes and let us see how those plans would work. With the conditional use permit that was approved they did have specific floor plans. It may, be that they need to come back with a two story in order to meet those minimums on some of these and also as requested in the preliminary plat stage, we did want detailed fencing and pathway and landscaping plans to be submitted for approval. We have some concepts, but no details and we would like to approve those as part of the final plat. Corrie: Shari are we on a time schedule for this final plat to be approved? We're not are we? Stiles: You can reconsider it anytime within 45 days. Bentley: Mr. Mayor it's obvious that this is going to have to be tabled. My question is two weeks or four weeks? Rountree: You can go to the 1 gcn~ Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move we table plat for the Villas at the Lake Subdivision until March 16tH, 1999. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird to table item number 13 final plat of Villas at the Lakes Subdivision until March 16t" 1999. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 14. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. GARY SMITH: 1. JUB ENGINEERING AGREEMENT -FOR WATER LINE PROJECT. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, the first item I have this evening for your consideration is approval of an engineer agreement with JUB Engineers for design, plan preparations and bidding documents concerning the extension of our water system distribution system. The estimated construction cost of the water system expansion that we will build this year is $940,500. The overall estimated construction cost of the system as it will be designed is approximately 1.12 million dollars. Our budgeted amount didn't -didn't have enough funds in there to build all of it, but we did want to get it all engineered. and plans prepared and ready to go. This project is broken into two j _... .. Past It F a~ Noce 'Ui' 1 T- - -,., . r„ i ~~ ua , ~ ., ~ ._ I Pirnr d ~, f ~.lN ~ ;~' / i a ' F ... i ~ 1 ... ~' ~_; a ..__ ~ ~Fw~4 ~ _ _ ... ,~: ~ C C C l~r'l y !' t~. ,~r 1. ..__ . i:,, r ~ Y / ; _ -- __ _ ,-,_ _. .. ,, ' ~ ,~ _.~ t : l% t Nlayl,r and C'iry ('uum:il City c~l'hrfcridian .3.3 I~;sasl Idaho Avenue Meridian, It) 83fi~'12 Subject: X4927?-Qfi March 9, 1999 The Villas at the [.al:cs Sulxlivi.ivn lkar h9nyor and City ('ouncil: T`hi letter is in naponse to the c~~ttuncnt~ ny your statl'datcd I'chn,ary 1G, 1999 on the final plat of l he Villas sn the l,akcs ~ubdivisiun. (;t:NF:Rnt. COMMt~N'I'S 1. The two cxistin~; irriSatiun ditches, StatT'ord Sub and bight Mile laterals, along the project Uoundary an: to remain upon and will not he piped in accordance with City Ordinance Section l 1-9-GOS.M. Nc~ either irrigation ditchc cross thlS projeel. ~. 'I"his prvpet•ty doffs not have Duty wells c»• septic tanks on it. C'ity's Sewer and water system ;rrves the rxistinb C'heny lane golf clubhouse. "1`he clubhouse will he ronmved and sewer wed w~atrr sc7viccs will hr ah;tndoncd in accotdanc;e with the City's requircmcnts. 3. Nampa Xc Nleridian trri;atinn nist:rict ha.~ juri~clictiun over the pressure irrig<ltian system. Prl;>,urc in'igfltion will be sn cxtcn5ion ul'thc systom that serves 1'he takes at Cherry lane suhdivixicros. 'T h~: systcrr- i:r owned artd maintained by the iJamp,t c~c Nleridian ln•igation District. An approv;ll letter liar thesyytcrn extension to tictvc'I'hc Vilhas at the l.,;tkcs Subdivision will be subrniued u~ the Mcridi,in Public works Ucparultcnt prior to scheduling the pt~e-construction. meeting. A letter of credit, cash, rn• • appmpriatc hcmding forthcsc; irrtpruvctncnts will be in place prior to the City signing the firtttl plat. ~~1. 'lhe h'b:MA flaodplain does not at~ect wty lots within this uhdivisian. 3 5. "The tire hydrfant locutions wen: coordinated ~~ ith the Meridian Public Vliurks Ucp:al-tmcnt. ti. A copy of the Ada County Strcct N1111i: C:otttmittee's ;approval Icucr will be subrnittf;d to the Meridtiut Public Works L)epartmrnl when the lnal plat mylar is submitted fur the City Engineer's`si!~,nanu'e. 7. hl) items containul in the rnenux:andum dated F'ebnlary 1 G, 1999 will be addressed in this letter and at thy. March 24. 1999 Meridian City Council mec'tin~;. "1'hrce copies of the final plat for l"he Villas at the Lakes Subdivision will be submitted to Mr. i3rucc F-rckletrnt, Meridian Public Work,l7ct>vartment, I~~r rrvicw prang to dweloprnent talon approval. 111)1 32 11111.5 MAR 09 '99 14 49 208 378 6318 PAGE. 01 ('itv c,f Meridian March 9, 1999 1~'a~~e Sll'I~'. SP~(..'ll~l(' ('U~1Iv1EN`I'S ,.. 1. The tinFd plat,'prior to submittYtl I~,r <ignature by thr: Cily, will be n:viscd to confi,rrn tip t}x• appr«ved prelirnin~rry plat. /1 six-foot-high, permanent, non-combustible perimeter fence «•i11 he constructed along thy: subdivi~iun boundary prior t.c~ nbtaining building (x;rmit< except along tl,e back I~t line of Cuts 3 through 13 a~u7 the northerly lot li:+c of t,ot 14 Block l . T'he ('once along tits bttc:k kx,lines-ot Lots 3 through... t Block 1 shalt he as shown on the detailed Inndsca}x plitns. A letter of t;redit rn• cr7sh will be pasted with the City prior to recluestinc>. the (~ ily's signature on the lnal plat. r)cl.ailetl landscape plans inehtding sizes ant! species r~f'vc#;et;ition, fencing detail., :aid walkway dct.~ils fi,r all a~minon arefls will he +uhmitted for approval. 1'1,e feneit~g along the hack lot lines ~,f l.,ot~ :+ through 13 and the northerly lot line of l,ot 14 I31cx.k 1 will he ;ts shown on the l:mtlxcap+; plat7s. letter of cn:dit or cash v~~il# be p`r+widc<! Ii,r these improvements prior to submitting the final plat t2~r ~ignaturc;. F'ivc-#'out-wide sidewalk: arc shown and will be constn,clec! along the street liont:rs~c•5 of Lots through 13, the firentta lane fi-ont:~ge of Lots 20 and 23, the Srtreet frontage of l.ot 21, the. Daly I.anc trunt<~ge cif l.~,t 2R, snd the street ti-cnuagc of I,oGti ~~) tl•,rough.40, all in,T3lock 1. Al) other lots with street irc>nt:rg,c will have a 4-too[-w ii'le green ~p<u:e between the back ~f~ curb and the !uoperry line. except where pav+;d driveways provide acecsitti the respective lots.: Sanitary sewer service to this project has been ecu,rdin;tlcd with the Meridian Rrhlic Works 1)epanmeiat and is shown ,~n Ihc~ development phaats. 6. Wxtcr service to this project has ber,r crwnlinatcd with the Meridian Public Works 1)el-srtn+uu ;+nd is shown on lhc~ development plans. "~~ ~ ~> ,~ o ~. A!I street signs, read hsx, etreetlis~htx, prc;ssurized irrigation system, dc,mestic w:ttcr systcrn (active fire hydranrr), arnl fencing wit) hc: in>talled prior to obtaining, building permits. 8. 'lhe 15-foot-wide utility And drainr~gc crienrent aluns; the saver provides space for the utilities :ut<t subsurface drainage sysrern. l"he subsur('acc drainage system, shown in a section cm skeet ~1 of the development plans, is three infiltrator:; set side by side ai the back of curb within nine ft;et c>f the casernent. Other utilities Will be placed in the balance afthe 15-tik~t ease+rent. 9. 'l'he #inal plat will show the lU-fi~ot-tivide public utilities, drainage and irrigation cascmcnls adjacent to tzar lot lints ,+nd in other l+x;at luny rs >huwit inr Lhc copy of the plat attnchad w the City's menu~rtndunt dated tebnrary I (~, I yy9, I tt, '#Tte exu•a width at the entrance to the subdivision is provided for an entrance ilan~f and l,rd~lic turnaround. The islvtd is shown on the development and la+,dscapc plans. 'T'he T)wclc~per will e+titer into a licenc t+;;rcrment with A+3a County 1 ligh.vrty l )istrict k) conshZrct attd maintain tltc i°~land. xt~i ~,'.our4 MAR 09 '99 14 50 208 378 6318 PAGE.02 City i~f'Mc;ridiart fvlarc:h 9, 1~K)y !'ale; .'~ 11. 'T'he live parking spsc:cti :rte shown on the dcvclopmen[ plans. It is inapprc,prialc to show the p~~rkinL spaces on the final plat. 12. hript'to Submittal of the final plat for signature, Notc No. 3 will he rc;vised as fo(lr~ws: "±1,e minimum house size excluding; the g~u'age shat! Fk 1F00 square feet liar Lots ~ through If,, t,ot 20. 1.015 ~0 through 37, fats 41 throuE:h ~1•S, and Lot 47 (clock 1. The minimum house siic excluding the reuYg;c shall bi; 1250 square feet for Lots 21 through 2G, l.r,ts 2~, 29, 38 and 39 I31nck 1. '1~1e minimum houu: size excluding the gtarage shall be 130 square feet tar lots 17, 18, 19 and 46 lilcrck 1. I?. 'the; latest Subdivision F:valuatiun Sheet dated .IHnuary 29. 1')99 n:quires Lot 4 to be rcnu~nhcred l .cat I and go from ih~rc. The effect of that request is t.o number L.at ~ as l.ot I; number i.cx J as Lot 2: number (.ot 2 ac (..ot 3; number hat :~ as l.ot 4; and not re-nurnbcr the balance nl"the lots. ,~ copy cal"the Subdivision l:valuatian Sheet is included fir y~~ur rufcrence, l'he final plan will be revised to show the chanL~s when submitted fix signautrt;. I -1, This conrmem is an open-endr:d request. Wi: believe ibis is an unrta.~mahle comment. Please note that Nini; No. I un the final plat dated .lsnuaty 7, 1999 is in en•ar. 'i'hc error was discirvcre~! and a letter dated ('ehruary 8, 1999 was sent to Mr. Will Acrg to con•ect that crmr. n copy of the February R, 19yy letter is attached. A revised plat was not submitteii in an attempt to avoid confusion. Prior to submitting the final plat for cignz-iUair by the City, the note will he nvixd as srtted in the February l3, 19i)9 letter, e~cepl referenc:c tip [,cat 2 wig} be revised to l.~t .3. `(his gut number revision cont'onns to the latest subdivision cv~rluatio» shccl. Sincerely, PAC'I1'IC' I .AND 5U1tV1rYU1tS A division ~~1'T'OWER ~n4ineets, Inc. .~ - Keith 1... Jacobs, Jr,, 1': t;. lnclosurcx cc:'. Mr.17~~ul, t :amphell., 4rriner (~vel~~~nent itu~ ~z o,o~ MAR 09 '99 14 50 208 378 6318 PAGE.03 1295 S. Eanlt Flight Way Boisc. ID 83709 12081378-6387 Fax t2t}3l 373-W25 February 8, 1999 N1r. Wiii Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 3 3 Fast Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho $3642 Subject: 549272-~06 The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision, Final Plat Dcar l~tr. Berg: I wish to point out that Note No. 1 on the final plat of T1ie Villas at the Lakes Subdivision is in error. Ibe note should read as follows: Building setbacks and dimensional standards in this subdivision shall be Sn compliance with the applicable caning regulations of the City of Meridian, except as herein modified The house front yazd setback far Lots 2 and 29 Block 1 shall be ZS feet_ The house and garage f front yard setback for Lots 22, 22, and 28 Block 1 shoo be 18 feet. The garage front yazd setback for Lot 29 Block I shall be l8 feet. The sideyazd setback along common Iot lines of Lots ? 1 and 22, 23 and 24, 25 sand 26, 28 and 29, and 38 and 39 Block 1 shah be 0 feet. The stnE:et sideyard setback for Lou 22, 45 and 47 Block 1 shall be 15 feet. T1te street sidcyard setback for Lot 41 Block 1 shall be 18 feet. °1'lle Note No. 1 on the final plat mylsir will be corrected to read as stated above prior to submittal to the City for signature. Attached is a copy of the (setbacks) table that correlates the lot numbers with the final plat and the preliminary plat dated September 1, 1998 for your refers=ace. If you have questions, please call me at 3?&6385. Sincerely, PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS A division of PO ~ eers, Inc=• ~J.sng ei~ L. Jacobs, Jr., P. E. At~z~:llmult cc~ Mr. Stevt 13rac3b~w Nt ~-t3<~i .~.~oosz !'~;; sir. t..~r;l `iu:"~. ~n~ .. ~Lvi~n~n;rl PO~VN.R Cn):~nrcrs. !nc . nn tduhu C;nporpUun MAR 09 '99 14:51 208 3?8 _6318 PAGE. 05 3' DECEIVED PLS Proposed Development Name HE VILLAS at the L4KE5 _,__ City, Meridian Date Reviewed 01 28 9 i _ Preliminary Stage .`•_., Final XXX _ _ EnginAC~r/Developer Pacific land / Steiner Development The Street Warne comments listed below are made by the members of the ACA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE (under direction of the Ada County Engineer) regarding this development in accordance with the BnISA City Street Name Ordinance. The following existing street name is approved and shall appear on the plat. ,__ SUBDIVISION EVALUATION SHEET ~E8 1 6 1999 _._,__M "N. INTERLACHEN WAY" _ ~_ ..~._,_..., "W. CHCRRY LANE" .,,_,.,._~ _~ "N. BLACK CAT ROAD" "W. DALY LANE" is approved and shall appear on the slat. ~W. BRENDA LANE" is approved and shall appear on the plat These findinr~s are subject to reGc~rdati4n of surtoundiny properties. The above street name comments have been read and approved by the following agency representatives ofthe ADACOUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE, ALL of the signatures must be secured by the representative or his designee in order for the street names to be officially approved. ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMM E, AGENCY~-REPRESENTA'T1VES OR,. DESIGNEES ~ --~ Ada County Engineer John Priester ~t ' "~~',, ~L Date ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' Ada PlAnning Assoc. City of Meridian Fire District Meridian Ann Hurley Repr'esentativ Representati~ < •C~ Date ~ ~~ ~ ~ 7 • I Date • 1 "~ ~ ' Date ~ ~J.._~~~ NOTE: A copy of this evaluation sheet must be presented to the Ada County Engineer at the time of signing the "final plat", otherwise the plat will not be signed I) I I __~_.__ Sub Index Street Index ~N 1W 3 _„_. ,__,__.___ Section 1 /. NUMDERING OF LOTS AND BLOCKS.,,,._~!~:.~ ~' ~ '~' ",' L' ~• ~~ ~, . 1.61 ~ r ''A~ ~' ;'r /~~~},: ~ . rrnsuessM crrv,rnnn -~ ,~,.~:f~( ~, fir,..?~ .I/,, «.. ~ ~ -~ 6 ~1,~;~ ,/` / MAR 09 '99 14 50 208 378 6318 PAGE. 04 ~Ft~ BY: XEROX 2_; 3- 9-99 2:50PM; 208 378 6318 => ~- ,,Ili F'llxl'll Mttyhr artd ("ity C'utrrn;il City of Meridian ;:i t':as~t Idaho Avcr,uc Mcriclian, 1[) $3642 Subject.: 549272-06 Post-it'"' f-~°'ax fVf~ta~: ,~, ,~ ,. C. (~ f ~l qu Ire 'i F;Ir Ij.. .,`,-f--;..._../r it March 9, 1990 `I he Villa.-"`atlie I;akcSulxl visit?n f)~ar Mayor sand City t;.'<~uncil: 20A88871297; #114 v.utl,, .._.-CM- ::.~..... rl::. "; ~ : .r.. .. .. ,; ~ f=:~x • ~~~~'~7l'i~T1 i If~j '1~i ~ ~ 199 ' , ' , ~ ~: 7(~~NING "I'"his letter is in rc,al:umsc to the corntnt:nts by }our sutt>r'dated hcl~ruttry ! 6, 1999 on the final plat i,[ I l-t: Villas tat the L,;tkis Subt'livicion. i .. t'hc two cxist.ins irrigatit~n ditches, Stattt>rd Sub and light Mi(r lat.crr-al~, along tJte project t?c~undary arc to re.Trnain upon and will not be'-piped in acau•dance with City Orclinane~ Suction 11-y-6US.M. No other irricntivn ditcktcs cross this project. 2. 1'ltis property dues nut have any wells or septic. tanks on it. ('ity's scwcr a,td water .tiyst.cm urtic~~ then e.xist.in(; (:'berry Lane gulf clubhouse. "l'Jte clubhouse will be removed and sewer and water services will be ;~hand~:~netl in ac:c:orda.ncc with the City's r4quirements. r. Nampa & Meridian Jrrigation District has jurisdiction over the pressure irrigation sy~tcm. I'ressurt; irrigation will be an extension of the ayste.m that serves `the 1.3kc's at Cherry t,anc uhdivisions. '1'Jtc system is owned and maintainc~i by tJtu Nampa b'r Meridian Irrigation District. An approval Iettc;r liar the ~yst.em extension to serve'I'he Vill~rc at the l..akes Subdivision will be submitted to the Mcridinn Public Works; I)e:rarhnent rl'101' 1.O vChE;<lU{lrlri rJte p1'e-COnStrUChan 111ZC'tlnh. A letter' Of CI'Ct:Jlt, ctts}'r, or ahrmPria:-t.e hr,ndin~; (i~r thou: in~pn>vc;rnc:nt~ wil I he in plae~: pricar to the C'it.y signing the fiinal putt. ~1. 't'he F>/MA 11t.u?dplain dtx>s not <tlfcct any lots within this subclivisiun. S. "fhc fire l>,ydr<arrt If~catiorts were. coortlinatcd with the Meridian Public Wcirks: 1)epartnienl. G. n copy of the Atla C't,unl.y St.rcct Ntmlc CurruriiLtu:'s arl.)rc,JVtt.! Ict.t.cr will be subrtuU.c:•d Iu lha Mecitiitaat Public Wt~rka 1:)eprtrttncnt when the final plait rnyltrr is strbrrtiucd ror the City ingine:cr's si);~ttturt:. 7. A{{ items contained in the mt:morandun~ date;cl F'cbnrary l6, t99y will be addressed in this (otter land at the March 2~1. 1999 Meridian City C'<nrncil meeting. "17ure topic, of the final plat for'1'hc Villas at the 1,trkcs Suhtlivision will hc; sr.rhmiU.cd try Mr. Rn,cc f=recklcl.tn~, Meridian l'uhlic Works l.)epartment. far review prit?r tf., tleveluprrten! plait apprt?vtrl. s<,~ sz ~iuis I'. '; t:, i .un..~u+~~ ..n:. .+.I:,i::n~~i ~~I I'(!~~:I'tN. h~..U;nnr~,:r:. I::, .n'r ~;+.,..c',~,~L~ ~n,,.. E ~-O EXTRA PAGE. 001 I'..,';u, i ,u,•!`ur~~ ,~n~~. .+~I:~,i::n„i.d I•U(a;L.~+. I°..~.i;rit:r~,:r:. 1•;, .i: ~;+„ .t'.~ol~.~ .~i~~~n. (:'itv ~~(T~lericiian March 9, 1 ~~19 1'.:t~;e til'1'f tihF:C;.iF'IC: CU1tfM1rN'1'S The final plat, prior to submittal forif;na.ti.ire by the City, WIII be t'eVltiCd f0 (:Onfunll tU lfle r~ppt'oveif preliminary rlrir.. ~ six-fcir?t-hi~th, pr.rrtlanent, non-coutbustible. perimeter tepee wi II he constnrcted along the sul?divi4iun boundnry prior to obtaining huildirr~; fx:rmih, r`•xcepl ,rlcmg dte back lot line of Lots 3 thn?u~>h I ~ and the riartherly lift line of T,ert 14 liluek I . "I'he fend; aluns~ the back tot lines of Lots 3 through l;r i31c-ck I shall he as shiiwn ort the detailed landscape plans. A letter afcredit or caeh will tr: poslctl •.vilh the t'ity priitr tp requcsl.irtg the f,.:ity's signature un the Tina! plat. 3. f)Gailed lrrndsca~x: plnn5 inclUdint; Si~eS and species of vegetarian, fencing details, and wall;way tiiet.rils liir all C;eirnmcnt areas will bu submitted for app-vval. °I'he fencing alrntg the buck list lines i~f I .uts tlarvuc;h 13 anti the rtotthcrly lot line vT J.,c?t 14 Block I will be as ;hewn r,n tlrc lanii,tica.pc plan., n lctt.~°r• of erix.lit tir cash will be provided 1'or thESt.~ improvements prior to sut?miffing the final rlat Rir ,i~;nature.. Five-fi?tit-wide.idew:+lk.y s,re~ shc,wn .rnd will he c~onstrutaed along the street fmntage.~.; i,f bits 2 through 13, the Brenda f.~tne fi-ont,ige of lots 2(f and ?3, the street frontage of L,ot 2 J, the [)aly I.,:rnc fronta~,e of le,at 28, and the street frontage of Lots ?9 threuglt 40, all in t3lock 1. All cattier hits with street tiontag~ will hrtve a 4-loot-wide ~•een space between the back of curb and the 1?r~opcrrry Gne, ext;ept wfier~ pavr.+d tlrivcwttys pruvitl~ access to the rtslxctive lots. ~anita.ry sewer cn-ice tc:r tl-is prilj~Ya. h:~s I;icen uieir+.linaled with t.hc Mtrrii.iiart Public Wurk~ lh;p,trlrr-ent and is shown i?n the develapmertt plans. li. W;ilcr tiea•vic.e lei tlriti liri-ji;ct leis lii;cn u?urdin+st~d wit(i the Meridian Public Wurhs lkpartrnrnt Anil is shi?wn i?rt the dcvcluprnenl plan, Al! street signs, road base, slrE~etli~t)tts. pressurized irrigation system, domestic water systcnt (active fin: hydrants), grid fenc.in}~ wi11 I?e. inrtalled prir?r tc?obtaining buikfinQ permits. f{. 'Che 15-1~?ot-wide rrtirty and drainage casement. along I:he st--ec.K provides space for the utilities and subsurface: dt;tina~;e systt;rrt. f~lte subsurliice. drainage system, shown in a sectitm on sheet ,~ ot~ the development plans, is tluec; infiltrators set side by side Ott the back of curb within nine ti'et of the caserc-cnt. Other ut.ilit.ies will 1?c 1'rlacctt in tlti: halartce of the 15-ttx-t: casement:, 9. °hhe t7n;tl plat ~~ ill show the 1 U-toot-wide public utilities, dr;tinage and itrigat.ion easements adjacent to rear lot lines and in other Icications as shown on the copy ofthe plat attached to the City's nremorandum --° d,rtcd l~~chruar~~ I c~, I ~~ri9. I(t. The extra width at the entrtnce to the subdivision is prtn•idE~d fur an enhance island and public turnaround. 'f he island is shown on the development and landacape plans. "I•he Ucvelopcr will cnti;r info a license r~;reemrnt with Ada Ccuuity 1 li~;(rway 1)iztrict tit c;iirttitnrc[ ;:rnd maintain the i>,larrd. 'Y EXTRA PAGE. 002 ................... .......:...........,...,.... ...................~,....,...................,...~..., r........ ...,. _.....,...r,,,. ...., ,.,.,... i~zio a liccrisc a~roc;rrirnt with Acla Cc~uniy I li~l-way l7istrict ti> cimstnrct and rnr~intain the island. rac~~ '.3i +~uis MAR 09 '99 14 50 208 378 6318 PAGE.01 SENT 8Y: XEROX 2_; C'iiy o.f~Mcridian ivi~lrc:.h ~), l ~)9c) I'ag~ ; 3- 9-99 2:51 PM; 208 378 6318 => 2088871297; #2%4 I I . l'he five parkirl~; spaces are shi>wn cn, the development plans. It is inappropriate to shoe the pfu~:in~; spans on the: final plat, [?. i'rior to submittal of the final ~platfnr signature, MULL No. 3 will be revised as tpllows: "7. h~ [T111t111'IUltl house size excluding the garage s)Ttill bu 1C~OU square feet for 1.,c1ts 3 through lti, Lot 2U, Lots 3tl thmu~;h 37, 1..oLS 41 lhrouC;h 45, and Lot 47 Black 1. 'T11e minimum hc>u.e sir>c; excludinY the g~1rage tihall be 1250 yuarc feet. for L..ots ? C tllrauglt 2ti, Lots 2R, 29, 34 and 39 I31ock 1. T'fre minimum Clouse sic e~;eludinc; the ~u~age shall bc~ 1.3(}4 square feet tier 1..c1ts 17. (R, ! 9:ir1d 4(> Blc~ek 1, 13. 't'he l~ltsst Subdivision Evaluation Sheet coated .laltul~ry .~,~), 1~1c)9 n:quires Lot 4 to bc: re:nutnbe:red Lot 1 and go frcim f.here. The effect ot~ that. rc:qucat. is to rluzntx:r Lut 4 as Lot l; number hnt 1 as Lot 2; numtxr I..o! 2 as T,ut 3; nulxlbcr Lot ~ as Lot 4: and nut re-number the balance of the lt~ts. r~ c~~py cli'thc Suhdivi~ion I~;valuation Sheet is included fur ,your reference, The. final plar- will be revised to Show the claanges when submitted for si~;l~taturc:~ I~. 'I'bis cc~nirnenl is en ripen-crrded regraest. We holievr; ibis is nn unreasonable comment. Plcae note that: Ni)te N.). I on the final plat dated Irirulary 7, 1y~9 i5 in error. °fhe error was discavercxl Ind a letter datc~:l February 8, 1999 was sent u~ Mr. Will C~crt; to cnrrect Lh;it error. A copy cif tale Hebnrtry $, 1990 lett.i;r is attachul. A revise! plat was not submitted in an attempt to .+vc~id ccmfusivn. Prior to submitting the final plat for signature by tJ1e City, the note will bc; revised as stated in the 1=ebnlary S, 19cI9 letter, except reference to Lot ' will be revised ttr l,ot :i: fhiti lot ntnnbf.r revision c;vnfonns to the latest subdivision evaluation sheet. Sinc.crcly, f'AC'lf 1C: 1_ANU SC1RVh.YC)kS A division ofPC)Wl':R f:nginecrs, Inc. Keith I.. Jacobs, Ir., 1'. L;. K LJ. St.; 1."ncaosures c:c .Mr. t.)uug CaunpbelL. ~fetnrr Uevzloplne~Tt ~~~ 1{(,11 .i2~.111115 MAR 09 '99 14 50 ..208 37B 6318 PAGE. 02 SENT BY: XEROX 2_; 3- 9-99 2:51 PM; 20@ 37@ 631@ _> 20@8@71297; #3%4 F~ECE~VED SUBDIVISION EVALUATION SHEET FE8 1 6 1999 PLS Proposed Development Name THE V14LA5 at the LAKES,_~. _City ME?r,idian _w_ Date ReviewedQl/2>~/99 _________._•„~_ Preliminary Staye Final xxx ,,.~_ Engineer7Deve(or~flr Pacific Land I Steiner Development The Street rrarne comments listed below are made by the members of the AL7A COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE (undor direction of the Ada County Engineer) regarding this dAVatopment in accordanrr~ with the Boise City Street Name Ordinance. T(7e fopowing existinq street nartte is approved and shat) appear on tha plat. __~_.__._....,.._..__.~._.~__ "N. INTERLACHEN WAY" -_-- ~_.._.._..,._.,_.~..,_._.~ _.~_~_____.,,._.~....,_~ "W. CHERRY LANE" "W, DALY LANE".is approved and shall appear on the alat___ "W. BRENDA LANE" is approved and shall appear on the~lat. ~._,_.,.~.~_•„~.,~,. Th sp findinQS era biect to recordation of surrounding properties, _ . _~,_~ The above street name comments I~ave beery read and approved by the following agency rear©sontrrtivos of tlto ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE. ALL of the signatures must be secured by the representative or his designee in order for the street names tt~ be offirially approved. ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMM E, AGENCX:~REPRESENTATIVES OR DESIGNEES / / _, - U ^' Ada County Engineer John Priester _ =` ~ ,J//, ~ ~ Date ~_ ~ 'n_~ Ada Planning Assor,. Anrt Hurley City of Meridian Fire District Meridian Representativ Representati~ Date ~ ° ~ ~ ~~ Date ~'~~ ~~ NOTE: A copy of this evaluation sheet must be presented to the Ada County Ertgirteer at the time of signing the "fins! plat", otherwise the plat will not be sign©d-III I „____..____ Sub Index „Street Index 3N_ 1 W 3 .Section/ NUMBERING OF {..c~~TS AND HLOCKS__.__~.c.~~ ~' ~ ~'' ' .~+~:~.' ' ~ ' `~ ~ t '"''~ ~- .'!<M' ~ /~i ~' L I , •, ,, 7FnSt1l.3S15M_CtTY.t'RM ~~l /',~' ~~~j'+. 1l. ~ ~ tt_ t /. MAR 09 '99 14 50 208 378 6318 PAGE.03 SENT BY: XEROX 2_; 3- 9-99 2:51P~4; 208 378 6318 => 2088871297; #4%4 ~'""° ' "'' °~ .. 1295 S, Eagle Flight Way Boise. ID 83709 (208) 378.6387 E~az (2U8) :)78-W25 February 8, 1999 Mr. Will. Berg, City Clerk t:ity of Meridian 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 8.3642 Subject: 549272-t)G The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision, Final Plat Dear Mr. Berg: I wish to point out that Note No. 1 on the final plat oCThe Villas at the Lakes Subdivision is in error. The note should read as follows: Building .setbacks and dimensional standards in this subdivision shall be in compliance with the applicable zoning regulations of the City of Meridian, except as herein modified. The house frcmt yard setback for Lots 2 and 28 lock 1 shall be 1.8 feet. The gru-age fmntayagrd front yard setback for Lots 21, 22, setback for Lot 29 Block ]shall be 1.8 feet. drn9 sand 38 and 39 B o k 1 shahl be 0 fee1tt.1eThe Lots 21 and 22, 23 and 24, 25 snd 26, 28 an , street sideyard setback for Lots 22, 4~ and 4? Block 1 shall be 15 feet. The street. sideyard setback for Lot 41 Block l shall be 18 feet. 'The Noce No. 1 on the final plat mylar will be corrected to read as stated above prior to submittal to the City t"or signature. Attached is a copy of the (setbacks) table that correlates the lot numbers with the :final plat and.the prelimu~rary plat dated September 1, 1998 for your reference. If you have questions, please-call. me at 378-6385. sincerely, PACIFIC LAND svltvEYORs A division ofPUV E ~ eers, Inc:- K1..1:srng eith L. Jacobs, Jr., P. E. ~kcrclim<~rrc cc:. Mt. S[eve Bradbury P l .:v~ }30I :i I~lfl;t2 V" ~:,1:, 1..,~:J Stu ~.~rt:u•c..a d+~.b:«,,, of PO\VIi.R F:naieeers. lnc., an Waltiu C~.~ipnrou~.n~ MAR 09 '99 14 51 208 378 6318 PAGE. 04 HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Mayor ROBERT D CORRIE A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT . Council Members CITY 4F MERIDIAN e (208) 884-~26a PUBLIC WORKS CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST,IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (ZOa> ss~-22I t RON ANDERSON Phone (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING ' KEITH BIRD DEPARTMENT (208) 88~t-5533 MEMORANDUM: February 16, 1999 To: Mayor and City Council From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer~5~~ Shari Stiles, P&Z Administrator Re: THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION (Final Plat by Steiner Development LLC) We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the final plat. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance. l 1-9-605.M, unless a variance has been granted. 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 maybe used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Submit a plan approval letter to the Public Works Department from the entity having jurisdiction over design and construction of the pressurized irrigation system. A letter of credit or cash will be required for these improvements prior to signature on the final plat. 4. Indicate on the final plat map any FEMA Flood Plains affecting the area being platted, and detail plans for reducing or eliminating the boundary. 5. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 6. Please submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's final approval letter for the subdivision name, lot and block numbering, and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. Villas az the Lakes Subdivision.FP Mayor and City Council 2/16/1999 Page 2 7. Please address all items contained in this memorandum (both General and Site Specific) during presentation of the final plat at Meridian City Council. Due to the lateness of stafi'comments, applicant will probably need time to review and prepaze appropriate response. Prior to development plan approval, three copies of the revised plat must be reviewed by the Public Works Department for compliance with all conditions of plat approval. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. This final plat needs modification to conform to the approved preliminary plat. 2. Six-foot-high, non-combustible, permanent fencing is required to be in place along the subdivision boundary prior to obtaining building permits. Fencing shall be installed on lot lines and not within common areas. Detailed fencing plans need to be provided for review and approval A letter of credit or cash will be required for these fences prior to signature on the final plat. 3. Submit for approval detailed landscaping plans, including sizes and species of vegetation, fencing details, and walkway details for all common azeas. A letter of credit or cash will be required for these improvements prior to signature on the final plat. All landscaping and pedestrian walkways are to be completed prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 4. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. Sanitary sewer service to this site will be via an extension of existing mains. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of centerline. 6. Water service to this site will be via an extension of existing mains. 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. 7. All street signs, road base, street lights, pressurized irrigation system, domestic water system (activated fire hydrants), and fencing are to be installed prior to obtaining building permits. 8. What is the purpose of the 15-foot-wide utilities and drainage easement adjacent to the private road? 9. Graphically depict ten-foot-wide public utilities, drainage and irrigation easements adjacent to rear lot lines and in other locations as shown on the attached plat copy. Villas at the Lakes Subdivision.FP Mayor and City Council 2/16/1999 Page 3 10. Given that this subdivision will not be gated, what is proposed for the extra width at the entrance to the subdivision? 11. Five pazking spaces were to be included on Daly Lane as a condition of the preliminary plat These spaces should be detailed on the plat. 12. A condition of approval of the preliminary plat was that 29 of the homes within this subdivision were to be 1,600-square-foot minimum, exclusive of garage. This leaves a total of four lots that were approved with a minimum house size of 1,304 square feet. Note 3 indicates that only 11 lots have the 1,600-square-foot designation. Revise Note 3 to reflect conditions of approval. It will be physically impossible for some of these lots to have a 1,600- square-foot minimum house with atwo-car gazage unless they aze made two-story units. Applicant needs to provide building envelopes on all lots to ensure compliance is possible. No two-story units were presented with the conditional use permit. 13. All lot numbers will change as a result of the Ada County Street Name Committee's review. Staff recommends that approval of the final plat be tabled until a final plat map is submitted that incorporates the requested changes and conditions of the approved preliminary plat. 14. Staff does not propose these comments to be all-encompassing and reserves the right to impose additional conditions upon further review of the revised final plat submittal. Vdlas at the Lakes Subdivision.FP / ~ f "~ / i°~ ' n~° N 00'30' 1 1 " E ~~ 26.71 / ~, G?,C ~ w.c. _ ~ 6854~T~f~ __ 1 ~ ~,,,~.~~5, •, . `6 4 h n ~~>`~e 1 25.00 I~ 14 00. 13 -moo ~~1~ C/ `~ n o ~~$9 ~\ I rN 55tD9'59" E > A h ~: ~ R.M. 25.W - ~C: ~` 49-?s 2 A uj C9 ` ~}Ob ti ~ t 1 ~h t2~ R.M. s o `S \~ 271 c.2~' ~ . s s ss?.. ~ >J c?JZ 10 °° • ~, \ ~ s _e ~ (~s ~-w ~ 9os zss~ ~ cam`' ~hheh~ ~op ic3O /CHERRY LANF. GOL1~' COtJRSF. ,/ $ rya --`15.37 °~ ~' C~~ $ ^° ~ ~ ~' ~ 5. t I a 17 hh.~0 ~ ~~. ~ ~ `~' eh ~s` ' ~„ ~ ~J~9 Ot 45~• ~}7 1 B ~ ~~ 2 ? a~ ~ ~ Q S 89?94v E \ °,~ ~~ .j s ; ~` ar \~q -N SSro9'S9" E 25 00 X26 o m 25 24 ~ sh $ o?~s~,° Nh~eh~ _ ~ . ~. ~ ~ 147.34 ar I 45.OtZ 3 69 J Ohk~~ ~ •' ~ l~h^O°~ .J~ 9~, r,~ ~ 7 • ,~ S 89^48 41 " E ~ sFE NOS 77 ~~~ e p : ~, ~`'~ `~' ~ ~ ^o°~ s R.M. s ~~ O qS 896.70 E , ~2~9k 9 ~h~ ~ ~ o, \' NhhO~~ t/a$ 1 \ 4 q p n DALY LANE ~ 0 s ~s a 20 , 6 \ v' ~j .$ `b °° s J ~ Z °o~ 73.23 ~ ~ ~, ~ "9h aJ °r.21 69 27 sue, y .ef~ l ~s se- ~B 1 \~O-t~ fJ 28 ~ 27 = ~ $`~~:~ oo c4, `' •~ ~ ~1~ s~sss*•• Sys*•• ~C \p O ~ W .rS 89'29'4T' E 4 22 ~ Ah 9~9~~ ~ O° ~ ~~ 9-C20 rJ ~B? f ti~ O ~~ / 84.03 n _ E,1' ~ ~ ~- C t 9 °{ \ '>p GS +~ Q 29 ~ .:C, ~1°F'1hh^pO~~~Ob ~ ~T 41 Q, ~~ CIS ~~jhag9f° e-'~ ~ ~.a, ,L 74.95 ~ ~~ 0 {~' OS p.G. cr (~ E 7 ~ ~ S 8929.47•' E ° ^ l _ 85.01 0 ~ y ~ ~ s $ Js : 3~» ~..~~ ~ 3 ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ 30 ~ ~, °~ /'' 6hC{~ ~~ ;rte 42p` ~ ~ ~ ~o ES ~ ~ `~``'~ o .O~h '~ ~ ~ / ~1 1 ~, o S 8929'47" E t.96h v `~~ ~ 2 F,9~ pc6 ,LO ~ ~ • 4 as.ot ~ N ~s ys• 43 /~ h ~~~ O6j. 4 to ^ oo a ~ `rp: ~ \O 47 aI u (h 4.po ~y ~ f/ ~ L' s 89z9.4r• E s.s7 b ~. 4B 's9•• q~ ~'r '% ~O~~O •~N 4 75$ ~,~w ' h~ ' ~~_ ~l S 89'2_9'47•• E ~h ~ -S B~~S`S ~} hh ~. •,~ ,-~ ~_ ~~5.53 _- cJW 9 ~--.~ a~ \, f . ~ CSO ~ ,~~ O~~ C 75~ ~ I~~ - ~ ~~ ~O`~ a ~ I \1 ( fjl `~. ` ~7 ~ ~ p,.jJ 17. ~C% i Q~l• '~ i V h J ;' __,o, s, ti coo -- ;h -ca ~ -"s,~.'L ~r-6.38 37 '~ .~'~00 ~y ?~- f ti 9dy> ti/wry 35 : ~ } ~,`' hh 9~:tfi ~. `` ,'S~' ,~. y~. ~L~' 6 O ~ 2 ~ ~'io ~ •h9 ice, 66 J7 ..,, 36 ~ ~, ^`~ y 4 ~9 TF.4 s~,e qgs S; ~ a ,j ~~~~~ .~ . ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ 6 -~ LINE TABLE eel ~,S,~N ,, - ~~~o eor of GF, ~ . NUMBER DIRECTION DISiANCF ~ / ~ P~ ~~E J~S,O~ U t ~' N 34'00'09" w .__._~j.? 10 ~ ~~~ty`l 5~8~ . ~~ ~: , ~•r.n•~., •• .. ~ ~ao~ .. - ~~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: FEBRUARY 96. 9999 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUMBER: 73 REQUEST: FINAL PLAT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: REVIEWED CITY FIRE DEPT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME 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: All Materials presented at public meetings shall bec ome property of the City of Meridian. HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Mayor, ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live Council Members CITY OF MERIDIAN CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 RON ANDERSON Phone (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 KEITH BIRD LEGAL DEPARTMENT (?OS) 88-t-~126a PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (~08) 8s7-~~ I I PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208)8Sd-5533 TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian City Council, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: February 9, 1999 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 15, 1999 HEARING DATE: February 16, 1999 FILE NUMBER: FP-99-002 REQUEST: FINAL PLAT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY: STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NW OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 _ TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C KEITH BIRD, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER -CITY FILES ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM &,FINAL) 1DAH0 TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ADA COUNTY (ANNEXATION) YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: / '1 I ~ C~ - r a 'II''^ - ~ ' E S •9-- HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Mayo ROBERT D. A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN CHARLES RO 33 EAST IDAHO GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 RON ANDERSON Phone (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 KEITH B[RD LECAL DEPARTMENT (208)884-4264 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208)887-221t PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian City Council, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: February 9. 1999 - TRANSMITTAL DATE:- January 15. 1999 HEARING DATE:- February 16. 1999 FILE NUMBER: FP-99-002 REQUEST: FINAL PLAT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY: STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NW OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO 1 TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C KEITH BIRD, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM &FINAL) IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ADA COUNTY (ANNEXATION) YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: ,,, ,S n ev~v-fir CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER -CITY FILES R,~°E~D ¢a .7 {~ ;~ ~;,~•. „, .a +s~ I.. y CITY 0~ iVIERIDIAN ,i~N 1 5 1~~~ ',gip{;fail City ?`: c:i't{ .CiL~3fUlt@il(3i::7t f OC E Xe~~' ..a~. ~C P~ ~0' ~' 9I1 Meridian Street •,Meridian, Idaho 83642 • (208} SUPERINTENDENT Christine H. Donnell January 21, 1999 70I • Fax (208) 888-6700 REcE~~ ,1A1~ ~ 2 1999 CITY OF iVIERIDI~i'd City of Meridian 33 East Idaho `+ Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Councilmen: Enclosed for your review is general information relative to schools located in the proposed project area. If you have any questions, please contact Jim Carberry at 888-6701. Reference: Villas at the Lakes Subdivision Elementary School: Chaparral Elementary School Middle School: Meridian Middle School High School: Eagle High School Comments and/or Recommendations: Chaparral Elementary School is over capacity. Meridian Middle School is over capacity and will remain so until the fifth middle school comes on line in the fall of 2000. Eagle High School is over capacity. Sincerely, Jtm Carberry, ~' Administrator of Support Services BOARD OF TRUSTEES Rex Harrison • Wall~~ Hedrick • Holl~~ Houfburg • Dayid Wynkoop • Ste~~e Mann .~~ CENTRAL •• DISTRICT ~'1'HEALTH DEPARTMENT Rezone # CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT Environmental Health Division Conditional Use # Prelimina Fin Short Plat Ui//~f' Q~'- ~``~ic ~/l~5 ~v~~%/isi~„ J Return to: ^ Boise ^ Eagle ^ Garden city ..~ Meridian ^ Kuna ^ Acz ^ I. We have No Objections to this Proposal. ^ 2. ^ 3. ~~~F - v~ J~~ 2 7 199 We recommend Denial of this Proposal. {;I~ OF ~~RIDZ.~ljl Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ^ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ^ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ^ high seasonal ground water ^ solid lava from original grade ^ 6. We can Approve this Proposal for individual sewage disposal to be located above solid lava layers: ^ 2 feet ^ 4 feet ^ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning wel( construction and water availability. 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: .~. central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water well ^ interim sewage ~ central water ^ individual sewage ^ individual water 9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: .(central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water ^ sewage dry lines .central water ^ 10. Street Runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ,~ I I. Stormwater disposal systems shall be reviewed by. {/2 relative to: ^ Wasce Disposal Injection Well rules. Groundwater Protection ^ 12. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ^ 13. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ^ 14. We will require plans be subm ^ food establishment ^ beverage establishment ,~ 15. -SL°_~ l-r'7"rGc~i UGC s ~ o r /!~ u/~t i ~ G- CDHD ID/91 rc6, rev. 1195 fitted for a plan review for any: ^ swimming pools or spas ^ child care center ^ grocery store , ~'-~' G a ~ h7 .iii GrQ T~~h ~O ~ Date: L~ 2 3 ~_~ ~ E' m ~ h T Reviewed By: "ore . Review Sheet CENTRAL ~~ pIjTRICT ;f~'LIEALTH DEPARTMENT MAIN OF"rICE ' iCi iV. AIc~.ISiGGNG FL. °C~SE. IC 3~iCaL&'?5 • t;.C9) 3i ~S?I I ~ ,-.•;~ 3?i-~SCO Tu pret•r»! mu! [real disrasr a»d disability; cu pru»rvte /rralllry lifr.~•ryles; gird cu protect ar~d pror»ore t/rr /reuldr and qua(iN of uur r»virr»crrtart. STOR1tiI~VATER ivl.~vAGEitiIENT RECOitiIiVIENDATIONS ~Ve recommend that stormwater be pretreated through a gassy Swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality. The engineers and architects involved with the design of this project should obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals that could be used for guidance are: I) State Of Idaho Catalog Of Storm~vater Best Management Practices For Idaho Cities And Counties. Prepared by the Idaho Division Of Environmental Quality, July 1997. 2) stormwater Best Manaaerrient Practices Guidebook. Prepared by City Of Boise Public Works Department, January 1997. stormwater 3/93:d1y Seryirc~ ~a!ley, Elmore, Boise, and.4da Coccnties ACc 1 Boise County Office ACC•wIC Sctellite Office Elmore Counh/ OL1ce Vclley Counh/ Office 707 PI. ArmSrcng ?I. I ~C6 Rcters J?0 c. arh Srr=er ~`I. 10 a3Cai Nlouhrcin Hcme %CJ N. ! sr Street ?O. cox Ie~a ee~se. 10 a3i0e Errnry Hecun: J27-idC9 Boise. IG a3iC5 Ph. JJsJJSC . Ernriro. 1-leclrn:.a7-^+?28 ylcCctl. 10. aJ6Ja Fcmdy?!cnr.:nq:J2i•i~tCC FAX.3J1•J18c2? Fcmily'-+eclrn:cal•.1.:07 Ph.cJ~-%ICd FAX: SJC•21 id imrr.urozcncrs: J27.7d5C W1C: ~ai•~~C9 Sen:rr ~`IurnnCn: 327•idCO - FA;<: Ba7•JJ21 `PIIC J21.12a.9 ~ SAX :27-~~CC RECEIVED F EB 1 1 1999 Laity cif Mridian pity clerk Office ~Q ~ ~ . / f~ 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 Phones: Area Code 208 Will Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 RE: Final Plat for The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision -Steiner Development LLC Dear Commissioners: The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's Safford Lateral courses through the southeast corner of the project. The right-of-way of the Sa,~`ord Lateral is 40 feet; 30 feet to the right and 15 feet to the left of center facing downstream. Idaho Code 42-1208--RIGHTS-OF-WAYNOT SUBJECT TO ADVERSE POSSESSION. The developer must contact John P. Anderson or Bill Henson at 466-0663 for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of--way occurs. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires a Land Use Change/Site Development application 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 leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. Contact Donna Moore at 466-7861 for further information. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Sinceredy~ i~~Henson, As ter Superintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT BH: dln ec: File -Shop File -Office Water Superintendent APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 1 February 1999 ~1a,~sr~ia & ~~vcidiac~ ~Irrrcigatiac~ ?>i~t~ict 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 Phones: Area Code 208 9 February 1999 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Keith Jacobs, Jr., P.E. CQPY Pacific Land Surveyors 1295 S. Eagle Flight Way Boise, ID 83709 RE: -Land Use Change Application for The Viilas at the Lakes Subdivision Dear Keith: Enclosed please find .a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Urigation District for its review on the above-referenced development. If this development. is under a "rush" to be finalized, I would recommend that you submit a cashier's check, -money order or cash as payment of the fees in order to speed the process up. If you submit a company or personal check, it must clear the bank before processing the application. Should this development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be owned, operated and maintained by the Irrigation District, !~ strongly urge you to coordinate with John P. Anderson, Water Superintendent for the Irrigation District, concerning the installation of the pressure urban irrigation system. Enclosed is a questionnaire that you must fill out and return in order to initiate the process of contractual agreements between you and the Irrigation District for the ownership, operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system. If you have any questions concerning-this matter, please feel free to call on me at the District's office or John P. Anderson, at the District's shop. Sincerely, ~~~. ~ . Donna N. Moore, Assistant Secretary/Treasurer cc: File Water Superintendent Steiner Development, L.L.C. City of Meridian enc. APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS x0,000 HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Mayor LEGAL DEPARTMENT ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live ,, , Council Members CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBL-~~WORKS r CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 ~1, (208) 88722 ~ ~ RON ANDERSON Phone (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208} 887-481~YCE~^`NING AND ZONING KEITH BIRD DEPARTMENT JAN 1 5 1999 ~20s> 88=1-553 CITY OF MERIDIAN J PLANNING & ZO1~~ING 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 City Council, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Wiii Berg, City Clerk by: February 9,.1999 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 15, 1999 HEARING DATE: February 16, 1999 FILE NUMBER: FP-99-002 REQUEST: FINAL PLAT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY: STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NW OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 _ TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C KEITH BIRD, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER _C1TY FILES ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS fRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELiM &,FINAL) IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ADA COUNTY (ANNEXATION) YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: ~; _ .__.. REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION A request for preliminary plat approval must be in the City Clerks possession no later than three days following the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hear the request at the monthly meeting following the month the request was made. After a proposal enters the process it may be acted upon at subsequent monthly meetings provided the necessary procedures and documentation are received before 5:00 P.M., Thursday following the Planning and Zoning Commission action. 1. Name of Annexation and Subdivision. mum ~7TT.T.AS AT TH . T,AKF.S 2 . General Location, }rn~muras~cm OF CHERRY T ANF VTT,T,AGF NO. 1 3. Owners of record, Address, p. O. BOX 190472, Zip 8 71 Telephone $84-2075 4. Applicant, STFTNRR DF.VET.OPMEItiTT_~ ,~-C- Address, P- O- BOX l A0472, BOTS ~ TDAHO 8'719 5 . Engineer, K .TTH A -OB9 TR. , P _ F. Firm PA T TC T AND S TRVEVORS Address, ? 295 S _ .A ,T,F F ,TGHT WAY, BOTS .' IDAHO Zip 8'~ 709__ Telephone, 37s-ti"~s5 6. Name and address to receive City billings: Name DOUG AM BF .T ~, 9TF.TNER DF.VET,OPMF.NT Address P O. BOX 1 90472 _ RC)T~F. T1~AH0 8'719 Telephone 884-?076 pRFT TMTNARV T,AT _HF. KT,TST; SubdlVlSlOn Features 1. Acres 8.53 2. Number of lots 47 3. Lots per acre 5.51 1 4. Density per acre ., 5. Zoning Classification(s) R-4 6. If the proposed subdivision is outside the Meridian City .Limits but within the jurisdictional mile, what is~,the existing zoning ,class`if ication R-4 7. Does theaplat~border~a potental.green belt_ 'vEs 8. .Have recreational easements been provided--for No -. Explain 9. Are there proposed recreational amenities to the City ND Explain 10. Are there proposed dedications of common areas? vFS Explain RTVATE ROAn For future parks? No Explain .~ 11. What school(s) service the area MERTDTAN do you ~~ propose any agreements for future school sites No Explain 12. Other proposed ..amenities to the City vFs Water Supply Fire Department , Other Explain 13'. Type of Building (Residential, Commercial, Industrial.. or r combination) RFSIDENTIAT ' 14. Type of Dwelling(s) Single Family, Duplexes, Multiplexes, other STNGLE FAMTTy 15. Proposed Development features: a. Minimum square footage of lot (s) , 3._, 500 ' b. Minimum square footage of structure(s) ~_~na for ci nq,1p fami 1 y 1 ots° and` 1 250 for du l ~ o _s c. Are garages provided for, ~ YF~ square footage 400 d. Are other coverings provided for 2 r-' e. Landscaping has been provided for ~_ Describe f. Trees-will be provided for ~-, Trees will be maintained PRTVATE COMP Nv g. sprinkler systems are provided for y•G h. Are there multiple units ~_, Type ~ DTPLEXES remarks i. Are there special setback requirements i~' STREET GTDF. AND FRONT VARD Explain j. Has off street parking been provided for vES , Explain NORMAT OFF-STR ET PARKTNC k. Value range of property ST~o 000 1. Type of financing for development ONV NTIONAT, m. Protective covenants were submitted vF~ , Date DF _RMBF.R 1.8 ~ T 998 16. Does the proposal land lock other property NO , Does it create Enclaves No STATFMFNT~ OF COMPLIANCE: 1. Streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks are to be constructed to standards as required by Ada County Highway District and Meridian Ordinance. Dimensions will be determined by the City Engineer. All sidewalks will be give (5) feet in width. 2. Proposed use is in conformance with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 3. Development will connect to City services. 4. Development will comply with City Ordinances: 5. Preliminary Plat will include all appropriate easements. 6. Street names will not conflict with City grid system. 3 t ~ , ~ m = S _ - E- r - - - :~ - cma - - uo ~~~ °a, N `!'VO.4 ~~? ^t 9 m4'aa. k'~i' "!G@`IR`IN NI UN4 a i YN`l 'a R_m m+' N `^? W ° N Ao -Uu m 0 4 m m m o u_a U 6 i a N O m rn m~ u i'c N m u 4 N V. 6 m J m N e ~ ~ m~ V m P a a u m ~ mm FF Fmmmm mmm mmmmFFFFFimm~m Fi FFFFFF Fmm mm mmmF FFmfmm Fm ~ ~~ ~ •,Oa og ti ~ _. N6 .t ya .pj '.... UU s \ ~ ` um s ~ B °~ m y ~ J~ /~ ` n G A r ~ /\J~/ll Bd_7 ~y f ~`•~ ~~ 5 ca i ~ /c,S. ay. ~ v~ - i~ cygRRr ~OE ~.Yg sUg~R'lS1,7q d ° S L: ~~~~ S ek I• o ~ Y I n n " E 718.67 _ _ eS ~ . e 00 s 36 ~ oe o E ~ _ ~~ .ss w .C o~ ~r ~ "ny. o °x m z ,za - i .. ~ ^k ° ~ n s ~- H ~ny.~ may, AY a s2 y.. F e ~ m u ~,~ (° g W rn js g _ Art ~ J m s ~, LM _ s$o A ~'~F tl ~f A~ e• ''~ E° ~ e F ~1 M ~y o. f ~ °~ ~• ~ ~°o a-• 8°` = v~ x v ' l cP`l c~.6~6,~ C oy~ App w~\ e '~ ~~~, ~y g; . a ~,s by'L e ~V hl~~'` - - -----1 ar~~ • 90 y$ i• °` i" w•^• ° ~ A cam ~\~jt ~Gm s'c 6. ~5, ~' s\ s C7 C m W r m UNPTdT'1'RD r Z o° !v° ~ ~ ~ N ~ y ~o~~ - d o a - ;w ~m= y meK ~, . 3L11S '~ J ]' ~ ~ m y y~~`~ ~ Q C ° t ~` ~i m / '` F ~la,..f N 8 D ~ ~1 a ~_ ~m /~ Q z o ~_ "r ~~'D ~ ^ m (/~ m ~ z o~o~ D ~ ---~ z Crl = c~~z= Z ~vzDr-~ z ~ ~ ~ 1 ~' {~°m c ~~~ S D ~Rl~ O ~ O T c W _~ z ~ O r ~ mo 3i 3~~n~ o ~ .°.o ' mss^ ,.6u ° no: ~ "o °3a~ =S 3~ F$v ° _ _ 30~u -.3• a3 °n3 00 3n N _ - ~ a "m - 43m m _ ~ Sa3 ~ J m~ - - Je h' ~ m ~ I - _ ~~ _ °_~ n3 oR= ~ 3° coo _ _ oE° IF _ _ nq's .• a3 0 ° a - e3 e.°. 3^ a o_° N _ ° '_ o =- ~vbo~ ~~ °a _• Z _ O n I =cz ~s ~~ ^°° _ _ . ;° ~ gas ~m o; _- ~ m ~ - o I m s`~l _ , =N ao a~~. -- - oo a ~ S - o° ~~; °a ~:~: !" _o cn m ~ o .~Ic~ - ^ ° ~ I H~ ~ e3 ° ~.a n3 ~i ' cue .'_'~ _ ~~ e3 • , ~ Z m 0 _ = ~3 - - °- ~ •S_ ~ moo. a_ a ° ~ - ~~ _ ~ ~ - - .- .. n ~$^ ~~ '4 . o v3 ~ S °s° 3 3• 3 y ~ • - ~ 3 y 3 - 9 : + • • a BAStS OP B61RlA'G RLICRCAT ROAD _ ei~ e ~~.qq LyJ .. ~ N .. N . _ L1 CO L7 N N OI r ~ W N C ~~ ~ N ~ ~ / T /'~ V W / ~ N ~ DALY LANG ,P N Y ~iP~ N J ~ / / N / ~ J U N O ~ N r r m N ~ N m `t d W y~ C m ` -~`wY~ / / / I W 7 a ~~ i~ ` N ~ \ . ~ay' O y., ~ ~ W 1 J ~- .l ~ ~ :~~ ~~ , ~ o 0 0 o ~ d D r m t,a ~~ Z ~ O ~l ~ ~ ~ F--1 O ITI O d 1__1 ~ O O v~ av~ ~ :~ c ~~` ~ N ~ ;' ~~' ~° O - ~~m 1 f ,v ~ :1. ~ ~- -~~ ~ -~ 7 W ~ CO 'y J i ' ~ ~ I ~ N /ti i i T y ~ v „~ / ~. - ~ ~ ~/ U 1 ~~ ~ 1 ~. ti / ~ „'_ /~~~ .v ~ ,~-..._;`; ~__ _~ ~ _ -lam. . ! ~ ~ j f ~ r taC,~O ~v ~; ~~ v ,~ ~ \ N • O ~ ~~ ~.. ~ C, ~_ N ` ' ,~~v V ~~'aif . a~,d8 t L~ _, y -~ °~ '22 ~ 9~ _. z G w N ~D r ~ ~ ~ N A • ~l V~ Z . „ ~ >JU~auun I 'N . N N ~~ roi y,~~. ". ~ ~~ k• RE~'~~ f E B 1 1 1999 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL CITY 0~` RIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )FINDINGS AND OF STEINER DEVELOPMENT, )ORDER OF APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT )APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PERMIT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES ) PLAT . SUBDIVISION, NORTHWEST OF CHERRY ) LANE VILLAGE NO. 1, MERIDIAN, IDAHO ) The above entitled matter coming on regularly for public hearing before the City Council on the 6"' day of October, 1998, and appearing at the hearing on behalf of the applicant Mr. Stephen Bradbury, appearing in protest of the application, and the City Council having received a report from Shari Stiles, the Planning and Zoning Administrator, and receiving no comments from the Public Works Director, and testimony from. Malcolm MacCoy, Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman, and the Council having received and reviewed the transcript of the public hearing held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 8, 1998, as Item #7 and, the City Council having received as part of the record of this matter the record of the proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission including all applications and preliminary plats, and the preliminary plat drafted by Pacific Land Surveyors, DWG No. 971118.6 dated 11/08/97 and revised 08/25/98, submitted for preliminary plat approval and which preliminary plat for approval application is herein received and adjudged by the City Council pursuant to Section 11-9- FINDINGS AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT - STEINER DEVELOPMENT FOR THEVILL-ASS ~-AT THE.LAKE SUB. r 604, Municipal Code of the City of Meridian. Therefore the City Council makes the following findings: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan by reason of the fact that. it lies within the existing Urban Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map, Infrastructure Planning Analysis Comprehensive Plan and Map, adopted December 21, 1993 and, the property is presently zoned R-4, Low Density Residential District, which provides for single-family dwellings and for Planned Residential Developments with conditional use permits and which zone provides for allowance of a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer System. [see Section 11-2-408, Municipal Code of the City of Meridian.] 2. This proposal meets the definition of a Planned Residential Development (PD-R) as it is planned to be exclusively residential, Municipal Code, Section 11-2-403(6) Definitions, and the plat designates at note 7: "All lots within this subdivision are single- family residential lots unless otherwise noted", and there is denoted on the preliminary plat the location of duplexes on the following lots 20 through 27 inclusive and lots 36 and 37. There is also denoted on the preliminary plat the location of a clubhouse on lot. 4. The preliminary plat omitted showing five (5) parking spaces on the southern .half of the most western portion of Daly Lane and it is proposed that lot 46 be dedicated to the City of Meridian for recreational purposes. 'FINDINGS AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL 2 APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT - STEINER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKE SUB. 3. The preliminary plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ordinance~No. 629,#January 4, 1994, as set forth in Residential Policies, therein at Sections 2.1 U-and 2:5U lon•page 23 and,. at,the Housing a .~~ ~, Policies at page 68, Sections 1.17 and 1.18, and the Neighborhood Identity Goal Statement at page 74, Sections 6.4U and'6~5U and is' in °conformance with existing, Zoning and Development Ordinance and Zoning Map as is referenced at page 75 under Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. It is determined that Urban Services can be made available to accommodate.. the proposed: development if the plat complies wi#h the following ,.. X k, responses. of government entities providing those services within this planning jurisdiction were received the Ada rCounty Highway District (ACHD) in an action dated June 3; 1998, includes the following: . "1. Locate any proposed gates a minimum of 50-feet from the public right-of- way of Interlachen Way. `-~ 2. Provide an ACHD approved turnaround at the terminus of Interlachen Way. Coordinate the design of the turnaround with District staff. 3. Construct a private road into the site at the terminus of Interlachen Way. 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 should 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 of 2% for at least 40-feet. s '; 3 ~ Street name and stop signs are required for the private road. The signs may be ordered through the District at the cost'of $115. Verification of the c,~rrect a proved name of the road is reauired. 3 FINDINGS AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT-- STEINER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE VILLAS 'AT THE LAKE SUB. 4. ACRD 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 costs may be necessary in order to qualify this road for public ownership and maintenance. 5. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District." 5. The proposed development is a continuity of the. proposed development within the City's Capital Improvement Program and if the conditions which are requested by the ACRD and as proposed by the developer as stated on the preliminary plat there will be public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 6. The development if built in accordance with the conditions and as proposed, will. not create health, safety or environmental problems and there have been no specifics of any such concerns brought to the Council's attention. 7. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended to the City Council a change to include a parking area in an area depicted on the preliminary plat at the southern half of the most western portion of Daly Lane to include five (5) parking spaces and that 29 lots which shall include lots 31 -, 34 and lots 2 - 9 be developed with single- family detached residential units with a minimum interior square footage of 1,600 square feet and that all lots developed with duplex residential units shall each have a minimum interior square footage of 1,250, and all remaining lots shall be developed with residential units of a minimum interior square footage of 1,304 per unit. FINDINGS AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL 4 APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT - STElNER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKE SUB: 8. The pathways and streets shall not be gated for the reason to provide ease of access and to ensure interaction with proposed development with neighboring properties and neighborhoods, and to ensure that there is no maintenance issue or potential safety problems_it might present with iH-functioning gates. ORDER Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Section 11-9-604E of the Municipal Code of the City of Meridian and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER the Preliminary Plat of the applicant as evidenced by Pacific Land Surveyors, DWG No. 971118.6, dated 1"1-08-97 and revised 08-25-98 and hereby conditionally approved with the conditions of approval as follows to-wit: 1. Provide an ACHD approved turnaround at the terminus of,lnter(achen Way. Coordinate the design of the turnaround with District staff. 2. Construct a private road into the site at the terminus of Interlachen Way. 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 should 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 of 2% for at least 40-feet. Street name and stop signs are required for the private road. The signs may be ordered through the District at the cost of $115. Verification of the rrect r ve n me the r d i r uir d. 3. .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 FINDINGS AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT - STEINER .DEVELOPMENT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKE SUB. made in the future. Substantial redesign and reconstruction costs may be necessary in order to qualify this-road for public ownership and maintenance. 4. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing;by the District." 5. That a parking area to include five (5) parking spaces be denoted on the final plat at the southern half of the most western portion of Daly Lane; that the final plat denote 29 lots which shall include lots 3~1 - 34 and lots 2 - 9 be developed with single- family detached residential units with a minimum interior square footage of 1,600. square feet and that all lots developed with duplex residential units shall each have a minimum interior square footage of 1,250, and all remaining lots shall be developed with residentia{ units of a minimum interior square footage of 1,304 per unit. 6. That the pathway and streets shall not be gated. 7. The above referenced preliminary development plan is hereby approved, but said approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to submit a final development plan within one (1) year of the date of this Council's approval of the preliminary development plan as provided in Municipal Code, Section 11-9-604F(1), upon written request to the Council and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the one (1) year period, the Council may authorize a single extension of the approval of the preliminary development plan for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of the said one (1) year period. FINDINGS AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT - STEINER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKE SUB. APPROVAL OF THE FINDINGS AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT The Meridian City Council adopts and approves the Findings and Order of Conditional Approval of Preliminary Plat. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN BIRD VOTED COUNCILMAN ANDERSON VOTED COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED MOTION: APPROVE DISAPPROVED: .- 101998-Final y REcE~ CCT - 6 199 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT - STEINER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKE SUB. ', t ~~~~ y ¢ 1295 S.~Eagle Flight Way Boise, ID 83709 (208) 378-6387 Fax (208) 378-0025 February 8, 1999... _ ~ Mr. Will Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Subject: 549272-06 4 The~Villas at the Lakes Subdivision,.Final~Plat Dear Mr. Berg: ~~ RECE~D ~ ~ - ~ ~~~~ CITY OF ~IERIDIAIV I wish to point out that Note No. 1 on the final plat of The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision is in error. The note should read as follows: Building setbacks and dimensional standards in this subdivision shall be in compliance with the .applicable zoning regulations of the City of Meridian, except as herein modified. The . house -front yard setback for Lots 2 and 29 Block 1 shall be 15 feet. The house and garage front yard, setback for Lots 21; 22, and 28 Block l shall be 18 feet.- The garage front yard setback for Lot 29 Block 1 shall be 18 feet. The sideyard setback along .common lot lines of Lots 21 and 22, 23 and 24, 25 and 26, 28 and 29, and 38 and 39 Block 1 shall be 0 feet. The street sideyard setback for Lots 22, 45 and 47 Block 1 shall be 15 feet. The street sideyard setback for Lot 41 Block 1 shall be Y8 feet: The Note No. 1 on-the final plat mylar-will be corrected to read as stated above prior to submittal to tre City far signature. Attached is a copy of the (setbacks) table that correlates the lot-numbers with the. fmal plat and the. preliminary plat dated September 1, 1998 for your reference. If you have questions, please call. me at 378-6385. ,. r Sincerely, ~~ PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS A division of PO R E " eers, Inc. KLJsmg J Keith L. Jacobs, Jr., P. E. Attachment cc: Mr. Steve Bradbury PLS-BOI 32-0052 Pacific Land Surveyors, a division of POWER Engineers; Inc., an Idaho Corporation ,{ THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION LOT TABLE FINAL PLAT PREL. PLAT SETBACK LOT NO. LOT NO. AREA FRONT BACK SIDE SIDE W/ST 1 1 28055 (GREEN) - - - - 2 2 7043 20/15H 15 5 - 3 3 9350 20 15 5 = 5 4 7775 20 15 5 - ' 6 5 6426 20 15 5 - 7 6 6375 20 15 5 - 8 7 6375 20 15 5 - 9 8 6375 20 15 5 - 10 9 6711 20 15 5 - 11 10 5062 20 15 5 - 12 11 4845 20 15 5 - 13 12 4847 20 15 5 - 14 13 6372 20 15 5 - 15 14 5047 20 15 5 - 16 15 6569 20 15 5 -, 17 16 5438 20 15 5 - 18 17 4675 20 15 5 - 19 18 4675 20 15 5~ - "20 19 6034 20 15 5 20 21 20 3825 (DUPLEX) 18 15 510 - 22 21 5776 (DUPLEX) 18 15 - /0 15H 23 22 3975 (DUPLEX) 20 15 5/0 - 24 23 5368 (DUPLEX) 20 15 5/0 - 25 24 3800 (DUPLEX)• 20 15 5/0 - 26 25 3825 (DUPLEX) 20 15 5/0 - 28 26 3587 (DUPLEX) 18 15 5/0 - • 29 27 3820 (DUPLEX) 18/15H 15 5/0 - 30 28 4845 20 15 5 - 31 29 5017 20 15 5 - 32 30 5306 20 15 5 - 33 31 8045 20 15 5, - 34 32 8074 20 15 5 - 35 33 8000 20 15 5 - 36 34 8192 20 15 5 - 37 35 6610 20 15 5 20 38 36 3925 (DUPLEX) 20 15 5/0 - 39 37 5285 (DUPLEX) 20 15 5/0 - 27 38 76720 (ROAD) - - - - 41 39 5692 20 15 5 18 42 40 5525 20 15 5 - 43 41 5525 20 15 5 - 44 42 6923 20 15 5 20 45 43 6286 20 15 5 15H 46 44 4501 20 15 5 - 47 45 7011 20 15 5 15H 4 46 14744 {GREEN) - - - - 40 47 3118 (GREEN) - - - - REcE~L ~E8 - ~ 19~~ TY OF I~RIDIAI" Jones .Gledhill .Hess . Andrews . Fuhrman B db &E'd PA ~]ECErvE~ FEB 0 4 1999 ra ury i en, c~~ of mER,InIAN A T T I] R N E Y S A T L A W PLANNING & Z®NING Stephen A. Bradbury February 2, 1999 E E 8 - 3 1999 CITY OF iVIERIDIAi11 33 E. I ho Meri an, ID 83642 William F. G' ray, III MERIDIAN TY ATTORNEY Re: The Villas At The Lakes Subdivision Dear Bill: In `accordance with the approval granted by the City Council for the above-referenced subdivision plat, I am enclosing for your review and approval a draft of the proposed Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of The-Villas At The_Lakes_Subdivision. It is my understanding ~,.. _ -~.._ ~.--~....r - . that the City Council will consider the final plat of the above-referenced subdivision at its~meeting,of~February^1.6;_1999.:_. Once you have had an opportunity to review the enclosed, and should you have any questions, comments or concerns, please feel free to give me a call and I will make whatever modifications are necessary. Very truly yours, tephen A. Bradbury ~~ S :II nclosure cc Will Berg (w/enc.) Doug Campbell (w/enc.) Sandy Clay (w/enc.) Keith Jacobs (w/enc.) REcE~D P.O. Box 1097 • 877 Main Street, Suite 500 • Boise, Idaho 83701 Phone (208) 331-1170 • Fax (208) 331-1529 E-Mail Address: j~@idalaw.com DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION ~~~~~ THIS DECLARATION is made on the date hereinafter set forth by Louis J. Steiner, an individual, hereafter referred to as "Declarant". WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of certain real property in Ada County; State of Idaho, hereinafter referred to as "the Properties," more particularly described as follows: THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION, according to the official plat thereof, recorded in Book _ of Plats at Pages and as Instrument No. recorded on the day of 19_, records of Ada County, Idaho; and WHEREAS, Declarant desires to subject the above described Properties to certain protective covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, easements, liens, and charges for the benefit of the Properties and their present and subsequent Owners as hereinafter specified, and will convey the Properties subject thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that all of the Properties above described, except Lot 4, Block 1 thereof, shall be held, sold and conveyed upon and subject to the easements, conditions, covenants, restrictions and reservations hereinafter set forth, all of which are for the purpose of enhancing and protecting the value, desirability and attractiveness of, and which shall run with the Properties and be binding on all parties now or hereafter having any right, title or interest therein or to any part hereof, and shall inure to the benefit of each owner thereof. ARTICLE I: DEFINITIONS The following terms shall have the following meanings: DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 1 (February 2, 1999) Section 1. "ASSOCIATION" shall mean and refer to The Villas at The Lakes Homeowners Association, Inc. anon-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho, its successors and assigns. Section 2. "PROPERTIES" shall mean and refer to that certain real property hereinabove described. Section 3. "COMMON AREA" shall mean atl real property and improvements thereon (including private streets, drives, parking areas and recreational facilities) owned by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the Owners. The Common Areas to be owned by the Association at the time of the conveyance of the first Lot is described as follows: Lots 1, 27 and 40, Block 1, The Villas at The Lakes Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof. Section 4. "LOT" or "LOTS" shall mean and refer to any plot of {and shown upon any recorded subdivision map of the Properties, with the exception of the Common Areas. Section 5. "OWNER" shall mean and refer to the record owner, whether one or more persons or entitles, of the- fee simple title to any Lot which is part of the Properties, including contract sellers, but excluding those having such .interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. Section 6. "DECLARANT" shall mean and refer to Louis J. Steiner, an individual, his successors, and subject to the provisions of Article XV, Section 4, below, his assigns. Section 7. "DECLARATION" shall mean and refer to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions applicable to the Properties recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Ada County, State of Idaho. Section 8. "DWELLING UNIT" shall mean that portion or part of any structure intended to be occupied by one family as a dwelling unit, together with the vehicular parking garage next thereto, and all projections therefrom. Section 9. "MORTGAGE" shall mean any mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument by which a Dwelling Unit or any part thereof is encumbered. Section 10. "MORTGAGEE" shall mean any person or any successor to the interest of such person named- as the mortgagee, trust beneficiary or creditor under any mortgage, as mortgage is defined in Section 9. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 2 (February 2, 1999) Section 11. "FIRST MORTGAGEE" shall mean any Mortgagee, as defined in Section 10, possessing a lien =on any Dwelling Unit first and prior to any other Mortgage, as that term is defined in Section 8. Section 12. "INSTITUTIONAL HOLDER" shall mean a Mortgagee which is a bank or savings and loan association or established mortgage company, or other entity chartered under federal or state laws, any corporation or insurance company, or any federal or state agency. Section 13. "PLAT" shall mean a final subdivision plat covering any real property in The Villas at The Lakes Subdivision as recorded in the office of the counter recorder, Ada County, Idaha, as the same may be amended by duly recorded amendments thereto. ARTICLE II: PROPERTY RIGHTS Section 1. Enjoyment of Common Area: Each Owner shall have a right and easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area, and such easement shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with the title to every Lot, subject, however, to the following provisions: A. The right of the Association to levy reasonable assessments for the maintenance of any landscaping improvement or other facilities situated upon the Common Area. B. The right of the Association to suspend the voting rights and right to use of the recreational facilities by an Owner for any period during which any assessment against his Lot remains unpaid; and for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days for any infraction of its published rules and regulations. C. The right of the Association to limit the number of members permitted to use the Common Area. D. The right of the Association to charge reasonable admission fees for the use of any recreational facility situated upon the Common Area or otherwise controlled by the Association, including, particularly, the right to charge a special use fee for members who desire exclusive short-term use of such facility and who are willing to pay a special fee or assessment for such use. E. The rights of the Association, in accordance with its Articles and Bylaws, to borrow money for the purpose of improving the Common Area and facilities; and, in aid thereof, to place a mortgage or trust deed thereon, which shall be a first and prior lien thereagainst; provided that the Common Area may not be mortgaged or conveyed without the DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 3 (February 2. 19991 consent of at least 66-2/3% of the Owners (excluding Declarant), and that any conveyance or mortgage of Common Area shall be subject to and subordinate to rights of ingress and egress of an Owner to his/her Lot. F. The right of the Association to dedicate or transfer all or any part of the Common Area to any public agency, authority or utility for such purposes and subject to such conditions as may be agreed to by the members; provided, however, that except as to the Association's right to grant easements for utilities and similar or related purposes, no part of the Common Area and facilities may be alienated, released, transferred, hypothecated or otherwise encumbered without the written approval of all First Mortgagees and two-thirds (2/3) of the votes of each class of members who are voting in person or by proxy at a meeting duly held for this purpose. G. The right of the Directors of the Association to promulgate reasonable rules and regulations governing such right of use, from time to time, in the interest of securing maximum safe usage of the Common Area by the members of the Association without unduly infringing upon the privacy or enjoyment of the Owner or occupant of any part of said property, including without being limited thereto, rules restricting persons under or over designated ages from using certain portions of the Common Area during certain times and reasonable regulations and restrictions regarding vehicle parking. Section 2. Delegation of Use: Any member may delegate, in accordance with the rules and regulations adopted from time to time by the directors, his right of enjoyment to the Common Area and facilities to the members of his family, his tenants or contract purchasers, provided they reside on the property at the time of use. ARTICLE III: HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Section 1. Membership: Every Owner of a Lot which is subject to assessment shall be a member of the Association. The foregoing is not intended to include persons or entities who hold an interest merely as security for the payment of an obligation. Membership shall be appurtenant to and may not be separated from ownership of any Lot which is subject to assessment. Such ownership shall be the sole qualification for membership and shall automatically commence upon a person becoming such Owner and shall automatically terminate and lapse when such ownership in said property shall terminate or be transferred. Absolute liability is not imposed on Owners/members for damage to Common Areas or Lots in the subdivision. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 4 (February 2, 19991 Section 2. Voting Rights: The Association shall have two classes of voting membership: Class A: Class A members "shall be all Owners, with the exception of Declarant, and shall be entitled to one vote for each Lot owned. When more than one person holds an interest in any Lot, all such persons shall be members. The vote for such Lot shall be exercised as they determine, but in no event shall more than one vote be cast with respect to any Lot. Fractional votes shall not be allowed. The vote applicable to any said Lot being sold under contract of purchase shall be exercised by the contract seller, unless the contract expressly provides otherwise. Class B: Class B member(s) shall be Declarant and shall be entitled to three (3) votes for each Lot owned. The Class B membership shall cease and. be converted to Class A membership on the happening of either of the following events, whichever occurs first: A. When the total votes outstanding in the Class A membership equal the total votes outstanding in the Class 6 membership; or B. On December 31, 2009. Section 3. Assessments: A. Creation of Lien and Personal Obligation ofi Assessments: Each Owner of any Lot, by acceptance of a deed therefor (whether or not it shall be so expressed in such deed), is deemed to covenant and agree to pay to the Association: 1. Regular annual or other regular periodic assessments or charges; and 2. Special assessments for capital improvements, such assessments to be fixed, established and collected from time to time as hereinafter provided. The regular and special assessments, together with interest, costs of collection and. reasonable attorney's fees shall be a charge on the Lot and shall be a continuing lien upon the Lot against which such assessment is made. Each such assessment, together with interest, costs of collection and reasonable attorney's fees, shall also be the personal obligation of the Owner of such Lot at the time when the assessment fell due. The obligation shall remain a lien on the Lot until paid or foreclosed, but shall not be a personal obligation of successors in title, unless expressly assumed. B. Purpose of Assessments: The assessments levied by the Association shall be used for the purpose of promoting the recreation, health, safety and welfare of the residents in the Properties, for the operation, DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 5 1February 2, 1999y maintenance, repair and improvement of the Common Areas and facilities located thereon, for the reasonable expenses incurred in the operation of the affairs of the Association, for the expenses incurred by the Association in connection with any of its obligations contained in this Declaration or in the Bylaws of the Association, and for any other purpose reasonably authorized by the Directors of the Association. C. Maximum Annual Assessment: Until January 1 of the year immediately following the conveyance of the first Lot to an Owner, the maximum annual assessment shall be S 1. From and after January 1 of the year immediately following the conveyance of the first Lot to an Owner, the maximum annual assessment may be increased each year not more than ten percent (10%), or the maximum percentage increase allowable by Federal National Mortgage Association (whichever is greater), above the maximum assessment as set forth above. 2. From and after January 1 of the year immediately following the conveyance of the first Lot to an Owner, the maximum annual assessment may be increased above the amount set forth in the preceding paragraph by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes of each class of members who are voting in person or by proxy at a meeting duly called for this purpose. 3. The Board of Directors of the Association may fix the annual assessment at an amount not in excess of the maximum; and said assessments shall be payable to the Homeowners Association in regular monthly or quarterly installments as may be determined by the Board of Directors. D. Initiation Assessment: Upon the initial conveyance of each lot, the purchaser thereof shall pay to the Association an initiation assessment in the amount of $ E. Special Assessments for Capital Improvements: In addition to the regular assessments authorized above, the Association may levy, in any assessment year, a special assessment applicable to that year only for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, the cost of any construction, reconstruction, repair or replacement of a capital improvement upon the Common Area, including fixtures and personal property related thereto, provided that any such assessment shall have the assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes of each class of members who are voting in person or by proxy at a meeting duly called for this purpose. Any such special assessment shall be payable over such a period as the Homeowner Association shall determine. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 6 (February 2, 19991 F. Notice and Quorum for Any Action Authorized Under Sections 3C and 3E: Written notice of any meeting called for the purpose of taking any action authorized under Section 3C or 3E, above, shall be sent to all members -not less than thirty (30) days nor more than sixty (60) days in advance of the meeting. At the first such meeting called, the presence of members or of proxies entitled to cast sixty percent (60%) of all the votes of each class of membership shall constitute a quorum. If the required quorum is not present, another meeting may be called subject to the same notice requirement, and the required quorum at the subsequent meeting shall be one-half (1/2) of the required quorum at the preceding meeting. No such subsequent meeting shall be held more than sixty (60) days following the preceding meeting. G. Uniform Rate of Assessment: Both annual and special assessments must be fixed at a uniform rate for non-exempt Lots. H. Date of Commencement of Annual Assessments; Due Dates: The annual assessments provided for herein shall commence as to a Lot sold on the first day of the month following the earlier of substantial completion or occupancy of the Dwelling Unit constructed on the said Lot. The first annual assessment shall be adjusted according to the number of months remaining in -the calendar year. The Board of Directors of the Association shall fix the amount of the annual assessment against each Lot at least thirty (30) days in advance of each annual assessment period. Written notice of the annual assessment shall be sent to every Owner subject thereto. The due dates shall be established by the Board of Directors. The Association shall, upon demand, and for a reasonable charge, furnish a certificate signed by an .officer of the Association setting forth whether the assessments on a specified Lot have been paid. A properly executed certificate of the Association as to the status of assessments on a Lot is binding upon the Association as of the date of its issuance. I. Effect of Nonpayment of Assessments; Remedies of Association: Any assessment not paid within thirty (30) days after the due date shall bear interest from the due date at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum. The Association may bring an action at law against the Owner personally obligated to pay the same, or foreclose the lien against the property. No Owner may waive or otherwise escape liability for the assessments provided for here'sn by non-use of the Common Area or abandonment of his Lot. J. Subordination of the Lien to Mortgages: The lien of the assessments provided for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of any first mortgage. Sale:. or transfer of any Lot shall not affect the assessment lien. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 7 (February 2, 19991 However, the sale or transfer of any Lot pursuant to mortgage foreclosure or any proceeding in lieu thereof shall extinguish the lien of such assessments as to payments which became due prior to such sale or transfer. No sale or transfer shall relieve such Lot from liability for any assessments thereafter becoming due or from the lien thereof. K. Exempt Property: The following property, subject to this Declaration, shall be exempt from the assessments created herein: 1. All property expressly dedicated to and accepted by a Local public authority; 2. The Common Area; 3. All other Properties owned by Declarant or the Association; 4. All Lots owned by Declarant, until title is transferred to another, or until occupancy, whichever occurs first; and ARTICLE IV: GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT FEE Each Lot is subject to a 5650.00 golf course development fee ,payable to the city of Meridian at the time an application for a building permit for the construction of a residential structure is made to the city of Meridian. The 5650.00 will increase annually to reflect interest and cost increases. The purpose of the fee is to provide funds to be used for the development, construction, and expansion of the second nine holes of the golf course located in and/or adjacent to the Properties. By purchasing a Lot, each Owner agrees to pay the said fee to the city of Meridian as provided for herein. ARTICLE V: PRIVATE STREETS Access to each Lot is provided by a system of private streets to be constructed by Declarant and owned and operated by the Association as a part of the Common Area. Said private streets are designated on the plat as Lot 27, Block 1, which Lot is dedicated and restricted to the perpetual and indefeasible right of ingress and egress over and across said Lot for the exclusive use and benefit of the Owners and residents of the Properties their guests and invitees. The perpetual right of irigress and egress over and upon said Lot 27, Block 1 may not be terminated or extinguished without the written consent of all Owners, the Association, and any and all parties having any interest in the Properties. In order to meet its maintenance requirements as contained herein, the Association shall, pursuant to the provisions of Article III, Section 3 above, collect each year a sum sufficient to create and maintain a capital improvement and maintenance fund for the purpose of providing for the maintenance of the private streets and sidewalks described in this Article V at any and all times of the year such maintenance is required and to totally reconstruct the DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 8 (February 2, 1999) said private streets and sidewalks, if necessary, within twenty (20) years of the date of recording hereof. ARTICLE VI. IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM Section 1. Irrigation Water Supply: Each Lot shall have access to an Irrigation Water Supply System to be constructed by Declarant and owned and operated by the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District. Section 2. Easement For Irrigation Water Supply System: Declarant and the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District shall have a permanent easement for the construction, maintenance and repair of the irrigation water supply system and related wells, pumps, pipes, and any other conveyancing apparatus in the utility easement areas as are depicted on the Plat, together with the right of ingress to and egress from the easement premises over and across the privately owned property of Owners to perform maintenance upon the well, pump, pipes and other conveyancing apparatus comprising the irrigation water supply system together with all rights necessary for the full and complete use, occupation and enjoyment of the easements hereby reserved, and ail rights and privileges incident thereto, including the right from time to time to cut, trim and remove trees, brush, overhanging branches and other obstructions which may injure or interfere with the use, occupation or enjoyment of the reserved easement. ARTICLE V11. EASEMENTS Section 1. Future Easements: The Association shall have the future right to provide for such easements across, upon and under the surface of its Common Area as platted herein as may be reasonably necessary to serve the interests and convenience of the property Owners of this subdivision for public or private ways, public utilities (including cable television), drainage, access, subterranean irrigation lines, eave and balcony overhangs. Section 2. Encroachments: In the event that, by reason of the construction, settlement or shifting of the building, any part of any Dwelling Unit or drainage water from any Lot or Dwelling Unit encroaches or shall hereafter encroach upon any part of the Common Area or any adjacent Lot, easements for the maintenance of such encroachment and for such use of the areas encroached upon are hereby established and shall exist for the benefit of said Dwelling Unit, so long as all or any part of the buildings shall remain standing; provided, however, that in no event shall a valid easement for any encroachment or use of the Common Area or adjacent Dwelling. Units be created in favor of--any Owner of such encroachment or use if it is detrimental to or interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property by other Owners and if it occurred due to the willful conduct of any Owner. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 9 (February 2, 1999) Section 3. Easement for Maintenance: Declarant and., the Association shall have a permanent easement to go upon the privately owned property of Owners in this subdivision to perform maintenance upon the Properties and the' Common Area, including, but not limited to, snow removal, lawn maintenance, utility service and drainage system maintenance; subterranean irrigation water system maintenance and perimeter fence maintenance, together with all rights of ingress and egress necessary far the full and complete use, occupation and enjoyment of the easements hereby reserved, and all rights and privileges incident thereto, including the right from time to time to cut, trim and remove trees, brush, overhanging branches and other obstructions which may injure or interfere with the use, occupation or enjoyment of the reserved easement and the operation, maintenance and repair of utility service connections and drainage systems. ARTICLE VIII: MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY The Association shall provide maintenance to and be responsible for the Common Areas and improvements thereon, including the Private Streets any Association-owned street lights and all drainage facilities. In the event the need for maintenance or repair is caused through the willful or negligent act of an Owner, his family, guests or invitees, the costs of such maintenance or repairs shall be added to and become part of the assessment to which such Owner's Lot is subject. Each Owner shall be responsible for maintaining and keeping in good order and repair the exterior of his Dwelling Unit and any private decks, fences (if permitted as herein provided), courtyards, landscaping and lawn contiguous to his Dwelling Unit, except any perimeter fence which may be constructed around the Properties, the maintenance of which shall be done by the Association. The Association reserves an easement for ingress, egress and maintenance as may be reasonably necessary to perform the maintenance duties of the Association. In the event of damage or destruction of a Dwelling Unit by fire or other casualty, the owner must complete repair and/or replacement of the Dwelling Unit within one hundred-twenty (120) days of the damage or destruction. ARTICLE IX: PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS The following restrictions shall be~ applicable to the Properties and shall be for the benefit of and limitations upon all present and future Owners of said property, or of any interest therein: A. Lot Use: No Lot, with the exception of the Common Area shall be used except for single-family residential purpose. No Lot or the Common Area shall be used for the conduct of any trade, business or professional activity. All Lots and improvements constructed thereon must comply with all applicable governmental rules, ordinances, laws, statutes and DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 10 February 2; 19991 regulations. The Owner- of each Lot shall complete construction of Dwelling Unit as permitted herein within one (1) years after the date of the first conveyance of the Lot to an Owner by Declarant. B. Animals: No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any part of said Properties, except that two dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept within a Dwelling Unit or within a fenced area as may be approved by the Architectural Control Committee. Any animals outside a Dwelling Unit or fenced area must be on leashes, and the Owner or custodian of the animal shall be responsible for the immediate cleanup of the animal's droppings. The term "fenced area" as used in this paragraph shall be interpreted to include any electronic pet containment system; provided, however, that the boundary of any such system shall be approved by the Architectural Control Committee pursuant to the provisions of Article XI below and that in no event shall the said boundary extend beyond the front plane of the Dwelling Unit constructed on said Lot. C. Garbage and Refuse Disposal: No part of said Properties shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish, trash or other waste. No garbage, trash or other waste shall be kept or maintained on any part of said Properties except in a sanitary container. Any incinerators or other equipment for the storage or disposal of such material must not violate setback restrictions, must be enclosed with an aesthetic screen or fence, as may be approved by the Architectural Control Committee and shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. D. Nuisance: No noxious or offensive or unsightly conditions shall be permitted upon any part of said Properties, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. No exposed antennae or satellite dishes shall be erected on the Properties without the prior approval of the Architectural Control Committee, which approval may be withheld in its sole discretion. E. Outbuildings: No trailer, truck camper, tent, garage, barn, shack or other outbuilding shall at any time be used as a residence temporarily or permanently on any part of said Properties. F. Parking and Storage of Vehicles and Equipment: Parking of boats, trailers, motorcycles, trucks, truck campers, motorhomes, recreational vehicles, and like equipment, or junk cars or other unsightly vehicles, shall not be allowed on any Lot nor on the Common Area, including but not limited to the Private Streets, except in fully enclosed buildings or under such circumstances, if any, as may be prescribed in writing by, and in the sole discretion of the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association, which discretion may not be challenged for having been DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 11 (February 2, 1999) exercised unreasonably. All other parking or storage of any other equipment shall be prohibited, except as approved in writing by the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association. Any vehicle awaiting repair or being repaired shall be removed from the subdivision within 48 hours. G. Sight Distance at Intersections: No fence, wall, hedge or shrub planting which obstructs sight lines at elevations between three feet (3') and eight feet (8') above the roadways shall be placed or permitted to remain on any corner Lot within the triangular area formed by the street property lines and a line connecting them at points 30 feet from the intersection of the street lines, or in the case of a rounded property corner, from the intersection of the street property lines extended. The same sight-line limitations shall apply on any Lot within ten feet (10') from the intersection of a .street property line with the edge of a driveway or alley pavement. H. Leasing Restrictions: Any lease (as defined below) between an Owner and his tenant shall provide that the terms of the lease shall be subject in all respects to the provisions contained in this Declaration, the Association's Articles of Incorporation and its Bylaws, and that any failure by said tenant to comply with the terms of such documents shall be a default under such lease. For the purposes of this Declaration, a "lease" shall mean any agreement for the leasing or rental of a Dwelling Unit (including amonth-to-month rental agreement); and all such Leases shall be in writing. Other than the foregoing, there is no restriction on the right of any Owner to lease his Dwelling Unit. I. Sewer Restrictions: All bathroom, sink and toilet facilities shall be located inside the Dwelling Unit or other suitable appurtenant building, and shall be connected by underground pipe to wet fine sewer connection lines which have been provided to each Lot. J. Fences: All fences, including fences around swimming pools, dog runs or other uses, must be approved, in advance, by the Architectural Control Committee as. to design, materials and location. No such fence shall extend beyond the front plane of the Dwelling Unit constructed or to be constructed on the Lot. K. Parking Rights: Subject to the provisions of paragraph F. above, any automobile or other vehicle used by any Owner shall be parked in the driveway or garage which is a part of his Dwelling Unit. Parking by guests and invitees shall be permitted on one side of the street only, in accordance with such regulations as the Association may adopt in consultation with the City of Meridian Fire Department. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 12 (February 2, 1999Y L. Mail Boxes: Alf mail boxes will be provided by Declarant and shall be of consistent design, material and coloration and shall be located on or adjoining building Lot lines and places designated by Declarant or the Architectural Control Committee. M. Party Walls: Some of the Dwelling Units constructed upon the Lots wilt include party walls, being the common walls between two Dwelling Units, separating the units. Such party walls are intended to be constructed upon the Lot boundary lines separating adjoining Lots. To the extent any party wall exists, encroaches or overlaps upon a Lot, there is hereby created a common reciprocal easement for the location of such party wall. Each Owner shall have the right to use the surface of any party wall contained within the interior of the Owner's Dwelling Unit, provided that an Owner shall not drive, place or cause to be driven or placed any nail, bolt, screw or other object into a party wall which penetrates the surface of such party wall more than one inch. The Owner shall respectively own to the centerline of any party wall. Such party wall shall be maintained in good condition by the Owners thereof, free of structural defects and using reasonable care to avoid injury to the adjoining property. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this paragraph, an Owner who by negligent or willful act or acts causes a party wall to be damaged and/or exposed to the elements shall bear the whole cost of furnishing the necessary protection against such elements and/or repair to such party wall. If such party wall is destroyed or damaged by fire or other casualty, either Owner may restore such party wall and if the other Owner thereafter make use of such party wall, such Owner shall contribute one-half (1 /2) of the cost of such restoration. This right of contribution shall be without prejudice to any right to call for a larger contribution under any rule of law regarding liability for negligent or willful acts or omissions. ARTICLE X. BUILDING RESTRICTIONS Section 1. Building Restrictions: With the exception of Common Area Lots, no buildings shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any Lot other than one (1) single-family dwelling which may not exceed thirty feet (30') in height, and a private garage for two (2) or more motor vehicles. Each dwelling unit may not be occupied by more than one (1) family. The minimum square footage of living space (excluding the garage} of each dwelling unit shall be as set forth on the Plat. Section 2. Setbacks: All improvements must be constructed or maintained on a Lot within the minimum building setbacks as set forth on the Plat. Section 3. Construction Requirements: Each Dwelling Unit may have wood siding (redwood, cedar or spruce which may be stained or painted) or a combination DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 13 (February 2, 1999) of wood, stone, manufactured or synthetic stone, stucco, masonry or masonite siding with a maximum of eight inch reveal. Each Dwelling Unit must have exterior brick, stone, manufactured or synthetic stone or stucco on the front elevation. All roofs shall be comprised of wood shake shingles, asphalt shingles (as may be approved by the Architectural Control Committee) or the with a minimum 5/12 pitch. The exterior surfaces of each Dwelling Unit shall have such colors as may be approved by the Architectural Control Committee. All windows shall be of the anodized type or better (no raw aluminum frames). All fireplace chimneys must be of masonry or metal and, if metal, shall be wrapped with the same materials as exist on other areas of the exterior of the Unit to within one foot of the top cap. Each Dwelling Unit must have at least two exterior lights illuminating the garage door openings and one exterior light for the front entryway(s). All driveways must be concrete. Section 4. Landscaping: Prior to occupancy of the Dwelling Unit located thereon, each Lot shall be fully landscaped in the front yard with grass (seeded or rolled sod), at least two (2) deciduous trees of at least one and one-half (1-1 /2} inches in diameter or conifer trees at least six feet in height and ten (10) 1 gallon and five (5) 5 gallon shrubs or bushes; in the rear yard with grass (seeded or rolled sod), at least two deciduous trees at least one and one-half (1-1 /2) inches in diameter or conifer trees at least six (6) feet in height and five (51 1 gallon and five (5) 5 gallon shrubs or bushes; and in the street side yard, if any, with at least two (2) deciduous trees at least one and one half (1-1 /2) inches in diameter or conifer trees at least six (6) fee in height and ten (10) 1 gallon and five (5) gallon shrubs or bushes, all as has been approved by the Architectural Control Committee. As used herein, the front yard shall include that portion of each Lot to the side of the Dwelling Unit constructed thereon which is between the public right of way and the rear plane of the Dwelling Unit or a fence which extends from the side of the Dwelling .Unit to the side lot lone. During construction of the Dwelling Unit, there shall be installed in the front yard within ten feet (10'} of the front boundary line, a photosensitive pole light designed to switch on automatically at sunset and off at sunrise with a minimum bulb power of 60 watts, including a minimum sixteen (16) inch diameter masonry or stucco base to match the Dwelling Unit. Section 5. Job Site Maintenance: Job sites are to be kept as clean as possible during construction. All dirt, nails, gravel and other building materials must be removed from the street and sidewalk daily. Work vehicles shall not be parked in front of occupied houses, nor shall they block streets. Power and water must not be used from existing dwellings without the prior permission of the Owner. Dumpsters and portable toilets are the responsibility of the Owner or his contractor and shall be kept orderly at all times and emptied on a timely basis. All contractors and subcontractors shall be prohibited from keeping dogs at the job site. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 14 (February 2, 79991 ARTICLE XI. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL Section 1. Architectural Control Committee: In order to protect the quality and value of the homes built on the Properties, and for the continued protection of the Owners thereof, an Architectural Control Committee is hereby established consisting of three or more members to be appointed by the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association. The Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association shall appoint members to the Architectural Control Committee at each annual meeting of the Board. Section 2. Approvals Required: No building, fence, wall, patio cover, window awning or other structure or landscaping improvements of any type shall be commenced, built, constructed, placed, or maintained upon any Lot, Common Area or other property, nor shall any exterior addition, change or alteration of existing improvements be made, until the plans and specifications showing the nature, kind, shape, configuration, height, materials, location and such other detail as the Architectural Control Committee may require, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Architectural Control Committee as to harmony of external design and location in relation to surrounding structures and topography and as to conformity with requirements of this Declaration. In the event the Architectural Control Committee fails to approve, disapprove, or specify the deficiency in such plans, specifications and location within thirty (30) days after submission to the Architectural Control Committee in such form as they may require, it shall be deemed approved. The Architectural Control Committee shall have the right to refuse to approve any design, plan or color for such improvements, construction or alterations which, in its opinion, are not suitable or desirable for any reason, aesthetic or otherwise. In so passing in such design, the Committee shall have the privilege in the exercise of its discretion to take into consideration the suitability of the proposed structure or alteration, the materials of which it is to be built, and the exterior color scheme in relation to the site upon which it is proposed to be erected. The Architectural Control Committee may also consider whether the design of the proposed structure or alteration is in harmony with the surroundings, the effect of the structure or alteration when viewed from adjacent or neighboring property, and any and all other facts which, in the Architectural Control Committee's opinion, shall affect the desirability of such proposed improvement, structure or alteration. Actual construction shall comply substantially with the plans and specifications approved. Section 3. Submissions: Requests for approval of the Architectural Control Committee shall consist of such documents and other materials as may be reasonably requested by the Architectural Control Committee including, without limitation, the following: DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 15 (February 2, 1999) A. Site Plan. A site plan showing the location of buildings and all other structures and improvements, including fences and walls on the Lot, Lot drainage and all setbacks and other pertinent information related to the improvements. B. Building Plan. A building plan which shall consist of preliminary or final blueprints, elevation drawings of the north, south, east, and west sides, detailed exterior specifications for each building which shall indicate, by sample, if required by the Architectural Control Committee, al{ exterior colors, material and finishes, including roof, to be used. Garage, accessory and outbuildings to be located on a Lot shall be architecturally and visually compatible and harmonious with the principal building on the Lot as to style and exterior colors and shall not be higher than ten feet above the roof line of the principal building on the Lot. C. Landscape Plan. A landscape plan for that portion of the Lot to be landscaped which shall show the location, type and size of trees, plants, ground cover, shrubs, berms and mounding, grading, drainage, sprinkler system, fences, free standing exterior lights, driveways, parking -areas and walk ways. Section 4. Rules and Regulations: The Architectural Control Committee is hereby authorized to adopt rules and regulations to govern its procedures and the requirements for making submissions and obtaining approval as the Committee deems appropriate and in keeping with the spirit of due process of law. The Architectural Control Committee is further hereby empowered to adopt such rules and regulations as it shall deem appropriate, consistent with the provisions of this Declaration, pertaining to matters of design, materials, colors, and aesthetic interests. Any such rules and regulations may be amended from time to time, in the sole discretion of the Architectural Control Committee. The failure of the Architectural Control Committee to adopt any such rules and regulations shall not form the basis for an attack upon the exercise of Architectural Control Committee's discretion, it being the intent of this Declaration to provide the Architectural Control Committee with as broad discretion as is permissible under the law. Section 5. Fees: The Architectural Control Committee may establish, by its adopted rules, a fee schedule for an architectural review fee to be paid by each owner submitting plans and specifications for approval. No submission for approval will be considered complete until such fee has been paid. Such fee shall not exceed such reasonable amount as may be required to reimburse the Architectural Control Committee for the costs of professional review of submittals and the services of a consultant to administer the matter to its completion, including inspections which may be required. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 16 (February 2, 1999) Section 6. Waivers: The approval of any plans, drawings or specifications for any structure, improvement, or alteration, or ''for any matter requiring the approva{ of the Architectural Control Committee, shall not be deemed a waiver of any right to withhold approval of any similar plan, drawing, specifications, or matters subsequently submitted for approval. Section 7. Liability: Neither the Architectural Control Committee nor any member thereof shall be liable to the Homeowners Association, any Owner, or -'any other party, for any damage suffered or claimed on account of any act, action or lack thereof, or conduct of the Architectural Control Committee or any members thereof, so long as the Architectural Control Committee, or the respective members thereof, acted in good faith on the basis of information they then possessed. Section $. Certification by Secretary: The records of the Secretary of the Homeowners Association shall be conclusive evidence as to all matters shown by such records and the issuance of a certificate of completion and compliance by the Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the Homeowners Association showing that the plans and specifications for the improvement or other matters therein provided for have been approved and that said improvements have been made in accordance therewith, or a certificate as to any matters relating to and within the jurisdiction of the Homeowners Association by the Secretary thereof, shall be conclusive evidence that shall fully justify and protect any title company certifying, guaranteeing or insuring title to said property, or any portion thereof or any lien thereon and/or any interest therein as to any matters referred to in said certificate, and shall fully protect any purchaser or encumbrancer from any action or suit under this Declaration. After the expiration of one (1) year following the issuance of a building permit therefor by municipal or other governmental authority, any structure, work, improvement or alteration shall, as to any purchaser or encumbrancer in good faith and for value and as to any title company which shall have insured the title thereof, be deemed to be in compliance with all the provisions hereof unless a notice of noncompliance executed by the Homeowners Association shall have appeared of record in the office of the County Recorder of Canyon County, State of Idaho, or unless legal proceedings shall have been instituted to enforce completion or compliance. Section 9. Construction and Safes Period Exception: During the course of construction of any permitted structures or improvements and during the initial sales period, the restrictions (including sign restrictions contained in this Declaration or in any Supplemental Declaration shall be deemed waived to the extent necessary to permit such construction and the sale of all Dwelling Units; provided that, during the course of such construction and sales, nothing shall be done which will result in a violation of these restrictions upon completion of construction and sale. 1=urther, Declarant shall have the right to select and use. any individual Dwelling Units owned by it as models for sales purposes. ' DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page. 17 (February 2, 19991 ARTICLE. XII: INSURANCE AND BOND Section 1. Required Insurance: The Association shall obtain and keep in full force and effect at all times the following insurance coverage provided by companies duly authorized to do business in Idaho. The provisions of this Article shall not be construed to limit the power or authority of the Association to obtain and maintain insurance coverage in addition to any insurance coverage required hereunder in such amounts and in such forms as the Association may deem appropriate from time to time. A. A multi-peril-type policy • covering any Common Area improvements, providing as a minimum fire and extended coverage and all other coverage in the kinds and amounts commonly required by private institutional mortgage investors for projects similar in construction, location and use on a replacement cost basis in an amount not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the insurable value (based upon replacement cost?. B. A comprehensive policy of public liability insurance covering all of the common areas, commercial spaces and public ways in the properties. Such insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest endorsement which shall preclude the insurer from denying the claim of a Dwelling Unit Owner because of negligent acts of the Association or other Owners. The scope of coverage must include all other coverage in the kinds and amounts required by private institutional mortgage investors for projects similar in construction, location and use. If the properties contain more than one hundred (100) Units, coverage shall be for at least $1,000,000 per occurrence, for personal injury and/or property damage. C. Workmen's compensation and employer's liability insurance and all other similar insurance with respect to employees of the Association in the amounts and in the forms now or hereafter required by law. Section 2. Optional lnsurance: The Association may obtain and keep in full force and effect at all times the following insurance coverage provided by companies duly authorized to do business in Idaho. A. Liability insurance affording coverage for the acts, errors and omissions of its directors and officers, including members of the Architectural Control Committee and other committees as may be appointed from time to time by the Board of Directors of such association in such amount as may be reasonable in the premises. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 18 (February 2, 19991 B. The Association may obtain bonds and insurance against such other risks, of a similar or dissimilar nature, as it shall deem appropriate with respect to the protection of the properties, including any personal property of the Association located thereon, its directors, officers, agents, employees and association funds. Section 3. Additional Provisions: The following additional provisions shall apply with respect to insurance: A. Insurance secured and maintained by the Association shall not be brought into contribution with insurance held by the individual Owners or their mortgages. B. Each policy of insurance obtained by the Association shall, if possible, provide: A waiver of the insurer's subrogation rights with respect to the Association, its officers, the Owners and -their respective servants, agents and guests; that it cannot be canceled, suspended or invalidated due to the conduct of any agent, officer or employee of the Association without a prior written demand that the defect be cured; that any "no other insurance" clause therein shall not apply with respect to insurance held individually by the Owners. C. All policies shall be written by a company licensed to write insurance in the state of Idaho and all hazard insurance policies shall be written by a hazard insurance carrier holding financial rating by Best's Insurance Reports of Class VI or better. D. Notwithstanding anything herein contained to the contrary, insurance coverage must be in such amounts and meet other requirements of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. ARTICLE XIII: CONDEMNATION Section 1. Consequences of Condemnation: If at any time or times, all or any part of the Common Area shall be taken or condemned by any public authority or sold or otherwise disposed of in lieu of or in avoidance thereof, the following provisions shall apply. Section 2. Proceeds: All compensation, damages, or other proceeds therefrom, the sum of which is hereinafter called the "condemnation award," shall be payable to the Association owing the condemned Common Area. Section 3. Apportionment: The condemnation award shall be apportioned among the Owners having an interest in the condemned Common Area equally on a per-Lot basis. The Association shall, as soon as practicable, determine the share of the condemnation award to which each Owner is entitled. Such shares shall be paid DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 19 (February 2, 1999) into separate accounts, one account for each Lot. Each such account shall remain in the name of the appropriate Association and shall be further identified by Lot number and the name of the Owner thereof. From each separate account, the Association, as attorney-in-fact, shall use and disburse the total amount of such accounts, without contribution from one account to the other, first to Mortgagees and other lienors in the order of priority of their Mortgages and other liens and the balance remaining to each respective Owner. ARTICLE XIV: MORTGAGEE PROTECTION Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Declaration or in the Articles or Bylaws of the Association: A. The Association shall maintain an adequate reserve fund for the performance of its obligations, including the maintenance, repairs and replacement of those common elements and improvements thereon, and such reserve shall be funded by at least quarterly assessments. B. The holders of First Mortgages shall have the right to examine the books and records of any Association and to require annual reports or other appropriate financial data. C. Any management agreement for the Properties or Common Area, or any other contract providing for services of the developer, sponsor or builder, shall be terminable (i) by the contracting Association for cause upon thirty (30) days' written notice thereof, and (ii) by either party without cause and without payment of a termination fee on ninety (90) days' or less written notice thereof, and the term of any such agree- ment shall not exceed one (1) year. D. Any lien which the Association may have on any Dwelling Unit for the payment of assessments attributable to such Unit will be subordinate to the lien or equivalent security interest of any Mortgage on the Unit recorded prior to the date notice of such assessment lien is duly recorded. E. Unless ail institutional holders of First Mortgages have given their prior written approval, no Association shall: 1. By act or omission seek to abandon, partition, subdivide, ,encum- ber, sell or transfer the Common Area property owned, directly or indirectly, by such Association for the benefit of the Owners. (The granting of easements for public utilities or for other public purposes consistent with the intended use of such Common Area property shall not be deemed a transfer within the meaning of this clause.) DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 20 (February 2, 1999) .. ~' a i 2. Chang"e the method of determining the obligations, assessments, dues or other charges which may be levied against' an Owner. r , 3. By act or omission change, waive or abandon any scheme of regulations, or enf~orcemerit thereof, pertaining to~the architectural design or the ~ exterior appearance of Dwelling Units, the maintenance of the Common Area property, party walls, or common fences and driveways, or the upkeep of lawn"s' and plantings in the subdivision. 4. Fail to maintain fire and extended coverage on insurable Common Area property on a `current replacement cost basis in an' amount not less than one hundred percent '(100%) of the insurable value (based on current-replacement cost). 5. Use hazard insurance proceeds for losses to any Common Area property for other than the repair, replacement or reconstruction of such Common Area property. 6. Amend materially this Declaration, the Association's Articles of Incorporation, or its Bylaws. 7. Terminate professional management and assume self- management of the Properties. ARTICLE XV: GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Enforcement: The Homeowners Association or any Owner or the owner of any recorded mortgage upon any part of said property, shall have the right to enforce, by any proceedings at law or in equity, all restrictions, conditions, covenants,. reservations, liens and charges now or hereafter imposed by the provi- sions of this Declaration. Failure by the Association, or by any Owner to enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. Section 2. Severability: Invalidation of any one of these covenants or restrictions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. Section 3. Amendment: The covenants and restrictions of this Declaration shall run with the land and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Association or the legal Owner of any Lot subject to this Declaration, their respective legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, for a term of twenty-five (25} years from the date this Declaration is recorded, after which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years. Except as DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page ~21 (February 2, 1999) otherwise provided herein, any of the covenants and restrictions of this Declaration, except the easements herein granted, may be amended by an instrument signed by members entitled to cast not less than sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66-2/3%) of the votes of membership. Any amendment must be recorded. Section 4. Assignment by Declarant: Any or all rights, powers and reservations of Declarant herein contained may be assigned to the Association or to any other corporation or association which is now organized or which may hereafter be organized and which will assume the duties of Declarant hereunder pertaining to the particular rights, powers and reservations assigned, and upon any such corporation or association evidencing its intent in writing to accept such assignment, have the same rights and powers and be .subject to the same obligations and duties as are given to and assumed by Declarant herein. All rights of Declarant hereunder reserved or created shall be held and exercised by Declarant alone, so long as it owns any interest in any portion of said property. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed and its corporate seal affixed this day of , 1999. DECLARANT: By Louis J. Steiner STATE OF ) County of . ss. ) On this day of 1999, before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared LOUIS J. STEINER, known or identified to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. otary u is or Residing at My Commission xpires DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Page 22 (February 2, 1999) SUBDIVISION EVALUATION SHEET Proposed Development Name THE~1/ILLAS the'LAKES°-~ City Meridian Date Reviewed 01/28/99 Preliminary Stage Final XXX Engineer/Developer Pacific Land / Steiner Development The Street name comments listed below are made by the members of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE (under direction of the Ada County Engineer) regarding this development in accordance with the Boise City Street Name Ordinance. The following existing street name is approved and shall appear on the plat. "N. INTERLACHEN WAY" "VV. CHERRY LANE" "N. BLACK CAT ROAD" "VV. DALY LANE" is approved and shall appear on the plat. "VV. BRENDA LANE" is approved and shall appear on the plat. These findings are subject to recordation of surrounding properties. The above street name comments have been read and approved by the following agency representatives of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE. ALL of the signatures must be secured by the representative or his designee in order for the street names to be officially approved.. ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMM E, AGENC REPRESENTATIVES OR DESIGNEES %' ;' Ada County Engineer John Priester - ~n ~ Date ~~ ~~ ~ ~' ~C Ada Planning Assoc. Ann Hurley ~~~(~ll ~ ~ '2 ~ Date ~ -~ ~- City of Meridian Fire District Meridian. Representative Representative Date f Z ~'" ' ~S' Date -7=-~-~-`-_' NOTE: A copy of this evaluation sheet must be presented to the Ada County Engineer at the time of signing the "final plat", otherwise the plat will not be signed !! I I Sub Index Street Index 3N 1 W 3 ~ Section NUMBERING OF LOTS AND BLOCKS •. - . ~ ~~ '' ~! .<.i r ~.~ ~ - - ~ ~~ -,~~L~ /_s~ ~~ TR~SUBS~SM CfTY.FRM p ~ ~" l %L~:-ti_ l+~ ~l'i'~'. -1"'"-ice-1K. ~, ~ 0/ L ~~ c ;~' - R,EcE'R'ED . • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: OCTOBER 6. 1998 " . ~ ~ T 0 6 1988 CITY OF MERIDIAN APPLICANT:. `STEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUATA~~Tl~D1G & ZONING REQUEST• CONDrT10NAL USE PERMIT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM P & Z CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: SEE ~ngC:l-~ir ~ ~ IUDI CGS CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: S 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: 6 ., OTHER: All Materials presented at public .meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~, ~-- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 6 ti , . , Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we table this item until our October 13`x' meeting. s De Weerd: Second. il 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:- FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 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: 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, 1-got this just today in my box and hadn't fiad 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. 1 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND 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 Yew. 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: WeMhad 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: l still have°ten on my previous one, that's why I was confused Stiles: I think the fndings 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 plattcoincide 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 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, I 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 would 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: !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 Tots 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. !don't think that they changed the roadway system. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 9 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. Chairman, that's what my notes show. MacCoy: Thank you. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND 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, I 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 CARRIED: All ayes. MacCoy: Item eight will be tabled until after item seven has been reviewed and we'll come back to that. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND 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. would like to move to approve the preliminary plat for the Alas at the Lakes Subdivision, with the change of noting the parking area to include five parking spaces that 29 lots need to meet a minimum 1,600 sq. ft. per unit to include lots 31-34 and lots 2-9, that the duplex units need to be.a minimum of 1,250 sq. ft. and the remaining lots a minimum of 1,304. MacCoy: Do I hear a second? Borup: Second. MacCoy; Any discussion? I think we've had a lot of discussion already. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: Two ayes, one nay, and one absent. Borup: Just a comment, Mr. Bradbury might want to pass along sometimes it is not necessarily good to put too much information in the packet. MacCoy: Alright, moving on back to item 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 VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT- NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LAND VILLAGE NO. 1: MacCoy: Commissioners? De Weerd: I assume that I could make a motion to approve the Findings of Fact with the amendments that were noted previously? MacCG~r: On item no. 7, which is the preliminary plat. De Weerd: Counsel, is that what I need to do? MERIDIAN PLANNING AND 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: On 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 CARRIED: All ayes. MacCoy: I wanted to read the decision and recommendation. De Weerd: The Meridian 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 shall satisfy the conditions set forth in the Findings r _ ~ ~. _ _ ~ ~ ~_ :,... . n .,. .,~.~~,.. • t: MERIDIAN PLANNING AND 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 8~ 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. 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 N0 . 1 ~ *~C O~-wl ~~S 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) the Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No. 1. The property is described in the application for a conditional use permit, which description is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property. 3. Pursuant to the application, the property is presently zoned as R-4, Low Density Residential District. The proposed use of the property is to construct 37 single family, 3 duplexes, 1 triplex. The Applicant presented a site plan depicting the location of the proposed use. Pursuant to the application, the Applicant agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash- fees or charges, associated with the use, whether that use be residential, commercial or industrial. 4. That the R-4 District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3., as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Only single- family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R- 4} District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. That the planned residential development of 37 single family dwellings, 3 duplexes and 1 triplex in a district of R-4 Low Density Residential, as proposed by the Applicant, is an allowed FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) conditional use in the R-4 District. 6. That the subject property is presently vacant. 7. That sewer and water is available to the property and is required. 8. Mr. Steve Bradbury testified as follows; -that Steiner Development is requesting approval of a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a residential subdivision. The site is 8 ~ acres and located east of Black Cat between Ustick and Cherry Lane. The parcel was originally part of Ashford Greens Subdivision but the developer did not exercise its option on the property, so Steiner Development did. Mr. Bradbury further testified that the proposal calls for 37 single family detached units, 3 two unit townhouses and one 3 unit townhouse for a total of 46 separate living units. That works out to about 5 ~ units per acre over the 8 ~ acres. The proposal also calls for a private street on a forty- two-foot-right-of-way with a five foot sidewalk on one side. The sidewalk would be around the outside perimeter. The lots became smaller due to the 20 foot sewer easement to make a common lot. The lots are now about 3500 square feet. Before their testimony there was much discussion and figuring on the lot sizes to help solve the problem. At present the smallest lots are up to about 4,000 square feet, but could be up to 4500 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 5700 feet across the subdivision. Minimum square footage of homes is 1304 square feet. Mr. Bradbury pointed out the seven different house plans; list of the various FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) numbers of units, and the square footage. The square footage ranges from 1304 up to •1785, and the proposal is to have 14 of them. Mr. Bradbury pointed out most of the homes would be larger than the minimum sizes. Each unit will have a two car garage and front driveways, which allows accommodation for two additional vehicles, for a total of four vehicles for off street parking per unit. All the units will be single story. The setbacks are in accordance with the code, except for the request that the front setback be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet, and the street setbacks be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet. This would be similar to the concept and design to the Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivision #6. This would not be restricted to just senior housing. Commissioner Johnson was pleased with the presentation and Commissioner Smith also acknowledged it was a good site plan and it deserved decent homes. Commissioner Smith also questioned if they were going for a variance on the minimum lot size, and the front yard setback, even though the blueprints states the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet, and the front building setbacks to be 20 feet. Mr. Bradbury responded what is seen on the blueprints are the required sizes for an R-4 zone, but it is not-what is proposed. Commissioner Smith clarified what the applicant is wanting, and that is, a 15 foot yard setback, and the smaller lot sizes would be for the two unit townhouses. Commissioner Borup had a clarification on the conditional use, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) and whether the changes would be reflected on the plat before it is recorded. Mr. Bradbury confirmed that it would be part of the planned unit development. All the plat notes will be reflective of the true state of affairs not just a recitation of the standard ordinance requirements when it is recorded. 9. Vern Moore questioned if there was going to be a 20 foot sewer easement behind the property, and if it would be a walking path, golf lane, golf cart lane or just what? He also wanted to know what lot the triplex would be built on. His last question was if there was a possibility of hooking into their pressurized irrigation system. 10. Gordon Margulieux gave the following testimony regarding his concerns. His first concern was the lot size due to the sewer right-of-way easement and how nothing could be built on it. Additionally, lot 2 would be for single families not the duplex, and it would be about 3100 square feet. Apparently, what was mentioned at the hearing is a revision which he desired to see the revision. 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 home s, with over half of them on lots ranging from 4500 to 5100 square feet, with some being 8400 and 6700 square feet. He feels these lot sizes are consistent with the Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 1. He is looking forward to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) completion of the subdivision. He continued with the comment that his house was the first in the subdivision on lot 3 adjacent in the Cherry Lane #1 Subdivision. Another consideration is the street; that the street will be ten and a half feet longer or farther out than the current house, and the street belongs to Ada County Highway District. The plans also show the sidewalk will be moved. He also commented on what would happen to the small section which belongs to the ACHD and how it would be handled for` the corner homeowner. He inquired if there would be a separate home owners association with just that section of houses, not part of Cherry Lane Subdivision Home Owners Association; that they will maintain the path. 11. Barbara Moore's testimony pertained to the 20 foot sewer easement and what was going to be done with it. She questioned if their property line was longer; if it goes out to the street or if their property went 10 feet back into the easement. She thought there was a discrepancy between the two maps. 12. Steve Bradbury addressed Mrs. Moore's questions by stating the intention was not to include the sewer easement as part of the pedestrian pathway; that it would be included as part of the side yard and landscaped. Further comments from Steve Bradbury addressed where the three unit townhouses will be located. Regarding the discrepancy in the length of the street, he felt Keith Jacobs, the engineer who prepared the plat, could better answer the question. They wouldn't FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) plat something they didn't own or didn't match up. Taking out the 20 foot sewer easement calculated the lot to be 4000 square feet. One way to accomplish that would be to move the small road a little further up. With some adjustments they feel the concern over the lot could be solved. 13. Gordon Margulieux's last two questions concerned whether or not the sewer line would be on a separate lot, and about the pressurized irrigation. Steve Bradbury responded the staff had suggested the sewer easement be made a separate common lot and the developers agreed to it. Regarding the pressurized irrigation and if the Margulieuxs could hook in to it, Mr. Bradbury commented that it has not been discussed with the developer, but could more than likely be accomplished. The issue of water rights as to where they could be applied, and to obtain approval from the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District to include properties outside the platted subdivision was brought up. Additional comment included whoever is hooked to the pressurized irrigation would be billed by Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District for a part of the costs of operation and maintenance, which the Margulieuxs would need to consider. 14. Commissioner Smith had one final question regarding the reason why they are going for smaller lot sizes and narrower streets as opposed to the standard R-4 requirements. Mr. Bradbury stated the developer is trying to provide a variety of housing ~ types and uses for the area. The developer feels there is a market for this type of subdivision, and the surrounding Ashford Greens FINDINGS 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. w 17. Steve Bradbury, representative for the Applicant, addressed the Commission with the following testimony at the July 14, 1998, public hearing. Steve Bradbury noted this item originally came to the Commission in January of this year, and that it was recommended for approval to the City Council. The project, at that time, was contemplating a total of 46 living units, 37 of them being single family detached 3 two unit townhouses for a total of six more units. As well, there would be a three unit townhouse for three more for a total of 36. When it reached City Council in March the testimony brought before the Council expressed opposition to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) project. Primarily residents of Golfview Subdivision and the Cherry Lane Village Subdivision responding to the lot sizes. City Council took that testimony under advisement and asked that the plat be revised to enlarge the lots in those areas and it was agreed by Steiner Development to prepare a revised plat. The plat has since been revised. The developer has eliminated a total of three living units so there are a total of 43 units. This change resulted 'in 33 single family detached dwellings and then two 10 townhouse units. The townhouse units would be moved to the southerly part of the project. The townhouses at Cherry Lane Village were taken out all together and replaced with single family detached lots. The townhouses next to Golfview were also eliminated except for two that are immediately adjacent to the entry way where there's a whole line of townhouses that come along Interlachen. The townhouses are now clustered on the westerly side of the project so they are away from the existing developments of Golfview and Cherry Lane Village. The third thing that was done was that the lot sizes were increased in two locations. Along Golfview there are now four lots with a minimum of not less than 8000 square feet in size, and this will be reflected on the final plat. The lots that are closest to Cherry Lane Village area were also increased in size, with lot sizes ranging from 6, 375 up to 9, 350. The issue that is still unresolved at the time Planning and Zoning reviewed this application was whether or not Interlachen would be required by the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Ada County Highway District to connect through to the road that is the collector road that serves Ashford Greens. At that time the ACHD's official position was that they wanted it connected. The .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 lOt'' 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 comments 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 the homeowner's association. "The written response from PLS, the applicant's engineer, was that the sewer easement area will be a common lot owned and maintained by the homeowner' s association. The area landscape plan will be submitted to the city for review and approval." Mr. Freckleton noted he was a little confused as to why this project was not there now. Mr. Bradbury stated, "It sounds like we need to make that a common lot, and if that needs to be a condition of approval, that's certainly appropriate." Commissioner De Weerd brought up the issues about the tiling of the ditches and the potential buffering to adjacent. subdivisions. Mr. Bradbury responded that there were no plans to the either of the two ditches because they exceed the size limits the City generally requires for tiling. Also, the ditch between FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12 . STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) the project and Golfview sits on a 50 foot easement. The ditch itself provides a fair amount of separation between the two subdivisions. His understanding is that the ditch between their project and Golfview is entirely within the Golfview lots. The ditch is not a centerline. The property line from Golfview actually goes all the way over. The other side between this project and the golf course have the lots and another 50 foot ditch easement, plus the fairway. Beyond the fairway is another couple hundred feet before you get to houses. Commissioner De Weerd inquired if the public would have access to the pathway, to which Mr. Bradbury responded with a yes. Commissioner Borup inquired about when the conceptual review was done for Ashford Greens if that was a public hearing. Mr. Bradbury thought it was because it was a PUD and preliminary plat. Mr. Bradbury testifed that they didn't have a design for this parcel at that time. The preliminary plat came about because one was done for the R-4 portions of Ashford Greens. Mr. Bradbury's recollection was that the City was taking an overall view and moving densities around and taking into account the fact that Ashford Greens property owners were donating property for the City golf course, kind of one big package. The City was getting a golf course and in exchange Ashford Greens was getting a little bit higher density in a couple of locations. Since Ashford Greens developers did not have a specific development proposal, for what they called medium density areas, the council gave it a conceptual approval for a density of up to 8 units per FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4} acre. 18. Wayne Crookston was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. His lot is zoned R-4 and the golf course, by one fairway, is between his lot and this development. His greatest concern is over the compatibility with his lot. Mr. Crookston has close to 15,000 square feet, a little over a quarter of an acre. He thought the Comprehensive Plan stated things have to be compatible. He feels that the smaller lots are not compatible with the size of his lot or those of Golfview. The lots were somewhat enlarged along Golfview, and somewhat larger right across from his property. Going west, after his property, they gradually go down hill. He feels that is not a compatible situation, unless they put lots at least R-4 of 8000 square feet. He doesn't feel they are going to be compatible, and that they should be larger than 8000 square feet. The lots that abut them are larger than 8000 square feet. He also commented that when it was dealt with the property was under Ashford Greens, it was placed definitely in an R-8 situation, PUD, but not platted out. He apologized for not appearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, but he didn't find out about it until it went to City Council. He does appreciate what they have done. 19. Joe Stafford was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. He noted that he lives on Plum Rose which is in Golfview Subdivision. His lot is approximately 16 to 17,000 square feet in size. He appreciates the lot size increases, but there is nothing FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) that high a density on either side of Golfview and/or Cherry Lane in that immediate area. Another area of concern is about being conceptually approved. The key issue, he thinks, is that it was conceptually approved for Ashford Greens, and it had high density property. Apparently they were giving quite a bit of property for the golf course, thus allowing them to cluster high density. This present project is not giving or adding more golf course. The talk is donating three quarters of an acre to that area. Another concern is as many times as the project has been presented before Planning and Zoning and City Council there is still not a correct map sent to the public. No landscaping to be able to review or discuss. Mr. Stafford also brought up concern over the setbacks, and that he understood they were requesting a variance for setbacks to the rear yards. He wondered if they were going to have a 20 • foot setback from the rear yard. Commissioner Smith noted that it stated a 15 foot setback on the map and this is normal city ordinance. Bruce Freckleton commented on• the discussion about setbacks that they looked standard, and that the townhouse lots would be a zero lot line. Additionally, noting 20 feet on the front, 15 in the rear and the side yard with a street is 20 feet. Mr. Freckleton did clarify that the side yard setback is five foot per story. Continued discussion by Mr. Stafford questioned the street widths and sidewalk issues. Bruce Freckleton addressed his concerns by stating they are private streets, and therefore are FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) narrower. There will-only be a sidewalk on one side of the street, and this is alright as long as the City Council does not require sidewalks on both sides. Mr. Stafford brought out the fact that there are 8000 square foot homes along Golfview, but when you go down 30 to 40 feet they drop down to 5000 to 4000 square feet. He noted that this does effect the immediate area. 20. Gordon Margulieux was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. He noted that his concern was over the lighting and safety of the path. Teenagers within the neighborhood with an unlit path could be a problem. The developer has expressed a willingness to maybe light it to a certain extent. The solution changes from lighting or locking it. Comments were also noted about landscaping and Mr. Margulieux has not seen anything on it. Earlier in the day they had talked about the 20 foot area would be paved and maintained by the homeowner's association. Maintenance is an issue if the homeowner's association chooses not to maintain that. area. He additionally commented to the R-8 platting. Apparently Planning and Zoning were to go to them and talk about it which has not been done. He felt that wasn't conceptual approval. He noted he has been at all the meetings he received a notice. on. He .brought up that there were some requests for changes to the setback, and that the developer has been straight forward with them. Mr. Margulieux also brought up that at the original meeting that setbacks were discussed. The front was a change from 20 to 15 and the side to the street, whatever side is adjacent to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page .16 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) f: street, and also a change from 20~ to 15. The rear also was to change from. 15 to 10 on some lots. Also, these changes did not pertain to all of the lots. In response to Commissioner Borup's questions, Mr. Margulieux's final comments were addressed to Commissioner Borup. They would like to see the clubhouse developed and get it over with. He has called 9-1-1 when he has seen people peering around the area, and sometimes when they've had parties at the clubhouse there have been problems, but this is usually once a year. From his point of view he feels the subdivision in general is not a bad subdivision, and he feels they have tried to do a lot of things to satisfy or try to satisfy the people in his subdivision. 21. Robert Patchin was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. He's at a disadvantage since the map he has is small and apparently different than the large one that's displayed. He feels the density is a little too much for the surrounding area and is not compatible. He's not sure what could be done if they reach their limit as far as the number of lots to their investment on no return. He thinks the traffic will increase, and if it's not restricted it will be a lower cost of housing, and more children. He thought originally it looked like a request for six variances. He brought up the fact he had sent a letter to the City .addressing concerns on moving the townhouses away from the edge next to the larger lots in the other subdivisions. He'd also like more time to study the real map. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 22. Mr., Bradbury re-addressed the Commission by stating, "In this case there's a proposal to provide the city with some additional property for the golf course and provide some additional open space, and as a result the developer is asking for consideration as a PUD." This means there are no variances, and this term is used in the ordinance or in general rules of law. There have been a number of exceptions asked for under the PUD process.- One is the project be served by a private street because it is a dead end cul-de-sac. The intention is to construct a security gate for the gated community. The streets are less than ACHD's standards, but the ACHD will not own and maintain them. 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 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 far..,, logical sequence. He sees compatibility as uses, such as residential next to residential and not a hog farm against residential. He doesn't feel that the lot square footage has to stay consistent, or else every lot in Meridian should be the same square footage. Mr. Bradbury also noted there is some distance between Golfview and Cherry Lane Village with the golf course and canal. In regards to the gated path, he stated, "The path is going to be open at both ends. It's gated so that people from outside of the subdivision FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 18 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) cannot come into the subdivision, but people from outside the subdivision can access the path and go all the way along the path without having to negotiate or open or close the gate, so it is open, and I'm not sure maybe we didn't - in our conversations with Gordon maybe we didn' t make that very clear . But it' s open . The proposal is not to pave 20 feet side to side. It would be a walkway with landscaping with I don't know ten feet of pavement and the balance being landscape treatment." Mr. Bradbury then addressed the density issue by stating from the motion by City Council in the Ashford Greens .project, "The concept of `medium density' parcels is approved conceptually only." The lighted path will probably be included as part of the landscaping treatment, and would be addressed in the final plat. Commissioner Borup inquired on the percentage of open space, and Mr. Bradbury noted that there is a total of 8 1/2 acres, and there is about an acre of open space, so about 120. Bruce Freckelton brought up the' setback issue again. He inquired of the June 9, 1998, packet if the revised plan was incorrect or not. Mr. Bradbury noted the only thing that is incorrect were the lot number sequences. Discussion over the setbacks between Commissioner Borup and Mr. Bradbury noted that the application did not have specific lots mentioned on the reduction. Commissioner Borup stated, "Or is it a blanket on all of them?" Mr. Bradbury responded by stating, "The way I was approaching it rather than trying to figure out which FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 19 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ones were going to need it and which ones were not, just simply make it a blanket." This would be fine. Commissioner De Weerd inquired if the setbacks were along any existing subdivisions that they are asking for the variance or the exception. Mr. Bradbury commented that there are no~rear yard setbacks, and that the existing subdivisions abut the rear yards. They are not going to ask for reductions of rear yard setbacks. He also noted that maybe the front yard setbacks would be reduced. Commissioner Borup asked if the reduction was the same as what the original application was of last January, or if it was a blanket request at that time. Mr. Bradbury's added comments were that there was some confusion over the matter because the map showed some of the lots that would need setback reductions. Commissioner Borup noted that the map did not have the lot and blocks on it and were specified other than the map, to which Mr. Bradbury agreed. Commissioner Borup also noted that in the application there was a request for reduction of the setback. Mr. Bradbury agreed. Commissioner De Weerd questioned the pathway area again and who would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep on it. Again, Mr. Bradbury noted it would be the homeowner association's responsibility. Commissioner De Weerd then addressed a question about the landscaping issue to Bruce Freckleton. Mr. Freckleton noted that they typically .are submitted to Shari for review, and he didn't think they come before Planning and Zoning unless it is requested. Commissioner MacCoy noted that Shari does most of them, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 20 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) and they see them-once in a while. He's not sure if it is just because, they have requested some, and sometimes they get them without requesting them. Mr. Bradbury added comment that the submittal of the drawing-that went before City Council was a real rough outline. Commissioner De Weerd then addressed the area of the circle if that was by the gate, and if the area was all asphalt. Mr. Bradbury noted that the public side of the gate would be the access. It would then work its way through, around, and up and then there would be a gate. Commissioner MacCoy wanted to clarify about the homeowners association taking care of the pathway, and additionally there are the private street and sidewalk that go along with it. He stated, "In other words it's going to be costly for them." Mr. Bradbury responded that it will not be a cheap subdivision, and that most of the homes are proposed to be in excess of 1600 to 1700 square feet.. The object is to find people who want to have nice homes in a secure environment without having yard work and maintenance. He did agree that they would have a fair amount of homeowners dues in order to maintain not only the private road but the pathway system. Commissioner De Weerd. addressed the issue if there were going to be specific designs marketed for uniformity or if there could be built whatever the person wanted. Mr. Bradbury responded that there were specific floor plans and elevations presented to the City originally and those are included in the book. He also noted this is part of the PUD and that they're proposing specific floor FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 21 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) plans and elevations that would be built in the project. He isn't saying that every single one is going to be exactly like that, and there may be someone wanting to build something a little different, but conceptually these are the floor plans they feel will work with the proposed project, including the materials expected to be used and the standards they will need to be met or exceed the standards. Commissioner De Weerd addressed the landscaping and if there would be minimums on them. Mr. Bradbury noted it was addressed in the restrictive covenants and that there will be a minimum requirement for the landscaping.. The restrictive covenants will be created and recorded and the buyers will be given a copy of the them before a lot is sold. Also, as part of the final plat process he expects the City will review them. Commissioner Smith wanted clarification as to the lots which met or were in excess of 8000 square feet and those which did not meet the square footage. He noted there is no calculation on a number and they do not know which ones are going to require the variances on the setbacks. Mr. Bradbury noted he could tell them lot by lot what the sizes are, and that it could provide that information. He did not figure out on a lot to lot basis which lots were going to need a 15 foot setback, which ones deal with a 20 foot setback, nor what might need a 19 foot setback. In addressing the issue back to Mr. Bradbury, Commissioner Smith noted he thought it would be helpful to have the sizes of the lots. Commissioner De Weerd addressed her last question pertaining FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 22 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) to the security and about the police responding or patrolling the pathway. Mr. Bradbury's testimony in response was that it was not gated or locked; that an officer could stop his car and go down the pathway, or even drive down through the pathway, as it was not closed. Commissioner Smith responded that with the landscaping that will be done it wouldn't be wide enough, and from the sketch the gate is right on the property line. It would stick out down to the southeast a little, which would be off the property. Mr. Bradbury believed it would be in the ACRD right-of-way. 23. Joe Stafford re-addressed the Commission with testimony pertaining to the compatibility that every lot has to be 10,000 square feet in size, as well as all of Meridian. He noted that 20% of the lots that were raised to 8000 square feet meet. the minimum standard. He noted there wasn't an 8000 square foot .lot abutting the property. He also noted that 800 of the lots do not meet the minimum square footage for an R-4 zoning, of a PUD. He stated, "But that certainly is not compatibility." He feels that the 80% that do not meet the 8000 square foot requirement are not compatible with his 18,000 or some who have 12,000 square feet. 24. Gordon 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. In regards to security, there may be a gate across the path and at some point in time in the evening it FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 23 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) would be locked. He wanted clarification as to what will happen to the gate, open 24 hours a day but locked at certain times, and that the existing road does not line up with the proposed road that is there. Between the existing curb and the new curb there is ten and one half feet . Since the old road is owned and maintained by the ACRD he wondered if the ten and one half feet would be moved out now. He is just not sure how the area will get controlled. Also, maybe with the lot changes it could be brought back in to line. He also noted there were four houses along that section before and now there are only two. He just wanted to know what the plans were actually going to be. Mr. Bradbury addressed Mr. Margulieux's concerns making sure it was over the ten feet which the highway district owns. He .noted they have had discussions with the ACHD 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 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." 25. Commissioner De Weerd inquired if the subdivision would be fenced or open. Mr. Bradbury was not sure, but stated, "Mr. Campbell says that it's likely to be fenced everywhere but along the golf course." 26. Jackie Stafford addressed the Commission with her public testimony pertaining to the landscaping and that as many times as this has been presented there should be plans on landscaping by FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 24 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) now. 27. Commissioner Borup noted that they have more concerns and questions now than they did six months ago, and these were the items that came up at City Council. He didn't know if the Commission could address the changes to satisfy the City Council's concerns. Commissioner De Weerd added that was her question also. She noted the issue about compatibility was high on the list and it had not been met, but feels it has been improved upon. She also believes that multi-land use is a good idea, but she doesn't know what their definition of compatibility was for the perimeters that would be shared with existing subdivisions. Commissioner MacCoy noted that since they didn't get any guidelines on this because of the change from what he had reviewed, and what they received, they felt it should go back to Planning and Zoning and again opened up for public hearing. Planning and Zoning would then hear it again and make a new decision. Commissioner Borup noted that one of the criteria they use regarding compatibility between residential and commercial is buffering. On one side is a 50 foot canal as a buffer and the other side they have a golf course fairway, and the smallest buffer is the pathway. He doesn't have too much concern over the compatibility as some of the other concerns. The discrepancy on the plat is the numbering and the lot sizes and that they should all stay the same, with the exceptions of those that need to be changed. Commissioner Borup FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 25 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) also noted the lot that was 7900 square feet needed to be changed to 8000. Commissioner De Weerd commented to the fact that since it has gone to P & Z and City Counciyl, and at this point in time there is still no clear idea as to what is going on, this is a little confusing. Commissioner Borup brought up that the corrections still need to be made, whether to Planning and Zoning or City Council. Findings would need to be done and then go from there, and they would eventually end up with the City Council. 28. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, have submitted comments, which respective comments are incorporated herein as set forth hereafter. 1. Sanitary sewer service shall be by extension from the existing main line in Interlachen Way. Approval will be contingent upon or ability to accept the additional sewage generated by the proposed development. The subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes to be provided to keep sewer lines on the south and west sides of centerline. Profiles submitted for preliminary sewer design indicate a portion of the main line in Interlachen Lane will have less than the minimum three feet of cover from top of pipe to finish grade. This portion of the project site may have to be filled in order to achieve the required cover. 2. Water service to the site will be by extensions of the existing main installed in Interlachen Way. Applicant to construct the water mains to and through the proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 3. Identify the source for the pressurized irrigation and whether the system will be owned by Nampa-Meridian FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 26 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Irrigation District or private. If the system is to be private, plans and a draft copy of the O & M Manual must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the City's water system would need to be reviewed due to the size of the area to be watered. The developer will be responsible for the payment of assessment fees for the common areas. 4. Streetlights shall be two-hundred-fifty-watt and/or one- hundred watt, high pressure sodium and to be at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Streetlights to be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 5. Submit for review and approval a detailed landscape plan for the common areas and to include fencing, pathways and types of construction with the submittal of the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to signature on the final plat. 6. Along the Eight Mile and Safford Laterals a non- combustible fence needs to be installed prior to applying for building permits. Fencing needs to be set back from the top of bank to alleviate inherent problems with eroding slopes. Construct six-foot-high, permanent, non-combustible perimeter fencing except where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in place prior to applying for building permits. Fencing shall be set at the existing easement line, unless an encroachment agreement is granted by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. 7. No parking will be allowed at any time along streets less than required by ACRD policy. The homeowners association will be responsible for enforcement of this no parking area. 8. A letter of approval from the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District for the roadways as shown or revise to comply with their requirements. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 27 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 9. The Homeowners Association shall own and maintain the sewer easement area, and it will be platted as a common lot. The two adjacent lots will be 3,500 square feet or less. Provide lot closures for all lots to verify square footage. 10. Storage areas will be provided, such as, one adequate space for every two living units. This may be reduced by City action if there is a showing that the needs of a particular development are less. 11. One additional parking space beyond the required Zoning Ordinance should be required for every three dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. Parking areas may be no closer than four feet to any established street or alleyway. 12. Provide a master street drainage plan showing method of collection and disposal. 13. Provide detail of pedestrian walkway/golf cart access; also gates within the development. Provide an ACHD approved turnaround at the terminus of Interlachen Way. Coordinate the design of the turnaround with District Staff. Construct a private road into the site at the terminus of Interlachen Way. The applicant shall be required to pave the roadway its full width (24-feet minimum) to at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Interlachen Way and install pavement tapers with 15- foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. The applicant shall provide a plan showing how the private road grade meets the public road. District Policy requires a design approach speed of 20 MPH and a maximum intersection approach grade of 2% for at least 4-feet. 14. If the private road is approved, a blanket easement for public utilities will be included. The proposed covenants for the subdivision will specifically address. provisions for a sinking fund to provide maintenance of the roadway and replace the roadway within a 20 year period. ACRD does not make any assurances that the private road which is a part of this application will be accepted as a public road if such a request is made in the future. Substantial redesign and reconstruction FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 28 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) costs may be necessary in order to qualify this road for public ownership and.maintenance. 15. Provide a minimum ten percent open space. Donations have been made to the City golf course, but were not a part of the development. 16. Darken up the contour lines on the blueline prints with the revised plat map. 29. Kenny Bowers, Chief of the Meridian Fire Department, requests all codes need to be met. 30. The Central District Health Department, prior to their approval, requires written approval from the appropriate entities pertaining to the central sewage and water approval. The central sewage and central water plan must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. The storm water management plan, and an inventory form needs to be completed and submitted to the Central District Health Department. 31. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments, which respective comments pertain to the right-of-way of the Eight Mile Lateral of 50 feet; 25 feet from the center each way. The developer must contact John P. Anderson or Bill Henson for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. A Land Use Change/Site Development application is required prior to final platting. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If surface drainage leaves, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 29 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) District must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. 32. There was no further testimony given at the hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. All the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the property. 2. The City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6512 and pursuant to 11-2- 418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. 3. The City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 4. The property is currently zoned (R-4) Low Density Residential District. The (R-4), Low Density Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 3. as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Only single-family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 30 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. Conditional Use Permit is defined in .the Zoning And Development Ordinance, City of Meridian, Idaho as "Permits allowing an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district." 6. The City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 67-6512, and pursuant to that section conditions minimizing the adverse impact on other development, controlling the duration of development, assuring the development is maintained properly, and on-site or off-site facilities may be attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in existence. 7. Section 11-2-418 D. states as follows: In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part~of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence. 8. This Application for a conditional use has been judged upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67, Chapter 65, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 31 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it may take judicial notice. 9. Section 11-2-418 C of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits. Upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, assuming that the above conditions or similar ones thereto would be attached to the conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance; b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance; c. The use would be designed, constructed, operated and maintained- to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and that such use will change the essential character of the same area; d. The use would not be hazardous or disturbing to existing. or future neighboring uses; e. The use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services; f. The use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 32 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) g. The use will involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment. and conditions of operation that will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the `general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; h. The use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; and i. The development of the property will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. It is recommended that the conditional use permit be granted in this case. 10. It is recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the previous comments by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, and Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, be incorporated along with the following conditions if a conditional use permit is granted. 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.. 3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 33 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) street development plans. 4. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions. for review by 'the Meridian City Attorney. 5. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks. in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606 B. 6. Submit a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 7. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Meridian Public Works Department. 11. The above-conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet these conditions. 12. It is recommended that the request for the conditional use permit be granted. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER BORUP COMMISSIONER De WEERD COMMISSIONER SMITH COMMISSIONER NELSON CHAIRMAN MAC COY(TIE BREAKER) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED Page 34 DECISION AND gECOi~NDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that it approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the Application. The Applicant shall satisfy the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the Fire and Life Safety Codes, Uniform Fire Code, parking requirements, and the paving and landscaping requirements, and all Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the Applicant by the City. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: 08-04-98 - Final ~~ 09-21-98- Changes per P & Z requests FTNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 35 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ;~ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: AUGUST 1 1, 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: SEE ATTACHED FINDINGS 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: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~,. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 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, !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 AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 82 Subdivision and as we understood the concerns that were being expressed at council that 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 in those areas and Steiner Development agreed and did prepare a revised plat. Proposed that the city counci( 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 f rst place they used to be over near the Cherry Lane Village 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 awhole-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 ~Ilage 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 basicaNy 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. It 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 AND 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 OOO square feet before the ftnal plat is make sure that all of those lots are at 8, presented. In addition the lots that are closest to the Cherry Lane Village area 900 square ~~ ~ were also increased in sizes. Those lots originally ranged between 3, feet to about 6,500 square feet, and most of the from 6,375 p to 9,350,E solly under 5,000 square feet. Those lots now rang 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, a ed ur toseoof that was to attempt to numbers of lots have decreased. Of course th p p get the density away from the existing development in order to address the concerns that were expressed by the he (center f he~project and adjacentto this to cluster more of the density toward t 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 requireddh t serves AshfordtGreens~ And through to the road that is the collector roa 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 abandonve ishnow behind usheAnd I should be a'connection through, so th of the hi hway district's most recent don't know, Bruce, did you get a copy 9 transmittal on .that? Let me just give it to you or give it to somebody. Maybe give of the Ada County Highway District's it to Will. What I've given Will is a copy 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'ttherle was t ntownhomeeot ~ ed at before. But on this development, you said 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. Smith: No. Bradbury: No. l MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY I4, 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. 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. And 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. Bradbury: No. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING 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'!I-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 21 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 got ten 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. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 86 :; 6 Borup: !still have - !saved my. old plat for some reason. I knew this was coming back. _ ~` ~, De Weerd: Now this is`a PUD? q L Bradbury: It is. De Weerd:. You know I wasn't there. Bradbury: I understand. . ~ o ;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 I 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 types 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 PLANNING AND 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 Go(fview 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 about 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 had the idea that this was a temporary easement that would be abandoned at some point in time. 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 6e 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: Mr.. Chairman, a couple of other comments that were addressed were MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JIJL.Y 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 from the 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 why 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 a design for this parcel; that's right. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 90 Borup: How did you have a preliminary plat? Bradbury: Well !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 of their - 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 all 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. 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. MacCoy: 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 !ot 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 lots somewhat along Golfview and they enlarged the lots a little bit. They are somewhat larger right across from me. Then they just gradually go downhiN 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 PLANNING AND 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 have done 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 properly 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 I 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 !ot 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 these lots to the west of you are located. You are saying those are on your street. Crookston: Yes. Borup: So between those lots 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 AND 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 l'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 a variance for setbacks like on the rear yards? No? They're going to have a 20 foot setback from the rear yard? Smith: It says 15 on the map. Stafford: 15 on the map. Borup: Which would be that's normal city ordinance. Stafford: Is that normal city ordinance? So all the setback requirements are MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY t4, 1998 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. 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 AND ZONING CONfMISS[ON JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 94 Freckieton: 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 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 1 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 AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 1=1, 1998 PAGE 95 Margulieux: I live again as ! 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. !t'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 I'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. Buf 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 1 think an unlit 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 atone 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 1'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 be going back there. On one end, but the other end is open. The comment about landscaping, !'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 especially 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 AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 r 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 tike to say though that I still think the density is a little bit too much for the surrounding area. I don't believe it's stilt 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NLY 14, 1998 PAGE 97 increase based on the number of lots and if it's not restricted like 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 fo 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. !kind of lost count of that as to existing. I have not made the meetings. I've been absenf 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. I'd tike 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. It's lot number 2 and block 5 of Golfview. 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 ACHD 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 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. It 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 (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. !t'll have to be 10,000 square feet, the next one after that wi!! have to be 10,000 square feet. 1 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 I'm not sure maybe we didn't - in our conversations with Gordon maybe we didn't make that very clear. But it's open. The proposal is not to pave 20 feet side to side. It would be a walkway with landscaping with I don't know ten feet of pavement and the balance being landscape treatment. 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 AND 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 landscaping 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 % 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 talked 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 100 (Inaudible) Borup: Yeah, I think that's my recollection too. We had some others where the -- I'm thinking 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 this 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? Bradbury: Wel(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 (think - MERIDIAN PLANNING AND 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. !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 AND 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 if 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 a part 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 AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 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 I expect the city will 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 earlier you don't have identified on here which lots are in excess of or meet ;off 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 require hg variances on the setbacks? ,,; ~., .. Bradbury: Well, I could tell you lot by lob 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 dq: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. I think the point was raised that the police would have the opportunity to respond to that pathway if there were problema or patrol that pathway or - you_ don't, aee that. as a- Bradbury: I don't understand that either. I mean it's not gated and locked and ! 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION .NLY 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 l 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 ACF~D 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 I understand it's a PUD. But that certainly is not compatibility. You know !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 t 'tying to sell that that's compatible 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 105 doing. The other one in talking about the gate that I 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'/z feet the new one moves the road over. But the old 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 look 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. I 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. 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. 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 4192 W, PLUM ROSE STREET WAS 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 al{ 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JITLY 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: \Nell !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 !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 PLANNING 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. 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.LL 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 'I :00 in the morning. a Smith: Well and I think if we're going for`deviations 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 plar}ned unit development, the Villas at the Lakes Subdivision by Steiner Development. Borup: Second. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMI\~IISSION 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 have any 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 the 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.