HomeMy WebLinkAboutWoodbridge CUP 99-037To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: September 28 1999
TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 13 1999 HEARING DATE: October 12, 1999
FILE NUMBER: CUP -99-037
REQUEST: 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES FROM R -T TO R-4
BY: WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SEE ATTACHED BOUNDARY
DESCRIPTION
TAMMY DE WEERD, P/Z
KENT BROWN, P/Z
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z
_RICHARD HATCHER, 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
_SANITARY SERVICE
_BUILDING DEPARTMENT
_FIRE DEPARTMENT
_POLICE DEPARTMENT
_CITY ATTORNEY
_CITY ENGINEER
_CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL)
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
r.
HUB
Mayor
OF TREASURE VALLEY
ROBERT D. CORRIE
A Good Place to Live
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
City Council Members
CITY OF MERIDIAN
9
(208) 2 •Fax 288-2501
CHARLES ROUNTREE
33 EAST IDAHO
PUUBLIBLI C WORKS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
GLENN BENTLEY
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297
RON ANDERSON
(208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813
PLANNING AND ZONING
KEITH BIRD
City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218
DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533 • Faz 887-1297
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: September 28 1999
TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 13 1999 HEARING DATE: October 12, 1999
FILE NUMBER: CUP -99-037
REQUEST: 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES FROM R -T TO R-4
BY: WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SEE ATTACHED BOUNDARY
DESCRIPTION
TAMMY DE WEERD, P/Z
KENT BROWN, P/Z
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z
_RICHARD HATCHER, 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
_SANITARY SERVICE
_BUILDING DEPARTMENT
_FIRE DEPARTMENT
_POLICE DEPARTMENT
_CITY ATTORNEY
_CITY ENGINEER
_CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL)
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
0
CITY OF MERIDIAN
APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
SEP 0 2 1-9,@9
CIT'
L�..�
NAME: Woodbridge Community, LLC
PHONE: (208) 336-3430
ADDRESS: 100 North 9th Street, Suite 300 Boise, ID 83702
GENERAL LOCATION: S 112 n f t hp >`n i 1.14 \
t'' n, 17 T'4N R 11:
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL, USE: 283 Lot Planned Unit Development
on 80.83 Acres.
ZONINGCLASSIFICATION:_g4 (requested)
I certify that the information contained herein is true and correct.
rkill
Signature of Applicant fAt.1 4&s gem A.Wuet-
Social Security Number fie., ex sr' wpT �?EC.��ye
EIN (Woodbridge Community, LLC)
LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Pursuant to established procedure, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission will hold a Public Hearing in the Meridian City Hall on
at _ _.m. The purpose of the Hearing is to consider a
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT submitted by
the property gay described as located at
SUBDIVISION, BLOCK , LOT
TO
for
Application Requirements (Woodbridge)
Conditional Use (PUD )-
1. Name, address and phone number of applicant.
Woodbridge Community, LLC
100 N. 9h Street, Suite 300
Boise, ID 83702
Phone: (208) 336-3430
2. Name, address and phone number of the owner of the subject property.
James F. Griffin
C/O First Security Bank Trust Group
PO Box 2618
Boise, ID 83701-2618
3. Legal description of subject properties up to and including the centerline of all adjoining
rights-of-way. Signed and stamped by a registered land surveyor. Attached
4. Proof of ownership of the subject property (warranty deed) and notarized consent of property
owners. Attached
5. Description of existing land use.
The subject property is currently vacant Ada County land with a zoning designation of
RT (Rural Transitional). The site has historically been used for the grazing of cattle and
the production of hay.
6. Present use of subject property.
Vacant land
7. Proposed use of the subject property.
The use proposed for the property is single-family residential. The development would
consist of 283 single-family residences along with open space and recreation amenities.
8. The district (present zoning) that pertains to the subject property.
The property is currently in Ada County, within the Meridian urban service planning
area, and has a zoning designation of RT (rural transitional). A request for annexation and
a zoning designation of R4 has been submitted to the City of Meridian.
9. Thirty (30) copies of a vicinity map @ I"= 300'
10. A site plan (@ a scale of 1" = 100', as authorized by Brad Hawkins Smith on 8/27/99) of the
proposed site for the conditional use showing the location of all building (lots), traffic access
and circulation, open spaces and landscaping. Also include one 8 %2" X 11" site plan and
elevations of typical home designs.
11. Mailing list of property owners within 300'. Attached
12. List of site characteristics which make a conditional use desirable.
• Proximity to employment
• Availability of essential services
• Natural open space amenities
• Topographical constraints
13. Application fee. $275.00 (fee)
$179.92 (Certified mailings)
14. Statement of intent (applicant) to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, if
any, associated with the use. Attached
15. Verification by applicant of true and correct information contained in the application.
Attached
16. Signed affidavit of sign posting one week prior to public hearing. Attached
•
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ss.
County of Ada )
0
�CK O'Neill , 100 North 9th Street, Suite 300, Boise, Idaho,
being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and says:
auvoQ6 zed
That I am the _ SIM&We of Woodbridge Community LLC, applicant
on the foregoing Conditional Use Application ("Application").
2. I have read the contents of the Application and verify that the information
contained therein is true and correct.
3. I verify that the property referenced in the Application will be posted one
(1) week prior to the hearing indicating that an Conditional Use Permit has
been applied for, and giving the time and date of the hearing.
Dated this aim' day of August, 1999.
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
By:
Its: L Z-2 1 �a
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written.
'�%eeeeeoeesIt,
OT
s
G '
SS l'UBLL s
,•I �o•AiN•.0® ,�
°j�arnueeee
AFFIDAVIT - 1
S:\Clients\5267\I\Affidavit re CUP Application.wpd
of Public for Idaho
Residing at: h1 s r-' ( C)My Commission Expires: 3 t d
O'NEILL ENTERPRISES, INC.
OF -
September 1, 1999
City of Meridian
Planning and Zoning Department
200 East Carlton
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Ladies and Gentlemen
Please find attached an application for annexation and zoning, and a conditional use request for
Woodbridge, an O'Neill Enterprises planned residential community. Per recent discussions with Planning
and Zoning and Public Works staff members, a subdivision application will be submitted after your
preliminary review of the annexation and conditional use requests. The information contained in the above
mentioned applications represents the application base requirements. Supplemental information and
illustrations will be submitted to staff prior to hearings to further support the Conditional Use application.
The applicant listed on the attached applications is Woodbridge Community, LLC, a company that is
managed by O'Neill Enterprises, Inc. (OEI). OEI is a local development and home building company that
has demonstrated a unique ability to create communities of lasting value. Past successful communities
include River Run, Spring Meadow, Meadow Creek, and Surprise Valley in Boise, Idaho; Lane Ranch in
Sun Valley, Idaho; and, Spring Mountain Ranch in McCall, Idaho. We look forward to the opportunity of
adding Woodbridge to this list of distinguished communities.
The proposed Woodbridge community will consist of 283 single-family homes on an 80 -acre parcel just
one and one-half miles from downtown Meridian. The proposed project will include features that are
consistent with other OEI communities listed above, including a variety of housing opportunities
(characterized by both home and homesite size) designed to attract a diverse population within Meridian.
Active and passive open spaces will be located throughout the community including a landscaped buffer
along Five Mile Creek, which bisects the property. A community center featuring a clubhouse, children's
play area and pool will be developed adjacent to the creek. A large open field area designed to
accommodate active recreation will also be located in close proximity to the community center. A pathway
system, radiating out from the community center, will interconnect neighborhoods and provide residents
with recreational opportunities.
I am pleased to submit these applications to the City of Meridian and look forward to working with the
staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council as we work through the application process
together. Please do not hesitate to call me at (208) 333-2411 with any questions.
Sincerely,
Woodbridge Community, LLC
By: O'Neill Enterprises, Inc., Member
C�
By:
Scott echam
Development Assistant
100 North 9th Street, Suite 300 • Boise, Idaho 83702 • (208) 336-3430 • fax: (208) 336-5296
STREET LIGHT AGREEMENT
This Street Light Agreement is made and entered into between the CITY OF MERIDIAN
and Woodbridge Community LLC, pertaining to the street lights in Snorting Bull Subdivision
Phase II, a residential development in Meridian, Idaho.
For good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
parties agree as follows:
Woodbridge Community LLC has provided 18 street light poles, concrete pole bases,
fixtures, bulbs, and components to the residential development known as Snorting Bull
Subdivision Phase II in Meridian, Idaho. The parties acknowledge that the 18 street light
poles and appurtenances were specially ordered items, not customarily used in residential
developments in Meridian, Idaho.
2. Woodbridee Community LLC, or it's assigns, agree to replace, repair and provide any
required maintenance of any of the above mentioned street lights, and/or appurtenances
thereof, that may hereafter be broken, damaged, or deteriorated, or require maintenance,
at its own expense; and it is further agreed that Woodbridge Community LLC, or its
heirs, successors and assigns, shall keep the lights operational at all times, it being
understood by the City that bulbs, and/or ballast, do bum out and that the City will allow
reasonable time to replace them.
3. It is agreed that the City of Meridian authorize and pay for the electrical service to be
supplied to the 18 street lights located in Snorting Bull Subdivision Phase II in the usual
and customary manner.
4. It is agreed that the City of Meridian, because Idaho Power Company will not maintain
the bulbs and ballast or provide any maintenance, will enter into a Schedule 40
Agreement with Idaho Power Company, and not a Schedule 41 Agreement, which in
proper cases provide that Idaho Power Company would provide maintenance, bulbs, and
ballast. It is also agreed that lighting served under the Schedule 40 Agreement must be
controlled by a photo electric device'of the "fail off' type.
5. It is understood and agreed that Woodbridge Community LLC will assign its rights and
obligations hereunder to Woodbridge Homeowner's Association when said Homeowners
Association is formed and operational.
SNORTING BULL SUBDIVISION PHASE II STREET LIGHT AGREEMENT
Page 1
This AGREEMENT shall be binding on Woodbridge Community LLC its heirs,
successors and assigns, and the CITY OF MERIDIAN.
Dated this � I day of 20 02
ATTEST:
William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk
CITY OF MERIDIAN, a municipality and
Political subdivision of the State of Idaho
O -9 Robert D. Corrie, Mayor
G \�GOF�POR4 O
F
SEAL -9G M 2� 2-61 AP'�'I°v°� G� CO,vCl1 : ��/
� r
�. ST
is .
By: Woodbridge Community LLC, an Idaho limited liability company
O'Neill teJ-1ti
s L C, an Idaho limited liability company,
its man ger
By:
Derick O'Neill, Manager
ATTEST:
00,
Secre y
STATE OF IDAHO, )
ss.
County of Ada, )
On this day of J�'? , 20-9;-, before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for said State, p sonally appeared ROBERT D. CORRIE and
-iara n Sm144E Jam,, known to me to be the Mayor and city tie k of the CITY OF MERIDIAN, Idaho,
and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian
executed the same.
SNORTING BULL SUBDIVISION PHASE II STREET LIGHT AGREEMENT
Page 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the
day and year first above written.
S
SEAL�> > 7 0 A NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO
s RESIDING AT
c.` }�•` MY COMMISSION XPIIZES
STATE OF ,)
ss.
County of ,)
On this 95tray of , 20-'L, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public
in and for said State, personally appearedjQj(�. Q� �P11f and
known to me to be theand Secretary of
and who executed the within int e t on behalf of said
corporation, and acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the
day and year first above written.
SEAL
ragt-U6�'�O
�r4rEov�9
NOT Y PUBLI FOR IDAHO
RESIDING AT
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Q
SNORTING BULL SUBDIVISION PHASE II STREET LIGHT AGREEMENT
Page 3
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21, 2002
Page 2 of 99
B. Approve minutes from April 17, 2002 City Council Special Meeting:
C. Approve minutes from April 23, 2002 City Council Regular Meeting:
D. Approve minutes from April 30, 2002 City Council Special Meeting:
E. Approve minutes from May 1, 2002 City Council Special Meeting:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-045
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 1743 square foot Sandwich
Shop with a drive-thru window in an L-0 zone for Subway by Blaine &
Cynthia Jacobson — Northeast corner of Magic View and South Allen
Street:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 02-005
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 building lots and 1 other lot on
20.01 acres in a C -G zone for Willey Subdivision by Roylance and
Associates -- 3710 East Franklin Road:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MI 02-004
Request for modification of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and Order of Conditional Approval of Preliminary Plat regarding the
sidewalk requirement for Elixir Subdivision by Paul B. Clayton — 521
North Eagle Road:
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 02-003
Request for a variance from Meridian City Code 12-2-5 regarding the
sidewalk requirement for Elixir Subdivision by Paul B. Clayton — 521
North Eagle Road:
J. Naming the Los Alamitos / Thousand Springs Park, Kiwanis Park:
K. Change Orders for Meridian Settlers Park:
L. ACHD Impact Fee Offset Agreement for Meridian Settlers Park:
M. Streetlight Agreement for Woodbridge Sub. No. 2:
N. South Slough Sewer License Agreement, Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District:
0. South Slough Sewer Construction Reimbursement, Packard Estates
Developers, LLC:
P. Addendum No. 3 to Agreement for Professional Services, Ten Mile
Interchange Sewer Study — J -U -B Engineers:
Meridian City Council Meeting
May 21, 2002
Page 3 of 99
Q. Agreement for Collection Services on delinquent water / sewer I
trash billing accounts with Collection Bureau, Inc.:
R. Approve Beer /Wine Licenses for Kahootz Pub & Eatery:
Corrie: Item No. 3 is the Consent Agenda. You have the Consent Agenda in front of
you. Any additions, corrections, or anything you want to pull off?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Hearing no objections, I'd move that we approve the Consent Agenda and that all
contracts, change orders, and everything and authorized the Mayor to sign and the
Clerk to attest.
Nary: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda.
Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll -call vote, Mrs. Clerk.
Roll -Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Presentation by S.S.I. of S.W.A.C. Ink Cartridge Recycling Program:
Corrie: Next on the Agenda is a presentation by S.S.I. and S.W.A.C. Ink Cartridge
Recycling Program.
Sedlacek: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, my name is Steve
Sedlacek, business manager of Sanitary Services, 722 West Franklin, Meridian. Good
evening. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I have got a quick little handout to give
each of you. Sorry. I'm one or two short. We wanted to talk to you tonight. We are
seeking your approval or disapproval, however you want to go, on a program, a pilot
program, to recycle laser jet and ink jet cartridges as part of your residential and curb-
side recycling program. Councilperson McCandless is on the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, as is Gary Smith and a few' other folks. If I forget to fill in a few blanks here,
go ahead and step in and fill in those slots. Basically E -Tech, which is a nonprofit
organization, located in Eagle and is run by Lisa Marie Goold and Lisa Marie is here
tonight to answer any questions you might be. We believe that there is a market for
used ink jet and laser jet cartridges and E -Tech has approached us with an opportunity
to collect these at the curb and we will place them in our trucks, take them to Western
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian
and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold
a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the
hour of 7:30 p.m., on December 7, 1999, for the purpose of reviewing and considering
the application of Woodbridge Community, LLC for a conditional use permit for 283 lot
planned development for proposed Woodbridge Subdivision on 80.83 acres from R -T
to R-4.
A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City
Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection
during regular business hours.
A copy of the application is available upon request. Any and all interested
persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to
submit testimony.
Dated this 10th day of November, 1999.
SEAL
PUBLISH Novernberrr
1999
G. BERG, Jl. , ITY CLERK
D
o
/ vlEAT
O�
- w /
577
-a
RC2
o
THORNWO
I
N
W D
C
K
�O
z
HAVE NW00
I
N
I
D
0 0 4
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian
and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., on October 12, 1999, for the purpose
of reviewing and considering the application of Woodbridge Community, LLC for
annexation and zoning of Parcel "A" from R -T to Single Family Residential and Parcel
"B" from Single Family Residential to L -O (See boundary description attached).
Furthermore, the application requests a conditional use permit for a 283 lot
planned development for proposed Woodbridge subdivision on 80.83 acres from R -T to
R-4.
A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City
Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection
during regular business hours.
A copy of the application is available upon request. Any and all interested
persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to
submit testimony.
Dated this 16th day of September, 1999.
(L 0 f 1. rlj:e�
ANGEtfL. SIMS, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
PUBLISH September 22 and October 6, 1999
IN
E-+
W,
0
MR
O'NEILL ENTERPRISES, INC.
September 9, 1999
City of Meridian
Planning and Zoning Department
200 East Carlton
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: Woodbridge, Conditional Use Application
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As the development member of Woodbridge Community, LLC, O'Neill Enterprises (OEI) would like to
submit this letter stating our endorsement of municipal ordinances and comprehensive plans that support the
use of planned unit developments in communities such as Meridian. OEI agrees that these ordinances and
plans allow for innovative design, greater variety in housing opportunities, increased open space and
amenities, and the effective protection of natural resources. For nearly 20 years, OEI has utilized the PUD
process in the planning of its communities which include, River Run, Spring Meadow, Meadow Creek and
Surprise Valley in Boise, Idaho; Lane Ranch in Sun Valley, Idaho; and, Spring Mountain Ranch in McCall,
Idaho. Our experience indicates that, through the use of the PUD process and the variety, open space and
amenities it provides for, we are able to create communities of exceptional and lasting value for our residents
and the community at large.
Part of the trade-off in communities developed under the PUD process is that development "standards" such
as lot size, frontage and setbacks are sometimes less than they would be under a typical subdivision request.
However, the offsetting benefits, as outlined above, make for a more desirable community. Attached is a
development standards matrix and a housing matrix that provide a better explanation and quantification of
the intent of the Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development (PUD) application submitted September
1, 1999 on behalf of Woodbridge Community, LLC. These matrices, categorized by homesite type, identify
standards for development that will allow for the development of an innovative community in the City of
Meridian, as well as, define what can be expected as a (mal product in the Woodbridge community.
In order to further demonstrate the benefits of the Planned Development process, additional information,
graphic illustrations and photos of existing projects will be supplied to Planning and Zoning Staff members,
the Planning Commission and the City Council as we proceed through the entitlement process. Please do not
hesitate to call me at (208) 333-2411 with any questions regarding the attached matrices or the Woodbridge
development in general.
Sincerely,
Woodbridge Community, LLC
By: O'Neill Enterprises, Inc., Member
By:
—
Scott eecham
Development Assistant
100 North 9th Street, Suite 300 • Boise, Idaho 83702 • (208) 336-3430 • fax: (2081 336-5?0A
0 .
Development Standards Matrix - Woodbridge
As demonstrated in the Conceptual Master Plan, the flexibility in dimensional standards, allowed for
through the planned development process, provides a diversity of housing types which meet the needs of
different segments of the housing market. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan lends further support for the
modification of dimensional standards through the policies of the Housing Chapter that specifically address
planned development methods. In addition to a variety of housing opportunities, the benefit of modifying
the development standards in Woodbridge will be apparent through increased open space and improved
street scenes.
The following table identifies conceptual dimensional requirements for Woodbridge. These development
standards would be proposed to take the place of the R-4 standards identified in the Meridian Zoning
Ordinance. The density threshold of the underlying R-4 zoning district is proposed to remain the same,
however, Woodbridge Community, LLC is proposing to limit the number of homes in the 80 -acre
development to 283.
Homesite
Minimum
Front
Rear
Interior
Street
Maximum
Minimum
Type
Area
Yard
Yard
Side Yard
Side Yard
Building
Street
Type D
8,000-12,000 s.f.
Setback
Setback
Setback
Setback
Height
Frontage
Type A4,800
s.f.
10/15/20'
5'/15' (3)
0'/5' (4)
15
35
48' (5)
(1),(2)
Type B
5,500 s.f.
--I
15'
S'
15'
35'
55' (5)
Type C
7,500 s.f.
15'
S'
15'
35'
75' (5)
Type D
8,000 s.f.
15'
S'
15'
35'
80'(5)
(1) Identifies front yard setbacks for; side -entry garage/living area/garage face.
(2) Setbacks measured from back of sidewalk on 29 -foot "neighborhood" street sections.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for; detached garages/attached garages and living area.
(4) Zero lot line allowance for detached garages only, all living area is to be setback a minimum of 5 feet.
(5) Excludes homesites on, or adjacent to, common driveway lots, flag lots, outside corner lots, and cul-de-
sacs.
Housing Matrix — Woodbridge
In order to meet the City of Meridian's goals for providing a diversity of housing opportunities,
Woodbridge Community, LLC is proposing four, distinctly different, housing choices. The following
matrix identifies home and homesite sizes as well as the estimated price of a finished home in Woodbridge,
categorized by homesite type.
Homesite Type
Homesite Size
(Typical)
Home Size
(Typical)
Estimated Finished
Home Price
Type A
4,800-6,000 st..
1,200-1,800 s.f.
$140,000-$170,000
Type B
5,500-7,000 s.f.
1,800-2,500 s.f.
$170,0004200,000
Type C
7,500-8,500 s.f.
2,200-2,800 s.f.
$200,0004250,000
Type D
8,000-12,000 s.f.
2,500-3,200 s.f.
$250,000-$300,000+
!
'Y" t•.r
f l
3:i . ° SUS y
,a
DEED OF GIFT 704764�
THIS INDENTURE, Made this
.z %� day.. of November,
1968, between. JOHN M. NEITZEL, a bachelor, of the County of
y
Ada, State of Idaho, the party of Ghe\first part, and JiKES
F. GRIFFIN, of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, the party
of the second parc, WITNESSETH:
That the said party of the first part, for and in con-
sideration of the love, affection and duty which the said party
of the first part has and bears unto the said party of the
second part, as also for the better maintenance, support, pro-
tection and livelihood of the said party of the second part,
does by these presents, give, grant, alien and confirm unto
the said party of the second part, and to his heirs and assigns
forever, all of the following described real estate, situated
in the county of Ada, state of Idaho, to wit:
The South Half of the Northwest Quarter (S 1/2
NW 1/4) of Section Seventeen (17), Township
Three (3) North, Range One (1) East Boise Mer-
idian, together with all water and water rights
thereunto belonging and used in connection there-
with.
Together with all and singular, the tenements, here-
ditaments and appurtena:ices thereunto belonging, or in any-
wise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remain-
der and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLO, All and singular the said prem-
ises, together with the appurtenances, unto the said party of
the second part, his heirs and assigns forever, as the sole
and absolute property of the said second party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said party of the first part.
has hereunto set his hand and seal., the day and year first
above written.
^^^ SEAL)
0 N M. NEITZEL
STATE OF IDAHO,
COUNTY OF ADA. SS.
On this 27 t'day of November, 1968,'before me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, person—
ally appeared JOHN M. NEITZEL, a bachelor, known 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 certifi—
cate first above written.
Notary Public for the State -.of Idaho.
Residing at Boise, Idaho.
S,nif OF 1£-K. X -11M CC A;6kSs. 7
CLXXNC PW4iMG. ROOM; --
5:'-
% a
AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST
STATE OF IDAHO )
SS.
County of Ada )
JAMES F. GRIFFIN, 705 North 9th Street, Boise, Idaho, being fust duly swom
upon oath, deposes and says:
That I am the record owner of the property described on the attached
application for zoning/annexation (as to Parcel A), and I grant my
permission to Woodbridge Community LLC to submit the accompanying
application pertaining to that property.
Dated this'7'-
._ day of August, 1999.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written.
AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST - 1
S:\Clients\5267\l\Affidavit of Legal Interest - GriffuLv pd
-A�6 -
Notary ublic for Idaho
Residing at:
My CommissionTpires: 36 %c
DATE: July 26, 1999
PROJECT: 98048
PAGE: 1 of 1
EXHIIBIT "A"
WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land being the Slh of the NW1/a of Section 17, T.3N., RAE., B.M., Ada County,
Idaho, more particularly described as, BEGINNING at the north 1/16 comer common to Sections
17 and 18 as shown on Record of Survey No. 1199; thence, along the exterior lines of said S'/2
of the NW'/a , through the following courses:
1) N.89°30'51 "E., 2648.31 feet to the center -north 1/16 comer of said Section 17,
thence; along the east line of said S 1h of the NW'/a ,
2) S.00°07'39"E., 1328.47 feet to the center 1/ corner of said Section; thence, along
the south line of said NW'/a ,
3) S.89029'53"W., 2651.27 feet to the 1/ corner common to said Sections 17 and 18;
thence, along the west line of said NW 1/ ,
4) N.00000'00"E., 1329.23 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 80.83 Acres, more or less.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, the right-of-way for Locust Grove Road.
SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights -of -Way and Easements of Record.
H:\98048\Bndry-Desc.Doc
0 •
WOODBRIDGE TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING CO.
An O'Neill Enterprises Community CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
P ty 9777 CHINDEN BLVD BOISE, IDAHO 83714-2008
PHONE: 208-323-2288 FAX: 208-323-2399
--
�
I
1
Black UI R
�
I r
1
r
i
,c
+
lJ rri
r We Rd
—
IYYS�
I�r
1
Under Rd
Meddim Rd
C E
trY
n
�
t0cm Gose Rd
LL
4'
/..I
rl
I
}j
I
1 .
WOODBRIDGE TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING CO.
An O'Neill Enterprises Community CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
P ty 9777 CHINDEN BLVD BOISE, IDAHO 83714-2008
PHONE: 208-323-2288 FAX: 208-323-2399
0,9" l2ntLWrN EKINEERNG Co '111S N51KXW 6 TW PRDPFR;Y OF TOO Dlift LNUMAWK CO AW fEPRMW
TKk RE16E OR wolulm OF M MIWMD4 M n C(MILW5 lqllj� *Mk WRWUN OF TOODWW ENQXEFWK CD 6 STR011
Li
LOCUST GROVE ROAD
Ii
m
<
(p)
LATHERBf-DR
m
>
III
C?
S()
<
rj
AIVf NI)l
vl_;ION
WOODBRIDGETOOTHMAN-ORTON
ENGINEERING COMPANY
AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
CONSULTIM 01MEIMS, SUW4Efon An "Amen
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
(�CMW d'�:
WOODBRIDGE
An O'Neill Enterprises Community
EXISTING ZONING MAP
TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING CO.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
9777 CHINDEN BLVD BOISE, IDAHO 83714-2008
PHONE: 208-323-2288 FAX: 208-323-2399
11
•
F—
'<-7 ROVE Ro_A-p
11
D ,
n
/ A;
YiEAT
i
i a
�C eco
O
6z9
ScI
lt,
r. j I V
J� O
THORNWC
cn n�
E '8Y DR.
o i
N I iz
m
D—
C
S
-Q
S
C�
11
D ,
n
/ A;
YiEAT
i
i a
�C eco
O
6z9
ScI
lt,
r. j I V
J� O
THORNWC
cn n�
E '8Y DR.
o i
N I iz
m
D—
C
PARA -f L* S 1/t7Z336*'"
C7
0
WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION
PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300'(C
SMITH ROBERT R & RUTH G
ANDREWS LARRY WALDEN &
335 S LOCUST GROVE RD
ANDREWS CHERYLE LOUISE
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6276
2330 AUTUMN WAY
ZULAICA JUAN JOSE
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6233
SNORTING BULL INVESTMENTS LLC
100 N 09TH
BOYETTE HELEN L
SUITE #300
2334 AUTUMN WAY
BOISE ID 83702
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6233
385 S LOCUST GROVE RD
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6224
COOPER JAN V
MADER RICHARD F &
HOWELL-MURDOCH DEVELOPMENT
MADER KAREN J
CORPORATION
2448 AUTUMN WAY
1087 W RIVER ST
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6225
SUITE 250
BOISE ID 83702
MCCLUNG DANNY R &
S LOCUST GROVE RD
MCCLUNG VICKIE R
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6224
330 THORNWOOD DR
EVERETT MARVIN L
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6222
785 S LOCUST GROVE RD
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6270
PLANT MORGAN & MARILYN L
885 S LOCUST GROVE
300 S LOCUST GROVE RD
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6204
MCKAGUE RONALD D & BONNIE R
885 S LOCUST GROVE RD
OSBORNE RONALD LEE &
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6271
OSBORNE CARLA R
373 THORNWOOD DR
ZULAICA JUAN JOSE
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6223
1367 NOVA LN
MERIDIAN ID 83642
SMITH MARSHALL ROSCOE
N FRANKLIN AVE
398 S LOCUST GROVE RD
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6204
COOPER DAVE A &
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6224
COOPER JAN V
BROOKS LEE E &
335 THORNWOOD DR
BROOKS SHARON K
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6223
2115 AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6224
SMITH DAVID A &
SMITH M MICHELLE
KIDD GARNET DEAN &
2166 AUTUMN WAY
KIDD RETA MAE
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6224
2127 AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6224
JENKINS JENNIFER
2208 AUTUMN WAY
FENDER FRED W &
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6232
FEDNER LAURA L
2134 AUTUMN WAY
CULLEY JOHN E &
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6224
CULLEY MAE ROSE
2260 AUTUMN WAY
MECHAM BRYAN N &
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6232
MECHAM MICHELE G
2159 AUTUMN WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6224
7.3 A z .
• 0
UPTMOR STEVE M &
BAILEY DENNIS W &
UPTMOR GINA M
BAILEY PEGGY I
2275 AUTUMN WAY
870 MUSTANG DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6232
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6200
DUNCAN DANIEL W &
WALLACE GLEN R &
DUNCAN ANGELA K
WALLACE CHERI L
2325 AUTUMN WAY
2180 CADILLAC DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6233
MERIDIAN ID 83642
KNOWLTON KIMBERLY K AND
HAMBLEY GARY E &
JONAS LYNDA K
HAMBLEY JEANNINE
2369 E AUTUMN WAY
2250 CADILLAC DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6233
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6279
CHRISTIAN JERRY D &
KEELING TOMMY D &
CHRISTIAN CHERRY A
KEELING LAURIE K
2425 AUTUMN WAY
1980 CADILLAC DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6225
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6215
GREEN TROY D &
OYAMA GREG L &
GREEN ROBIN L
OYAMA LARAINA G
2475 E AUTUMN WAY
2038 CADILLAC DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642
MERIDIAN ID 83642
GRIFFIN JAMES F
BURNHAM RONALD M &
FIRST SECURITY BANK TRUST GRP
BURNHAM KATHLEEN D
PO BOX 2618
2050 CADILLAC DR
BOISE ID 83701-2618
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6216
450 S LOCUST GROVE
SPANGENBERG GORDON R &
LOREE PAUL M &
SPANGENBERG DEBRA K
LOREE MARGARET E
2134 CADILLAC DR
2510 MAGIC VIEW CIR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6217
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6242
FOX ALAN A &
PEARCEY DAVID S &
FOX CAROL ANN
PEARCEY BETTE K
1840 CADILLAC DR
675 WELLS ST
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6274
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6249
NUTT THOMAS L &
ROBINSON BONNIE J AND
NUTT DIANE M
HAMBLEY JUDY A
1880 CADILLAC DR
715 WELLS ST
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6274
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6249
BLENN KERRY A &
BUCKERT WANDA
BLENN TAMMY L
971 WELLS CIR
1930 CADILLAC DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6253
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6215
FORSBERG JOHNNY L
LEE RICHARD A & NOLA S
2320 E CADILLAC DR
820 S LOCUST GROVE RD
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6280
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6204
•
LINDLEY FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
LINDLEY M L & V A TRUSTEES
1790 CADILLAC DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6214
S TORINO AVE
MIDDLETON ROBERT L &
MIDDLETON VONA K
955 WELLS
MERIDIAN ID 83642
MCMILLAN REECE A & LILLIBELLE
870 S LOCUST GROVE RD
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6204
BORDEN LEE R &
BORDEN LEONA J
903 TORINO AVE
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6209
BERRETH JOHN DWAYNE &
BERRETH MARY ELLEN
2205 E CADILLAC DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6279
BLOK VICTORIA E
PO BOX 33
MERIDIAN ID 83680-0033
925 S MUSTANG ST
HOELZLE K ROBERT &
HOELZLE DEBRA L
2155 CADILLAC DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6217
PEMBERTON WARREN B &
PEMBERTON JEANIE M
940 MUSTANG DR
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6201
PATTAN BRET E & KIM J
910 S LOCUST GROVE RD
MERIDIAN ID 83642-6204
JUSTIN P. AYLSWORTH
KATHY J. EDWARDS
JULIE KLEIN FISCHER
WM. F. GIORAY, III
D. SAMUEL JOHNSON
WILLIAM A. MORROW
WILLIAM F. NICHOLS*
CHRISTOPHER S. NYE
-ALSO ADMITTED IN OR
..ALSO ADMITTED IN WA
r
WHITE, PETERSON, PRUSS, MORROW & GIGRAY, PAL
ATTORNEYS AT'LAW
PHILIP A. PETERSON
STEPHEN L. PRUSS
ERIC S. ROSSMAN
TODD A. ROSSMAN
R. STEPHEN RUTHERFORD
DAVID M. SWARTLEY
TERRENCE R. WHITE"
200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE, SUITE 31
POST OFFICE BOX 1150
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680.1150
TEL (208) 288.2499
FAX (208) 288.2501
Email via Internet @ wfg@N'PPmg•com
NAMPA OFFICE
104 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH
POST OFFICE BOX 247
NAMPA, IDAHO 83653.0247
TEL (208) 466-9272
FAX (208) 466-4405
PLEASE REPLY TO
MERIDIAN OFFICE
January 5, 2000
RWEIVED
William G. Berg, Jr., City Cleric
JAN - 7 2000
Meridian City Hall CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 East Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: WOODBRIDGE CUP -99-037 / FILE NO.: CUP -99-037
Dear Will:
Please find enclosed the revised original of the CUP Findings for the Woodbridge
application. Please note the revisions were typos
eakin awithOthe Planning anand 11,
nd ZonCng DepartmentHED to D,
and Greenville to Greenhill]. Secondly, after sp g
the insertion of the language on page 10 a��essthe
may be an unpaved all -
"Until the 166``' certificate of occupancy is issued, the emergency ac
weather surface."
Additionally, I am enclosing therevised Dthe revised Dent evelopment Agreements may
eements, which now should
meet the City and the Developers approval. Therefore
be submitted for the appropriate signatures.
If you have any questions please advise.
Very truly yours,
i -
WM`F.1 r , I
g
Enclosures (3)
cc: Ed Miller
Gary Allen
p.s. A new Ordet- hots ct.iso been ene��d- l.�h.ch ihser�-s the c�,bo,ne, ����.
msg/Z.\Work\NWeridian 15360M\WOodbrldge Community\13erg0105001t
t ♦�
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY,
LLC, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR 283 -LOT
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES, LOCATED AT 450
S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD,
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
01-05-00
Case No. CUP -99-037
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS
This above entitled conditional use permit application having come before
the City Council for public hearing on December 7, 1999, at the Meridian City Hall, 33
East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and
Recommendation to City Council issued by the Planning and Zoning Commission who
conducted a public hearing and having heard and taken oral and written testimony, and
Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, appeared and testified at the hearing,
and appearing on behalf of the Applicant was Pete O'Neill, appearing and testifying, and
affected property owners who appeared and testified were: Dick Rocicrohr, Brian Mecham,
Reese McMillian, Alan Fox, Ann Lindley, and Mervin Lindley, and having duly considered
the matter and the Planning and Zoning Commission made the following Findings of Fact
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 1 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
and Conclusions of Law and Recommendation to City Council, and the City Council
having received the staff report and the record made before the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and being fully advised in the premises, the Council finds and concludes as
follows:
STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Idaho Code § 67-6512 provides in part that:
(A) As part of a zoning ordinance the City Council may provide
for the processing of applications for special or conditional
use permits; and
(B) That a special use permit may be granted to an applicant if
the proposed use is otherwise prohibited by the terms of the
zoning ordinance, but may be allowed with conditions
under specific provisions of the zoning ordinance, subject to
the ability of political subdivisions, including school
districts, to provide services for the proposed use, and when
it is not in conflict with the plan; and
(C) That upon the granting of a special use permit, conditions
may be attached to a special use permit, including, but not
limited to, those:
1) Minimizing adverse impact on other development;
2) Controlling the sequence and timing of development;
3) Controlling the duration of development;
4) Assuring that development is maintained properly;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 2 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
5) Designating the exact location and nature of
development; requiring the provision for on-site or
off-site public facilities or services; requiring more
restrictive standards than those generally required in
an ordinance; requiring mitigation of effects of the
proposed development upon service delivery by any
political subdivision, including school districts,
providing services within the planning jurisdiction.
2. The City of Meridian has exercised its authority to provide for the
processing of applications for Conditional Use Permits by the enactment of § 11-2-418
Municipal Code.
3. Idaho Code § 67-6504 provides that the City Council may exercise all of
the powers required and authorized by Chapter 65 of Title 67 Idaho Code which Act is
known as the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975."
4. The City of Meridian has enacted the Comprehensive Plan City of
Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ordinance No. 629, January 4, 1994.
5. Prior to granting a conditional use permit in a Low Density Residential
zone (R-4), a public hearing shall be,conducted with notice to be published and
provided to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of
the external boundaries of the land under consideration for the conditional use permit
all in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-2-418E City of Meridian Zoning
and Development Ordinance, which provides as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 3 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
•
"Prior to approving a Conditional Use Permit, the applicant and the
Commission and Council shall follow notice and hearing procedures provided in
Section 11-2-416, Zoning Amendment Procedures, of this Ordinance. Provided;
however, that Conditional Use applications for land in Old Town and in
Industrial and Commercial Districts shall only be required to have one public
hearing which shall be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission and
after the recommendation of the Commission is made the application shall go
before the City Council without a public hearing and the Council may approve,
deny, or modify the recommendation of the Commission."
STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATIVE TO LEGAL AUTHORITY
AND JURISDICTION
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. A notice of a public hearing on the conditional use permit was published
for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for December
7, 1999, before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice
having been mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred
(300') feet of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than
fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing and with the notice 4 public hearings having
been posted upon the property under consideration more than one week before said
hearing and the copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and
television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having been duly
considered by the City Council at the said December 7, 1999, public hearing; and the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 4 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
Applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions providing services
within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full
opportunity to express comments and submit evidence.
2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set
forth in Idaho Code §§67-6509 and 67-6512; and §§11-2-416E and 11-2-418E as
evidenced by the Affidavit of Mailing, and the Affidavit of Publication and Proof of
Posting filed with the staff report.
3. Council takes judicial notice of its Zoning, Subdivision and
Development Ordinances codified at Title 11 Municipal Code of the City of Meridian
and all current zoning maps thereof and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Meridian adopted December 21, 1993 Ordinance #629 - January 4, 1994 and Maps
and the Ordinance establishing the Impact Area Boundary Ordinance and Map.
4. The property is located at 450 S. Locust Grove Road, Meridian, Idaho.
5. The owner of record of the subject property James F. Griffin c/o First
Security Bank Trust Group, of Boise, Idaho.
6. Applicant is Woodbridge Community, LLC, of 100 N. 9th Street, Boise.
7. The subject property was zoned Ada County (R -T) and the Applicant
herein has made an application to the City to annex and change the zoning to
Meridian, Low Density Residential R-4, in Case No. AZ -99-020, which was granted
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 5 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
subject to a Development Agreement. The zoning district of R-4 is defined within the
City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section 11-2-408(12).
8. The proposed application requests a conditional use permit for the
construction, development, maintenance and use of a 283 Lot Planned Unit
development. The R-4 zoning designation and the Development Agreement requires a
conditional use permit be obtained. (Meridian City Zoning and Development
Ordinance, Section 11-2-409A).
9. The requested conditional use is required as a condition of the
development agreement at Sections 6. Conditions Governing Development of Subject
Property.
10. The requested conditional use is described in the CONCEPTUAL
MASTER PLAN Dated: 8/27/99, Project 98048, H:\ 98048\ACADDWG\m-plan.dwg,
Mon Aug 30, Sheet 1 of 1, TOOTHMAN Sz ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY -
Architects, for WOODBRIDGE AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY, for the
development of the aforementioned residential projects and which property is described
in the attached Exhibit "A" and consisting of two pages.
11. Giving due consideration to the comments received from the
governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning
jurisdiction, as herein provided for in the conditions of approval, public facilities and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 6 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES/ CUP -99-037
f
r
services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the
public if the conditions of development, as set forth in the Decision and Order number
2, are found to mitigate the effects of the proposed use and development upon services
delivered by political subdivisions providing services to the subject real property within
the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian.
12. The Meridian City Council recognizes that the proposed application is in
compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as enumerated in the
Recommendations of Approval to the City Council for Annexation and Zoning of the
Subject Property in Case No. AZ -99-020 incorporated herein by reference.
13. The use proposed within the subject application will in fact, constitute a
conditional use as determined by Council action and City Ordinance.
14. The use proposed within the subject application will be subject
to the conditions as set forth in the Decision and Order under number 2, and will be
designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in
appearance or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not
change the intended essential character of the same area.
15. The use proposed within the subject application will not be
hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.
16. The use proposed within the subject application will be served
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 7 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
adequately by central public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and
fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer.
17. The applicant has agreed to pay any additional sewer, water or
trash fees or charges, if any associated with the use.
18. The use proposed within the subject application will not involve
uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be
detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive
production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
19. Sufficient parking for the proposed use of the property will be
provided.
20. The use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of natural
or scenic features of major importance relating to the property.
DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby
ORDER and this does Order that:
1. That the Applicant and owner of the property, and is granted a
conditional use permit for the proposed application request of a conditional use permit
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 8 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99=037
for the construction, development, maintenance and use of a 283 Lot Planned Unit
residential development, as described in the CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN Dated:
8/27/99, Project 98048, H:\ 98048\ACADDWG\m-plan.dwg, Mon Aug 30, Sheet 1 of
1, TOOTHMAN &. ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY - Architects, for
WOODBRIDGE AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY, for the development
of the aforementioned projects and which property is described in the attached Exhibit
"A" and consisting of two pages.
2. The conditional use permit granted herein is subject to the following terms and
conditions:
2.1 Home Types. The Development shall consist of a mix of homesite types
designated A, B, C and D as set forth on the Master Site Plan. The location and
mix of lot types shall be determined by the Developer based on market demand,
with the aggregate total not to exceed 283 units. The lots located east of Five
Mile Creek on the northern border of the Development adjacent to the
Greenhill Estates Subdivision shall be limited to Type D lots.
2. 1.1 All plats in the Development shall comply with the requirements of Idaho Code
Section 5 0-222(a).
2.1.2 The subject real property is subject to a development agreement, the terms of
which were approved by City Council and which development agreement shall
be considered amended to reflect terms of this conditional use permit.
Specific Development Requirements
2.1.3 Master Site Plan. The Development shall be constructed substantially in
accordance with the Master Site Plan, CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN Dated:
8/27/99, Project 98048, H:\ 98048\ACADDWG\m-plan.dwg, Mon Aug 30,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 9 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
Sheet 1, TOOTHMAN & ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY - Architects,
for WOODBRIDGE AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY, and
hereinafter referred to as "Master Site Plan". The Master Site Plan is a guide for
the Development, recognizing the need for flexibility during the platting process.
2.1.4 Maximum Number of Units. The Development shall contain no more than 283
units.
2.1.5 Open Space. The Development shall include a minimum of 14 acres of open
space generally consistent with the Master Site Plan. The term "open space"
shall include, without limitation, an active recreation area and community
center, pocket parks, linear parks along roadways, greenbelt corridors along Five -
Mile Creek only site wetlands and corridors between neighborhoods. To the
extent it is not located in the ACHD right-of-way, the Developer shall convey
the open space to a homeowners' association following both the final plat
approval for the phase of the Development in which the open space is contained
and the completion of the improvements.
2.1.6 Access.
a. Primary Access. Primary Access shall be from Locust Grove Road and shall
incorporate a landscaped traffic divider at the entryway (illustration 1 to the
Master Site Plan).
b. Secondary Vehicular Access. The Developer shall provide a secondary vehicular
access point to the boundary of Woodbridge to the south-southeast as shown on
the Master Site Plan (or at another point as otherwise mutually agreed by the
Developer, the City and ACHD). The second vehicular access shall be identified
prior to the submittal of the final plat of any property to the east of Five Mile
Creek. The secondary vehicular access shall be operable prior to the issuance of
the 200th building permit for the Development.
C. Emergency Access Location. The Developer shall construct emergency access to
the juncture of Weatherby Drive and the property line adjacent to Greenhill
Estates prior to the issuance of the 100th occupancy permit for the
Development. Until the 166`' certificate of occupancy is issued, the emergency
access may be an unpaved all-weather surface. The Developer shall construct or
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 10 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
cause to be constructed an 18- foot -wide, all weather grasscrete surface between
Greenhill Estates and the development including a 5 -foot -wide meandering
pathway or another design approved by ACHD, the City and the developer;
shall install knock -down bollards at the property line to prevent use except in
case of emergencies. All designs shall be approved by ACHD and the City.
Developer will also put these improvements within a dedicated 50 -foot right-of-
way which would allow for a permanent vehicular access point if, as and when
the ACHD determines it should become the secondary access or a permanent
access.
2.1.7 Locust Grove Landscaping Strip. The Developer shall install landscaping along
Locust Grove Road per the plans attached as illustrations 2 and 3 to the Master
Site Plan or as otherwise required by ACHD. Developer shall construct the
landscape buffer generally consistent with these plans in lieu of the twenty (20)
foot "landscaping strip" requirement of Meridian City Code § 11-9-605.G.
Developer shall submit detailed landscape plans consistent with illustrations 2
and 3 for City Staff approval.
2.1.8 Pathways.
a. Public Roadways. Public pathways and sidewalks will be constructed along all
roadways within the Development as identified on the pathway plan attached to
the Master Site Plan as illustration 4. An eight (8) foot wide asphalt public
pathway will be constructed along, but detached from, Locust Grove Road and
Woodbridge Drive. Five (5) foot concrete sidewalks will be constructed on both
sides of all neighborhood roads as well as the loop road identified on the east
side of the Development.
b. Five Mile Creek. A soft surface pedestrian pathway will be constructed along
Five Mile Creek as generally depicted on the Master Site Plan, illustration 4.
This pathway shall be made available for public use at such time that the
pathway can be connected to a larger public pathway system beyond the
boundaries of the Development.
C. Private Pathways. Private pathways will be constructed within the Development
allowing for direct connections between individual neighborhoods and other
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 1 I of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
segments of the overall pathway plan, generally as depicted on the Master Site
Plan, illustration 4.
2.1.9 Five Mile Creek Enhancement. In cooperation with the Nampa SL Meridian
Irrigation District ("NMID") and all affected agencies, the Developer will
protect and enhance Five Mile Creek and adjacent wetlands consistent with the
Master Site Plan and applicable laws.
2.1.1OCommunity Center. The Development shall include a community center
designed and constructed in a location consistent with the Master Site Plan.
The community center shall include the following amenities, at a minimum:
• Multi-purpose room
• Restrooms/Changing rooms
Mechanical Equipment room
• Swimming pool
• Spa or children's wading pool
• Resident drop-off and parking
Approved Deviations from Subdivision and Zoning Requirements
2.1.11 Inapplicability of Certain PD -R Requirements. The City acknowledges that, due
to the fact the Development consists of single family residential construction.
the following planned development - residential ("PD -R') application and
corresponding substantive requirements do not apply to the Development:
a. Submission of specific elevation exhibits.
b. Specification of architectural style and building design.
C. Submission of building materials and color.
d. Designation of garbage, storage and public parking areas.
e. Designation of storage areas, guest parking spaces and maintenance building.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 12 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
2.1.12Special Standards for the Woodbridge Community. The following standards
shall apply to the Development in lieu of the corresponding standards in the
zoning and subdivision ordinances:
a. Homesite Dimensional Standards:
(1) All front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. See illustration 5
in Master Site Plan.
(2) Identifies front yard setbacks for: side -entry garage/living area/garage face. See
illustrations 5 and 6 in Master Site Plan.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for: detached garages/attached garages and living
areas. See illustration lin Master Site Plan.
(4) Zero lot line allowance for detached garages and associated living area only, all
living area within the primary dwelling is to be set back a minimum of 5 feet. See
illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 13 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
Minimum
Lot Size
(Sq. Feet)
Front
Yard
Setback
(1)
Rear
Yard
Setback
Interior
Side
Yard
Setback
Street
Side Yard
Setback
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum
Street
Frontage
Homesite
Type
Type A
4,800
10'/15'/20'
(2)
5'/15'
(3)
0'/5'
(4)
15'
35'
48'
(5)
5,500
10'/15'/20'
(2)
15'
S'
15
35'
55'
(5)
Type B
7,500
10'/15/20'
(2)
15'
5'
15
35'
75'
(5)
Type C
Type D
8,000
10'/15'/20'
(2)
15'
5'
15,
35'
80'
(5)
(1) All front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. See illustration 5
in Master Site Plan.
(2) Identifies front yard setbacks for: side -entry garage/living area/garage face. See
illustrations 5 and 6 in Master Site Plan.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for: detached garages/attached garages and living
areas. See illustration lin Master Site Plan.
(4) Zero lot line allowance for detached garages and associated living area only, all
living area within the primary dwelling is to be set back a minimum of 5 feet. See
illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 13 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
(5) Homesites on, or adjacent to, common driveway lots (defined and regulated
below), flag lots, outside corner lots, and cul-de-sac streets may have a lesser frontage.
The minimum frontage exceptions for these lots are as follows:
Flag lots:
Outside corner lots:
Cul-de-sac streets:
Cul-de-sac bulb:
20 feet minimum
30 foot chord minimum
60 foot minimum
30 foot chord minimum
Lots taking access from common driveway lot: No frontage required on public
street
b. Common Driveway Lots.
The Development may include common driveway lots, which are
separately platted, non -buildable lots designed to consist of a paved
common driveway to serve other lots. Common driveway lots shall be
owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The following
criteria shall apply to common driveway lots in lieu of any other
requirements of the subdivision or zoning ordinance:
Maximum length (at common driveway line):
150 feet
Minimum width:
20 feet
Minimum pavement width:
20 feet*
Minimum building setback:
10 feet
Minimum frontage:
20 feet
Minimum on -lot driveway length:
20 feet*
Maximum number of lots taking access from
a single common driveway
4 lots
* Unless the City Fire Department approves a narrower width or shorter length.
d. Subdivision Requirements. To facilitate proper design and to accommodate
topography, the following subdivision ordinance requirements shall not apply to
the Development (i.e. the minimum and maximum lengths defined in the
ordinance shall not apply):
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 14 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
i. Cul-de-sac length on the cul-de-sac street south of the community center
generally as shown on the Master Site Plan.
ii Block length.
General Conditions.
2.1.13 Compliance with Zoning and Subdivision Requirements. The Development shall
meet all of the requirements of the R-4 zone, except as specifically set forth
elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. The Development shall also comply
with the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, to the extent
those requirements are not inconsistent with these conditions of approval in
accordance with an approved planned development application. The intent is
that specific subdivision, zoning and other City ordinance requirements will be
applied so as to allow the implementation of the Master Site Plan and the general
intent of the Development Applications.
2.1.14Installation of Infrastructure and Utilities. Subject to the conditions set forth
elsewhere in this Agreement, the Developer shall construct or cause to be
constructed all sanitary sewers, storm drains, pumping stations, water mains and
appurtenances, fire hydrants, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, pressurized irrigation
systems, electrical transmission lines, natural gas lines, telephone lines, sidewalks,
cross drains, street surfacing, street signs, street lighting and barricades as well as
any and all other improvements required to build the Development generally
consistent with the Master Site Plan. The improvements defined in this
paragraph are hereinafter referred to as the "Infrastructure". The Developer shall
have the flexibility to design and build the Infrastructure in a way that
implements, the Master Site Plan and to meet the requirements of the agencies
and entities having jurisdiction over the Infrastructure. The Infrastructure for the
Development shall be dedicated to the appropriate public entities, which shall
assume all obligations to maintain the Infrastructure.
2.1.15Water and Sewer Sizing and Routing. Developer shall coordinate water and sewer
sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. To the extent Developer
is required to construct sewer or water lines larger than required to serve the
Development, the Developer and the City shall enter into an appropriate late -
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 15 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
comers agreement to reimburse Developer for the excess costs incurred by
Developer as allowed by City Ordinance.
2.1.16Underground Utilities. All utilities within the Development will be installed
underground.
2.1.17Road Sections. The Developer shall construct road sections generally consistent
with the street sections included as illustrations 3, 8, 9 and 10 in the Master Site
Plan or as otherwise required by the Ada County Highway District ("ACHD").
2.1.18Irrigation System. Subject to the approval of the NMID, Developer shall design
and construct a pressurized irrigation system that NMID will own and operate.
This system will cover all common area landscaping and private yard areas within
the Development.
2.1.190ther Irrigation and Drainage Ditches. With the exception of Five Mile Creek, all
existing irrigation and drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled per
City Ordinance 11-9-605.M or Developer shall provide an alternative delivery
system. The ditches to be tiled and/or alternative delivery systems shall be shown
on the preliminary plats. Plans must be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, as required by law, with
written confirmation of the approval submitted to the Public Works Department.
2.1.20Existing Wells and Septic Systems. Existing domestic wells and /or septic systems
on Parcel A must be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section
5-7-517. Existing wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape
irrigation.
2.1.21Flood Plain Permits. Developer shall obtain any permits for Flood Plain
Development that are required by City ordinance per criteria outlined in the
ordinance.
2.1.22Signage. Detailed signage plans will be subject to design review and separate
permits as required by the terms of the Development Agreement and the
approved Conditional Use Permit.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 16 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
2.1.23Trash Enclosures. Developer shall coordinate locations and construction
requirements for the community center trash enclosures with Meridian Sanitary
Service, Inc. ("MSS"), and provide a letter of approval from MSS prior to
applying for building permits for the community center.
2.1.24Phasing and Platting. Developer intends to build the Development in two or
more phases. To commence the development of a phase, the Developer will
submit a plat application for the phase (or several phases or the entire
Development as Developer determines in its sole discretion).
2.1.25 Infrastructure Installation in Conjunction with Plat. Developer will install the
Infrastructure serving the phase as part of the phase, and will not record any plats
for subsequent phases of the Development until the Infrastructure for the
ongoing phase is completed. All Infrastructure for the Development shall be
completed or bonded for completion in a manner generally consistent with the
Master Site Plan in conjunction with the final phase of the Development, at the
latest.
2.1.26Fencing Details in Plat. Each plat shall address fencing details for the portion of
the Development covered by the plat. The perimeter fence shall be of a "good
neighbor" design, i.e., the fence shall be of a quality appearance on both sides.
2.1.27As-Built Drawings. For each phase, Developer shall comply with the requirements
of the Meridian City Code and duly adopted City Public Works Standards and
Specifications for submission and inspection of plans and as -built drawings for
the Infrastructure, as well as the inspection of the constructed Infrastructure.
2.1.28Incorporation into Development Agreement. These conditions of approval shall
be incorporated into a Development Agreement to be approved by the City
Council, which shall replace these conditions and the final Development
Agreement and shall be the guiding document for assessing future plats in the
Development. Provided, however, that the provisions of the Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinances shall continue to apply to the Development to the extent
those provisions are not inconsistent with these conditions of approval. These
conditions of approval and the Development Agreement shall act in lieu of
subdivision or zoning ordinance requirements that are inconsistent with these
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 17 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
conditions in accordance with an approved planned development application,
whether currently contained in the Meridian City Code or subsequently adopted.
3. That the City Attorney draft an Order Granting Conditional Use Permit in
accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and
then a conformed copy shall be served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning
and Zoning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney and any affected
party requested notice.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 18 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION
Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of
Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has
an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of
the conditional use permit may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this
decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho
Code.
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the . S t day
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN ANDERSON VOTED_*�—
COUNCILMAN BIRD VOTED
COUNCILMAN deWEERD VOTED _*K—
COUNCILMAN McCANDLESS VOTED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 19 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
DATED: /—/9 -00
MOTION: APPROVED: 4��f7 DISAPPROVED:
Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works
Department and City Attorney.
By: Dated:
City C erk `���cr
,��
TFo �-
msg/Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Woodbridge Community\CUPFUsOrdDec .. TT _
819+
0
�-,,'gyp, r ts'� • �• ��•
.1 �P���•
00u.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 20 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES/ CUP -99-037
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 283 LOT
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES,
LOCATED 450 S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD,
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
;IiE1L'SIZI�
CASE NO. CUP -99-037
ORDER OF
CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
This matter coming before the City Council on the 7' day of December, 1999,
under the provisions of § 11-2-418 E Municipal Code of the City of Meridian for
final action on conditional use permit application and the Council having received
and approving the Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission the
Council takes the following action:
1. That the Applicant and owner of the property is granted a conditional use
permit for the proposed application request of a conditional use permit for the
construction, development, maintenance and use for a 283 Lot Planned Unit
residential development as described in the CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN Dated:
9/27/99, Project 98048, H:\98048\ACADDWG\m-plan.dwg, Mon Aug 30, Sheet 1 of
1, TOOTHMAN &. ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY - Architects, for
WOODBRIDGE AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY, for the development
of the aforementioned projects and which property is described in the attached
Exhibit "A" and consisting of two pages.
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 1 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
2. That the above named applicant is granted a conditional use permit for a 283
Lot Planned Unit development, located 450 S. Locust Grove Road, Meridian, Idaho,
subject to the following conditions of use and development:
2.1 Home Types. The Development shall consist of a mix of homesite types
designated A, B, C and D as set forth on the Master Site Plan. The location and mix
of lot types shall be determined by the Developer based on market demand, with the
aggregate total not to exceed 283 units. The lots located east of Five Mile Creek on
the northern border of the Development adjacent to the Greenhill Estates
Subdivision shall be limited to Type D lots.
2.1. lAll plats in the Development shall comply with the requirements of Idaho Code
Section 5 0-222(a).
2.1.2The subject real property is subject to a development agreement, the terms of
which were approved by City Council and which development agreement shall be
considered amended to reflect terms of this conditional use permit.
Specific Development Requirements
2.1.3Master Site Plan. The Development shall be constructed substantially in
accordance with the Master Site Plan, CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN Dated:
8/27/99, Project 98048, H:\ 98048\ACADDWG\m-plan.dwg, Mon Aug 30, Sheet 1,
TOOTHMAN SL ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY - Architects, for
WOODBRIDGE AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY, and hereinafter
referred to as "Master Site Plan". The Master Site Plan is a guide for the
Development, recognizing the need for flexibility during the platting process.
2.1.4Maximum Number of Units. The Development shall contain no more than 283
units.
2.1.50pen Space. The Development shall include a minimum of 14 acres of open
space generally consistent with the Master Site Plan. The term "open space" shall
include, without limitation, an active recreation area and community center, pocket
parks, linear parks along roadways, greenbelt corridors along Five -Mile Creek only
site wetlands and corridors between neighborhoods. To the extent it is not located in
the ACHD right-of-way, the Developer shall convey the open space to a homeowners'
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 2 OF I 1
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
association following both the final plat approval for the phase of the Development in
which the open space is contained and the completion of the improvements.
2.1.6Access.
a Primary Access. Primary Access shall be from Locust Grove Road and shall
incorporate a landscaped traffic divider at the entryway (illustration 1 to the
Master Site Plan).
b. Secondary Vehicular Access. The Developer shall provide a secondary
vehicular access point to the boundary of Woodbridge to the south-southeast
as shown on the Master Site Plan (or at another point as otherwise mutually
agreed by the Developer, the City and ACHD). The second vehicular access
shall be identified prior to the submittal of the final plat of any property to the
east of Five Mile Creek. The secondary vehicular access shall be operable prior
to the issuance of the 200th building permit for the Development.
C. Emergency Access Location. The Developer shall construct emergency access to
the juncture of Weatherby Drive and the property line adjacent to Greenhill
Estates prior to the issuance of the 100th occupancy permit for the
Development. Until the 166` certificate of occupancy is issued, the
emergency access may be an unpaved all-weather surface. The Developer shall
construct or cause to be constructed an 18- foot -wide, all weather grasscrete
surface between Greenhill Estates and the development including a 5 -foot -wide
meandering pathway or another design approved by ACRD, the City and the
developer; shall install knock -down bollards at the property line to prevent use
except in case of emergencies. All designs shall be approved by ACHD and the
City.
Developer will also put these improvements within a dedicated 50 -foot right-
of-way which would allow for a permanent vehicular access point if, as and
when the ACHD determines it should become the secondary access or a
permanent access.
2.1.7 Locust Grove Landscaping Strip. The Developer shall install landscaping along
Locust Grove Road per the plans attached as illustrations 2 and 3 to the
Master Site Plan or as otherwise required by ACRD. Developer shall
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 3 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
construct the landscape buffer generally consistent with these plans in lieu of
the twenty (20) foot "landscaping strip" requirement of Meridian City Code §
11-9-605.G. Developer shall submit detailed landscape plans consistent with
illustrations 2 and 3 for City Staff approval.
2.1.8 Pathways.
a. Public Roadways. Public pathways and sidewalks will be constructed along all
roadways within the Development as identified on the pathway plan attached
to the Master Site Plan as illustration 4. An eight (8) foot wide asphalt public
pathway will be constructed along, but detached from, Locust Grove Road and
Woodbridge Drive. Five (5) foot concrete sidewalks will be constructed on
both sides of all neighborhood roads as well as the loop road identified on the
east side of the Development.
b. Five Mile Creek. A soft surface pedestrian pathway will be constructed along
Five Mile Creek as generally depicted on the Master Site Plan, illustration 4.
This pathway shall be made available for public use at such time that the
pathway can be connected to a larger public pathway system beyond the
boundaries of the Development.
C. Private Pathways. Private pathways will be constructed within the
Development allowing for direct connections between individual
neighborhoods and other segments of the overall pathway plan, generally as
depicted on the Master Site Plan, illustration 4.
2.1.9 Five Mile Creek Enhancement. In cooperation with the Nampa &. Meridian
Irrigation District ("NMID") and all affected agencies, the Developer will
protect and enhance Five Mile Creek and adjacent wetlands consistent with
the Master Site Plan and applicable laws.
2. 1. 1 OCommunity Center. The Development shall include a community center
designed and constructed in a location consistent with the Master Site Plan.
The community center shall include the following amenities, at a minimum:
0 Multi-purpose room
0 Restrooms/Changing rooms
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 4 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
i
• Mechanical Equipment room
• Swimming pool
• Spa or children's wading pool
• Resident drop-off and parking
s,
Approved Deviations from Subdivision and Zoning Requirements
2. 1.11 Inapplicability of Certain PD -R Requirements. The City acknowledges that,
due to the fact the Development consists of single family residential
construction. the following planned development - residential ("PD -R")
application and corresponding substantive requirements do not apply to the
Development:
a. Submission of specific elevation exhibits.
b. Specification of architectural style and building design.
C. Submission of building materials and color.
d. Designation of garbage, storage and public parking areas.
e. Designation of storage areas, guest parking spaces and maintenance building.
2.1.12Special Standards for the Woodbridge Community. The following standards
shall apply to the Development in lieu of the corresponding standards in the
zoning and subdivision ordinances:
a. Homesite Dimensional Standards:
Homesite
Minimu
Front
Rear
Interior
Street
Maximum
Minimum
Type
m
Yard
Yard
Side
Side Yard
Building
Street
Lot Size
Setback
Setback
Yard
Setback
Height
Frontage
(Sq. Feet)
(1)
Setback
4,800
10'/15'/20
5/15'
0'/5'
15'
35'
48'
Type A
1(3)
(4)
(5)
(2)
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 5 OF I I
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
(1) All front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. See illustration
5 in Master Site Plan.
(2) Identifies front yard setbacks for: side -entry garage/living area/garage face. See
illustrations 5 and 6 in Master Site Plan.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for: detached garages/attached garages and living
areas. See illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
(4) Zero lot line allowance for detached garages and associated living area only, all
living area within the primary dwelling is to be set back a minimum of 5 feet. See
illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
(5) Homesites on, or adjacent to, common driveway lots (defined and regulated
below), flag lots, outside corner lots, and cul-de-sac streets may have a lesser frontage.
The minimum frontage exceptions for these lots are as follows:
Flag lots: 20 feet minimum
Outside corner lots: 30 foot chord minimum
Cul-de-sac streets: 60 foot minimum
Cul-de-sac bulb: 30 foot chord minimum
Lots taking access from common driveway lot: No frontage required on
public street
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 6 OF I 1
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
5,500
10'/15'/20
15'
5'
35'
55'
Type B
115'
(5)
(2)
7,500
10'/15'/20
15'
5'
35'
75'
Type C
115'
(5)
(2)
8,000
10'/15'/20
15'
5'
35'
80'
Type D
115'
(5)
(2)
(1) All front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. See illustration
5 in Master Site Plan.
(2) Identifies front yard setbacks for: side -entry garage/living area/garage face. See
illustrations 5 and 6 in Master Site Plan.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for: detached garages/attached garages and living
areas. See illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
(4) Zero lot line allowance for detached garages and associated living area only, all
living area within the primary dwelling is to be set back a minimum of 5 feet. See
illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
(5) Homesites on, or adjacent to, common driveway lots (defined and regulated
below), flag lots, outside corner lots, and cul-de-sac streets may have a lesser frontage.
The minimum frontage exceptions for these lots are as follows:
Flag lots: 20 feet minimum
Outside corner lots: 30 foot chord minimum
Cul-de-sac streets: 60 foot minimum
Cul-de-sac bulb: 30 foot chord minimum
Lots taking access from common driveway lot: No frontage required on
public street
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 6 OF I 1
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
0 W,
b. Common Driveway Lots.
The Development may include common driveway lots, which are separately
platted, non -buildable lots designed to consist of a paved common driveway to
serve other lots. Common driveway lots shall be owned and maintained by the
Homeowner's Association. The following criteria shall apply to common
driveway lots in lieu of any other requirements of the subdivision or zoning
ordinance:
Maximum length (at common driveway line):
150 feet
Minimum width:
20 feet
Minimum pavement width:
20 feet*
Minimum building setback:
10 feet
Minimum frontage:
20 feet
Minimum on -lot driveway length:
20 feet*
Maximum number of lots taking access from
a single common driveway
4 lots
* Unless the City Fire Department approves a narrower width or shorter length.
d. Subdivision Requirements. To facilitate proper design and to accommodate
topography, the following subdivision ordinance requirements shall not apply
to the Development (i.e. the minimum and maximum lengths defined in the
ordinance shall not apply):
i.Cul-de-sac length on the cul-de-sac street south of the community center
generally as shown on the Master Site Plan.
ii Block length.
General Conditions.
2.1.13 Compliance with Zoning and Subdivision Requirements. The Development
shall meet all of the requirements of the R-4 zone, except as specifically set
forth elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. The Development shall also
comply with the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, to
the extent those requirements are not inconsistent with these conditions of
approval in accordance with an approved planned development application.
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 7 OF 1 I
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
The intent is that specific subdivision, zoning and other City ordinance
requirements will be applied so as to allow the implementation of the Master
Site Plan and the general intent of the Development Applications.
2.1.14Installation of Infrastructure and Utilities. Subject to the conditions set forth
elsewhere in this Agreement, the Developer shall construct or cause to be
constructed all sanitary sewers, storm drains, pumping stations, water mains
and appurtenances, fire hydrants, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, pressurized
irrigation systems, electrical transmission lines, natural gas lines, telephone
lines, sidewalks, cross drains, street surfacing, street signs, street lighting and
barricades as well as any and all other improvements required to build the
Development generally consistent with the Master Site Plan. The
improvements defined in this paragraph are hereinafter referred to as the
"Infrastructure". The Developer shall have the flexibility to design and build
the Infrastructure in a way that implements the Master Site Plan and to meet
the requirements of the agencies and entities having jurisdiction over the
Infrastructure. The Infrastructure for the Development shall be dedicated to the
appropriate public entities, which shall assume all obligations to maintain the
Infrastructure.
2.1.15Water and Sewer Sizing and Routing. Developer shall coordinate water and
sewer sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. To the extent
Developer is required to construct sewer or water lines larger than required to
serve the Development, the Developer and the City shall enter into an
appropriate late -comers agreement to reimburse Developer for the excess costs
incurred by Developer as allowed by City Ordinance.
2.1.16Underground Qtilities. All utilities within the Development will be installed
underground.
2.1.17Road Sections. The Developer shall construct road sections generally consistent
with the street sections included as illustrations 3, 8, 9 and 10 in the Master
Site Plan or as otherwise required by the Ada County Highway District
("ACHD").
2.1.18 Irrigation System. Subject to the approval of the NMID, Developer shall design
and construct a pressurized irrigation system that NMID will own and operate.
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 8 OF I I
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
This system will cover all common area landscaping and private yard areas
within the Development.
2.1.190ther Irrigation and Drainage Ditches. With the exception of Five Mile Creek,
all existing irrigation and drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled
per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M or Developer shall provide an alternative
delivery system. The ditches to be tiled and/or alternative delivery systems shall
be shown on the preliminary plats. Plans must be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, as required by law, with
written confirmation of the approval submitted to the Public Works
Department.
2.1.20Existing Wells and Septic Systems. Existing domestic wells and /or septic
systems on Parcel A must be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance
Section 5-7-517. Existing wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation.
2.1.21 Flood Plain Permits. Developer shall obtain any permits for Flood Plain
Development that are required by City ordinance per criteria outlined in the
ordinance.
2.1.22Signage. Detailed signage plans will be subject to design review and separate
permits as required by the terms of the Development Agreement and the
approved Conditional Use Permit.
2.1.23Trash Enclosures. Developer shall coordinate locations and construction
requirements for the community center trash enclosures with Meridian Sanitary
Service, Inc. ("MSS"), and provide a letter of approval from MSS prior to
applying for building permits for the community center.
2.1.24Phasing and Platting. Developer intends to build the Development in two or
more phases. To commence the development of a phase, the Developer will
submit a plat application for the phase (or several phases or the entire
Development as Developer determines in its sole discretion).
2.1.25 Infrastructure Installation in Conjunction with Plat. Developer will install the
Infrastructure serving the phase as part of the phase, and will not record any
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 9 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
plats for subsequent phases of the Development until the Infrastructure for the
ongoing phase is completed. All Infrastructure for the Development shall be
completed or bonded for completion in a manner generally consistent with the
Master Site Plan in conjunction with the final phase of the Development, at the
latest.
2.1.26Fencing Details in Plat. Each plat shall address fencing details for the portion of
the Development covered by the plat. The perimeter fence shall be of a "good
neighbor" design, i.e., the fence shall be of a quality appearance on both sides.
2.1.27As-Built Drawings. For each phase, Developer shall comply with the
requirements of the Meridian City Code and duly adopted City Public Works
Standards and Specifications for submission and inspection of plans and as -
built drawings for the Infrastructure, as well as the inspection of the
constructed Infrastructure.
2.1.28 Incorporation into Development Agreement. These conditions of approval shall
be incorporated into a Development Agreement to be approved by the City
Council, which shall replace these conditions and the final Development
Agreement and shall be the guiding document for assessing future plats in the
Development. Provided, however, that the provisions of the Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinances shall continue to apply to the Development to the extent
those provisions are not inconsistent with these conditions of approval. These
conditions of approval and the Development Agreement shall act in lieu of
subdivision or zoning ordinance requirements that are inconsistent with these
conditions in accordance with an approved planned development application,
whether currently contained in the Meridian City Code or subsequently
adopted. ,
3. The above conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall
meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application for a conditional
use permit.
4. Notice to Permit Holder, this conditional use permit is not transferable
without complying with the provisions of § 11-2-418 J of the Municipal Code of the
City of Meridian, a copy of which is attached to this permit.
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 10 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
f'
J
action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the �8 day of
*4ZV6'0.
61 X--� _
, Mayor City of Meridian
Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works
Department and City Attorney.
By:Dated:
City Clerk
/ -Ig -ov
msg/Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360NAWoodbridge Community\CUPOrder
SEAL
'�tttttttt: tNi�Nt�``
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 11 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
January 14, 2000
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: JANUARY 18 2000
APPLICANT: WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC —AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: C
REQUEST: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR
PROPOSED WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER'
COMMENTS
SEE DECEMBER 21, 1999, ITEM PACKETS
l'e e au�l�� rev
�/ f�, vj---",
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
0
WHITE, PETERSON, PRUSS, MORROW & GIGRAY, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JULIE KLEIN FISCHER
PHILIP A. PETERSON
WM. F. GIGRAY, III
STEPHEN L. PRUSS
BRENT JOHNSON
ERIC S. ROSSMAN
D. SAMUEL JOHNSON
TODD A. ROSSMAN
WILLIAM A. MORROW
DAVID M. SWARTLEY
WILLIAM F. NICHOLS•
TERRENCE R. WHITE"
CHRISTOPHER S. NYE
-ALSO ADMITTED IN OR
--ALSO ADMITTED IN WA
William G. Berg, Jr., City Cleric
Meridian City Hall
33 East Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE, SUITE 31
POST OFFICE BOX 1150
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150
TEL (208) 288-2499
FAX (208) 288-2501
Email via Internet @ Wfg@WPPmg.COm
January 14, 2000
Re: WOODBRIDGE CUP -99-037 / FILE NO.: CUP -99-037
Dear Will:
NAMPA OFFICE
104 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH
POST OFFICE BOX 247
NAMPA, IDAHO 83653.0247
TEL (208) 466-9272
FAX (208) 466.4405
PLEASE REPLY TO
MERIDIAN OFFICE
JAN 1 4 2000
CITY OF All filiLlIN
Pursuant to discussions with Scott Beecham, Ed Miller and Shari Stiles, please find
enclosed an additional revised original dated 01-14-9 of the CUP Findings and Order for the
Woodbridge application. Please note the revisions in both documents pertain to the change from
Conceptual Master Plan to "Master Site Plan", and including the language "attached Exhibit "A"
with attached Illustrations 1 - 10 and consisting of eleven pages". Additionally, in 2.1.12 the d.
Subdivision Requirements has been changed to "c. Subdivision Requirements". Please replace
any other Findings and Orders you may have in the Woodbridge CUP with these new
revised 01-14-00 Findings and Order.
This matter should be now be completed, and if you have any questions please
advise.
Very truly yours,
f
Wm. F. Gigray, III ,
Enclosures (2)
cc: Ed Miller
Gary Allen
msg/Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Woodbridge Community\Berg011400.Ltr
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY,
LLC, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR 283 -LOT
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES, LOCATED AT 450
S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD,
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
Case No. CUP -99-037
JAN 14 2000
CITY OF lm
01-14-00
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS
This above entitled conditional use permit application having come before
the City Council for public hearing on December 7, 1999, at the Meridian City Hall, 33
East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and
Recommendation to City Council issued by the Planning and Zoning Commission who
conducted a public hearing and having heard and taken oral and written testimony, and
Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, appeared and testified at the hearing,
and appearing on behalf of the Applicant was Pete O'Neill, appearing and testifying, and
affected property owners who appeared and testified were: Dick Rockrohr, Brian Mecham,
Reese McMillian, Alan Fox, Ann Lindley, and Mervin Lindley, and having duly considered
the matter and the Planning and Zoning Commission made the following Findings of Fact
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 1 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
•
and Conclusions of Law and Recommendation to City Council, and the City Council
having received the staff report and the record made before the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and being fully advised in the premises, the Council finds and concludes as
follows:
STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Idaho Code § 67-6512 provides in part that:
(A) As part of a zoning ordinance the City Council may provide
for the processing of applications for special or conditional
use permits; and
(B) That a special use permit may be granted to an applicant if
the proposed use is otherwise prohibited by the terms of the
zoning ordinance, but may be allowed with conditions
under specific provisions of the zoning ordinance, subject to
the ability of political subdivisions, including school
districts, to provide services for the proposed use, and when
it is not in conflict with the plan; and
(C) That upon the granting of a special use permit, conditions
may be attached to a special use permit, including, but not
limited to, those:
1) Minimizing adverse impact on other development;
2) Controlling the sequence and timing of development;
3) Controlling the duration of development;
4) Assuring that development is maintained properly;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 2 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
5) Designating the exact location and nature of
development; requiring the provision for on-site or
off-site public facilities or services; requiring more
restrictive standards than those generally required in
an ordinance; requiring mitigation of effects of the
proposed development upon service delivery by any
political subdivision, including school districts,
providing services within the planning jurisdiction.
2. The City of Meridian has exercised its authority to provide for the
processing of applications for Conditional Use Permits by the enactment of § 11-2-418
Municipal Code.
3. Idaho Code § 67-6504 provides that the City Council may exercise all of
the powers required and authorized by Chapter 65 of Title 67 Idaho Code which Act is
known as the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975."
4. The City of Meridian has enacted the Comprehensive Plan City of
Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ordinance No. 629, January 4, 1994.
5. Prior to granting a conditional use permit in a Low Density Residential
zone (R-4), a public hearing shall be conducted with notice to be published and
provided to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of
the external boundaries of the land under consideration for the conditional use permit
all in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-2-418E City of Meridian Zoning
and Development Ordinance, which provides as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 3 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
•
0
"Prior to approving a Conditional Use Permit, the applicant and the
Commission and Council shall follow notice and hearing procedures provided in
Section 11-2-416, Zoning Amendment Procedures, of this Ordinance. Provided,
however, that Conditional Use applications for land in Old Town and in
Industrial and Commercial Districts shall only be required to have one public
hearing which shall be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission and
after the recommendation of the Commission is made the application shall go
before the City Council without a public hearing and the Council may approve,
deny, or modify the recommendation of the Commission."
STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATIVE TO LEGAL AUTHORITY
AND JURISDICTION
FINDINGS OF FACT
A notice of a public hearing on the conditional use permit was published
for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for December
7, 1999, before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice
having been mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred
(300') feet of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than
fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing and with the notice of public hearings having
been posted upon the property under consideration more than one week before said
hearing and the copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and
television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having been duly
considered by the City Council at the said December 7, 1999, public hearing; and the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 4 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
Applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions providing services
within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full
opportunity to express comments and submit evidence.
2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set
forth in Idaho Code §§67-6509 and 67-6512; and §§11-2-416E and 11-2-418E as
evidenced by the Affidavit of Mailing, and the Affidavit of Publication and Proof of
Posting filed with the staff report.
3. Council takes judicial notice of its Zoning, Subdivision and
Development Ordinances codified at Title 11 Municipal Code of the City of Meridian
and all current zoning maps thereof and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Meridian adopted December 21, 1993 Ordinance #629 - January 4, 1994 and Maps
and the Ordinance establishing the Impact Area Boundary Ordinance and Map.
4. The property is located at 450 S. Locust Grove Road, Meridian, Idaho.
5. The owner of record of the subject property James F. Griffin c/o First
Security Bank Trust Group, of Boise, Idaho.
6. Applicant is Woodbridge Community, LLC, of 100 N. 9th Street, Boise.
7. The subject property was zoned Ada County (R -T) and the Applicant
herein has made an application to the City to annex and change the zoning to
Meridian, Low Density Residential R-4, in Case No. AZ -99-020, which was granted
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 5 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
0
subject to a Development Agreement. The zoning district of R-4 is defined within the
City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section 11-2-408(12).
8. The proposed application requests a conditional use permit for the
construction, development, maintenance and use of a 283 Lot Planned Unit
development. The R-4 zoning designation and the Development Agreement requires a
conditional use permit be obtained. (Meridian City Zoning and Development
Ordinance, Section 11-2-409A).
9. The requested conditional use is required as a condition of the
development agreement at Sections 6. Conditions Governing Development of Subject
Property.
10. The requested conditional use is described in the MASTER SITE PLAN,
Dated: 8/27/99, Project 98048, H:\ 98048\ACADDWG\m-plan.dwg, Mon Aug 30,
Sheet 1 of 1, TOOTHMAN SL ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY - Architects, for
WOODBRIDGE AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY, for the development
of the aforementioned residential projects and which property is described in the
attached Exhibit "A" with attached Illustrations 1 - 10 and consisting of eleven pages.
11. Giving due consideration to the comments received from the
governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning
jurisdiction, as herein provided for in the conditions of approval, public facilities and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 6 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
0 •
services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the
public if the conditions of development, as set forth in the Decision and Order number
2, are found to mitigate the effects of the proposed use and development upon services
delivered by political subdivisions providing services to the subject real property within
the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian.
12. The Meridian City Council recognizes that the proposed application is in
compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as enumerated in the
Recommendations of Approval to the City Council for Annexation and Zoning of the
Subject Property in Case No. AZ -99-020 incorporated herein by reference.
13. The use proposed within the subject application will in fact, constitute a
conditional use as determined by Council action and City Ordinance.
14. The use proposed within the subject application will be subject
to the conditions as set forth in the Decision and Order under number 2, and will be
designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in
appearance or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not
change the intended essential character of the same area.
15. The use proposed within the subject application will not be
hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.
16. The use proposed within the subject application will be served
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 7 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
0
adequately by central public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and
fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer.
17. The applicant has agreed to pay any additional sewer, water or
trash fees or charges, if any associated with the use.
18. The use proposed within the subject application will not involve
uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be
detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive
production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
19. Sufficient parking for the proposed use of the property will be
provided.
20. The use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of natural
or scenic features of major importance relating to the property.
DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby
ORDER and this does Order that:
That the Applicant and owner of the property, and is granted a
conditional use permit for the proposed application request of a conditional use permit
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 8 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
•
for the construction, development, maintenance and use of a 283 Lot Planned Unit
residential development, as described in the MASTER SITE PLAN Dated: 8/27/99,
Project 98048, H:\ 98048\ACADDWG\m-plan.dwg, Mon Aug 30, Sheet 1 of 1,
TOOTHMAN &. ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY - Architects, for
WOODBRIDGE AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY, for the development
of the aforementioned projects and which property is described in the attached Exhibit
"A" with attached Illustrations 1 - 10 and consisting of eleven pages.
2. The conditional use permit granted herein is subject to the following terms and
conditions:
2.1 Home Types. The Development shall consist of a mix of homesite types
designated A, B, C and D as set forth on the Master Site Plan. The location and
mix of lot types shall be determined by the Developer based on market demand,
with the aggregate total not to exceed 283 units. The lots located east of Five
Mile Creek on the northern border of the Development adjacent to the
Greenhill Estates Subdivision shall be limited to Type D lots.
2. 1.1 All plats in the Development shall comply with the requirements of Idaho Code
Section 5 0-222(a).
2.1.2 The subject real property is subject to a development agreement, the terms of
which were approved by City Council and which development agreement shall
be considered amended to reflect terms of this conditional use permit.
Specific Development Requirements
2.1.3 Master Site Plan. The Development shall be constructed substantially in
accordance with the Master Site Plan, MASTER SITE PLAN Dated: 8/27/99,
Project 98048, H:\ 98048\ACADDWG\m-plan.dwg, Mon Aug 30, Sheet 1,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 9 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
TOOTHMAN &. ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY - Architects, for
WOODBRIDGE AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY, and
hereinafter referred to as "Master Site Plan". The Master Site Plan is a guide for
the Development, recognizing the need for flexibility during the platting process.
2.1.4 Maximum Number of Units. The Development shall contain no more than 283
units.
2.1.5 Open Space. The Development shall include a minimum of 14 acres of open
space generally consistent with the Master Site Plan. The term "open space"
shall include, without limitation, an active recreation area and community
center, pocket parks, linear parks along roadways, greenbelt corridors along Five -
Mile Creek only site wetlands and corridors between neighborhoods. To the
extent it is not located in the ACHD right-of-way, the Developer shall convey
the open space to a homeowners' association following both the final plat
approval for the phase of the Development in which the open space is contained
and the completion of the improvements.
2.1.6 Access.
a. Primary Access. Primary Access shall be from Locust Grove Road and shall
incorporate a landscaped traffic divider at the entryway (illustration 1 to the
Master Site Plan).
b. Secondary Vehicular Access. The Developer shall provide a secondary vehicular
access point to the boundary of Woodbridge to the south-southeast as shown on
the Master Site Plan (or at another point as otherwise mutually agreed by the
Developer, the City and ACHD). The second vehicular access shall be identified
prior to the submittal of the final plat of any property to the east of Five Mile
Creek. The secondary vehicular access shall be operable prior to the issuance of
the 200th building permit for the Development.
C. Emergency Access Location. The Developer shall construct emergency access to
the juncture of Weatherby Drive and the property line adjacent to Greenhill
Estates prior to the issuance of the 100th occupancy permit for the
Development. Until the 166t' certificate of occupancy is issued, the emergency
access may be an unpaved all-weather surface. The Developer shall construct or
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 10 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
0 0
cause to be constructed an 18- foot -wide, all weather grasscrete surface between
Greenhill Estates and the development including a 5 -foot -wide meandering
pathway or another design approved by ACRD, the City and the developer;
shall install knock -down bollards at the property line to prevent use except in
case of emergencies. All designs shall be approved by ACHD and the City.
Developer will also put these improvements within a dedicated 50 -foot right-of-
way which would allow for a permanent vehicular access point if, as and when
the ACHD determines it should become the secondary access or a permanent
access.
2.1.7 Locust Grove Landscaping Strip. The Developer shall install landscaping along
Locust Grove Road per the plans attached as illustrations 2 and 3 to the Master
Site Plan or as otherwise required by ACHD. Developer shall construct the
landscape buffer generally consistent with these plans in lieu of the twenty (20)
foot "landscaping strip" requirement of Meridian City Code § 11-9-605.G.
Developer shall submit detailed landscape plans consistent with illustrations 2
and 3 for City Staff approval.
2.1.8 Pathways.
a. Public Roadways. Public pathways and sidewalks will be constructed along all
roadways within the Development as identified on the pathway plan attached to
the Master Site Plan as illustration 4. An eight (8) foot wide asphalt public
pathway will be constructed along, but detached from, Locust Grove Road and
Woodbridge Drive. Five (5) foot concrete sidewalks will be constructed on both
sides of all neighborhood roads as well as the loop road identified on the east
side of the Development.
b. Five Mile Creek. A soft surface pedestrian pathway will be constructed along
Five Mile Creek as generally depicted on the Master Site Plan, illustration 4.
This pathway shall be made available for public use at such time that the
pathway can be connected to a larger public pathway system beyond the
boundaries of the Development.
C. Private Pathways. Private pathways will be constructed within the Development
allowing for direct connections between individual neighborhoods and other
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 11 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
0
segments of the overall pathway plan, generally as depicted on the Master Site
Plan, illustration 4.
2.1.9 Five Mile Creek Enhancement. In cooperation with the Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District ("NMID") and all affected agencies, the Developer will
protect and enhance Five Mile Creek and adjacent wetlands consistent with the
Master Site Plan and applicable laws.
2.1.1 OCommunity Center. The Development shall include a community center
designed and constructed in a location consistent with the Master Site Plan.
The community center shall include the following amenities, at a minimum:
• Multi-purpose room
• Restrooms/Changing rooms
• Mechanical Equipment room
• Swimming pool
• Spa or children's wading pool
• Resident drop-off and parking
Approved Deviations from Subdivision and Zoning Requirements
2. 1.11 Inapplicability of Certain PD -R Requirements. The City acknowledges that, due
to the fact the Development consists of single family residential construction.
the following planned development - residential ("PD -R") application and
corresponding substantive requirements do not apply to the Development:
a. Submission of specific elevation exhibits.
b. Specification of architectural style and building design.
C. Submission of building materials and color.
d. Designation of garbage, storage and public parking areas.
e. Designation of storage areas, guest parking spaces and maintenance building.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 12 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
2.1.12Special Standards for the Woodbridge Community. The following standards
shall apply to the Development in lieu of the corresponding standards in the
zoning and subdivision ordinances:
a. Homesite Dimensional Standards:
Homesite
Minimum
Front
Rear
Interior
Street
Maximum
Minimum
Type
Lot Size
Yard
Yard
Side
Side Yard
Building
Street
(Sq. Feet)
Setback
Setback
Yard
Setback
Height
Frontage
(1)
Setback
4,800
10'/15'/20'
3/15'
0'/5'
15'
35'
48'
Type A
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
51500
10'/15'/20'
15'
5'
15,
35'
55'
Te B
YP
(2)
(5)
TypeC
7,500
10'/15'/20'
15'
5
15
35'
75'
(2)
(5)
8,000
10'/15'/20'
15'
5'
15,
35'
80'
Type D
(2)
(5)
(1) All front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. See illustration 5
in Master Site Plan.
(2) Identifies front yard setbacks for: side -entry garage/living area/garage face. See
illustrations 5 and 6 in Master Site Plan.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for: detached garages/attached garages and living
areas. See illustration lin Master Site Plan.
(4) Zero lot line allowance for detached garages and associated living area only, all
living area within the primary dwelling is to be set back a minimum of 5 feet. See
illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 13 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
(5) Homesites on, or adjacent to, common driveway lots (defined and regulated
below), flag lots, outside corner lots, and cul-de-sac streets may have a lesser frontage.
The minimum frontage exceptions for these lots are as follows:
Flag lots:
Outside corner lots:
Cul-de-sac streets:
Cul-de-sac bulb:
20 feet minimum
30 foot chord minimum
60 foot minimum
30 foot chord minimum
Lots taking access from common driveway lot: No frontage required on public
street
b. Common Driveway Lots.
The Development may include common driveway lots, which are
separately platted, non -buildable lots designed to consist of a paved
common driveway to serve other lots. Common driveway lots shall be
owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The following
criteria shall apply to common driveway lots in lieu of any other
requirements of the subdivision or zoning ordinance:
Maximum length (at common driveway line): 150 feet
Minimum width:
20 feet
Minimum pavement width:
20 feet*
Minimum building setback:
10 feet
Minimum frontage:
20 feet
Minimum on -lot driveway length:
20 feet*
Maximum number of lots taking access from
a single common driveway
4 lots
* Unless the City Fire Department approves a narrower width or shorter length.
C. Subdivision Requirements. To facilitate proper design and to accommodate
topography, the following subdivision ordinance requirements shall not apply to
the Development (i.e. the minimum and maximum lengths defined in the
ordinance shall not apply) :
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 14 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
W
construct the landscape buffer generally consistent with these plans in lieu of
the twenty (20) foot "landscaping strip" requirement of Meridian City Code §
11-9-605.G. Developer shall submit detailed landscape plans consistent with
illustrations 2 and 3 for City Staff approval.
2.1.8 Pathways.
a. Public Roadways. Public pathways and sidewalks will be constructed along all
roadways within the Development as identified on the pathway plan attached
to the Master Site Plan as illustration 4. An eight (8) foot wide asphalt public
pathway will be constructed along, but detached from, Locust Grove Road and
Woodbridge Drive. Five (5) foot concrete sidewalks will be constructed on
both sides of all neighborhood roads as well as the loop road identified on the
east side of the Development.
b. Five Mile Creek. A soft surface pedestrian pathway will be constructed along
Five Mile Creek as generally depicted on the Master Site Plan, illustration 4.
This pathway shall be made available for public use at such time that the
pathway can be connected to a larger public pathway system beyond the
boundaries of the Development.
C. Private Pathways. Private pathways will be constructed within the
Development allowing for direct connections between individual
neighborhoods and other segments of the overall pathway plan, generally as
depicted on the Master Site Plan, illustration 4.
2.1.9 Five Mile Creek Enhancement. In cooperation with the Nampa S& Meridian
Irrigation District ("NMID") and all affected agencies, the Developer will
protect and enhance Five Mile Creek and adjacent wetlands consistent with
the Master Site Plan and applicable laws.
2. 1. 1 OCommunity Center. The Development shall include a community center
designed and constructed in a location consistent with the Master Site Plan.
The community center shall include the following amenities, at a minimum:
• Multi-purpose room
• Restrooms/Changing rooms
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 4 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
0
• Mechanical Equipment room
• Swimming pool
• Spa or children's wading pool
• Resident drop-off and parking
Approved Deviations from Subdivision and Zoning Requirements
2.1.11 Inapplicability of Certain PD -R Requirements. The City acknowledges that,
due to the fact the Development consists of single family residential
construction. the following planned development - residential ("PD -R")
application and corresponding substantive requirements do not apply to the
Development:
a. Submission of specific elevation exhibits.
b. Specification of architectural style and building design.
C. Submission of building materials and color.
d. Designation of garbage, storage and public parking areas.
e. Designation of storage areas, guest parking spaces and maintenance building.
2.1.12Special Standards for the Woodbridge Community. The following standards
shall apply to the Development in lieu of the corresponding standards in the
zoning and subdivision ordinances:
a. Homesite Dimensional Standards:
Homesite
Minimu
Front
Rear
Interior
Street
Maximum
Minimum
Type
m
Yard
Yard
Side
Side Yard
Building
Street
Lot Size
Setback
Setback
Yard
Setback
Height
Frontage
(Sq. Feet)
(1)
Setback
4,800
10'/15'/20
5'/15'
0'/5'
15'
35'
48'
Type A
1(3)
(4)
(5)
(2)
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 5 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
0 0
(1) All front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. See illustration
5 in Master Site Plan.
(2) Identifies front yard setbacks for: side -entry garage/living area/garage face. See
illustrations 5 and 6 in Master Site Plan.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for: detached garages/attached garages and living
areas. See illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
(4) Zero lot line allowance for detached garages and associated living area only, all
living area within the primary dwelling is to be set back a minimum of 5 feet. See
illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
(5) Homesites on, or adjacent to, common driveway lots (defined and regulated
below), flag lots, outside corner lots, and cul-de-sac streets may have a lesser frontage.
The minimum frontage exceptions for these lots are as follows:
Flag lots:
Outside corner lots:
Cul-de-sac streets:
Cul-de-sac bulb:
Lots taking access from common driveway lot:
20 feet minimum
30 foot chord minimum
60 foot minimum
30 foot chord minimum
No frontage required on
public street
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 6 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
5,500
10'/15'/20
15'
5'
35'
55'
Type B
I15'
(5)
(2)
7,500
10'/15'/20
15'
5'
35'
75'
Type C
115'
(5)
(2)
8,000
10'/15'/20
15'
5'
35'
80'
Type D
f
15'
(5)
(2)
(1) All front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. See illustration
5 in Master Site Plan.
(2) Identifies front yard setbacks for: side -entry garage/living area/garage face. See
illustrations 5 and 6 in Master Site Plan.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for: detached garages/attached garages and living
areas. See illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
(4) Zero lot line allowance for detached garages and associated living area only, all
living area within the primary dwelling is to be set back a minimum of 5 feet. See
illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
(5) Homesites on, or adjacent to, common driveway lots (defined and regulated
below), flag lots, outside corner lots, and cul-de-sac streets may have a lesser frontage.
The minimum frontage exceptions for these lots are as follows:
Flag lots:
Outside corner lots:
Cul-de-sac streets:
Cul-de-sac bulb:
Lots taking access from common driveway lot:
20 feet minimum
30 foot chord minimum
60 foot minimum
30 foot chord minimum
No frontage required on
public street
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 6 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
b. Common Driveway Lots.
The Development may include common driveway lots, which are separately
platted, non -buildable lots designed to consist of a paved common driveway to
serve other lots. Common driveway lots shall be owned and maintained by the
Homeowner's Association. The following criteria shall apply to common
driveway lots in lieu of any other requirements of the subdivision or zoning
ordinance:
Maximum length (at common driveway line):
150 feet
Minimum width:
20 feet
Minimum pavement width:
20 feet*
Minimum building setback:
10 feet
Minimum frontage:
20 feet
Minimum on -lot driveway length:
20 feet*
Maximum number of lots taking access from
a single common driveway
4 lots
* Unless the City Fire Department approves a narrower width or shorter length.
C. Subdivision Requirements. To facilitate proper design and to accommodate
topography, the following subdivision ordinance requirements shall not apply
to the Development (i.e. the minimum and maximum lengths defined in the
ordinance shall not apply):
i.Cul-de-sac length on the cul-de-sac street south of the community center
generally as shown on the Master Site Plan.
ii Block length.
General Conditions.
2.1.13 Compliance with Zoning and Subdivision Requirements. The Development
shall meet all of the requirements of the R-4 zone, except as specifically set
forth elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. The Development shall also
comply with the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, to
the extent those requirements are not inconsistent with these conditions of
approval in accordance with an approved planned development application.
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 7 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
0
The intent is that specific subdivision, zoning and other City ordinance
requirements will be applied so as to allow the implementation of the Master
Site Plan and the general intent of the Development Applications.
2.1.14Installation of Infrastructure and Utilities. Subject to the conditions set forth
elsewhere in this Agreement, the Developer shall construct or cause to be
constructed all sanitary sewers, storm drains, pumping stations, water mains
and appurtenances, fire hydrants, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, pressurized
irrigation systems, electrical transmission lines, natural gas lines, telephone
lines, sidewalks, cross drains, street surfacing, street signs, street lighting and
barricades as well as any and all other improvements required to build the
Development generally consistent with the Master Site Plan. The
improvements defined in this paragraph are hereinafter referred to as the
"Infrastructure". The Developer shall have the flexibility to design and build
the Infrastructure in a way that implements the Master Site Plan and to meet
the requirements of the agencies and entities having jurisdiction over the
Infrastructure. The Infrastructure for the Development shall be dedicated to the
appropriate public entities, which shall assume all obligations to maintain the
Infrastructure.
2.1.15Water and Sewer Sizing and Routing. Developer shall coordinate water and
sewer sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. To the extent
Developer is required to construct sewer or water lines larger than required to
serve the Development, the Developer and the City shall enter into an
appropriate late -comers agreement to reimburse Developer for the excess costs
incurred by Developer as allowed by City Ordinance.
2.1.16Underground Utilities. All utilities within the Development will be installed
underground.
2.1.17Road Sections. The Developer shall construct road sections generally consistent
with the street sections included as illustrations 3, 8, 9 and 10 in the Master
Site Plan or as otherwise required by the Ada County Highway District
("ACHD").
2.1.18Irrigation System. Subject to the approval of the NMID, Developer shall design
and construct a pressurized irrigation system that NMID will own and operate.
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 8 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
•
This system will cover all common area landscaping and private yard areas
within the Development.
2.1.190ther Irrigation and Drainage Ditches. With the exception of Five Mile Creek
all existing irrigation and drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled
per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M or Developer shall provide an alternative
delivery system. The ditches to be tiled and/or alternative delivery systems shall
be shown on the preliminary plats. Plans must be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, as required by law, with
written confirmation of the approval submitted to the Public Works
Department.
2.1.20Existing Wells and Septic Systems. Existing domestic wells and /or septic
systems on Parcel A must be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance
Section 5-7-517. Existing wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation.
2.1.21Flood Plain Permits. Developer shall obtain any permits for Flood Plain
Development that are required by City ordinance per criteria outlined in the
ordinance.
2.1.22Signage. Detailed signage plans will be subject to design review and separate
permits as required by the terms of the Development Agreement and the
approved Conditional Use Permit.
2.1.23Trash Enclosures. Developer shall coordinate locations and construction
requirements for the community center trash enclosures with Meridian Sanitary
Service, Inc. ("MSS"), and provide a letter of approval from MSS prior to
applying for building permits for the community center.
2.1.24Phasing and Platting. Developer intends to build the Development in two or
more phases. To commence the development of a phase, the Developer will
submit a plat application for the phase (or several phases or the entire
Development as Developer determines in its sole discretion).
2.1.25 Infrastructure Installation in Conjunction with Plat. Developer will install the
Infrastructure serving the phase as part of the phase, and will not record any
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 9 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
U
plats for subsequent phases of the Development until the Infrastructure for the
ongoing phase is completed. All Infrastructure for the Development shall be
completed or bonded for completion in a manner generally consistent with the
Master Site Plan in conjunction with the final phase of the Development, at the
latest.
2.1.26Fencing Details in Plat. Each plat shall address fencing details for the portion of
the Development covered by the plat. The perimeter fence shall be of a "good
neighbor" design, i.e., the fence shall be of a quality appearance on both sides.
2.1.27As-Built Drawings. For each phase, Developer shall comply with the
requirements of the Meridian City Code and duly adopted City Public Works
Standards and Specifications for submission and inspection of plans and as -
built drawings for the Infrastructure, as well as the inspection of the
constructed Infrastructure.
2.1.28 Incorporation into Development Agreement. These conditions of approval shall
be incorporated into a Development Agreement to be approved by the City
Council, which shall replace these conditions and the final Development
Agreement and shall be the guiding document for assessing future plats in the
Development. Provided, however, that the provisions of the Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinances shall continue to apply to the Development to the extent
those provisions are not inconsistent with these conditions of approval. These
conditions of approval and the Development Agreement shall act in lieu of
subdivision or zoning ordinance requirements that are inconsistent with these
conditions in accordance with an approved planned development application,
whether currently contained in the Meridian City Code or subsequently
adopted.
3. The above conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall
meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application for a conditional
use permit.
4. Notice to Permit Holder, this conditional use permit is not transferable
without complying with the provisions of § 11-2-418 J of the Municipal Code of the
City of Meridian, a copy of which is attached to this permit.
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 10 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
0
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of
, 1999.
Robert D. Corrie, Mayor City of Meridian
Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works
Department and City Attorney.
By:
City Clerk
Dated:
msg/Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Woodbridge Community\CUPOrder
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 11 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
0 0
Ll( WAPr_'IlW Cl IN: 11SINIAIW -P �N
MOM. I.Y. o"
.11 V, "�LW 6 T"—. ,
0
> pv
A
W
LOCUST GROVE ROAD
C., n
LA C
z
-3
•4
L
II
c- 4
C'
M
cn
cr
27
1L
WOODBRIDGETOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY
AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY COMWLn"G OlMMERS. WrKYORS AND PLANNERS
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
Rj
MASTER SITE PLAN
jF
of
y
.q q
o
0
> pv
A
W
LOCUST GROVE ROAD
C., n
LA C
z
-3
•4
L
II
c- 4
C'
M
cn
cr
27
1L
WOODBRIDGETOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY
AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY COMWLn"G OlMMERS. WrKYORS AND PLANNERS
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
Rj
MASTER SITE PLAN
c
c
o'
C/)
96'-0" RIGHT-OF-WAY i
CD
CD
22'-6- BUFFER
0
0
cn
0
CD
0
CL
I
w
CD
a
o
tri
w
cn
CL
N
CCD
n
00
y
(x7
X
C
r
a
z
x
C
r
a
z
E
4-1
0
M—wc W. I' lMtW^M*K CO. Y WPRMWaft NYRE WV"Y WO aa%%'WM"fin r:rll'• "— 'MCIrt OM "WVA?b CF'WY—Qdft LKIdIX" tE MCT 1-0'!D
C
vm LOCUST GROVE ROAD
.............
................................. . .........
I.,
ge
a
M
�2 Jk'
q.1 WOODBRIDGE TOOTHMAN—ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY
AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY CMWLTM MaUMEpS. SurwVORS M0 PLANHEn
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
w
a
c�
n
1
r
ra
9
CD
w
a
CD
0 •
� I
� I
I �
I �
I �
o -
0 . 0
CD
C
C
n
I
N
CD
0
r
0
r
C
°D '
� o
I�
01 t�
I I 7g
4 1CD
-- — — v
a
a
0
y
0•
00
C
CD
CD
O
CL
CD
0
0
E/
W
CD
CD
r
0
0
b
0
w
a
cn
cD
9:
0
E-.
El
E E
CD
a
a
0
Ll
0
i. Cul-de-sac length on the cul-de-sac street south of the community center
generally as shown on the Master Site Plan.
ii Block length.
General Conditions.
2.1.13 Compliance with Zoning and Subdivision Requirements. The Development shall
meet all of the requirements of the R-4 zone, except as specifically set forth
elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. The Development shall also comply
with the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, to the extent
those requirements are not inconsistent with these conditions of approval in
accordance with an approved planned development application. The intent is
that specific subdivision, zoning and other City ordinance requirements will be
applied so as to allow the implementation of the Master Site Plan and the general
intent of the Development Applications.
2.1.14Installation of Infrastructure and Utilities. Subject to the conditions set forth
elsewhere in this Agreement, the Developer shall construct or cause to be
constructed all sanitary sewers, storm drains, pumping stations, water mains and
appurtenances, fire hydrants, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, pressurized irrigation
systems, electrical transmission lines, natural gas lines, telephone lines, sidewalks,
cross drains, street surfacing, street signs, street lighting and barricades as well as
any and all other improvements required to build the Development generally
consistent with the Master Site Plan. The improvements defined in this
paragraph are hereinafter referred to as the "Infrastructure". The Developer shall
have the flexibility to design and build the Infrastructure in a way that
implements the Master Site Plan and to meet the requirements of the agencies
and entities having jurisdiction over the Infrastructure. The Infrastructure for the
Development shall be dedicated to the appropriate public entities, which shall
assume all obligations to maintain the Infrastructure.
2.1.15Water and Sewer Sizing and Routing. Developer shall coordinate water and sewer
sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. To the extent Developer
is required to construct sewer or water lines larger than required to serve the
Development, the Developer and the City shall enter into an appropriate late -
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 15 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
•
LJ
comers agreement to reimburse Developer for the excess costs incurred by
Developer as allowed by City Ordinance.
2.1.16Underground Utilities. All utilities within the Development will be installed
underground.
2.1.17Road Sections. The Developer shall construct road sections generally consistent
with the street sections included as illustrations 3, 8, 9 and 10 in the Master Site
Plan or as otherwise required by the Ada County Highway District ("ACHD").
2.1.18Irrigation System. Subject to the approval of the NMID, Developer shall design
and construct a pressurized irrigation system that NMID will own and operate.
This system will cover all common area landscaping and private yard areas within
the Development.
2.1.190ther Irrigation and Drainage Ditches. With the exception of Five Mile Creek, all
existing irrigation and drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled per
City Ordinance 11-9-605.M or Developer shall provide an alternative delivery
system. The ditches to be tiled and/or alternative delivery systems shall be shown
on the preliminary plats. Plans must be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, as required by law, with
written confirmation of the approval submitted to the Public Works Department.
2.1.20Existing Wells and Septic Systems. Existing domestic wells and /or septic systems
on Parcel A must be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section
5-7-517. Existing wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape
irrigation.
2.1.21 Flood Plain Permits. Developer shall obtain any permits for Flood Plain
Development that are required by City ordinance per criteria outlined in the
ordinance.
2.1.22Signage. Detailed signage plans will be subject to design review and separate
permits as required by the terms of the Development Agreement and the
approved Conditional Use Permit.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 16 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
•
2.1.23Trash Enclosures. Developer shall coordinate locations and construction
requirements for the community center trash enclosures with Meridian Sanitary
Service, Inc. ("MSS"), and provide a letter of approval from MSS prior to
applying for building permits for the community center.
2.1.24Phasing and Platting. Developer intends to build the Development in two or
more phases. To commence the development of a phase, the Developer will
submit a plat application for the phase (or several phases or the entire
Development as Developer determines in its sole discretion).
2.1.25 Infrastructure Installation in Conjunction with Plat. Developer will install the
Infrastructure serving the phase as part of the phase, and will not record any plats
for subsequent phases of the Development until the Infrastructure for the
ongoing phase is completed. All Infrastructure for the Development shall be
completed or bonded for completion in a manner generally consistent with the
Master Site Plan in conjunction with the final phase of the Development, at the
latest.
2.1.26Fencing Details in Plat. Each plat shall address fencing details for the portion of
the Development covered by the plat. The perimeter fence shall be of a "good
neighbor" design, i.e., the fence shall be of a quality appearance on both sides.
2.1.27As-Built Drawings. For each phase, Developer shall comply with the requirements
of the Meridian City Code and duly adopted City Public Works Standards and
Specifications for submission and inspection of plans and as -built drawings for
the Infrastructure, as well as the inspection of the constructed Infrastructure.
2.1.28 Incorporation into Development Agreement. These conditions of approval shall
be incorporated into a Development Agreement to be approved by the City
Council, which shall replace these conditions and the final Development
Agreement and shall be the guiding document for assessing future plats in the
Development. Provided, however, that the provisions of the Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinances shall continue to apply to the Development to the extent
those provisions are not inconsistent with these conditions of approval. These
conditions of approval and the Development Agreement shall act in lieu of
subdivision or zoning ordinance requirements that are inconsistent with these
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 17 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
0
conditions in accordance with an approved planned development application,
whether currently contained in the Meridian City Code or subsequently adopted.
3. That the City Attorney draft an Order Granting Conditional Use Permit in
accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and
then a conformed copy shall be served by the Cleric upon the applicant, the Planning
and Zoning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney and any affected
party requested notice.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 18 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
0
NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION
Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of
Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has
an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of
the conditional use permit may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this
decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho
Code.
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the
of , 2000.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN ANDERSON VOTED
COUNCILMAN BIRD VOTED
COUNCILMAN deWEERD VOTED,
COUNCILMAN McCANDLESS VOTED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 19 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
day
i
MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER)
DATED:
MOTION: APPROVED:
VOTED
DISAPPROVED:
Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works
Department and City Attorney.
Dated:
City Cleric
msg/ZAWorlc\M\Meridian 15360M\Woodbridge Community\CUPFUsOrdDec
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 20 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
Tti
to
m
LJ
C# INS KS3RMN -31'r -^W" 01M MW
>
LOCUST GROVE ROAD
EK WOODBRIDGE
MUNITY I TOOTHMAN—ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY
AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COM mewLTING Vtm. suavEyaps A RAMUS
!R MERIDIAN, IDAHO
MASTER SITE PLAN
cn
=r i 96'-0" RIGHT-OF-WAY
CD
22'-6" BUFFER
0
CL
r.
c�
r
0
a
w
z
tri
0
x
c�
x
c
0
r
a
z
N
O
C
r.
m
to
c�
c
�Z
ER
i
CD
a
�
zea cn7.cr,�
tri
a
w
z
tri
x
x
c
r
a
z
r�
c
�Z
ER
i
CD
a
�
zea cn7.cr,�
tri
i ral4ww-flra, nfl�rrlbr •.Y uo 4 MMYI L w- M rl a IMO�la L.^w K m M allOWMl MRC w VYYIUI a MS "Y : GT A fldit f WM 4 'J'tCrC "M ri%fi5(1 Cr' g* aNm llLiflblL ct ,r -PCT. N.rLrN
u
17
0001
a a LOCUST GROVE ROAD
-
r!
c m ->l r] �� � � • I
K • a sa I
K
A �
ei2� i l
R I�
I!
� I
WOODBRIDGE TOOTRMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY
_ AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY COMMIM oWw,M sunVtroliS AND KA MRS
MERIDIAN. IDAHO vTn uauaRno a.arsw+
v�
C)
o -
0
C4
cD
w
.-3
I
00
CD
rs
u
I
0 0
cD
CD
9
r
CD
0
0
CD
CD
a
ER
0 0
c
Vl
w
o'
c
y
Al
O�
O
•
•
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 283 LOT
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES,
LOCATED 450 S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD,
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
01-14-00
CASE NO. CUP -99-037
ORDER OF
CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
This matter coming before the City Council on the 7`' day of December, 1999,
under the provisions of § 11-2-418 E Municipal Code of the City of Meridian for
final action on conditional use permit application and the Council having received
and approving the Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission the
Council takes the following action:
1. That the Applicant and owner of the property is granted a conditional use
permit for the proposed application request of a conditional use permit for the
construction, development, maintenance and use for a 283 Lot Planned Unit
residential development as described in the MASTER SITE PLAN Dated: 8/27/99,
Project 98048, H:\98048\ACADDWG\m-plan.dwg, Mon Aug 30, Sheet 1 of 1,
TOOTHMAN &- ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY - Architects, for
WOODBRIDGE AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY, for the development
of the aforementioned projects and which property is described in the attached
Exhibit "A" with attached Illustrations 1 - 10 and consisting of eleven pages.
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 1 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
2. That the above named applicant is granted a conditional use permit for a 283
Lot Planned Unit development, located 450 S. Locust Grove Road, Meridian, Idaho,
subject to the following conditions of use and development:
2.1Home Types. The Development shall consist of a mix of homesite types
designated A, B, C and D as set forth on the Master Site Plan. The location and mix
of lot types shall be determined by the Developer based on market demand, with the
aggregate total not to exceed 283 units. The lots located east of Five Mile Creek on
the northern border of the Development adjacent to the Greenhill Estates
Subdivision shall be limited to Type D lots.
2.1.1All plats in the Development shall comply with the requirements of Idaho Code
Section 5 0-222(a).
2.1.2The subject real property is subject to a development agreement, the terms of
which were approved by City Council and which development agreement shall be
considered amended to reflect terms of this conditional use permit.
Specific Development Requirements
2.1.3Master Site Plan. The Development shall be constructed substantially in
accordance with the Master Site Plan, MASTER SITE PLAN Dated: 8/27/99, Project
98048, H:\ 98048\ACADDWG\m-plan.dwg, Mon Aug 30, Sheet 1, TOOTHMAN SL
ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY - Architects, for WOODBRIDGE AN
O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY, and hereinafter referred to as "Master Site
Plan". The Master Site Plan is a guide for the Development, recognizing the need for
flexibility during the platting process.
2.1.4Maximum Number of Units. The Development shall contain no more than 283
units.
2.1.50pen Space. The Development shall include a minimum of 14 acres of open
space generally consistent with the Master Site Plan. The term "open space" shall
include, without limitation, an active recreation area and community center, pocket
parks, linear parks along roadways, greenbelt corridors along Five -Mile Creek only
site wetlands and corridors between neighborhoods. To the extent it is not located in
the ACHD right-of-way, the Developer shall convey the open space to a homeowners'
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 2 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
0
association following both the final plat approval for the phase of the Development in
which the open space is contained and the completion of the improvements.
2.1.6Access.
a Primary Access. Primary Access shall be from Locust Grove Road and shall
incorporate a landscaped traffic divider at the entryway (illustration 1 to the
Master Site Plan).
b. Secondary Vehicular Access. The Developer shall provide a secondary
vehicular access point to the boundary of Woodbridge to the south-southeast
as shown on the Master Site Plan (or at another point as otherwise mutually
agreed by the Developer, the City and ACHD). The second vehicular access
shall be identified prior to the submittal of the final plat of any property to the
east of Five Mile Creek. The secondary vehicular access shall be operable prior
to the issuance of the 200th building permit for the Development.
C. Emergency Access Location. The Developer shall construct emergency access to
the juncture of Weatherby Drive and the property line adjacent to Greenhill
Estates prior to the issuance of the 100th occupancy permit for the
Development. Until the 166th certificate of occupancy is issued, the
emergency access may be an unpaved all-weather surface. The Developer shall
construct or cause to be constructed an 18- foot -wide, all weather grasscrete
surface between Greenhill Estates and the development including a 5 -foot -wide
meandering pathway or another design approved by ACHD, the City and the
developer; shall install knock -down bollards at the property line to prevent use
except in case of emergencies. All designs shall be approved by ACHD and the
City.
Developer will also put these improvements within a dedicated 50 -foot right-
of-way which would allow for a permanent vehicular access point if, as and
when the ACHD determines it should become the secondary access or a
permanent access.
2.1.7 Locust Grove Landscaping Strip. The Developer shall install landscaping along
Locust Grove Road per the plans attached as illustrations 2 and 3 to the
Master Site Plan or as otherwise required by ACHD. Developer shall
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 3 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
December 16, 1999
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: DECEMBER 21 1999
APPLICANT: WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITIES INC. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:_
REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPOSED
WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
•
interoffice
MEMORANDUM
•
To: William G. Berg, Jr. RKEIVED
From: Marlene St. Georg
DEC 1 7 1999
Subject: WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC CITY OF MERIDIAN
File No.: CUP -99-037
Date: December 17, 1999
Will:
Please find attached the original FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, pursuant to action of
the Council at their December 7, 1999, meeting. The Findings will be on the
Council's agenda for their December 21, 1999, meeting.
I have also attached the original of the ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, if the Council approves the
FINDINGS.
Please serve conformed copies of both documents upon the Application,
Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works, and the City Attorney, and any
other person requesting said Findings.
If you have any questions please advise.
msg/ZAWork\M\Meridian 15360M\Woodbridge Community\ClkUrCUMcls
• • FEcElvED
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY,
LLC, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR 283 -LOT
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES, LOCATED AT 450
S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD,
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
DEC 1 7 1999
CITY OF MERIDIAN
12-16-99
Case No. CUP -99-037
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS
This above entitled conditional use permit application having come before
the City Council for public hearing on December 7, 1999, at the Meridian City Hall, 33
East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and
Recommendation to City Council issued by the Planning and Zoning Commission who
conducted a public hearing and having heard and taken oral and written testimony, and
Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, appeared and testified at the hearing,
and appearing on behalf of the Applicant was Pete O'Neill, appearing and testifying, and
affected property owners who appeared and testified were: Dick Rockrohr, Brian Mecham,
Reese McMillian, Alan Fox, Ann Lindley, and Mervin Lindley, and having duly considered
the matter and the Planning and Zoning Commission made the following Findings of Fact
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page I of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
0
and Conclusions of Law and Recommendation to City Council, and the City Council
having received the staff report and the record made before the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and being fully advised in the premises, the Council finds and concludes as
follows:
STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Idaho Code § 67-6512 provides in part that:
(A) As part of a zoning ordinance the City Council may provide
for the processing of applications for special or conditional
use permits; and
(B) That a special use permit may be granted to an applicant if
the proposed use is otherwise prohibited by the terms of the
zoning ordinance, but may be allowed with conditions
under specific provisions of the zoning ordinance, subject to
the ability of political subdivisions, including school
districts, to provide services for the proposed use, and when
it is not in conflict with the plan; and
(C) That upon the granting of a special use permit, conditions
may be attached to a special use permit, including, but not
limited to, those:
1) Minimizing adverse impact on other development;
2) Controlling the sequence and timing of development;
3) Controlling the duration of development;
4) Assuring that development is maintained properly;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 2 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
5) Designating the exact location and nature of
development; requiring the provision for on-site or
off-site public facilities or services; requiring more
restrictive standards than those generally required in
an ordinance; requiring mitigation of effects of the
proposed development upon service delivery by any
political subdivision, including school districts,
providing services within the planning jurisdiction.
2. The City of Meridian has exercised its authority to provide for the
processing of applications for Conditional Use Permits by the enactment of § 11-2-418
Municipal Code.
3. Idaho Code § 67-6504 provides that the City Council may exercise all of
the powers required and authorized by Chapter 65 of Title 67 Idaho Code which Act is
known as the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975."
4. The City of Meridian has enacted the Comprehensive Plan City of
Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ordinance No. 629, January 4, 1994.
5. Prior to granting a conditional use permit in a Low Density Residential
zone (R-4), a public hearing shall be conducted with notice to be published and
provided to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300) of
the external boundaries of the land under consideration for the conditional use permit
all in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-2-418E City of Meridian Zoning
and Development Ordinance, which provides as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 3 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
•
•
"Prior to approving a Conditional Use Permit, the applicant and the
Commission and Council shall follow notice and hearing procedures provided in
Section 11-2-416, Zoning Amendment Procedures, of this Ordinance. Provided,
however, that Conditional Use applications for land in Old Town and in
Industrial and Commercial Districts shall only be required to have one public
hearing which shall be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission and
after the recommendation of the Commission is made the application shall go
before the City Council without a public hearing and the Council may approve,
deny, or modify the recommendation of the Commission."
STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATIVE TO LEGAL AUTHORITY
AND JURISDICTION
FINDINGS OF FACT
A notice of a public hearing on the conditional use permit was published
for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for December
7, 1999, before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice
having been mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred
(300') feet of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than
fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing and with the notice of public hearings having
been posted upon the property under consideration more than one week before said
hearing and the copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and
television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having been duly
considered by the City Council at the said December 7, 1999, public hearing; and the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 4 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
0
Applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions providing services
within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full
opportunity to express comments and submit evidence.
2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set
forth in Idaho Code §§67-6509 and 67-6512; and §§11-2-416E and 11-2-418E as
evidenced by the Affidavit of Mailing, and the Affidavit of Publication and Proof of
Posting filed with the staff report.
3. Council takes judicial notice of its Zoning, Subdivision and
Development Ordinances codified at Title 11 Municipal Code of the City of Meridian
and all current zoning maps thereof and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Meridian adopted December 21, 1993 Ordinance #629 - January 4, 1994 and Maps
and the Ordinance establishing the Impact Area Boundary Ordinance and Map.
4. The property is located at 450 S. Locust Grove Road, Meridian, Idaho.
5. The owner of record of the subject property James F. Griffin c/o First
Security Bank Trust Group, of Boise, Idaho.
6. Applicant is Woodbridge Community, LLC, of 100 N. 9th Street, Boise.
7. The subject property was zoned Ada County (R -T) and the Applicant
herein has made an application to the City to annex and change the zoning to
Meridian, Low Density Residential R-4, in Case No. AZ -99-020, which was granted
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 5 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
subject to a Development Agreement. The zoning district of R-4 is defined within the
City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section 11-2-408(12).
8. The proposed application requests a conditional use permit for the
construction, development, maintenance and use of a 283 Lot Planned Unit
development. The R-4 zoning designation and the Development Agreement requires a
conditional use permit be obtained. (Meridian City Zoning and Development
Ordinance, Section 11-2-409A).
9. The requested conditional use is required as a condition of the
development agreement at Sections 6. Conditions Governing Development of Subject
Property.
10. The requested conditional use is described in the CONCEPTUAL
MASTER PLAN Dated: 8/27/99, Project 98048, H:\ 98048\ACADDWG\m-plan.dwg,
Mon Aug 30, Sheet 1 of 1, TOOTHMAN & ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY -
Architects, for WOODBRIDGE AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY, for the
development of the aforementioned residential projects and which property is described
in the attached Exhibit "A" and consisting of two pages.
11. Giving due consideration to the comments received from the
governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning
jurisdiction, as herein provided for in the conditions of approval, public facilities and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 6 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the
public if the conditions of development, as set forth in the Decision and Order number
2, are found to mitigate the effects of the proposed use and development upon services
delivered by political subdivisions providing services to the subject real property within
the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian.
12. The Meridian City Council recognizes that the proposed application is in
compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as enumerated in the
Recommendations of Approval to the City Council for Annexation and Zoning of the
Subject Property in Case No. AZ -99-020 incorporated herein by reference.
13. The use proposed within the subject application will in fact, constitute a
conditional use as determined by Council action and City Ordinance.
14. The use proposed within the subject application will be subject
to the conditions as set forth in the Decision and Order under number 2, and will be
designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in
appearance or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not
change the intended essential character of the same area.
15. The use proposed within the subject application will not be
hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.
16. The use proposed within the subject application will be served
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 7 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
•
C7
adequately by central public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and
fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer.
17. The applicant has agreed to pay any additional sewer, water or
trash fees or charges, if any associated with the use.
18. The use proposed within the subject application will not involve
uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be
detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive
production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
19. Sufficient parking for the proposed use of the property will be
provided.
20. The use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of natural
or scenic features of major importance relating to the property.
DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby
ORDER and this does Order that:
1. That the Applicant and owner of the property, and is granted a
conditional use permit for the proposed application request of a conditional use permit
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 8 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
0
•
for the construction, development, maintenance and use of a 283 Lot Planned Unit
residential development, as described in the CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN Dated:
8/27/99, Project 98048, H:\ 98048\ACADDWG\m-plan.dwg, Mon Aug 30, Sheet 1 of
1, TOOTHMAN S& ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY - Architects, for
WOODBRIDGE AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY, for the development
of the aforementioned projects and which property is described in the attached Exhibit
"A" and consisting of two pages.
2. The conditional use permit granted herein is subject to the following terms and
conditions:
2.1 Home Types. The Development shall consist of a mix of homesite types
designated A, B, C and D as set forth on the Master Site Plan. The location and
mix of lot types shall be determined by the Developer based on market demand,
with the aggregate total not to exceed 283 units. The lots located east of Five
Mile Creek on the northern border of the Development adjacent to the
Greenhill Estates Subdivision shall be limited to Type D lots.
2. 1.1 All plats in the Development shall comply with the requirements of Idaho Code
Section 5 0-222(a).
2.1.2 The subject real property is subject to a development agreement, the terms of
which were approved by City Council and which development agreement shall
be considered amended to reflect terms of this conditional use permit.
Specific Development Requirements
2.1.3 Master Site Plan. The Development shall be constructed substantially in
accordance with the Master Site Plan, CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN Dated:
8/27/99, Project 98048, H:\ 98048\ACADDWG\m-plan.dwg, Mon Aug 30,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 9 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
Sheet 1, TOOTHMAN SL ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY - Architects,
for WOODBRIDGE AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY, and
hereinafter referred to as "Master Site Plan". The Master Site Plan is a guide for
the Development, recognizing the need for flexibility during the platting process.
2.1.4 Maximum Number of Units. The Development shall contain no more than 283
units.
2.1.5 Open Space. The Development shall include a minimum of 14 acres of open
space generally consistent with the Master Site Plan. The term "open space"
shall include, without limitation, an active recreation area and community
center, pocket parks, linear parks along roadways, greenbelt corridors along Five -
Mile Creek only site wetlands and corridors between neighborhoods. To the
extent it is not located in the ACHD right-of-way, the Developer shall convey
the open space to a homeowners' association following both the final plat
approval for the phase of the Development in which the open space is contained
and the completion of the improvements.
2.1.6 Access.
a. Primary Access. Primary Access shall be from Locust Grove Road and shall
incorporate a landscaped traffic divider at the entryway (illustration 1 to the
Master Site Plan).
b. Secondary Vehicular Access. The Developer shall provide a secondary vehicular
access point to the boundary of Woodbridge to the south-southeast as shown on
the Master Site Plan (or at another point as otherwise mutually agreed by the
Developer, the City and ACHD). The second vehicular access shall be identified
prior to the submittal of the final plat of any property to the east of Five Mile
Creek. The secondary vehicular access shall be operable prior to the issuance of
the 200th building permit for the Development.
C. Emergency Access Location. The Developer shall construct emergency access to
the juncture of Weatherby Drive and the property line adjacent to Greenhill
Estates prior to the issuance of the 100th occupancy permit for the
Development. The Developer shall construct or cause to be constructed an 18 -
foot -wide, all weather grasscrete surface between Greenville Estates and the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 10 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
development including a 5 -foot -wide meandering pathway or another design
approved by ACHED, the City and the developer; shall install knock -down
bollards at the property line to prevent use except in case of emergencies. All
designs shall be approved by ACHED and the City.
Developer will also put these improvements within a dedicated 50 -foot right-of-
way which would allow for a permanent vehicular access point if, as and when
the ACHED determines it should become the secondary access or a permanent
access.
2.1.7 Locust Grove Landscaping Strip. The Developer shall install landscaping along
Locust Grove Road per the plans attached as illustrations 2 and 3 to the Master
Site Plan or as otherwise required by ACHED. Developer shall construct the
landscape buffer generally consistent with these plans in lieu of the twenty (20)
foot "landscaping strip" requirement of Meridian City Code § 11-9-605.G.
Developer shall submit detailed landscape plans consistent with illustrations 2
and 3 for City Staff approval.
2.1.8 Pathways.
a. Public Roadways. Public pathways and sidewalks will be constructed along all
roadways within the Development as identified on the pathway plan attached to
the Master Site Plan as illustration 4. An eight (8) foot wide asphalt public
pathway will be constructed along, but detached from, Locust Grove Road and
Woodbridge Drive. Five (5) foot concrete sidewalks will be constructed on both
sides of all neighborhood roads as well as the loop road identified on the east
side of the Development.
b. Five Mile Creek. A soft surface pedestrian pathway will be constructed along
Five Mile Creek as generally depicted on the Master Site Plan, illustration 4.
This pathway shall be made available for public use at such time that the
pathway can be connected to a larger public pathway system beyond the
boundaries of the Development.
C. Private Pathways. Private pathways will be constructed within the Development
allowing for direct connections between individual neighborhoods and other
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 1 I of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
segments of the overall pathway plan, generally as depicted on the Master Site
Plan, illustration 4.
2.1.9 Five Mile Creek Enhancement. In cooperation with the Nampa &. Meridian
Irrigation District ("NMID") and all affected agencies, the Developer will
protect and enhance Five Mile Creek and adjacent wetlands consistent with the
Master Site Plan and applicable laws.
2. 1. 1 OCommunity Center. The Development shall include a community center
designed and constructed in a location consistent with the Master Site Plan.
The community center shall include the following amenities, at a minimum:
• Multi-purpose room
• Restrooms/Changing rooms
• Mechanical Equipment room
• Swimming pool
• Spa or children's wading pool
• Resident drop-off and parking
Approved Deviations from Subdivision and Zoning Requirements
2.1.11 Inapplicability of Certain PD -R Requirements. The City acknowledges that, due
to the fact the Development consists of single family residential construction.
the following planned development - residential ("PD -R") application and
corresponding substantive requirements do not apply to the Development:
a. Submission of specific elevation exhibits.
b. Specification of architectural style and building design.
C. Submission of building materials and color.
d. Designation of garbage, storage and public parking areas.
e. Designation of storage areas, guest parking spaces and maintenance building.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 12 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
2.1.12Special Standards for the Woodbridge Community. The following standards
shall apply to the Development in lieu of the corresponding standards in the
zoning and subdivision ordinances:
a. Homesite Dimensional Standards:
Homesite
Minimum
Front
Rear
Interior
Street
Maximum
Minimum
Type
Lot Size
Yard
Yard
Side
Side Yard
Building
Street
(Sq. Feet)
Setback
Setback
Yard
Setback
Height
Frontage
(1)
Setback
Type A
41800
101/15/20'
3/15'
0'/5'
15'
35'
48'
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Type B
5,500
10'/15'/20'
15'
S'
15,
35'
55'
(2)
(5)
Type C
7
10'/15'/20'
15'
S'
15,500
35'
75'
(2)
(5)
Type D
8,000
10'/15'/20'
15'
5'
15
35'
80'
(2)
(5)
(1) All front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. See illustration 5
in Master Site Plan.
(2) Identifies front yard setbacks for: side -entry garage/living area/garage face. See
illustrations 5 and 6 in Master Site Plan.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for: detached garages/attached garages and living
areas. See illustration lin Master Site Plan.
(4) Zero lot line allowance for detached garages and associated living area only, all
living area within the primary dwelling is to be set back a minimum of 5 feet. See
illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 13 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
(5) Homesites on, or adjacent to, common driveway lots (defined and regulated
below), flag lots, outside corner lots, and cul-de-sac streets may have a lesser frontage.
The minimum frontage exceptions for these lots are as follows:
Flag lots:
Outside corner lots:
Cul-de-sac streets:
Cul-de-sac bulb:
20 feet minimum
30 foot chord minimum
60 foot minimum
30 foot chord minimum
Lots taking access from common driveway lot: No frontage required on public
street
b. Common Driveway Lots.
The Development may include common driveway lots, which are
separately platted, non -buildable lots designed to consist of a paved
common driveway to serve other lots. Common driveway lots shall be
owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The following
criteria shall apply to common driveway lots in lieu of any other
requirements of the subdivision or zoning ordinance:
Maximum length (at common driveway line): 150 feet
Minimum width:
20 feet
Minimum pavement width:
20 feet*
Minimum building setback:
10 feet
Minimum frontage:
20 feet
Minimum on -lot driveway length:
20 feet*
Maximum number of lots taking access from
a single common driveway
4 lots
* Unless the City Fire Department approves a narrower width or shorter length.
d. Subdivision Requirements. To facilitate proper design and to accommodate
topography, the following subdivision ordinance requirements shall not apply to
the Development (i.e. the minimum and maximum lengths defined in the
ordinance shall not apply):
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 14 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
i. Cul-de-sac length on the cul-de-sac street south of the community center
generally as shown on the Master Site Plan.
ii Block length.
General Conditions.
2.1.13 Compliance with Zoning and Subdivision Requirements. The Development shall
meet all of the requirements of the R-4 zone, except as specifically set forth
elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. The Development shall also comply
with the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, to the extent
those requirements are not inconsistent with these conditions of approval in
accordance with an approved planned development application. The intent is
that specific subdivision, zoning and other City ordinance requirements will be
applied so as to allow the implementation of the Master Site Plan and the general
intent of the Development Applications.
2.1.14Installation of Infrastructure and Utilities. Subject to the conditions set forth
elsewhere in this Agreement, the Developer shall construct or cause to be
constructed all sanitary sewers, storm drains, pumping stations, water mains and
appurtenances, fire hydrants, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, pressurized irrigation
systems, electrical transmission lines, natural gas lines, telephone lines, sidewalks,
cross drains, street surfacing, street signs, street lighting and barricades as well as
any and all other improvements required to build the Development generally
consistent with the Master Site Plan. The improvements defined in this
paragraph are hereinafter referred to as the "Infrastructure". The Developer shall
have the flexibility to design and build the Infrastructure in a way that
implements the Master Site Plan and to meet the requirements of the agencies
and entities having jurisdiction over the Infrastructure. The Infrastructure for the
Development shall be dedicated to the appropriate public entities, which shall
assume all obligations to maintain the Infrastructure.
2.1.15Water and Sewer Sizing and Routing. Developer shall coordinate water and sewer
sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. To the extent Developer
is required to construct sewer or water lines larger than required to serve the
Development, the Developer and the City shall enter into an appropriate late -
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 15 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
comers agreement to reimburse Developer for the excess costs incurred by
Developer as allowed by City Ordinance.
2.1.16Underground Utilities. All utilities within the Development will be installed
underground.
2.1.17Road Sections. The Developer shall construct road sections generally consistent
with the street sections included as illustrations 3, 8, 9 and 10 in the Master Site
Plan or as otherwise required by the Ada County Highway District ("ACHD").
2.1.18Irrigation System. Subject to the approval of the NMID, Developer shall design
and construct a pressurized irrigation system that NMID will own and operate.
This system will cover all common area landscaping and private yard areas within
the Development.
2.1.190ther Irrigation and Drainage Ditches. With the exception of Five Mile Creek, all
existing irrigation and drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled per
City Ordinance 11-9-605.M or Developer shall provide an alternative delivery
system. The ditches to be tiled and/or alternative delivery systems shall be shown
on the preliminary plats. Plans must be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, as required by law, with
written confirmation of the approval submitted to the Public Works Department.
2.1.20Existing Wells and Septic Systems. Existing domestic wells and /or septic systems
on Parcel A must be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section
5-7-517. Existing wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape
irrigation.
2.1.21 Flood Plain Permits. Developer shall obtain any permits for Flood Plain
Development that are required by City ordinance per criteria outlined in the
ordinance.
2.1.22Signage. Detailed signage plans will be subject to design review and separate
permits as required by the terms of the Development Agreement and the
approved Conditional Use Permit.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 16 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
2.1.23Trash Enclosures. Developer shall coordinate locations and construction
requirements for the community center trash enclosures with Meridian Sanitary
Service, Inc. ("MSS"), and provide a letter of approval from MSS prior to
applying for building permits for the community center.
2.1.24Phasing and Platting. Developer intends to build the Development in two or
more phases. To commence the development of a phase, the Developer will
submit a plat application for the phase (or several phases or the entire
Development as Developer determines in its sole discretion).
2.1.25 Infrastructure Installation in Conjunction with Plat. Developer will install the
Infrastructure serving the phase as part of the phase, and will not record any plats
for subsequent phases of the Development until the Infrastructure for the
ongoing phase is completed. All Infrastructure for the Development shall be
completed or bonded for completion in a manner generally consistent with the
Master Site Plan in conjunction with the final phase of the Development, at the
latest.
2.1.26Fencing Details in Plat. Each plat shall address fencing details for the portion of
the Development covered by the plat. The perimeter fence shall be of a "good
neighbor" design, i.e., the fence shall be of a quality appearance on both sides.
2.1.27As-Built Drawings. For each phase, Developer shall comply with the requirements
of the Meridian City Code and duly adopted City Public Works Standards and
Specifications for submission and inspection of plans and as -built drawings for
the Infrastructure, as well as the inspection of the constructed Infrastructure.
2.1.28 Incorporation into Development Agreement. These conditions of approval shall
be incorporated into a Development Agreement to be approved by the City
Council, which shall replace these conditions and the final Development
Agreement and shall be the guiding document for assessing future plats in the
Development. Provided, however, that the provisions of the Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinances shall continue to apply to the Development to the extent
those provisions are not inconsistent with these conditions of approval. These
conditions of approval and the Development Agreement shall act in lieu of
subdivision or zoning ordinance requirements that are inconsistent with these
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
conditions in accordance with an approved planned development application,
whether currently contained in the Meridian City Code or subsequently adopted.
3. That the City Attorney draft an Order Granting Conditional Use Permit in
accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and
then a conformed copy shall be served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning
and Zoning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney and any affected
party requested notice.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 18 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION
Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of
Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has
an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of
the conditional use permit may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this
decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho
Code.
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the
of , 1999.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN ANDERSON VOTED
COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED
COUNCILMAN BIRD VOTED
COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE VOTED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Page 19 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
day
MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED,
DATED:
MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works
Department and City Attorney.
By:
City Clerk
Dated:
msg/Z:\Work\N1\Meridian 15360M\Woodbridge Community\CUPFfCIsOrdDec
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 20 of 20
USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS / WOODBRIDGE
COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
AMENDED September 7, 1999
DATE: July 26, 1999
PROJECT: 98048
PAGE: 1 of 2
EXHIBIT "A"
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
For
ANNEXATION TO TBE CITY OF MERIDIAN
Two parcels of land situated in Sections 17 and 18, T.3N., RAE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho,
more particularly described as follows:
PARCEL A
A parcel of land being the S 1h of the NW 1/ of Section 17, described as BEGINNING at the north
1/16 comer common to said Sections 17 and 18 as shown on Record of Survey No. 1199; thence,
along the exterior lines of said S 1/i of the NW 1/ , through the following courses:
1) N.89°30'51 "E., 2648.31 feet to the center -north 1/16 comer of said Section 17,
thence; along the east line of said S 1 of the NW 1/ ,
2) S.00°07'39" E., 1328.47 feet to the center 1/ corner of said Section; thence, along
the south line of said NW 1/a ,
3) S.89°29'53"W., 2651.27 feet to the 1/ comer common to said Sections 17 and 18;
thence, along the west line of said NW 1/4 ,
4) N.00°00'00" E., 1329.23 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 80.83 Acres, more or less.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the right-of-way for Locust Grove Road.
PARCEL B
A parcel of land in the NE 1/ of the NE 1/4 of Section 18, T.3N., RAE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho,
described as BEGINNING at the southeast corner of the northeast quarter northeast quarter of
Section 18, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, which is south
along the east side of said Section 18 and along the center Iine of Locust Grove Road, 1329.2 feet
from a bronze cap marking the northeast corner of said Section 18; thence,
5) South 89 degrees 11 1/z' West, along the south side of the northeast quarter
northeast quarter of said Section 18 a distance of 438.7 feet to a steel pin; thence,
H:1980481Annex-Desc.Doc
w
AMENDED September 7, 1999
DATE: July 26, 1999
PROJECT: 98048
PAGE: 1 of 2
EXHIBIT "A"
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
For
ANNEXATION TO TBE CITY OF MERIDIAN
Two parcels of land situated in Sections 17 and 18, T.3N., RAE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho,
more particularly described as follows:
PARCEL A
A parcel of land being the S 1h of the NW 1/ of Section 17, described as BEGINNING at the north
1/16 comer common to said Sections 17 and 18 as shown on Record of Survey No. 1199; thence,
along the exterior lines of said S 1/i of the NW 1/ , through the following courses:
1) N.89°30'51 "E., 2648.31 feet to the center -north 1/16 comer of said Section 17,
thence; along the east line of said S 1 of the NW 1/ ,
2) S.00°07'39" E., 1328.47 feet to the center 1/ corner of said Section; thence, along
the south line of said NW 1/a ,
3) S.89°29'53"W., 2651.27 feet to the 1/ comer common to said Sections 17 and 18;
thence, along the west line of said NW 1/4 ,
4) N.00°00'00" E., 1329.23 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 80.83 Acres, more or less.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the right-of-way for Locust Grove Road.
PARCEL B
A parcel of land in the NE 1/ of the NE 1/4 of Section 18, T.3N., RAE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho,
described as BEGINNING at the southeast corner of the northeast quarter northeast quarter of
Section 18, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, which is south
along the east side of said Section 18 and along the center Iine of Locust Grove Road, 1329.2 feet
from a bronze cap marking the northeast corner of said Section 18; thence,
5) South 89 degrees 11 1/z' West, along the south side of the northeast quarter
northeast quarter of said Section 18 a distance of 438.7 feet to a steel pin; thence,
H:1980481Annex-Desc.Doc
i
DATE: July 26, 1999
PROJECT: 98048
PAGE: 2 of 2
6) North 0 degree 55' East, 149.0 feet to a steel pin; thence,
7) North 89 degrees 11 l i' East., 436.3 feet to a steel pin; thence,
8) South, 149.0 feet along the east side of said Section 18 to the REAL, POINT OF
BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 1.5 Acres more or Iess
\ PROVAL
C C T 0 5 1999
I.fLMAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
H:1980481Annez-Desc.Doc
•
0 REC"'VED
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 283 LOT
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES,
LOCATED 450 S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD,
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
DEC 1 7 1999
CITY OF MERIDIAN
12-16-99
CASE NO. CUP -99-037
ORDER OF
CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
This matter coming before the City Council on the 7th day of December, 1999,
under the provisions of § 11-2-418 E Municipal Code of the City of Meridian for
final action on conditional use permit application and the Council having received
and approving the Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission the
Council takes the following action:
1. That the Applicant and owner of the property is granted a conditional use
permit for the proposed application request of a conditional use permit for the
construction, development, maintenance and use for a 283 Lot Planned Unit
residential development as described in the CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN Dated:
9/27/99, Project 98048, H:\98048\ACADDWG\m-plan.dwg, Mon Aug 30, Sheet 1 of
1, TOOTHMAN SL ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY - Architects, for
WOODBRIDGE AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY, for the development
of the aforementioned projects and which property is described in the attached
Exhibit "A" and consisting of two pages.
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 1 OF I I
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
2. That the above named applicant is granted a conditional use permit for a 283
Lot Planned Unit development, located 450 S. Locust Grove Road, Meridian, Idaho,
subject to the following conditions of use and development:
2.1 Home Types. The Development shall consist of a mix of homesite types
designated A, B, C and D as set forth on the Master Site Plan. The location and mix
of lot types shall be determined by the Developer based on market demand, with the
aggregate total not to exceed 283 units. The lots located east of Five Mile Creek on
the northern border of the Development adjacent to the Greenhill Estates
Subdivision shall be limited to Type D lots.
2.1.1All plats in the Development shall comply with the requirements of Idaho Code
Section 5 0-222(a).
2.1.2The subject real property is subject to a development agreement, the terms of
which were approved by City Council and which development agreement shall be
considered amended to reflect terms of this conditional use permit.
Specific Development Requirements
2.1.3Master Site Plan. The Development shall be constructed substantially in
accordance with the Master Site Plan, CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN Dated:
8/27/99, Project 98048, HA 98048\ACADDWG\n-plan.dwg, Mon Aug 30, Sheet 1,
TOOTHMAN & ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY - Architects, for
WOODBRIDGE AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY, and hereinafter
referred to as "Master Site Plan". The Master Site Plan is a guide for the
Development, recognizing the need for flexibility during the platting process.
2.1.4Maximum Number of Units. The Development shall contain no more than 283
units.
2.1.50pen Space. The Development shall include a minimum of 14 acres of open
space generally consistent with the Master Site Plan. The term "open space" shall
include, without limitation, an active recreation area and community center, pocket
parks, linear parks along roadways, greenbelt corridors along Five -Mile Creek only
site wetlands and corridors between neighborhoods. To the extent it is not located in
the ACHD right-of-way, the Developer shall convey the open space to a homeowners'
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 2 OF I I
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
association following both the final plat approval for the phase of the Development in
which the open space is contained and the completion of the improvements.
2.1.6Access.
a Primary Access. Primary Access shall be from Locust Grove Road and shall
incorporate a landscaped traffic divider at the entryway (illustration 1 to the
Master Site Plan).
b. Secondary Vehicular Access. The Developer shall provide a secondary
vehicular access point to the boundary of Woodbridge to the south-southeast
as shown on the Master Site Plan (or at another point as otherwise mutually
agreed by the Developer, the City and ACHD). The second vehicular access
shall be identified prior to the submittal of the final plat of any property to the
east of Five Mile Creek. The secondary vehicular access shall be operable prior
to the issuance of the 200th building permit for the Development.
C. Emergency Access Location. The Developer shall construct emergency access to
the juncture of Weatherby Drive and the property line adjacent to Greenhill
Estates prior to the issuance of the 100th occupancy permit for the
Development. The Developer shall construct or cause to be constructed an 18 -
foot -wide, all weather grasscrete surface between Greenhill Estates and the
development including a 5 -foot -wide meandering pathway or another design
approved by ACRD, the City and the developer; shall install knock -down
bollards at the property line to prevent use except in case of emergencies. All
designs shall be approved by ACHD and the City.
Developer will also put these improvements within a dedicated 50 -foot right-
of-way which would allow for a permanent vehicular access point if, as and
when the ACHD determines it should become the secondary access or a
permanent access.
2.1.7 Locust Grove Landscaping Strip. The Developer shall install landscaping along
Locust Grove Road per the plans attached as illustrations 2 and 3 to the
Master Site Plan or as otherwise required by ACRD. Developer shall
construct the landscape buffer generally consistent with these plans in lieu of
the twenty (20) foot "landscaping strip" requirement of Meridian City Code §
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 3 OF I I
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
11-9-605.G. Developer shall submit detailed landscape plans consistent with
illustrations 2 and 3 for City Staff approval.
2. 1.8 Pathways.
a. Public Roadways. Public pathways and sidewalks will be constructed along all
roadways within the Development as identified on the pathway plan attached
to the Master Site Plan as illustration 4. An eight (8) foot wide asphalt public
pathway will be constructed along, but detached from, Locust Grove Road and
Woodbridge Drive. Five (5) foot concrete sidewalks will be constructed on
both sides of all neighborhood roads as well as the loop road identified on the
east side of the Development.
b. Five Mile Creek. A soft surface pedestrian pathway will be constructed along
Five Mile Creek as generally depicted on the Master Site Plan, illustration 4.
This pathway shall be made available for public use at such time that the
pathway can be connected to a larger public pathway system beyond the
boundaries of the Development.
Private Pathways. Private pathways will be constructed within the
Development allowing for direct connections between individual
neighborhoods and other segments of the overall pathway plan, generally as
depicted on the Master Site Plan, illustration 4.
2.1.9 Five Mile Creek Enhancement. In cooperation with the Nampa S& Meridian
Irrigation District ("NMID") and all affected agencies, the Developer will
protect and enhance Five Mile Creek and adjacent wetlands consistent with
the Master Site Plan and applicable laws.
2. 1. 1 OCommunity Center. The Development shall include a community center
designed and constructed in a location consistent with the Master Site Plan.
The community center shall include the following amenities, at a minimum:
• Multi-purpose room
• Restrooms/Changing rooms
• Mechanical Equipment room
• Swimming pool
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 4 OF I I
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
•
• Spa or children's wading pool
• Resident drop-off and parking
•
Approved Deviations from Subdivision and Zoning Requirements
2.1.11 Inapplicability of Certain PD -R Requirements. The City acknowledges that,
due to the fact the Development consists of single family residential
construction. the following planned development - residential ("PD -R")
application and corresponding substantive requirements do not apply to the
Development:
a. Submission of specific elevation exhibits.
b. Specification of architectural style and building design.
C. Submission of building materials and color.
d. Designation of garbage, storage and public parking areas.
e. Designation of storage areas, guest parking spaces and maintenance building.
2.1.12Special Standards for the Woodbridge Community. The following standards
shall apply to the Development in lieu of the corresponding standards in the
zoning and subdivision ordinances:
a. Homesite Dimensional Standards:
Homesite
Minimu
Front
Rear
Interior
Street
Maximum
Minimum
Type
m
Yard
Yard
Side
Side Yard
Building
Street
Lot Size
Setback
Setback
Yard
Setback
Height
Frontage
(Sq. Feet)
(1)
Setback
4,800
10'/15/20
5'/15'
0'/5'
15'
35'
48'
Type A
1(3)
(4)
(5)
(2)
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 5 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
(1) All front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. See illustration
5 in Master Site Plan.
(2) Identifies front yard setbacks for: side -entry garage/living area/garage face. See
illustrations 5 and 6 in Master Site Plan.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for: detached garages/attached garages and living
areas. See illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
(4) Zero lot line allowance for detached garages and associated living area only, all
living area within the primary dwelling is to be set back a minimum of 5 feet. See
illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
(5) Homesites on, or adjacent to, common driveway lots (defined and regulated
below), flag lots, outside corner lots, and cul-de-sac streets may have a lesser frontage.
The minimum frontage exceptions for these lots are as follows:
Flag lots: 20 feet minimum
Outside corner lots: 30 foot chord minimum
Cul-de-sac streets: 60 foot minimum
Cul-de-sac bulb: 30 foot chord minimum
Lots taking access from common driveway lot: No frontage required on
public street
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 6 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
5,500
10'/15'/20
15'
5'
1351
55'
Type B
15'
(5 )
(2)
7,500
10'/15/20
15'
5'
35'
75'
Type C
115'
(5)
(2)
8,000
10'/15'/20
15'
5'
35'
80'
Type D
I15'
(5)
(2)
(1) All front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. See illustration
5 in Master Site Plan.
(2) Identifies front yard setbacks for: side -entry garage/living area/garage face. See
illustrations 5 and 6 in Master Site Plan.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for: detached garages/attached garages and living
areas. See illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
(4) Zero lot line allowance for detached garages and associated living area only, all
living area within the primary dwelling is to be set back a minimum of 5 feet. See
illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
(5) Homesites on, or adjacent to, common driveway lots (defined and regulated
below), flag lots, outside corner lots, and cul-de-sac streets may have a lesser frontage.
The minimum frontage exceptions for these lots are as follows:
Flag lots: 20 feet minimum
Outside corner lots: 30 foot chord minimum
Cul-de-sac streets: 60 foot minimum
Cul-de-sac bulb: 30 foot chord minimum
Lots taking access from common driveway lot: No frontage required on
public street
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 6 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
b. Common Driveway Lots.
The Development may include common driveway lots, which are separately
platted, non -buildable lots designed to consist of a paved common driveway to
serve other lots. Common driveway lots shall be owned and maintained by the
Homeowner's Association. The following criteria shall apply to common
driveway lots in lieu of any other requirements of the subdivision or zoning
ordinance:
Maximum length (at common driveway line): 150 feet
Minimum width:
20 feet
Minimum pavement width:
20 feet*
Minimum building setback:
10 feet
Minimum frontage:
20 feet
Minimum on -lot driveway length:
20 feet*
Maximum number of lots taking access from
a single common driveway
4 lots
* Unless the City Fire Department approves a narrower width or shorter length.
d. Subdivision Requirements. To facilitate proper design and to accommodate
topography, the following subdivision ordinance requirements shall not apply
to the Development (i.e. the minimum and maximum lengths defined in the
ordinance shall not apply):
i.Cul-de-sac length on the cul-de-sac street south of the community center
generally as shown on the Master Site Plan.
ii Block length.
General Conditions.
2.1.13 Compliance with Zoning and Subdivision Requirements. The Development
shall meet all of the requirements of the R-4 zone, except as specifically set
forth elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. The Development shall also
comply with the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, to
the extent those requirements are not inconsistent with these conditions of
approval in accordance with an approved planned development application.
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 7 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
•
•
The intent is that specific subdivision, zoning and other City ordinance
requirements will be applied so as to allow the implementation of the Master
Site Plan and the general intent of the Development Applications.
2.1.14Installation of Infrastructure and Utilities. Subject to the conditions set forth
elsewhere in this Agreement, the Developer shall construct or cause to be
constructed all sanitary sewers, storm drains, pumping stations, water mains
and appurtenances, fire hydrants, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, pressurized
irrigation systems, electrical transmission lines, natural gas lines, telephone
lines, sidewalks, cross drains, street surfacing, street signs, street lighting and
barricades as well as any and all other improvements required to build the
Development generally consistent with the Master Site Plan. The
improvements defined in this paragraph are hereinafter referred to as the
"Infrastructure". The Developer shall have the flexibility to design and build
the Infrastructure in a way that implements the Master Site Plan and to meet
the requirements of the agencies and entities having jurisdiction over the
Infrastructure. The Infrastructure for the Development shall be dedicated to the
appropriate public entities, which shall assume all obligations to maintain the
Infrastructure.
2.1.15Water and Sewer Sizing and Routing. Developer shall coordinate water and
sewer sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. To the extent
Developer is required to construct sewer or water lines larger than required to
serve the Development, the Developer and the City shall enter into an
appropriate late -comers agreement to reimburse Developer for the excess costs
incurred by Developer as allowed by City Ordinance.
2.1.16Underground Utilities. All utilities within the Development will be installed
underground.
2.1.17Road Sections. The Developer shall construct road sections generally consistent
with the street sections included as illustrations 3, 8, 9 and 10 in the Master
Site Plan or as otherwise required by the Ada County Highway District
("ACHD").
2.1.18 Irrigation System. Subject to the approval of the NMID, Developer shall design
and construct a pressurized irrigation system that NMID will own and operate.
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 8 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
This system will cover all common area landscaping and private yard areas
within the Development.
2.1.190ther Irrigation and Drainage Ditches. With the exception of Five Mile Creek,
all existing irrigation and drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled
per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M or Developer shall provide an alternative
delivery system. The ditches to be tiled and/or alternative delivery systems shall
be shown on the preliminary plats. Plans must be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, as required by law, with
written confirmation of the approval submitted to the Public Works
Department.
2.1.20Existing Wells and Septic Systems. Existing domestic wells and /or septic
systems on Parcel A must be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance
Section 5-7-517. Existing wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation.
2.1.21 Flood Plain Permits. Developer shall obtain any permits for Flood Plain
Development that are required by City ordinance per criteria outlined in the
ordinance.
2.1.22Signage. Detailed signage plans will be subject to design review and separate
permits as required by the terms of the Development Agreement and the
approved Conditional Use Permit.
2.1.23Trash Enclosures. Developer shall coordinate locations and construction
requirements for the community center trash enclosures with Meridian Sanitary
Service, Inc. ("MSS"), and provide a letter of approval from MSS prior to
applying for building permits for the community center.
2.1.24Phasing and Platting. Developer intends to build the Development in two or
more phases. To commence the development of a phase, the Developer will
submit a plat application for the phase (or several phases or the entire
Development as Developer determines in its sole discretion).
2.1.25 Infrastructure Installation in Conjunction with Plat. Developer will install the
Infrastructure serving the phase as part of the phase, and will not record any
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 9 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
C1
•
plats for subsequent phases of the Development until the Infrastructure for the
ongoing phase is completed. All Infrastructure for the Development shall be
completed or bonded for completion in a manner generally consistent with the
Master Site Plan in conjunction with the final phase of the Development, at the
latest.
2.1.26Fencing Details in Plat. Each plat shall address fencing details for the portion of
the Development covered by the plat. The perimeter fence shall be of a "good
neighbor" design, i.e., the fence shall be of a quality appearance on both sides.
2.1.27As-Built Drawings. For each phase, Developer shall comply with the
requirements of the Meridian City Code and duly adopted City Public Works
Standards and Specifications for submission and inspection of plans and as -
built drawings for the Infrastructure, as well as the inspection of the
constructed Infrastructure.
2.1.28 Incorporation into Development Agreement. These conditions of approval shall
be incorporated into a Development Agreement to be approved by the City
Council, which shall replace these conditions and the final Development
Agreement and shall be the guiding document for assessing future plats in the
Development. Provided, however, that the provisions of the Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinances shall continue to apply to the Development to the extent
those provisions are not inconsistent with these conditions of approval. These
conditions of approval and the Development Agreement shall act in lieu of
subdivision or zoning ordinance requirements that are inconsistent with these
conditions in accordance with an approved planned development application,
whether currently contained in the Meridian City Code or subsequently
adopted.
3. The above conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall
meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application for a conditional
use permit.
4. Notice to Permit Holder, this conditional use permit is not transferable
without complying with the provisions of § 11-2-418 J of the Municipal Code of the
City of Meridian, a copy of which is attached to this permit.
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 10 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
•
•
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of
, 1999.
Robert D. Corrie, Mayor City of Meridian
Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works
Department and City Attorney.
52
City Clerk
Dated:
msg/Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Woodbridge Community\CUPOrder
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PAGE 11 OF 11
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC, FOR 283 -LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ON 80.83 ACRES / CUP -99-037
AMENDED Septem07, 1999
DATE: July 26, 1999
PROJECT: 98048
PAGE: 1 of 2
EXHEBIT "A"
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
For
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
Two parcels of land situated in Sections 17 and 18, T.3N., R.I.E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho,
more particularly described as follows:
PARCEL A
A parcel of land being the S'/z of the NW 1/4 of Section 17, described as BEGINNING at the north
1/16 comer common to said Sections 17 and 18 as shown on Record of Survey No. 1199; thence,
along the exterior lines of said S'h of the NW'/s , through the following courses:
ZP
1) N.89°30'51 "E., 2648.31 feet to the center -north 1/16 comer of said Section 17,
thence; along the east line of said S'h of the NW'/ ,
2) S.00°07'39" E., 1328.47 feet to the center '/ comer of said Section; thence, along
the south line of said NW'A ,
3) S.89°29'53"W., 2651.27 feet to the '/ comer common to said Sections 17 and 18;
thence, along the west line of said NW'/<,
4) N.00000'00"E., 1329.23 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 80.83 Acres, more or less.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the right-of-way for Locust Grove Road.
PARCEL B
A parcel of land in the NE'/ of the NE 1/4 of Section 18, T.3N., RAE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho,
described as BEGINNING at the southeast corner of the northeast quarter northeast quarter of
Section 18, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, which is south
along the east side of said Section 18 and along the center line of Locust Grove Road, 1329.2 feet
from a bronze cap marking the northeast comer of said Section 18; thence,
5) South 89 degrees 11 '/i' West, along the south side of the northeast quarter
northeast quarter of said Section 18 a distance of 438.7 feet to a steel pin; thence,
HA98048LAnmx-DcSc.D0c
DATE: July 26, 109
PROJECT: 98048
PAGE: 2 of 2
6) North 0 degree 55' East, 149.0 feet to a steel pin; thence,
7) North 89 degrees 11 1h' East., 436.3 feet to a steel pin; thence,
8) South, 149.0 feet along the east side of said Section 18 to the REAL POINT OF
BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 1.5 Acres more or less
AL
C C T 0 511999
LAEMAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
H:1980481Amez-Desc. Doc
O'Neill rA Homes
December 5, 2000
Ms. Shari Stiles
Meridian Planning and Zoning
200 East Carlson St.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
O'Neill Homes LLC
100 N. 9th St. Suite 300
Boise, ID 83702
208.336.3430 208.336.5296 FAX
www.oneillhomes.com
Re: O'Neill Homes — Prairie Collection: Plan 149 — Lot 35, Block 3
Dear Shari,
This letter is in regards to one of the home plans O'Neill Homes has developed for Woodbridge. It is my
understanding that this plan has been rejected by the City because it does not meet the minimum square
footage requirement for ground floor living area on a multi -story residence (section I 1-10-4.D.).
While we understand that a specific waiver to this standard was not requested through the Woodbridge
entitlement process, we feel very strongly that we demonstrated the intent to provide diverse housing types,
such as the plan we have submitted, throughout the hearing process.
The intent in Woodbridge is to provide for the most efficient land use possible in order to maximize the
amount of open space, including common open space and private yard areas. This can be accomplished
through a coordinated effort of master planning and the provision of diverse housing options. The plan
collection developed for Woodbridge includes a series of homes that are designed by an architect to work
together in order to achieve a more desirable environment to live in. We have done this by minimizing the
impacts of the garage on the street scene, modulating setbacks along the street, adding architectural interest
through front porches and balconies and maximizing privacy between homes.
One of the methods we chose to help us minimize the garage was the use of a detached garage at the rear of
the homesite accessed by a side drive aisle. This presents a number of challenges on a small homesite due
to the requirement for a sufficient driveway apron behind the home. By minimizing the footprint on Plan
149, we were able to accommodate a home that can range between 1500 and 2200 square feet on two or
three levels while maintaining a relatively large yard area and still allowing for a rear garage and
substantial front porch. This plan is consistent with the intent of Woodbridge as demonstrated in the
submittal to Staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council.
Our assumption is that the intent of chapter 10 of the code is to preclude the construction of substandard
housing in the Meridian market. We are confident that you will agree that this home plan is not substandard
and that it is in no way inconsistent with the intent of the code or the Woodbridge project as it was
portrayed to the City.
It is clear that there was an oversight on our behalf when reviewing the code prior to submitting for a
conditional use permit at Woodbridge as our goal was to achieve the greatest flexibility possible. Had we
been aware of this section of the code, we would have certainly requested a waiver or reduced standard.
Because we did not, we are now in a position where we need to correct the situation, as we are opposed to
changing this home plan due to the cost, time constraints we are working within and most importantly
because we do not feel that we would be making a positive change to the design.
We would like to identify a mechanism to correct the situation short of going through a conditional use
modification process, as we do not feel it is the best use of your time, the Council's time or our time for
such a minor issue. I would appreciate your direction as to what our options are for getting this plan
approved.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue. Please contact me with any questions or concerns at 333-
2411 upon reviewing this letter.
Sincerely,
Scott Beecham
cc: Derick O'Neill
Mayor CoMe #ad the Meridian City Council -
Brad Hawkins -Clark
C 118 Wig — Uold e1IS I �
Q
s
� M
------------------------ —
of / a j
i p i I
N
O N �
M I I IZ I
—�� -- _i----------------1---� I 1
_~ -------------------�,'
M„00,00.00S
M 0
Meridian Planning andoing Commission Meeting i
November 9, 1999
Page 27
not be happening tonight or probably ever again. We will address that as the hours
approach. Have a short break at this time. Thank you.
(at which time the meeting was in recess at 9:17 p.m.)
"1wor"W-V. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES FROM R -T TO
R-4 B , LLC—SOUTH OF E. FRANKLIN
ROAD AND EAST OF S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to go ahead and reconvene tonight's Planning and Zoning
meeting, conditional use permit for 283 -lot planned development by Woodbridge
Community. Shari — Is Shari doing this? Okay.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's this is for the annexation and zoning of two
separate parcels of property. The parcel here is adjacent to what is called the
Stonebridge Industrial Subdivision. They've requested a zoning of LO. Staff has
recommended that all uses be developed under the conditional use permit process as a
planned development. This 80 acres here they are proposing for a 283 lot single family
subdivision. I would like to address both—
Rossman: Shari, I wasn't here at the last proceeding but wasn't the annexation and
zoning all ready addressed in a previous—we are just dealing with a conditional use
permit. We certainly don't want to rehash that one.
Stiles: Oh, I'm sorry. No we certainly don't. This is just the general vicinity map. It is
Greenhill Estates Subdivision here. Magicview subdivision here. Eventual access is
proposed to hook up with Magicview and go be able to access the signal on Eagle Road
so there would be access all the way from Eagle Road to Locust Grove. Down here is
where they are currently building the Jabil Mfg. Plant. These two properties right here
are currently designated in our Comprehensive Plan as single family residential. Staff
would recommend as part of the update to that that these be designated for a use other
then single family residential. Probably the most controversial issue and what the few
people are here for tonight I guess is the issue of connection of this road to this
subdivision. We did get a draft report from Ada County Highway District. They are
recommending that the full 50 foot right of way be constructed on the Woodbridge side
with curb, gutter and sidewalk and that this section from Autumn to the north property
boundary of Woodbridge be constructed as a 24 foot wide paved section with no curb,
gutter or sidewalk, for permanent vehicular public access. Staff does agree with the
recommendation that this be continued through as a public roadway, however, we
would support a condition that they go ahead and pave that 24 feet, provide ballads at
the property line to prevent vehicular access in the short term. Still build the 50 foot
right of way street section on the south side and as such time as Ada County Highway
District and the City agree that needed to be a permanent public access, that the
ballads would be removed at that time, but we would imagine it would be sometime
before they would cross the Five Mile Creek area and actually need that access. We
Meridian Planning an ning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999 0
Page 28
had a condition initially that we asked for the secondary access to be available after 100
lots were built. The applicant came back and asked if we would consider the second
access to be required when development east of Five Mile Creek occurred. That would
be approximately I believe there would be 163 units in this western section prior to
going over the Five Mile Creek. At least what they proposed in their concept plan. We
did receive some additional information and have reviewed it, however we did not get
the comments completed prior to this meeting. The access that this applicant proposed
would also—this access to Magicview would also be in this area that they have
proposed. I don't know, maybe they can address any conversations that have been had
with the property owner here or the adjacent property owners here. I don't know if that
is going to be a function of what Ada County Highway District is going to be required to
do or not. I note just for the applicant, they have proposed the minimum street
frontages. You'll find in your packets. We would just like to make sure that the type D
lots that they have proposed, some of them as they have shown on the concept plan do
not meet that minimum street frontage, although with some minor tweaking I think they
can easily meet those. I did want Kenny Bowers to comment on the minimum
pavement width for the individual driveways they are proposing 14 feet. While they will
not exceed a length of 150 feet for their proposal, I would like to get his input on
whether that is adequate. They do usually ask for 20 feet of the paved surface. It may
not be an issue with him, but like I said I did not get his response. Another area they
had, under Item 21 show that the ditches to be tiled would be shown on the final plats
and we would ask that those be shown on preliminary plats when those are submitted.
Under 24, detailed signage plans will be subject to design review in separate permits we
would strike as required by City Ordinance and add as a condition of annexation.
Number 26, we would like the phasing to be shown on the preliminary plat map. There
is not insurmountable issues. We do very much like this project. It is one of the more
innovative projects to come before us in as least as long as I've been here. We just did
not feel comfortable with the additional information that was given that we fully
understand what it is they are proposing and we'd like to make sure that the applicant
gets what they are asking and that we know what they are asking prior to making a final
recommendation. Ada County Highway District will not be acting on this until the 17th of
November and while we do have the draft staff report, that doesn't necessarily mean
that's what the commission is going to recommend. There is a little bit of a problem in
just stating that it will be subject to Ada County Highway District requirements because
their commission could significantly change the requires and then it would not be what
we had anticipated. There was another issue that the Public Works Department was
concerned about and that was in this area here. This will come up during the platting as
well. The city is going to require a common lot for the sewer to go through. We had to
discuss that with the applicant. It does not seem to impact those lots as to make them
unbuildable, but in concern for protecting that easement and protecting the sewer line,
we'd like to make sure that that was included as part of any development agreement.
Borup: Does that conclude. Any questions from the Commission? Not at this time.
The applicant like to come forward?
Meridian Planning an ning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 29
O'Neil: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's my name is Peter O'Neil, President of O'Neil
enterprises the managing member of Woodbridge, LLC. We are making several
assumptions here tonight that should probably make clear at the beginning. At the end
of last session, which was in October, it seem that the focus was on three issues. One
what we are calling the access issues that had to do with emergency access. It had to
do with circulation and where the secondary access —and had to do with the timing of
those issues. The second issue was the so called 22 foot versus the 32 buffer strip and
landscape area along Locust Grove Road against the project and the third on was
brought up by some of the Commissioner's that I had a statement in the letter
responding to the initial staff report that in addition to those specific areas, there were
several other comments that depending upon how they were interpreted might or might
not effect us or the City or what our intents were. In an effort to deal with those three
main issues, we met with staff shortly after the last meeting and then decided that what
we really ought to do is make an attempt in offering the total conditions of approval
which would clarify all of the conditions, some of which were not included in the staff
report, but we wanted included because they were part of our application as well as to
deal with the specific issues of access and this buffer zone. Let me deal with those first
and then I might react to some of Miss Stiles comments this evening. We have not
received a staff report, just for you information, what you got in your packet on Friday,
was a draft of that was given to staff Wednesday. The final draft which was not a lot
different other then the cover letter that went with it that was delivered to you on Friday.
Just to save any suspense, there were not of the issues that Miss Stiles brought up now
that we think are deal breakers. Again, let me go back and say the way this process
works as I understand it is we still have to go through he preliminary plat process and
final plat process, but before we do that, the City Council, you have to recommend to
them the annexation and zoning as well as the conditions of approval for the PUD
approval and conditions there too. We took the position that these conditions as we
wrote them, could act at least as an outline or a guideline to the development
agreement which must be negotiated between the developer and the City that is
ultimately approved by the City Council. I don't think it—it is our intent to get these as
close as we can from an intense standpoint. You get more that two lawyers and more
than one lawyer in a room and they are all going to have some pride in authorship. We
don't have a problem with that so long as they are clear and the City knows what they
are getting and we know what we are going to get. With those preambles, let me
specifically address the access issues—one that people keep forgetting—there is a
primary access which is from Locust Grove. It is hard to see on the little drawing, but
basically we typically do a significant island at the entry so there is a way in and out, so
that helps in emergency as well, you'd have a hard time blocking the intersection.
You'd have to have to accidents simultaneously to block that intersection. Secondary
vehicular access, we are suggesting that it goes where the arrow is in the southeast
corner of the property or at a location that we mutually agree on between the city and
ACHD that moves in the Magicview general direction and hooks up with the full
transportation system. We have offered or suggested in the conditions that we have to
identify that location prior to the platting of anything to the east of Five Mile Creek so we
know—can't very well plat it if we don't know where the road is leaving. We have also
suggested that that be made fully functional by the 166 occupancy permit. The reason
Meridian Planning anning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999 0
Page 30
that we are picking that is there is essentially 165 units as the plan currently shows it to
the west of Five Mile, so the time we get to the east of Five Mile the secondary access
should not only be identified but improved. That is our suggestion of the linkage. As it
relates to the emergency access and the timing thereto, we are suggesting that the
connection to Greenhill Estates become the emergency access location that we would
hook up to that in a driveable all weather but gravel road at the 100th occupancy permit
for emergency purposes. We are suggesting that that be improved at the 166th permit.
We are suggesting that that improvement is the 24 feet on the Greenhill side and
essentially 24 feet on our side, which would be 12 feet of pavement and 4 feet each
side of that of grass (inaudible) and there be Ballard's installed so it is for pedestrian
movement and it is for emergency vehicle movement and keeping in mind that that
works both ways. The emergency vehicles can use Woodbridge as a primary access to
Greenhill and vice versa. We are also suggesting that our side of that be put within a 50
foot right of way that would be dedicated to the highway district so if as and when the
City and the highway district and neighbors and who ever can all agree, that that should
be hooked up permanently. At least there is a right of way there to do it. That's our
proposal. As it relates to the Locust Grove landscaping, and that by the way is, I just
summarized our point number 7, our condition number 7 in the 7 AB and C. The Locust
Grove landscaping strip, we did do a conceptual landscape plan and we did not do a
detailed landscape plan because, when you get right down to it, it incorporates a major
entry area that we frankly have not designed yet. It would incorporate a significant
buffer fence which is really where you going to get the sound and visual buffer. We
have not designed that yet. Those could be subject to final approval—the further
approval to final plat. Don't have a problem with that. It just seems a little out of context
for us to have a detailed plan that specifies a specific tree and a specific planning
program before we know what stock is available and how that ties into the whole plan.
Those are covered in 7 and 8. 1 would comment that this whole sequence of approval
of whether the ACHD commission has approved something specific or whether it is a
staff report, somewhere you have to cut into it and I guess I would take the position that
the City of Meridian, the neighbors and ourselves may be better served if the conditions
I have suggested essentially follow what we heard in testimony a few weeks ago. I
think was following the tenor or the commission and I would seem to me that when we
go to the highway district, if those were approved conditions, the Planning and Zoning
Commission was forwarding to the Council, I think that would strengthen the position of
getting what it is you want as opposed to saying I don't know ACRD, you tell us what's
best for Meridian. You can go either way but I take a shot for what it is you think you
want, which is consistent with what we want, I think and I believe it is consistent with
what most of the neighbors want and we would encourage you to come to the highway
district when that time comes around. One thing that needs to be made clear, at least in
the staff report from the highway district, it talks about a secondary access, so if
Greenhill Estates becomes the full time secondary access, there is no need for an
improved access to Magicview, according to their staff report. I don't think that is good
traffic planning for the City of Meridian. That is my opinion. I think what we have
proposed is what we ought to do. Again, I could deal with some of Shari's comments. I
think we have covered some of those verbally before with staff and I did not hear
anything she said other than this Greenhill Estates issue—connection issue that we
Meridian Planning anning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 31
would necessarily take exception with. I think we can fine tune some of the wording of
some of the conditions which essentially has to happen as part of a development
agreement. We can hash them out tonight as well. That is your pleasure of how you
want to handle that. 1 think I will limit my comments to that. No sense going through the
whole project again. We have been there. I do think it is not often in all honesty that we
spend 4 hours in a public hearing and come back again, and in general, not in general,
in specific the staff likes the project and is supporting it. We've got a few issues and
details to work out. I think the read of the Commission last time was it was supportive.
It needs to find a way to work it though the process and if the neighbors, by in large
were supportive, other than the fact that they wish there weren't any more cars on
Locust Grove and Franklin. We kind of agree with them on that and would like to work
or help be a catalyst to improve that intersection at Locust Grove and Franklin. I guess
our hope tonight is we end up moving this on to Council and letting them take a shot at
it. I'd be happy to answer any questions later on or now, whatever the process works.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. O'Neil. Okay thank you. Did you have anyone from your
staff or—oh okay. Thank you. I think we have heard what ACHD is recommending.
What the developer recommends. Time is for –again this is a public hearing. Do we
have anyone here from the public who would like to—again keep in mind, we heard
everyone's testimony last month. We are certainly here to hear anything new. Come
on up, who ever would like to be first.
Knowlton: I am Kimberly Knowlton. I live at 2369 Autumn Way. I am here representing
the homeowners of the Greenhill Estates. I am the committee chair person of the
Woodbridge Development for the Greenhill Estates HOA. I would just like to begin by
saying that we have recently reviewed the ACHD plan draft for the Weatherby road stub
and we believe whole-heartedly—well first of all before I get started, I'd like all the
Greenhill Estates homeowners please stand and be represented. You can see we all
feel very strongly. We have been working closely with OEI and the development of that
80 acres behind our homes. We feel very comfortable with the preliminary plat. Please
excuse me if I am using terms that aren't exactly accurate because this is not
necessarily my field. We were very pleased to see that wanted primary access on
Locust Grove and secondary access to Magicview. We were very disheartened when
we reviewed ACHD planners report saying that they wanted primary access on Locust
Grove and secondary through Greenhill Estates on to Autumn Way. Their estimate, as I
am sure you have reviewed, is all most 3000 cars a day and in their ultimate wisdom,
and I do want to review a couple of their points, they feel that less then 5% of those cars
will actually access our subdivision on a daily basis. It seems inconceivable to me that
someone would actually, in that subdivision, go through as many as 2 to 3 stop signs,
wait several lights on Franklin up to 4 or 5 if your (inaudible) to take a right onto Eagle
Road to wait yet another stop sign before you access the interstate, when you could go
right through that Weatherby road stub. There is not a stop sign. There is not a speed
bump. There is not a light. There is nothing to stop them and I think we all agree that
human nature is to take a short cut—roll and go as I call it. So it is just inconceivable to
me that ACHD feels that less then 100 cars a day will come through our subdivision.
We are getting an incredible amount of traffic right now from people who are simply
Meridian Planning an ning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 32
trying to avoid the intersection of Franklin and Eagle. We have had a lot of –there is
several homeowners that live on those corners—and it is just incredible. All times of the
day here is subdivision with no street lights, no sidewalks, no stop signs, no speed
bumps, and we have hundreds of cars cutting though our subdivision trying to avoid that
light. I don't think it is very reasonable for ACHD to have us understand that those
people will be taking those other roads, rather then our roads. We would like to ask you
as Planning and Zoning Commissioner's, to agree with the developer and agree with
the homeowner's that if we are going to open up and combine or connect these two
subdivisions, and I think there is some good thought in that direction, that we are
restricted at this time to nothing more than a –1 don't even know what the term is---
ballad—emergency vehicle access only with a restricted (inaudible) and to take a look
at that in the future as to whether it make sense to open it up or not open it up. The
conditions that Pete O'Neil outlined being graveled at 100 lots and actually (inaudible) at
166 lots, I think that we as homeowners can agree with that and can accept that, even
though a lot of us would like to be left alone, we understand that progress is inevitable
and we feel that we would have a much stronger case at the ACHD Commissioner
hearing on the 17th, if we also had the City of Meridian agreeing with the developer and
also the homeowners that we would like to see restricted access and really force ACHD
to take some long term, a long term look at the traffic not only going to be created by the
Woodbridge subdivision, but also the Jabil Mfg. Development that is going on across
the street. There is a lot –this is a lot bigger pond then it has been, so we would just
ask you to please go with the recommendation made by the developer to restrict that
access at 100 lots and restrict it at 166 lots force ACHD to look for a long term solution
rather then an easy fix. I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions for – I've got one and that is on your what the subdivision feels
on the design of that whether it should be (inaudible). Are you in complete agreement
with what the developer is proposing or do you understand what he is proposing?
Knowlton: I believe that I have a pretty good understanding of it and from what I
understand, it will be at 100 lots, it will be a graveled 24 foot wide graveled access -
27 -20 feet wide and that at 166 lots, it will be widened to the standard 50 feet—or not
standard, I think it is bigger then standard.
Borup: Let me repeat what he had here. They are proposing 24 feet of paving on the
Greenhill side. 12 feet on the Woodbridge side with 4 feet of the grass (inaudible) on
each side. That is a concrete paver type stone that you can drive over, but grass grows
in-between them.
Knowlton: Okay, and that—
Borup: That is their proposal, with of course the knock down ballads and other stuff that
has been discussed. It that a design that neighbors and neighborhood has somewhat—
Knowlton: I think so. You know it's hard to conceptualize because a lot of us aren't
familiar with that but I think the restricted access is our main concern—that it is not a full
Meridian Planning an ning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 33
vehicular access. That it is restricted for emergency vehicles only and pedestrians
because we want to be good neighbors.
Borup: Okay, thank you. We have someone else that was like to come on up.
Buckert: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's, I am Wanda Buckert, 971 Wells Circle.
That is in the Magicview Subdivision, property owner of lot 20. 1 was unable to be here
for the October 12 meeting regarding the Woodbridge Subdivision. After that meeting, I
was informed by my neighbors that Mr. O'Neil stated that they could use the north end
of my property for their second access to their proposed Woodbridge Subdivision. For
the record, I would like to state that I am opposed or at least very reluctant to allow that
right of way across my property. I feel that I should have been approached before the
O'Neil Enterprises made the statements at October 12th meeting. After the fact, Scott
Beecham did phone to ask for a meeting. According to Mr. O'Neil's remark at that
meeting, I had unusable land that could be used for his road. I would like to point out
that none of my approximately 5 acres is unusable. 1 would also like to point out to the
staff that I have given Meridian City, number one the main line sewer easement on the
north end of my property all ready. That sewer serves—that line services the St. Luke's
hospital and the ever growing Magicview development. Second, the City of Meridian
and developers had a main line sewer easement to go from the northwest they have it.
To go from the northwest corner to the southwest corner being the full length of my
property, and this sewer main continues under the freeway to serve as future
developments on a near or around Eagle Road and Overland Road. Third, the past
summer Meridian City needed yet another easement for a 12 inch water main to cross
from the southwest corner to the northwest corner. At that point, giving up that much
right of way, seemed to be getting out of hand on my property. After thinking about it,
decided having access to both sewer and water mains was worth it. This easement
was also granted, but I feel enough is enough. Three sides of my property they are all
ready in easements. I hope this will explain a little bit why I am not agreeable to more
easements, which would go over your sewer easement. I am not use to this speaking in
public. An access road would create more traffic then we are all ready burdened with
on Magicview road and I feel with added traffic, roadway noise, it would devaluate my
property. I feel my property has future potential for multiple apartments or commercial
uses and is not unuseful. In the future, whoever might buy my property, they can make
the decision as to whether they want to give up or sell land for a roadway on the north
end. Of course,
END OF SIDE 3
Buckert: I am not opposed to progress, nor the subdivision, but this is my position at
this time. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's?
Barbeiro: Steve do we have this picture in your (inaudible).
Meridian Planning an ning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 34
Buckert: Yes, she had a picture up a long time ago. She had an arrow. Oh she isn't
there. This one is it.
Barbeiro: Can you tell me which property is yours.
Buckert: (left microphone) Okay.
Barbeiro: Don't leave yet. The City has all ready taken this easement, this easement
and this easement, is that correct?
Buckert: Correct.
Borup: Ma'm do you know what the size of the sewer easement on the north of your
property.
Buckert: Do I know the size? You mean of the easement. It is a 20 foot easement on
all three sides.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, how far does Five Mile drainage —
Buckert: It goes right through my property.
Hatcher: About what location. Is this a correct representation.
Rockrohr: Dick Rockrohr, 2715 Autumn Way and I am in the Greenhill Sub. Of course I
am in agreement with the homeowners in Greenhill about the emergency access, but in
light of what I found out at this meeting about the proposed secondary access that was
by the developers across this corner and to that culdesac there, I am rather concerned
that maybe they will never be able to procure that for a reasonable amount of money.
Either that one or the one to the north, which they could access that one also. At the
last meeting they talked about also being able to access that culdesac possibly. I would
be concerned without some kind of an agreement or right of way in place before this
thing is approved, that when it comes down and they say oh that is the only way you
can get out of there and ACHD say's you have too, they are either going to dump them
right out into Greenhill, because that is the cheapest way to go---
Borup: Sir, maybe I could clarify that right now. In their draft copy of proposals, they
stated exactly that and I think Mr. O'Neil mentioned that before development would take
place to the east of Five Mile Creek, approximately 166 home that there would be a
operable access to Eagle Road. They are proposing that that would be in the —
Rockrohr: Part of the conditions that they would perfected that access without going
through Greenhill. That's great with me then. I'm sorry.
Robinson: My name is Bill Robinson. I am at 2165 Springwood. I would like to make a
few brief comments and if I could point out some of the concerns over there. First of all,
Meridian Planning an ning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 35
1 have lived at our present location all most 25 years now. To start with, any connection
in from the south to Greenhill's is an invasion of our privacy from the way we see it, and
I am sure you have heard that before. Whether it is traffic, bicycles, horses, dogs or
what ever. The really scary thing is having traffic going through there. One of the
things that I would like to point out, if you look at this, this corner right here is going up a
hill at a right angle turn and that is a fairly serious safety hazard right now. Having more
traffic going up around there, this tends to be a little bit of a raceway when people are
coming out of here, come up the corner slowly and then accelerate down here and go
out onto Franklin road. There are times in the winter we get a little snow, the postman
can't get up that hill and we help push him up. Having traffic coming in around here and
around these access routes to get out on Franklin is pretty formable to me. I appreciate
what I have seen of the development in terms of the quality that is being proposed. I
think that is a very good addition over there in terms of access through Greenhill, I am
really opposed to having any access through there. If emergency says you have to
have it there, that is one thing. But us being a crossroads for other neighborhoods
because of emergency, isn't really very palatable either. That is my personal opinion,
but I in general support the Greenhill's position.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else?
Kidd: My name is Dean Kidd. I live on 2127 Autumn Way. Chairman Borup,
Commissioner's I'd like to present this to yourselves for a kind of an overall synopsis of
what living within the Greenhill Subdivision is becoming. There has been numerous talk
about and of course my contention is and the reason why I am speaking now, is
because of this stub road. That being the topic tonight. I happen to live right there, so I
am not going to repeat what has been said tonight, because virtually I agree with all. I
am glad to meet Pete O'Neil for the first time. I have spoke with Scott Beecham. I think
O'Neil Industries is a very, very top notch development firm. As a owner within the
Greenhills, I feel comfortable with what they do within RT is going to be equal to our
above our standards. I have no problems, development is going to happen, we can't
stop it. The one thing that needs to take some real serious consideration is this stub
road. Mr. O'Neil spoke about the main access on Locust Grove. Of course, that's the
common. We have had testimony about an access within this area. The first thing that
I would like to ask the lady that testified if she compensated for the easements that went
through her property and will she be compensated for a right of way road. This
easement in here was established when the subdivision was established many years
ago. When that was established, nobody knew what was going to happen. No one
knew that there was going to be possibly a subdivision of this magnitude would ever go
in there. Because of that, it has been brought out, there is no sidewalks, there is no
street lights of any kind. We spoke of the grade going up, which is a very true
statement and I will give you one more example. This is a very (inaudible) corner over
here. Extremely blind. I almost ran over a child a year ago and I am saying it come so
close it was ridiculous at that comer. Our traffic in here from what I can see in the last
11 years that I have lived here has increased dramatically. Why? I am not going to
say. I am not going to make accusations that traffic has increased or what ever people
cutting the corner. We all know they do, but to what degree, I can't say. All I know is,
Meridian Planning aning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 36
yes it has increased. Harley Davidson motor bikes running about when nobody owns a
Harley within the subdivision, okay... We has a major accident right here about 3 or 4
days ago. Accidents are happening. This subdivision is catching it from 3 sides and it
is not going to be long until it is going to be a 4th side. We've got talks in the plans of
widening of Fairview. We've all ready had on over, onto Eagle Road. We've went
through St. Luke's. We've got a major intersection construction in the future of the
Crossroads of Franklin and Eagle. We've—
Borup: Mr. Kidd, your going to have to wrap it up.
Kidd: I am hurrying. I'm talking..
Borup: But your repeating stuff that we have heard and that we all ready know.
Kidd: You all know it. We've been through a lot. Now we are looking at this and the
last thing we need is a development this access here: Emergency access I have no
problem with and I don't think the sub -development does either. So I would ask that the
Commission take and recommend that this hear be emergency access only and as far
as what O'Neil spoke about, I would like to see the same thing on our side. Maybe we
could do that. Make it a join effort. Make it a nice greenbelt type thing. Emergency
type traffic and leave it at that. Thank you.
Mecham: I am Brian Mecham. I live at 2159 Autumn Way. I have spoken before in
front on this topic, but since the last time a couple things have occurred and we'd like to
address those just so that having seen a few thing and if I am a little punchy it is
because I just moved back from Singapore and wasn't expecting to sit here in a 3 hour
meeting tonight. The first question I have is on the secondary access—I mean the
emergency access. If I understand right, I'd like to get clarification. When is emergency
required, at what number of homes.
Borup: It is going to be what is agreed on. What the proposal is 166, which would be
approximately half—approximately development up to the Five Mile Creek which would
be a natural phasing point.
Mecham: So no emergency access is required until 166 home.
Borup: No, they are talking about having a gravel at 100 home.
Mecham: I know. My question is, do you have to have emergency access—when do
you have to have a permanent one—when do you have to have permanent emergency
access, at what number of level of homes.
Borup: 166.
Mecham: 166, okay. So I propose that nothing be done in our subdivision on that stub
road or that emergency vehicular access until they approach 166 homes. 165, 164 and
Meridian Planning an ning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 37
what I mean by that, at that point is then go ahead and put in the grass pavers, go
ahead and do what is being proposed as far as the width and that, but no permanent
pavement, no gravel, but more of a pavers and I can-- One of the questions that I want
to bring up having sat here tonight and watched another community be effected by a
developer going in and saying one thing and having them change their residents or their
technical jargon of changing their restrictions within their community, and know all of a
sudden they are going to have a potential road there—I just want to go on record to say
that when—I trust O'Neil Enterprise and but I also know that a few things have
happened since we've started our negotiation and discussion with them. A conceptual
plan that we first saw that you have up there, shows a park there. It does not show a
road. It does not show anything and all of a sudden it has gone from a park to a road.
There is one thing that has all ready been changed that wasn't there before. They've
talked to us about it, so it was not like a surprise, but it was a surprise from when we
first met with them and started talking to the community. We were very excited about
seeing that conceptual plan. There was not any vehicular access into our community. I
am a little nervous now that...
Borup: But you understand why it was added?
Mecham: My question is though is—
Borup: (Inaudible) because of a ACHD requirement. The only reason is came up was
because of the access that was all ready in existence from Greenhill.
Mecham: I want to address something again. When I bought my property I went to the
right of way division and talked to them about vacating that so I could buy that when I
bought my home. They said, we have to wait and see what is going to be developed. If
that developer or what ever is developed that they don't need access, then we could
vacate the property to me. When that conceptual plan came out, there was no need for
that road or the developer did not have a plan that the road would go there, I'm sure.
Being a business man myself, I know that they drew the conceptual plan and you could
yank that park out pretty quick which is what is being done now. I was excited about it
cause I thought I could go to ACHD and vacate that because the developer did not need
that access. Things have changed and it concerns me. The other thing that concerns
me that I found out tonight is no ownership of the land for the secondary access. That
is a big concern that I am going to end up with the secondary access going right through
my house within 166 homes. These facts that are starting to surface make me start to
switch from being in favor of the project to being opposed to the project. The one thing
that I wanted to also state, is that going back to the emergency vehicular access, I am
still in support of the project from it can bring to our community. What I want to say
though is the emergency vehicle access, I don't want to do anything at 100 homes. I
have talked with Scott Beecham and he says there is going to be about 4 to 5 homes -
4 sales a month -4 to 5 they estimate how they are going to develop out so 166 homes,
doing you math, would be about 40 months. So, about another 3-1/2 years and—so
what I am saying, let's not do anything. Let's let out community stay the way it is for 3-
1/2 years and then at that point, don't go with the road, go with the pavers and the
Meridian Planning an ning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 38
understanding that eventually that a road might be in there but it could be 10 years
down the road. To put pavement there makes things permanent and you know, if the
county wanted it permanent in the past, they should have put the road in in the past and
them we would have known that something was going to go through there, but to have
it. I just hope that again, we, I just was to reiterate that as long as we can address that,
the secondary access or the emergency access to push that back not say it's 100
homes or something or push it back to 166 homes before any work starts to be done
there.
Borup: Anyone else before we rap things up.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Borup: I think maybe see if the developer would like to (inaudible).
O'Neil: I could deal with each of these comments, but I think what the primary thing that
I want to say—let me touch two what I would consider minor issues and then one
significant one. As far as the design of the emergency access easement on the
Greenhill side, we'd be happy to improve that with the same way we are talking about
our side, with narrow pavement, grass crete and soft as opposed to hard. 1 think the
only reason it was written like that was we figured we had to give ACHD something and
let them get at least half of it the way they wanted. That is not a problem. We can do
that either way. I would comment on the last speaker's issues. I am not sure l followed
all of that but I think that was never intended to be a park. It was a pedestrian access
because it connected to a right of way and that it is an obvious emergency vehicle
location and if somebody needs an emergency vehicle, that is where it would be. That
was in the original plan. We did not call out any specifications because we hadn't even
met with ACHD or the City. We have not changed our fundamental at all. We don't do
that, so our credibility is important to us and don't want that to be of question. The
major issue is how to get to Magicview and I very much apologize to Mrs. Burkert. We,
I think, attempted to talk with as many neighbors as possible before the last hearing.
We were certainly told in no uncertain terms at the last hearing that we better talk to our
neighbors to the southeast. I apologize if there was anything we said that could have
been construed and could have been reported back to you that we have talked to you
and we have access over that property. Quite the contrary. I think we said we had not
talked. That the little culdesac that stops there is a logical target point and frankly we
just have not done all our homework to know whether that is the most logical place or
not. Our point is that we would like to work with you. I think there is some
undeveloped property in the back of those two platted corner lots there on the other side
of Five Mile Creek that isn't your property. There isn't any access and isn't much that
they could do with the property. I apologize very much if it was anything we said could
have been a done deal. We understand that we have some work to do there. We want
to work with our neighbors, and frankly it is one of the reasons why it's next to
impossible to pin down a location at this time because all of a sudden we are dealing
with the most valuable property in the world. It very well could be that somebody in one
of those locations would like access to their back forty and that would turn out to be a
Meridian Planning a ning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 39
better location. It could also be that all of that property essentially in transition anyway
and there may be another plan that comes forward in the next few months that we
would want to hook into. Our commitment is that some people were concerned. Well,
gosh, we end up saying we can't go out through Magicview so then we have to come
through Greenhill. I think Commissioner Borup nailed that one. We've got half a
project, if that is what we end of doing and anybody that has been in this business, the
arithmetic doesn't work on half a project, so there is a big hammer over our heads to
work out an access to the east. Other than answering any questions, that covers it.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's? Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: It's not so much a question as it is just for Mr. O'Neil. On the Locust Grove
landscape buffer, with the additional clarification information that you had submitted,
basically if ACHD doesn't go over 5 lanes on Locust Grove, everything I think works out
great and is per some of your other developments, particularly River Run on the east
side. Granted, it got a much larger buffer. My only concern is your lot lines for the front
clusters as to if ACHD were to flex their muscles and say, hey, your going to give me
that 96 foot of right of way, then we put a curb, gutter and sidewalk in addition to that,
basically is what we are looking at is a real small strip of grass before the fence that is
on your lot line, for this high end planned community. Has that been taken into
consideration? Have you specifically talked to ACHD or what your proposing here, is
this based off of track record and assumptions?
O'Neil: I'm not sure I can recite chapter and verse in terms of how many trips per day a
five lane section—two traffic lanes each way with a turn lane in the middle can carry. I
think it far exceeds any projection out in any reasonable time frame that the traffic
studies have made for Locust Grove Road, so it is on that assumption that will never
become a seven lane deal and if there is, there is room in the right of way to do that. It
would get a little tight and by then the landscaping would be so mature that it would
probably work. I think we are going on what the traffic guys say and what APA's future
plans and traffic counts say. Just logic tells you that it is not going to exceed that.
Hatcher: I am in concurrence with you in that this is not going to happen in your lifetime
or my lifetime. Maybe your son and your grandson is going to have to do this
remodeling and build a block wall, but I wanted to know where you are coming from and
why you were making these assumptions.
Borup: A little bit on conditions of approval. Do we want to handle this right now or—it
sounds like the Commissioner's were leading toward closing the hearing. This I feel we
would need the developers input.
Hatcher: Do you want to do a discussion with open public forum?
Borup: That would be fine. You had some questions concerning some of the conditions
of approval you mean.
Meridian Planning anning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 40
Hatcher: I think maybe getting a little more specific.
Borup: With the applicant or with staff or both?
Hatcher: A little bit of both.
O'Neil: Suit yourself on that. We will do whatever you folks—
Borup: Let's go ahead —
O'Neil: I think there is—the development agreement is going to be a very specific
agreement and I think if we are generally in agreement with the conditions, there is
going to be ample opportunity to fine tune them, and whether you want to do that as a
committee as a whole or—
Borup: That was the kind of point I wanted to clarify. These are still draft and
somewhat in general terms that they will be refined when they get into the final
agreement.
Hatcher: I don't think we want to try drafting the development. We just want to address
some specific issues on your proposed conditions. Seven B and 7C which is generated
a lot of discussion, controversy, potential solutions and what not. I pretty much wanted
to state on those specific issues that I feel comfortable and I am in concurrence with
OEI on their approach to this issue and that the way it lays out is that anything west of
the Five Mile Creek would be developed prior to secondary emergency access. Now I
know and OEI's point of view, that is a awful lot of money sitting there undeveloped if
they don't do it the right way and get that proper access. I feel extremely confident that
that secondary access and the way it is written in their proposed conditions of approval,
reading that they will have an operable access prior to the issuance of the 166
occupancy permit. I wanted to make that a point of discussion. The other point of
discussion is I think we have as a group, as a body, in general have gone with what
ACHD has approved or recommended. On a few occasions we have bucked the
system so to speak. The emergency access to Greenhill's, 1 think is a perfect example
where we need to step up and tell ACHD this is what we think is better for our
community, because they are looking at the big picture and not the specific instances. I
would even go so far as to change the developer's recommendation on that I would still
maintain the required 50 foot right of way. That is the existing and match up with
Woodbridge so that 50 or 75 years from now if a road does have to go in there, the right
of way is there. I would go so far as to not even put a paving strip in there. The
proposal is for a 24 foot rule street section on Greenhill and then a 12 foot paving
section with a 4 foot grass crete on each side on the Woodbridge side, what I would
probably proposed, pending Meridian fire dept approval, just put in a 16 or 18 foot wide
concrete grass crete strip down the middle of that with ballads so that the fire trucks can
get through there, but we don't have any asphalt. We talk the difference between that
18 feet and the 50 foot right of way, you put some grass and some trees in there and
have it as a pedestrian pathway and be done with it.
Meridian Planning an ning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 41
Borup: So you saying no asphalt at all. All grass crete.
Hatcher: All grass crete. (applause)
Borup: I think the comment I made last time, if it could meet the weight requirements for
the fire department. Did we get an answer on that? We did not get an answer on that.
It has been done in other subdivisions and met the weight requirement for the fire
department.
Hatcher: Tom just brought up a point that I would want to elaborate on. As far as
bicycles go with kids, maybe a five foot meandering sidewalk on the side of the grass
crete or something like that so there is at least a small portion of hardscape for bicycles.
This is something that we need to address in general as a group or a body, but as far as
specific design, let's leave that up to OEI and (inaudible). Let's just approve a
conceptual design for that. The last thing that I wanted to bring up is the conceptual
idea of the project I think that OEI has done an outstanding job on putting together
preliminary information and getting that information to us. As far as not being a done
deal as far the secondary road to Mountain View, I leave that completely up to the
developer in being able to come to terms and agreement with the potential land owner,
the lady that spoke earlier or someone else along the eastern property line as stated in
the conditions of approval. The developer will not be able to develop the eastern half of
this project until that road is put in and is usable. I wanted to make that point clear.
That is all 1 have.
Borup: Okay, Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Ditto
Borup: I definitely agree on the emergency access too. There is several minor things I
think on the draft conditions. The only thing that I have a question on is maybe set
back. I don't know if you had taken a look at the set back proposals. I think the matrix,
the chart is well with keeping what you would expect in a PUD. The think that I had not
initially notices is that the set backs is from the sidewalks rather then from the property
line. Unless I looked at this wrong, the property line has landscaping on so in effect it
would put some of these—like the side entry garage would be 4-1/2 feet from the
property line with the proposals here. I believe that—
Barbeiro: Front property line or side?
Borup: Front.
Barbeiro: That is not the way I read it.
Borup: The set backs on the drawings were from sidewalk. It is going to depend on the
street. The loop road street is pretty much a normal street section. The other
Meridian Planning anning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 42
neighborhood streets sections have the normal 50 feet right of way with a 29 back to
back rather than a 37.
O'Neil: We do get along reasonable well with the highway district but there is a few
things we have done battle with them on 20 years. I don't like their typical street
sections. One of the reasons we ended up doing a lot of private streets and earlier
developments is we don't think these little neighborhood streets should be 37 feet wide
and 50 foot rights of way and so on. We finally won that argument in the sense of the
29 foot road section with 5 feet of sidewalk, but they ran across a state statute that
states all public road rights of way has to be 50 feet wide. Even though we have one of
those little neighborhoods that serves 20 or 30 lots, you have to have a 50 foot right of
way so if you have 29 feet and 5 feet and 5 feet, that 39 feet, we were putting in 42 foot
just to give you a little slop on each side. A 42 foot right of way until a few years ago
when a new attorney from the highway district said you know there is a state statute that
says that all public rights of way has to be 50 feet. I think it is insane because there is
not reason that those neighborhood streets are every going to be expanded. That is
why we like to go with the back of pavement or the back of curb because nobody else is
going to use that property other then the property owner. Rather then have that
expensive concrete and a big set back and a little bitty backyard, we'd like to bring
some of them back to the street and provide more living space. That is the rationale
behind it. It is this kind of artificial notion that every right of way has to be 50 feet wide.
Borup: I can understand what you are saying. Maybe while you are up... maybe you
could address. I also had a question on the right of way on Woodbridge—the 72 foot.
Is the HOA taking care of the landscape maintenance in that. You need to do a
maintenance agreement with the highway district.
O'Neil: Yes a license agreement.
Borup: I was just curious why you went that way rather then a landscape lot.
O'Neil: You can do them either way and we have done them both. I think what
happens is those right of way get to be very hard lines, and sometimes you want to put
a little wiggle in the thing and if it is all within the right of way, you get an opportunity to
do some wriggling for (inaudible) purposes and you get a piece of it pushing the right of
way so we've just decided to do bigger rights of way and then do a license agreement
so we maintain the whole thing.
Borup: By having a 12 foot landscaping lot along there you still want to make use of the
rest of the right of way that was not being used. So you would still need an agreement
with ACRD. One of your documents showed an asphalt path on Locust Grove.
(Inaudible) showed anything, ACHD specified concrete. Is that something that is still
being decided or —
O'Neil: I think ACHD's typical standard is a 5 foot concrete sidewalk right behind the
curb. We are suggesting on our side there is no five foot sidewalk on the curb. Instead
Meridian Planning and 0ing Commission Mee" •
November 9, 1999
Page 44 royal as set forth or subject
recommendation for approval tonight, the conditions of app
to, modification by staff and City Council in the development agreement, I think that's
what we are intending but obviously we want to protect ourselves that all of a sudden
something doesn't come out of left field from staff that has not been discussed. We did
not get a staff report and did not get the handhtten—b sed on what was said tonight,
I did not hear anything that causes us particular
Borup: I don't think that was—I don't think Shari was looking at anything new. Maybe
just a clarification on (inaudible) and things along that line.
O'Neil: I'd suggest that that be added somehow—what ever motion.
Borup: I think maybe the concern was that if this was intended to be a final document,
that it may need some clarification. If it is not intended to be such, then it certainly is the
best place to start. And, it is much easier for the city to take your draft and make any
changes into try to draft a thing from the beginning. That was helpful. Thank you.
What would you like to do?
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. I move we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman. Let me ask a few ttleucluednout on what we areaook nglast
at
proceeding and I apologize for that. I am a
here. My understanding is it is an application for conditional use permit for a planned
unit development that will be followed by a preliminary plat and the final platting
process. The issue, and I don't know what you have in front of you Keith. I certainly
END OF SIDE 4
Borup: Approval that OEI drafted that was in our packets.
Rossman: What are you proposing from this? Adopt these conditions of approval as
conditions of approval of the conditional use permit for the planned unit development
and that with the intent that perhaps these conditions will also be incorporated into the
development agreement.
Borup: Yes, but more of a working draft not a word for word verbatim document. I think
City Council has that option anyway.
Hatcher: We'd just be recommending approval general approval based upon—
Meridian Planning an ning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 45
Borup: I think some of the things in here that are specific and effect the project are the
set backs. In my mind that has been clarified.
Rossman: Let me ask Shari this. Have they provided obviously our ordinance or the
Meridian City Ordinance provides certain requirements be met in the application for
planned unit development. Has all of that been provided to your satisfaction.
Stiles: Yes, I believe they have provided everything we've asked for.
Rossman: Are they asking for any variations from the requirements of the planned unit
development?
Stiles: Not that I am aware of. They do have a list of things that they have not
provided. Their not on 13—
Borup: On 14 where it refers to specific illustrations—is that one of the things you were
referring to?
Stiles: Under 13 they put inapplicability of certain PDR requirements. Submission of
specific elevation exhibits. Of course we are not going to ask for every house, but they
have offered a general elevation, a theme of the development. Some model elevations.
Specific of architectural style and building design. Again they've got general elevations.
Building materials and color. Whether they are going to have a general thyme or their
architectural control committee will take care of that. They are going to have to include
that in the covenants they submit with their plat.
Borup: You saying those are the things normally part of a PUD but they are not
applicable here.
Stiles: These are ordinance requirements. They are showing they don't believe they
necessarily need to show those. Garbage storage, public parking areas. They show
public parking as far as for the community center. They don't show storage area, guest
parking areas and maintenance building. I don't whether they addressed that. I can't
remember whether they said they were going to have outside people come in and do
that. I don't recall. Those are the things that they have not provided. They are not
particularly major items.
Borup: Essentially your saying you agree with what they've written—other then you
might want to see storage and garbage storage areas at the community house.
Stiles: You mean I agree with that number 13? 1 don't have a problem with that.
Rossman: So what your being asked to do is recommend approval of the conditional
use permit with the general conditions set forth in OEI's conditions of approval.
Anything in addition to that? Any staff comments that are to be included?
Meridian Planning an ning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 46
Borup: We want the staff comments.
Hatcher: I don't have a staff report.
Borup: I think the only thing, I think the Commissioner's may have differ from the staff
report was on the emergency access.
Rossman: Okay. Everything that is in the staff report is addressed within these
conditions of approval.
Borup: Well...
Rossman: Your calling on us to draft some kind of recommendation to City Council.
We need to make it clear in your motion and in your --.make it clear what you want in
that as far as conditions so that we can appropriately draft that. We are not coming
back to you with written recommendations for your approval.
(Inaudible from the audience)
Borup: Lets reopen the public hearing.
Rossman: Mr. O'Neil what are you proposing that we recommend to the City Council
and we have a process here and we have a planning and zoning commission that has a
process before it and that is to make a recommendation to City Council, if there is
something more then is set forth in your conditions of approval, what is it that you want
this commission to recommend to City Council.
O'Neil: I am not sure I'll give the appropriate legal answer to that, but the conditions of
approval go with the application. The master site plan and all of the narrative and
sections and things there too. That was what submitted. The conditions of approval are
typically the commissions reaction and staff's reaction to that submittal that says yes,
we agree with these. We want to add some additional conditions and that's what we've
tried to incorporate here, so I'm not sure we have a debate other than the issue is that
there is a plan out there that we want to build and the conditions assure the city that we
built it the way that we said we were going to, but by the same token that we have the
right to do the set backs and all of the specific things that we suggested we do that you
have to go through the PUD and CU to get there. We tried to make that clear last time
and I understand that revolving attorney issue.
Rossman: It is not a revolving attorney issue, it's an issue that this type of application
does not come before the commission every day obviously and we don't deal with these
every day and we just want to make sure that when we do it, we do it right the first time.
O'Neil, I guess that in the letter that was sent last week, our letter is perhaps the City
Attorney should review this to advise the process that you go through so nobody gets
hung up that jumped over a step that you should go through.
Meridian Planning andWing Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 47
Borup: I am still confused in where you thought there was a problem.
O'Neil: Well, if somebody made a motion that said let's forward these conditions of
approval on to City Council with the recommendation that they be approved, that's part
of the application and the plan that wants to be approved by the City Council. Adding
future staff reports and so on, obviously the council is going to get their own staff
reports, but I just or maybe 1 misunderstood where you are going with that but it
sounded like this was an interim step and—
Borup: No, I think so. The staff report was done last month and he was talking about
whether incorporate that staff report and with our recommendation which is our normal
process.
O'Neil: Yeah and that is what this intent was to try to incorporate things that were or
were not said. The staff report, if you recall, had some comments, some suggestions
and some conditions. What we tried to do was consolidate those in a way that be
specific so that somebody could say, what did we approve.
Rossman: So my question or the answer to my question is that your conditions of
approval address and incorporate the staff report and the conditions in the staff report.
O'Neil: Pretty much.
Rossman: In understand you position. The recommendation we are making to City
Council, assuming they make such a recommendation is that City Council approve your
application, your site plan and all your proposal with the addition of the following
conditions, general conditions set forth within this document. I just wanted to make that
clear so that they understand what they are supposed to do and of course it will be
addressed again at City Council and they will certainly say their two cents worth, but
there will not be another staff report usually prepared ---will there? Shari? I am talking
about this stage on this application and City Council. This recommendation goes to City
Council. Are you going to prepare another staff report?
Stiles: Based on what we got with these conditions of approval, we will make
recommendations to Counsel for some modifications of those conditions, yes. They will
not be major, they will just be more clarification. That was our intent when we got it.
We got this emailed to us and what we had hoped to do before tonight was to actually
take that document, show strike outs where we would like the language and add
anything that we wanted to clarify. We can still do that at Council because it is another
public hearing.
Rossman: Yeah, ideally those issues get addressed before the Planning and Zoning
Commission first and then addressed at City Council. That is the reason for having the
Planning and Zoning Commission but obviously if they are not—there is nothing that
would preclude you from raising them the first time at the City Council.
Meridian Planning an ing Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 48
Hatcher: I was just going to ask Shari if we have addressed those issues tonight?
Minor modifications. Have we addressed those issues tonight. Is there any of those
issues that have not been discussed?
Stiles: I did bring up some of them as I was going through the draft. I talked to Scott
briefly before the meeting tonight about some of those—the requirement for a
development agreement, the future development on parcel B, subject to development
under the conditional use permit process instead of just meeting our LO requirements.
Taking our some ambiguous language that does not need to be there in our opinion.
Adding the swimming pool, which is proposed in their site plan to the open space—
those kinds of things. Changing 166 to 164 or 3 or what ever it is that they proposed—
minor. That was our intent when we got this was to be able to turn it around, but we just
didn't have the time to do it.
Rossman: I am satisfied Mr. Chairman. I apologize for the diversion.
Hatcher: I would not see any problem in having Shari compile those modifications
between now and the City Council meeting.
Borup: Those things would still be level for discussion I assume at that time, between
you and the applicant prior to the City Council meeting.
Stiles: If this is recommended for approval tonight, it will go to City Council for public
hearing on December 7th and that should give us plenty of time to make sure we get our
comments back to the applicant and I mean if I felt that anything we were going to come
up with would create a significant change, that would require it to come back to
Planning and Zoning Commission, I would say so right now. I don't think that that is the
case so—
Borup: Since you brought it up, I just gotta ask on the 166, 164. You counted 164 and
the applicant counted 166 lots this west of the creek.
Stiles: 163 single family homes west of the creek.
Borup: So it's the first phase up to Five Mile.
Stiles: They have identified that it would be prior to any platting east of the creek is
when that would be. They came up with 166 for some reason, I don't know.
Borup: All right. That's what I assumed it was just a counting thing. Okay we still have
a public hearing open.
Hatcher: I make a motion that we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Meridian Planning andWing Commission Meeting •
November 9, 1999
Page 49
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we have a motion?
Hatcher: Yes, I will attempt this. Mr. Chairman, I motion that we recommend approval
of the conditional use permit for a 283 lot planned development on 80.83 acres from an
RT to an R4 by Woodbridge Community, LLC south of east Franklin Road and east of
south Locust Grove Road with the following conditions. The first one is that staff
comments. The second one is that the draft conditions of approval in general be
accepted pending minor editing and modifications by planning staff. Third would be
general compliance and acceptance of the information submitted by OEI and that there
would be no major deviations. How we would define major deviation I'm at a lost for but
the over general concept of everything that they've presented I think we should
recommend, but if they are going to go off on a tangent, I don't know how we want to
address that. The other issue would be the access on the north side of the
development that will attach Weatherby access that we recommend to City Council that
a 18 foot wide grass crete strip be installed on both sides of that access and that a 5
foot meandering sidewalk be installed, both within the 50 foot right of way and the
difference —the remaining difference of that right of way be maintained in landscaping. I
think that's it.
Rossman: Just a few clarifications, just on the first two conditions. One, you said staff
comments. My understanding is those are incorporated in the draft conditions of
approval and we don't, when it comes down to it drafting the actual recommendation if
we have conflicting conditions. We certainly don't want that. I think if they are in fact
incorporated into the draft conditions, then it should just be the draft conditions and
exclude the staff comments or the staff conditions. Do you see what I mean?
Hatcher: Do you feel comfortable with that Shari?
Borup: Well I think staff had a lot other comments had pertained with City Ordinance
and etc. that weren't necessarily addressed in the conditions of approval.
Rossman: But with regard to the items or the conditions that were addressed in staff
comments—if it's addressed one way in staff comments and one way in the draft
conditions—
Hatcher: What am I supposed to put in the recommendation?
Borup: My understanding by the motion that the draft of conditions would take
precedence accept for the motion on emergency vehicle. That was the only one, there
may be other, but that was the one I was aware of that differed from the staff comment.
Staff was going along with ACHD's recommendation.
Meridian Planning andeping Commission Meeting •
November 9, 1999
Page 50
Rossman: We will do our best. There just isn't a lot of direction and the fact that now
we are faced with the task in going through and comparing the two and determining
where there is conflicts and where there aren't conflicts and what should be included
and what should not be included. That is somewhat difficult.
Borup: Maybe it would be easier if we reviewed the findings before it went to City
Council.
Rossman: We can do that.
Borup: We use to.
Rossman: It will just delay the project and I am not sure that is necessary. We will just
do our best and send it up and if they disagree with it, they can certainly raise it up
there.
Hatcher: Can we not recommend and adopt both staff comments. If there is a conflict
that would be noted. We are talking another month in which a resolution can be brought
to and discussed—
(Inaudible)
Hatcher: This is the way it is going to be tonight because it is too big of a conceptual
project to recommend the exact requirements.
Rossman: The purpose of the Planning and Zoning Commission is to make a
recommendation and I think that you make a recommendation and the staff has a
different view on it, they will certainly present that to City Council. Let's not put altering
conditions—lets just make a recommendation and if that is in fact these draft conditions,
lets stick with those and if staff disagrees with it, they will raise that in their comments to
City Council at that preceding. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission is obligated
to make a recommendation and I think they need to pick one go with it and they it will be
addressed at City Council.
Borup: Staff has 19 comments, a lot of them I don't think they are all addressed in the
other and there is no conflict. It's just one is addressed in one area and one is
addressed in the other.
Rossman: Okay, well we will go over them and see what we can figure out. On number
2, 1 prefer to take out the comment that subject to minor change by staff, lets make the
recommendation and send it up and once again, if staff has minor changes, they can
present those to City Council and City Council can address them there. What that
implies is that minor change will occur in the recommendations between here and City
Council. What we are going to do is make a recommendation. That is going to be in
Meridian Planning an ning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 51
City Council's file and staff will also present any changes that they will want to make to
those recommendations. Do you understand what I mean? Okay.
Hatcher: I am glad I'm a architect and not a lawyer...
Borup: Essentially this sounds like just one part of the motion needs to be modified and
that was on the minor change.
Rossman: Number 2, the comments. Comment number 1, staff comments where not
in consistent with the draft conditions and comment number 2, just exclude the
comment about subject to minor changes by staff.
Hatcher: I amend my motion by what he just said.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion.
Barbeiro: I second that motion.
Borup: That motion is seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you. This is completed for this Commission, we hope. While they are
clearing out Commissioner's, for general guideline, I would like to see maybe we don't
open up any hearing after midnight. Whatever is going a midnight would probably be
the last one.
Hatcher: Didn't we agree upon that as a procedure at the last meeting?
Borup: Well, after the meeting was over we discussed that.
Hatcher: Well, it was still on record.
Borup: Okay, were we.. Item number 9 Staff.
ITEM 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CORPORATE HEADQUARTER FACILITY, CREDIT UNION AND DRIVE
UP TELLER UNITS BY CAPITAL EDUCATORS FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION—LOTS 14,15,18,19 IN BLOCK 2 OF HONOR PARK
SUBDIVISION NO. 3:
Siddoway: Chairman Borup and Commissioner's, Item Number 9 is Capital Educators
Federal Credit Union. It's a conditional use permit required by the fact that they have
proposed drive thru tellers. The vicinity map is before you on the screen. They are
proposing using these 4 lots in the cross hashed area right here. Just to get you a little
bit oriented, this is Franklin Road, the new fire station site is right here. Meridian
Meridian ^City Council i
January 18, 2000
Page 4
0
Item C. Tabled 12/21/99: Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law:
Request for conditional use permit for 283 -lot planned development
for proposed Woodbridge Subdivision on 80.83 acres from R -T to
R-4 by Woodbridge Community, LLC — south '/ of the NW
section 17, T3N, R1 E:
Item D. Tabled 1/4/2000: Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law:
Request for annexation and zoning of 150.79 acres of land for R-4
zoning by Bear Creek, LLC — east of Stoddard Road and south of
Overland
Item E. Tabled 1/4/2000: Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law:
Request for preliminary plat for proposed Bear Creek Subdivision of
326 single-family dwelling lots by Bear Creek, LLC — east of
Stoddard Road and south of Overland:
Item F. Tabled 1/4/2000: Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law:
request for conditional use permit commercial subdivision mini -
storage on Lot 2 of proposed Overland Mini Storage Subdivision By
Overland Mini Storage, LLC —1230 East Overland Road:
Item G. Proposal by Gary Smith concerning Latecomer Fees:
Item H. Building Inspectors — Contract for Services:
Item I. Streetlight Agreement with Brighton Corporation for Ashford Greens
No. 3:
Corrie: Okay. Council, we have the Consent Agenda, Items A, B, C, D, E, F, G,
H and I in front of you. What is the pleasure of the Council on these Items?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the Consent Agenda, I would move that we approve Items A, B, C, H
and I; that we pull D and E and send back to open a public hearing on 2/15/2000
and we table Item F. Item G will be coming before us on the 28th in our
workshop.
Anderson: I'll second that.
Corrie: Okay. Motion's made and seconded to approve Item A, B and C, H and
I; to have Item D and E to be placed — re -opened for a public hearing on
February 15, 2000; and Item G will go onto the workshop on the 28th of this
Meridian City Council • •
January 18, 2000
Page 5
month, and Mr. Bird, did you want F to be tabled to the next meeting or just
tabled for the night?
Bird: Tabled until February 1St, I believe we —
Corrie: To February 1St
Bird: Uh-huh. I'm sorry.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. Council, we have a possibility — if Item No. 7 and 8 would be
opened to the public hearing, open those both up as a public hearing to hear the
annexation and zoning and the conditional use permit. Is there anyone that's
here for the Magic View Office Complex have any problem with that? Just a little
timing as far as opening it up together. Just open them together. And Item No.
9 and 10, the same thing; open them both up for public hearing at the same time.
They'll be handled differently. Council, does that meet with your approval?
McCandless: Yes.
Bird: Yes.
Item 1. Reconsideration of Police Grant (hiring two officers):
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 1 on our Regular Agenda is reconsideration of the police
grant, hiring two officers. Chief Gordon.
Gordon: Mr. Mayor, Council members, what I've handed out was a reproduction
of what I handed out the last time I brought this issue before you. One exception
is on the front there. The closing date at that time was December 13th. I have
been able to obtain an extension to January 27th on this grant. Here again, I
bring this back because I think it's extremely important because of the growth of
the City that we accept this grant and put these two officers on the streets as
soon as we can get them out there. The costs to the citizens of Meridian is half
of what it's going to be over a three-year period, and even if we don't use them or
you don't think we need them this year, if we hire them next year, we can't use
this grant. This grant is a continuing grant. We've already hired eight officers on
the grant. I don't know how long they're going to continue funding it. It was just
re -funded again for next year, so I can re -apply at that time for more officers,
manpower. The need is there. I've given you in the facts sheet, some stats. I
was just sitting over here waiting for my return in the front here, and just an
example of what has happened since we started keeping statistics, on Page 7 of
Meridian City Pre-Counoeting
January 18, 2000
Page 7
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I guess the problem with that is we still have some things
that aren't clear on the sewer issues in my mind that I think would be better off to
table them.
deWeerd: And re -open it.
Corrie: Re -open on the 15th of February. I agree with that, too.
Bird: That's (inaudible) fair to both parties and get it right. Because they
misinterpreted something (inaudible) or we misinterpreted something, and I don't
think that Bill did. I think we were pretty clear in our motion.
Item C. Tabled 12/21/99: Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law:
Request for conditional use permit for 283 -lot planned development
for proposed Woodbridge Subdivision on 80.83 acres from R -T to
R-4 by Woodbridge Community, LLC — south '/ of the NW
section 17, T3N, R1 E:
Item D. Tabled 1/4/2000: Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law:
Request for annexation and zoning of 150.79 acres of land for R-4
zoning by Bear Creek, LLC — east of Stoddard Road and south of
Overland:
Item E. Tabled 1/4/2000: Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law:
Request for preliminary plat for proposed Bear Creek Subdivision of
326 single-family dwelling lots by Bear Creek, LLC — east of
Stoddard Road and south of Overland:
Item F. Tabled 1/4/2000: Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law:
request for conditional use permit commercial subdivision mini -
storage on Lot 2 of proposed Overland Mini Storage Subdivision By
Overland Mini Storage, LLC —1230 East Overland Road:
Corrie: The other two Items C and F, the two new Council people, were you
comfortable with (inaudible) you could certainly pull those off (inaudible).
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I have read all of them, and I don't know how
comfortable I am with them, but I have read them all.
Corrie: Mr. Berg.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, these two items were tabled because
of the annexation process that needed to be completed before them. Today I did
receive a signed Development Agreement from Woodbridge with the suggestion
of review by the attorney before we put it on the agenda, but the process is we
need to have this signed Development Agreement and then approve the
Meridian City Pre-Counoeting •
January 18, 2000
Page 8
annexation ordinance, and then we can deal with the CUPs. That's what both of
these items involve.
Bird: So we need to pull them to the 1 st of February? (inaudible)
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I believe that, correct me, Mr. Clerk,
if I'm wrong, that the Development Agreement involved Snorting Bull, was one of
the parties, and I have — there's been, as it often happens, and this is something
that I would like to see get more clarified in the public hearings, these
applications where they're anticipating selling the property somebody else. We
prepare these Development Agreements and then they come back and say, well,
we're selling this to so-and-so, so we've got to revise this and put another party
in there, and it's not really been clear in the public record that's going to happen.
We've tried to facilitate that because simply unless the owner was the central
part of the condition which it has not been thus far, but in this particular instance,
I have reviewed that Development Agreement. I have reviewed the strike-
throughs and they deal with who the party is and their address and those sorts of
things. It looks okay to me unless I'm looking at the wrong one. Will, you can
correct me. I would think that would be ready to go and the Council could then
move to approve the Mayor and Clerk's signature of that Development
Agreement and that one could move forward at least to the best of my
knowledge.
Bird: How about the — Mr. Mayor, how about the Overland Mini Storage? Same
thing on that? Do we have —
Berg: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bird, that's the same situation but I have not
received the Development Agreement. I guess a point of clarification to the
attorney, if I may, Mr. Mayor, if the Development Agreements can be approved
tonight or do I need to put them on the next agenda? I wait to put them on the
agenda until I have a signed Development Agreement, and some of these get
lost in the process because of the back and forth of the little changes or the
change of ownership. Just for clarification.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, you know, I think the process
you've been following is fine. We could put the Development Agreements along
with the Findings as an agenda item so when they come back in and if they've
been signed by the developer, Council could go ahead and approve the City
entering into those and maybe what should happen with Item F if it be continued
to be tabled because we don't have a Development Agreement signed, possibly,
the Clerk's office could notice this developer that this is being held and we need
clarification as to what's going on here. I can't remember now exactly why this
one hasn't been signed. Was this a change of ownership?
Bird: So we need to table that?
Meridian City Pre-Coun0eting
January 18, 2000
Page 9
Corrie: Table Items C and F. Table those two.
Bird: He's saying we might be able to —
Corrie: Cis all right.
Bird: Okay. Leave C on? Table D and E?
Corrie: Right.
Bird: We're tabling D, E and F. We're tabling, but in the same motion we'll move
E and F to re -open to a public hearing on February 15, 2000.
Corrie: Anything else on the Consent Agenda? Explanation — anything to talk
about?
Item H. Building Inspectors — Contract for Services:
Anderson: Oh. The Building Inspector's Contracts?
Corrie: Did you get copies of those?
Anderson: Yes. Ask Gary a question?
Corrie: Yes.
Anderson: Gary, on the Building Contract for Services, did you review those and
is that the same contract, the same dollar amounts and everything as last year?
Smith: Yes, sir. Everything's the same except for the date.
Anderson: All right. Thank you.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Item 2. ORDINANCE NO. 853 Solid Waste Collection Services/Franchise:
Item 7. Public Hearing: Request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres
from RT to LO for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H.
Moore Company — Eagle Road and Magic View: Approve -
Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Item 8. Public Hearing: Request for conditional use permit to provide
multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in L -O
•
• RECEIVED
DEC 2 0 1999
CITY OF MERIDIAN
interoffice
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Robert D. Come and City Council
cc: William G. Berg, Jrf ^T p( `I
ICTA
TED M
From: Wm. F. Gigray, OT NTKUT'; ; LAY
Y
HIs A3'ENCE TO a
Subject: Woodbridge Findings for CUP -99-037
Date: December 20, 1999
Mayor Corrie and Council:
Since there have been some revisions to the above conditional use
permit for Woodbridge Community, LLC, I am bringing the revisions to your
attention. I believe all revisions or changes have been addressed. Therefore, the
revisions and changes within the CUP Findings are as follows:
1. I have started the conditions with the paragraph number 13, and
renumbered the conditions. Therefore, # 13 is now 2.1 in the
conditions. 2.1.1 is now the second part of the old number 3.
2.1.2 is now the old part of 4 with the additional language added
at the front of this sentence "The subject real property is", and
the last of that old sentence is deleted.
2. Under Specific Development Requirements 2.1.3 has the word
generally deleted and substantially inserted, the Site Plan
information inserted.
3. In 2.1.4 the last sentence has been deleted.
4. In 2.1.6 b., in the sentence starting with "The second vehicular
access ... the words submittal of the have been added to the
sentence.
5. On page 11 under 2.1.6 c., the deletion of the words "Until the
166`" Certificate of Occupancy is issued, the emergency access
may be unpaved all weather surface".
He
Page 2
December 20, 1999
Also under 2.1.6 c., the second paragraph, the words "the City of
Meridian, the Developer and the residents of Greenhill Estates
agree" have been deleted.
6. All the illustration numbers have been changed to reflect the
correct numbers.
7. Within the charts the correct numbers have been added to Type
B, Type C in the last column to add 55' and 75'.
8. On page 14 at (5) within those listed items the footage for Cul-
de-sac streets has been changed from 30 feet to 60 feet. Within b.
of the same (5) the "Minimum pavement width has been changed
from 14 feet to 20 feet*, and in at Minimum on -lot driveway
length this has been changed from 16 feet to 20 feet*.
Additional language has been added at the end of those items as
follows:
*Unless the City Fire Department approves a narrower width or
shorter length.
9. On page 15 under General Conditions number 2.1.13, to read as
follows:
Compliance with Zoning and Subdivision Requirements. The
Development shall meet all of the requirements of the R-4 zone,
except as specifically set forth elsewhere in these Conditions of
Approval. The Development shall also comply with the
requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, to the
extent those requirements are not inconsistent with these
conditions of approval in accordance with an approved planned
development application. The intent is that specific subdivision,
zoning and other City ordinance requirements will be applied so
as to allow the implementation of the Master Plan and the
general intent of the Development Applications.
10. In 2.1.15 at the very end of that paragraph the words "as allowed
by City Ordinance" have been added.
•
File
Page 3
December 20, 1999
11. In 2.1.19 the word final has been deleted and the word
preliminary replaced, in the 5th line down.
12. In 2.1.22 the words City Ordinance have been deleted and the
words the terms of the Development Agreement and the
approved Conditional Use Permit have been added.
13. In 2.1.17 in the second line after the word Code, these words
have been added "and duly adopted City Public Worlcs Standards
and Specifications".
14. In 2.1.18 now reads as follows:
Incorporation into Development Agreement. These conditions of
approval shall be incorporated into a Development Agreement to
be approved by the City Council, which shall replace these
conditions and the final Development Agreement and shall be the
guiding document for assessing future plats in the Development.
Provided, however, that the provisions of the Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinances shall continue to apply to the Development
to the extent those provisions are not inconsistent with these
conditions of approval. These conditions of approval and the
Development Agreement shall act in lieu of subdivision or zoning
ordinance requirements that are inconsistent with these
conditions in accordance with an approved planned development
application, whether currently contained in the Meridian City
Code or subsequently adopted.
If you have any questions please advise.
msg/Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Woodbridge Community\MavorCounci1122099.Mem
Meridian City CounciAKting •
December 7, 1999
Page 50
Gigray: Right, but I imagine that's because this is like a short plat (inaudible), but
you still won't have final action on it until you adopt it.
Corrie: The variance? Okay.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we have the city attorney prepare Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law, Decisions of Order for the preliminary plat for the Seven
Gates Property to include staff comments and the adoption of the variance as
conditions of the ultimate approval of the preliminary plat.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Motion is made to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law, Decision of Order with the adjustments on the landscaping
to be included with the staff comments. Further discussion? Hearing none, all
those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
ITEM 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR
PROPOSED WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION ON 80.83 ACRES
FROM R -T TO R-4 BY WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC —
SOUTH % OF THE NW'/ SECTION 17 T3N R1 E:
Corrie: Item 13 is a public hearing. This is a request for conditional use permit
for 283 -lot planned development for proposed Woodbridge Subdivision on 80.83
acres from R -T to R-4 by Woodbridge Community, LLC, south half of the
northwest quarter section, 17T, 3N, R1 E. At this time, I'll open the public hearing
on Item No. 13 and hear from Staff first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, you have a significant amount of information on
this project. I hope you've had a chance to go through it. We have met with the
applicant and their attorney several times, and it's come down to basically just a
couple of issues. This property is what was formerly known as the Griffin
property, the 80 acres. It's south of Green Hill, west of Magic View Subdivision.
Cobblestone Village was approved up in this location here tonight. They are
proposing to annex it or they have — you've approved the annexation of this
parcel to an L -O, and they're proposing a planned development with a maximum
of 283 lots. They're proposing reductions on a number of the Ordinance
requirements as part of the planned development, but they have proposed open
space, common areas throughout the project with pathways. One thing that will
need to be determined once the platting proceeds with this project, the approval
Meridian City Councilfeting
December 7, 1999
Page 51
tonight is not the approval of a plat. It's just the conditional use permit. They're
proposing stub street or a street connection through to Magic View. It's not
known at this time whether this will be the final location. They'll be working on
that as they get an engineer to prepare their plans. I believe Ada County
Highway District supported more in this area, and Staff also supported that area,
but they have committed to having that in operation prior to issuance of the 200th
building permit, then that would go through to Magic View and eventually could
be able to access the signal at the Chevron and St. Luke's area. The main issue
that we have just had to agree to disagree on is this street here, Ada County
Highway District — I think I have — there's three different proposals presented for
the connection through to Green Hills Estates. This is an existing 50 -foot right-
of-way in Green Hill Estates. It's never been developed, but the right-of-way is
still in tact. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation
was that 18 feet of grasscrete be constructed with a five-foot meandering
pathway to connect the two subdivisions and that the ballards would be installed,
and this would only be intended as an emergency access. Ada County Highway
District, I believe this is still their final plan? Oh. I believe this was the staff
recommendation for Ada County Highway District, and I guess Mr. O'Niell's
shaking his head, but he can clarify that. This is what they presented and gave
to us in the packet most recently, and it says ACRD, so I assume that's what it
was. This is O'Niell Enterprise's recommendation. They're proposing a 12 -foot
asphalt pathway with four -foot, I put five-foot there because that's our sidewalk
requirement, pathway requirement. They're proposing four -foot grasscrete on
either side of 12 -foot asphalt pathway. In their, in what they presented, you see
a — on Page 2 of what they've just submitted this week under the conditions of
approval, it seems to be a combination of what they were proposing and what
P & Z has proposed. One issue that we had was some of the wording they had
there was that they were willing to go ahead and dedicate the 50 -foot right-of-
way so the possibility would exist. They're showing it as 50 -foot right-of-way. So
the possibility would exist at some point to make it a public road, but they had put
in their conditions that it would be made permanent when ACRD, the City of
Meridian, the developer and the residents of Green Hill Estates agree it should
become permanent access. I don't know about you, but I don't believe that
would happen in our lifetimes to get those four into these together and agree on
that. There's the interneighborhood connectivity is very important. I don't — well,
here's a better plan. This is the. existing public right-of-way that hasn't been
constructed. There's also an existing public right-of-way at this location that I
imagine we're going to come up with the same problem there. They're not going
to want that to continue through. The problem comes with only one access here
that the problems that exist here that when Franklin Road is reconstructed to
the five lanes or seven lanes or however many lanes they're going to end up with
there, it's going to be virtually impossible for the residents of Green Hill to get out.
They can go through and get eventually to Eagle Road through this location, but I
believe the policies of Ada County Highway District and our policies are to
provide for that interconnectivity. Staff certainly supports the leaving of this as
emergency access only for as long as possible, but I think they're going to find
Meridian City Councilseting
December 7, 1999
Page 52
that in the not -too -distant future, they're really going to wish that they had that.
Particularly when also the Locust Grove if we ever get the overpass there and
they reconstruct Locust Grove Road, that's going to be at least another avenue
for them to exit this site. It's also important for our emergency access, although
the Fire Department is satisfied with the emergency access only. That was the
one point of disagreement. It is a nice project. We certainly could have had
someone else come in and pick up that property and end up with a much less
desirable result. They've got lots of open space. They've got the Five Mile
Creek coming through that they will develop as a common area. You have a
clubhouse, swimming pool, all these other pathways and open areas. They have
the smaller lots that would be on this portion and then gradually go to the larger
lots. These would be the more ideal lots that they have as far as the size and the
views that are available because of the topography of the site. They have
committed to leaving these as type — what they call Type D lots, I believe, that is
at least a minimum of 8,000 square feet. Neighborhood roads, they would all —
you had that in your packets. All the street sections they have there. They have
some very pleasing elevations for some of the proposed housing within the
subdivision. They're allowing for some varied setbacks, side -entry garages. This
is the section of Locust Grove Road that they're proposing. Our ordinance states
that when they are adjacent to a roadway such as Locust Grove, that the
minimum 20 -foot planting strip be provided beyond required right-of-way.
They're proposing to build this street section, and I am told by Ada County
Highway District that this does meet their requirements for a five -lane roadway
even though all of this portion would be in the right-of-way, they would allow
through license agreement for this to be landscaped. This would be an eight -foot
wide meandering asphalt pathway, and we have discussed with the applicant
that we would like to review what types of plantings they have in there as far as
this streetscape. They are proposing an additional ten feet beyond the required
right-of-way, but with the end result of what they're proposing would be very nice
section. The only caveat would be Staff would ask that any development at least
on the east side of Locust Grove Road be required to match this same
construction and have the same kind of — even the eight -foot wide pathway with
asphalt, at least, so it's consistent so we don't just have a quarter mile that look
like that. This is section that shows in more detail how that will look once it's
completed. They're showing the two thru-lanes, the turn lane, bike lane, and
then they would have the planting strip and then pathway. So it is a nice view
there. Other than that, we have met for a long time. They have put a lot of work
into it. They have answered virtually all of our questions and have been very
responsive to any time we've asked to additional information, we will be working
out some details as part of the preliminary plat, but Staff supports the project and
would recommend approval and asks for your decision on the Weatherby
connection. If you have any questions.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Meridian City Councillating
December 7, 1999
Page 53
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, just for purposes of the record,
there have been some different transmittals from our office with regard to the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and I just want to
point out for the record that the official transmission is the one received by the
Clerk's Office dated received December 6, 1999, which I think you have in your
packets. I believe it has front sheet from the Clerk's office, and you'll see
received 12/6/99. It'll reference this particular — Excuse me. Yeah. It's right
here. It has handwritten on it, updated corrected, replace old set in packet, and
you'll see a received stamp for recommendation to Council December 6, 1999.
That's the correct one.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I just got this tonight, so I didn't get a chance to
look at it. I'm not sure that this is entirely consistent with what the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended. It does include some of the comments of
Staff. On Page 3, Item 1.1, even though Brad did include some language about
the 25 percent and the 75 percent, it's impossible for us to — that PD section has
been interpreted in so many different ways that it's really hard for us to quantify
what it even means. We're having Carla Olsen re -do our Planned Development
Ordinance. That is in the works now. We would like that 1.1 to be stricken. I'm
not sure that Planning and Zoning Commission was in agreement with that.
Then on 1.2, that's what we were discussing about the Weatherby Stub. That
was Planning and Zoning's recommendation. I'm not sure that they were
recommending the 20 -foot wide planting strip to be required. I'm sorry. I don't
have this revised copy. If you're referring to this — I am looking at this, it says
updated, corrected, replace old set in packet. But this that I just got, apparently,
does anyone have this? This was faxed Ed Miller from — Bill. But this is what I
picked up in my packet tonight at 6:00.
Bird: Is that for O or for —
Rountree: It's this one. It's just got the wrong cover sheet on it.
Bird: That's the one you told me wasn't right.
Rountree: Oh. This has got another cover sheet on it, I think. Yeah. That's
right. That's —
Bird: The one that we received, this one right here?
Gigray: Yeah. It's the one that — it has a cover sheet on it, and this is where
we're getting confused which is — this is the Clerk's office has had a number of
transmittals, so it's not their problem. It's just so we get the record clear here. I
Meridian City Council ting
December 7, 1999
Page 54
have in front of me that's in my packet the document that's a routing slip from the
Clerk's office dated December 711i that says Woodbridge Communities, LLC, but it
references Item No. O for the Consent Agenda and actually, this has attached to
it the recommendations that we've identified of the — to the City Council from the
Planning and Zoning Commission on this particular matter which is the plan — the
conditional use permit, case no. CUP -99-037. It consists of 12 pages. It has a
received stamp on it of the City Clerk's office of December 6, 1999. Right here.
Corrie: I got it now. It was in my — as O.
Stiles: Excuse me, Mayor. Does — the 12 pages, does that include the
transmittal sheet? I only have 11 pages in what was transmitted to Mr. Miller.
Gigray: It's a recommendation to the City Council from the Planning and Zoning
Commission consisting of 12 pages, 1 through 12.
Stiles: There's no page 12 in — I'm looking at the bottom. Are you looking at the
top?
Gigray: I'm looking at the footers.
Stiles: Yeah. It only has 11 pages.
Gigray: I can show you mine.
Stiles: I've got several of them now.
Gigray: We can't be getting stuff on the 7th 6th and 7th and —
Stiles: I'd like to make sure we're still all looking at the same thing.
Bentley: I hear you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue this public hearing until the 12th or until the 21St of
December, 1999, so that everything can get — we can all be looking at the same
stuff that — in this items on Tuesday, the day of the meeting, it makes it kind of
hard to read and look through and get us on the same page.
Bentley: I second that.
Meridian City Councilating
December 7, 1999
Page 55
Corrie: Since this is still a public hearing, we haven't closed the public hearing
yet. Counselor, I think the motion at this point is probably going to be out of
order until we can get the public hearing — am I correct?
Gigray: You can continue the public hearing and receive the testimony that's
hear if you don't feel like you've got enough information. Councilman's made a
motion — it was seconded and I guess you would have to deal with that motion.
Corrie: We can still take the testimony. Okay. Any further discussion on the
motion to continue the public hearing on Item 13?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, (inaudible)
Corrie: Testimony and then we can do it?
Bentley: I'll withdraw the second.
Bird: I'll withdraw.
Corrie: Okay. We'll still continue the public hearing and have the applicant at
this point —
Pete O'Niell: Good evening. My name is Pete O'Niell. I'm President of O'Niell
Enterprises. We're the managing member of Woodbridge, LLC. I'll introduce my
son Derek who's Vice President of Development, Scott Beecham, Development
Assistant, and Ed Miller who's talking with Shari at the moment. I'd introduce the
rest of our team in terms of planners and engineers, but don't need to do that,
that's all part of the record. I would like to just point out that here's a list of
meetings we've had with the City of Meridian. It started 18 months ago with the
first meeting and started in earnest a year ago, nine months ago with a number
of meetings. Since that time, it was submitted in September to Planning and
Zoning. Heard the application on October 12, and it was really the 12 and 13. 1
think that was the meeting that ended close to 3:00 a.m. in the morning, and they
wisely deferred a decision until November 9th at which point in time the Planning
and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval with specific
conditions of approval, recommended to the Council that they approve with
specific conditions. On the 16th of November, the City Council met to hear the
annexation and zoning part of the application which you did at that time. The
next day on the 17th of November, we were in front of the Ada County Highway
District which unanimously approved the plan including the use of the connection
to Green Hill Estates as an emergency vehicle/pedestrian access only within a
50 -foot right-of-way. So there was the option to do more than that at some point
in time. The minutes from the Highway District are available. Should be
distributed to you. I think just to try to clarify a little bit of the confusion that just
took place: If I understand what Mr. Gigray mentioned. as the official transmittal
from Planning and Zoning Commission that was dated the 7th is essentially
Meridian City Council Ming
December 7, 1999
Page 56
correct. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved it subject to the
conditions that were put forth with some modifications to one condition which is
Condition 7C, and there's a slight error in the transmission because we didn't see
this until today either. It is not consistent with the minutes of that meeting. I think
it's a clerical issue as opposed to anything more. This, I think, technically is
being submitted to you, and correct me if I'm wrong, counselor, is being
submitted as the recommendation of Planning and Zoning. What Planning and
Zoning Commission also mentioned is because Shari was concerned that there
was a 30 -some -odd conditions that she wasn't comfortable without reviewing
them further as written, they should go forward. So we met on the 22nd of
November with representative of Mr. Gigray's office and Shari, and worked
through each of those 31 conditions. They were attached to the packet that we
sent out to you last Friday as Appendix 5A, and it was the redline version of what
Mr. Gigray handed out today. They're a little out of sequence. What Mr. Gigray
handed out essentially came first, these were the revisions to that that were
agreed to on a long transmittal letter, here's what we agreed to and here's what
we haven't, and then as of — Shari was gone for a period of time, so she didn't
have a chance to review the redlined additions until yesterday, so there was a
meeting yesterday afternoon, and subsequently, I believe she's going to had this
out today, subsequently, there's further revisions to five of those conditions which
are revisions of clarification, and I believe those are part of the records. If not, I
believe they should be. Why don't we submit these. These were available for
your review. So if you take the ones in Appendix A with these additions, that is
what the staff and ourselves have agreed to (inaudible) except the wording in
Condition 7C. Having heard Shari's report, I'm not altogether sure we even have
a disagreement on that. So I think she covered it verbally quite well of what it is
we're proposing. I don't know if that sheds any light on this or not. I mean, just
this passing comment, we have always made it a practice to submit a book just
for the very reason you all witnessed. The sections one, two, three and four —
this is the exact information that was presented and gone over at Planning and
Zoning Commission. You're looking at the same information that they did. The
Appendix is things that have happened subsequently to that or concurrently with
that, so we put them separately so there's no legal question of which came first
and so on. That's — we try to go to all this trouble to get it out so the — if one has
a chance to read it all, it hopefully clarifies the issue. There was another —
there's two other transmittals that were either put in your boxes that you may
have gotten. It may have been put in and taken back that were just dead wrong
that were done last week in Shari's absence and I believe Mr. Gigray's absence.
They tried to get something out and it was just not correct. I believe that's been
pulled and corrected. I guess where we go from here — as I mentioned, the only
issue I believe that we would presumably take exception with the Staffs report
and what you've seen now in writing is that Condition 7C, and that really has to
do with the use and configuration of the connection to Green Hill Estates to the
north. So I guess at this point in time I would just again point out that Planning
and Zoning Commission is recommending approval. The neighbors, and the
reason it lasted until three in the morning, A, we didn't start until eight, but there
Meridian City Council Sting 0
December 7, 1999
Page 57
was a substantial testimony of strongly opposed. They strongly opposed the full-
time connection to Green Hill Estates. They were very much supportive of the
project with that as an emergency vehicle and pedestrian connection. ACHD
approved it. Their policy is similar to the City's. The liked the connectivity to all
the neighboring deals, but given the particular conditions of this, they accepted
and approved the emergency vehicle only and pedestrian only access to the
north of Green Hill Estates. As a practical matter, the staff is in agreement with
what it is we'd like to do. Rather than take a lot of your time, I do want to come
back and to put in prospective with the site plan the issues surrounding the
connection to Green Hill Estates just so we can make sure there isn't any
confusion on that. Before I do that, I guess I would follow your lead as to what
level of detail you'd like us to present the project. We've put it in the package for
you. We've got overheads of all of those things. We can give you a detailed
presentation. We can give you an overview. We can just do none of the above
and — other than to frame the Green Hill Estate connection issue. I'd look to your
Council on how you want to proceed from here. We can — we gave you a little bit
of an overview. Last time we could refresh that and not go into a whole lot of
detail if that's your pleasure, but given the hour, I don't want to give you a
presentation that you're not interested in hearing.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: (inaudible) overview of your proposal — I think we know what you're
proposing. What you're recommending is it relates to (inaudible) access and —
those highlights that you feel may be of issue, and then you'll have an
opportunity (inaudible) rebut anything that comes up (inaudible).
Corrie: Okay. Anything — Council comments?
Bird: I have none.
Pete O'Niell: So you'd like a brief overview?
Corrie: I've got a couple of questions, too. I'm not — I don't have the same thing
that you've given us in the booklet form. (inaudible) modifications (inaudible) 7th,
but go ahead and I'll see if we can work this out here.
Pete O'Niell: Okay. Again, as we've — we'll just go through a few —
*** End of Side 4 ***
Pete O'Niell: -- of this community is a variety of housing types and price points. It
isn't a homogeneous subdivision of all similar sizes of houses and all similarly
priced houses. We arranged them in neighborhoods that are human scale and
Meridian City Council Ating
December 7, 1999
Page 58
are typically loop roads so that there is not thru-traffic in your neighborhood.
Then we try to separate those neighborhoods with open spaces in between so
that not every home site is — we try to get a 50/50 balance between home sites
that have fences on three sides and some that open up onto open space. We
used to try to get everything onto open space and found that there are a number
of people that like a totally fenced in yard. We tried to get some half-and-half.
We like the open feeling. I think another major characteristic of this project as in
others is there is a hierarchy of streets. Woodbridge Drive is a full 37 -foot of
pavement with no parking allowed, and it serves as just a residential collector to
get to the little neighborhood streets. . The section that's included shows a
setback meandering sidewalk on one side and heavily landscaped to 72 -foot
right-of-way. We would have a license agreement with ACHD to maintain heavy
landscaping. Very similar to what's going down through Surprise Valley, not
dissimilar to what goes down through River Run. Then as you get into the
neighborhood streets, they're 29 -foot section sidewalks on both sides, but again,
they don't go anywhere other than serve that neighborhood. They don't have to
be expandable in the future. I think Shari did a good job in explaining the
proposal for Locust Grove. I think another characteristic would be the active
community center which Shari touched on. There's roughly four acres of open
space there and play fields, swimming pool, small clubhouse and parking for the
use of the residents. Again, we put open space into different categories. Some
of it is the usable space there at the recreation center. There are some pocket
parks in some of the neighborhoods that just soften the entry to the
neighborhoods and gives the kids a place to romp around locally, then there's the
separations between the neighborhoods. There's also that heavily landscaped
area along Locust Grove. There are some environmentally sensitive issues on
the property; there is some delineated wetland which runs down through here.
They need to be enhanced. It's pretty trampled at this point in time, so that's a
little wider section that we'll try to retain the or regain the wetland character down
through there. Then you have Five Mile Creek which is really the distinguishing
feature to this community. There's quite a bit of elevation difference from the top
there down to Five Mile Creek. It, again, is pretty trashed with the cattle
operation over years. We've had good success in enhancing those and
rehabilitating them, so there's roughly a four -acre strip right through the middle of
the project, 2/3 through the project that will go along the Five Mile Creek.
There's also a pathway that goes through there. Talking about pathways, we find
that the number one attribute that most residents like in our communities is the
pathway system. More so than tennis courts or swimming pools or something.
They like to be able to get out, walk around, not being on the streets. We've got
pathways all over the place here. You can get from neighborhood to
neighborhood without going out to the main road by cutting through little paths in
the open space. All of the pathways lead to the Rec Center sooner or later, and
then we've got the pathway on Five Mile Creek. Now, the Five Mile Creek
pathway is designed that if, as and when the City of Meridian is able to — in your
Comprehensive Plan there's a major statement in terms of Five Mile Creek being
connected publicly, so if that ever connects to anything, that pathway is designed
Meridian City Council Isting
December 7, 1999
Page 59
to connect and continue on beyond the borders of this property and can be made
into a public amenity. What have I forgotten here? Oh. There was some
concerns by some of the neighbors in terms of neighborhood fencing. I think we
will provide good -neighbor fencing wherever we interface a neighboring
community. Good -neighbor meaning it looks good on both sides; there's not a
good and bad side to that. I commented on the interface with the Meridian City
parks and pathway system. The Locust Grove Street section (inaudible)
irrigation system. We do have water and water rights. We've worked with
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and will provide pressurized irrigation to all of
the landscaping. We will also deliver the irrigation water to all of the downstream
users; either in surface, ditches or some other means that is satisfactory to the
irrigation users in the district. We're willing to commit to not exceeding the 283
home sites that we're suggesting even though the zoning would mathematically
calculate to more. Shari touched on the fact that as the CU or PUD, in order to
make this all work, we have some variances and terms of square footage of lot
sizes, frontages of lots, setbacks and they're all laid out in a chart that is in the
material and gone over in great detail with staff and Planning and Zoning. Those
are the trade-offs. We found that customers like it, we like it, do some different
sized housing, lots, setbacks in turn for the open space and the pathway system
and the recreation amenities. With that, as a very quick overview, is there
anything else we missed? The whole issue, then, becomes not the whole
issue, but the issues that seem to have (inaudible) the most concern with the
neighbors and staff here at Meridian and at ACHD for that matter, is this whole
Green Hill Estates access. But to put that in prospective, the primary access to
the project is off of Locust Grove Road, and you can see the way that it's drawn
there. It's kind of a very loose rendering of a pretty substantial entry, and that is,
according to traffic study, where how many? What percentage? 90 plus percent
of the traffic will enter there. High percentage. As you know, thanks to the work
of Mayor Corrie and others, hopefully Locust Grove Road is going to improved
with an overpass and carry some traffic sooner than later. Which moves the
problem down to Franklin, and we're all aware of that, and hopefully we can be
part of the solution to that issue. So when we started looking, okay, that's how
you get in. How do you have a second way in and out of the property? The easy
thing for us to do would have been to use the existing 50 -foot dedicated right-of-
way on Green Hill (inaudible) going into Autumn Way and just run the street out
there and say we're done. I mean, here's how you get in, here's how you get
out, and we're done. We did meet with the Green Hill neighbors and the
neighbors all around us. It was very —we didn't need a lesson in politics or
anything else to understand that would not be a popular suggestion with the
neighbors in Green Hill Estates. So we started looking at – we had been looking
at the connection to the east to Magic View Subdivision. It became clear that
really the way the traffic ought to flow is from West Locust Grove Road, and if
there's a second way out, it ought to be headed east and connect up with Magic
View at a signalized intersection on Eagle Road. Now there's two schools of
thought on that. One is that it should be a direct connection and just siphon a lot
of traffic through. The other school of thought is that it's somewhat of an indirect
Meridian City Council lating
December 7, 1999
Page 60
connection. You can get there, but you're not substituting for the major highways
like Franklin and whatnot that are designed, and should be designed, to carry the
traffic and not siphon off traffic through the project. We opt, obviously, for the
secuitous (sic) route. Planning and Zoning supported that. The Highway District
supported it. So the only issue to the east, and we've agreed on when that has
to be identified, and when it has to be built is does it come out the southeastern
corner and make a hard turn to the south — to the east and connect up with an
existing cul-de-sac, platted cul-de-sac, or do we go out somewhere else?
Everyone has a different opinion on where that ought to be. Our opinion is, we'll
put it anywhere. I think it's really a function how that Magic View area develops.
If it doesn't develop by the time we need to put it through, we've got to figure a
way to get it out. So that is our view of where the secondary access goes. Then
you get to Green Hill Estates and I think a full-time access through there at this
time of — full-time vehicular — is a belt and suspenders. Traffic studies say you
don't need it. You can carry all the traffic back out to Locust Grove Road and
work its way through Magic View onto Eagle Road, and you really don't need a
third full-time access to Green Hill Estates; on the other hand, there is an existing
50 -foot right-of-way. We said we would match it up with a 50 -foot right-of-way,
but strongly you're urged, and our plan revolves around that being an emergency
vehicle access, both of the benefit of the residents of Green Hill Estates in case
their roads get tied up, there is another way for emergency vehicles to access
Green Hill through Woodbridge and vice -versa. We want to — and it be a
pedestrian connection so kids and neighbors can walk and play with their
neighbors without having to get out on the busy streets and go around. So we
want to make very clear the different issue. The issue, I think, is the use of the
connection to Green Hill which is emergency vehicle and pedestrian -only within a
dedicated 50 -foot right-of-way that could be changed as needed in the future.
Second issue is the design and the timing of it. Everybody has a different view of
the design, and I think we changed wording and the conditions (inaudible) —
design acceptable to the Fire Department, acceptable to the Highway District,
acceptable to Meridian and acceptable to ourselves and the Green Hill people. I
think the intention is to make it soft from a visual standpoint and a pedestrian
standpoint, but to make it functional from Fire Department standpoint and
emergency vehicle standpoint that you don't have to be a rogue scholar to figure
out how to get through it. It's pretty straight path to get equipment and trucks
through. Whether that's a gate or breakaway ballard or whatever, we'll work that
out with the technical folks. We've done it both ways. So those are the issues. I
think the wording is correct as it relates to the uses, emergency vehicle and
pedestrian. I think there's an error in the transmittal today which one could get
confused — the level of development and just when it happens. We've committed
that by the 100th occupancy permit that that emergency access is functional. You
can get to it, you can get a truck through it, you can respond to emergencies.
Then between that and the development of Phase II, that's how that would
function. When we develop Phase II and the loop road around there, that will be
finished in its permanent condition with the hard surface and the landscaping to
go in as we do the rest of the project. Is that stated properly? So that's the — as
Meridian City Council Asting
December 7, 1999
Page 61
quick as I can make it, and I guess I'd rather take your valuable time answering
the questions rather than trying to guess what it is you might want to hear.
Corrie: Questions? Okay.
Pete O'Niell: I guess I would having listened to Mr. Bird's motion, and I certainly
understand it if I was in your position and got thrown that much stuff in that
confusing manner, I'd say, wait a minute. You get organized, and we'll talk about
it later. I'm not sure you have to do that. I think — I'd like to see act on this —
we've been very responsive. We've gotten drafts out. I think other than this
presentation tonight, I think it is pretty clear the steps that have gone through and
really is not that much — there is no debate in terms of — as long as you confirm
that this is an emergency pedestrian connection and not a thru-vehicle
connection. I think the redline drafts work with one minor edit. It would be our,
obviously, our want to go ahead and act on this.
Corrie: Okay. No questions of Council, we'll see what somebody else has to
say.
Pete O'Niell: Okay.
Corrie: Okay. It's a public hearing. Is there any other for the project at this
point? Okay.
Rockrohr: My name's Dick Rockrohr. I live at 2715 Autumn Way.
Corrie: Okay. Spell your last name.
Rockrohr: R -O -C -K -R -O -H -R. I guess I'm representing the Homeowners
Association tonight. Usually there's a roomful of my neighbors in these things,
but we kind of thought it was all done as far as we were concerned after going
through Planning and Zoning and having them vote unanimously that they
wanted it to be a soft -access with ballards like we discussed. Then going to
ACHD and have them vote unanimously also that the secondary access should
come out and go to the east into Magic View and then access the light on Eagle
Road across from St. Luke's. So the neighbors were all happy, and then we
heard that Staff is going to (inaudible) their demand that it be a regular access
through there, so I guess I was the only one who got mobilized and got down
here. The homeowners in Green Hills are supportive of a project like this rather
than something that wouldn't be near as attractive. We like the open space, but
we realize that development's going to happen. The access as proposed which
gives the option for the right-of-way if in some time in the future in that we really
need it, but still reserves the quality of our neighborhood as a quiet cul-de-sac
type neighborhood opposed to one -acre lots and half -acre lots that this is how
we'd like to see it and so far, everybody's agreed with us except for Staff, it
appears. So thanks a lot.
Meridian City Council isting
December 7, 1999
Page 62
Corrie: Any questions from Council?
Bentley: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else to testify?
Meecham: My name's Brian Meecham, I live at 2159 Autumn Way, and I'm one
of the neighbors that showed up. I live just east of the Weatherby Drive stub, so
I'm the property that butts up against it. Mr. Fender, who's been here on many
meetings, he lives just to the west of stub road and he has asked that I represent
his views on this stub street. He was not able to attend. Kim Knowlton, who is
the Chairman of our committee that deals with this, we formed a committee in our
subdivision to deal with — work with the Woodbridge Development, and she was
unable to attend tonight and wanted you to know she's very interested. I'm a
member of that committee, so I represent the Committee and their views on
tonight. One of the things that I'd like to say is we have worked well with the
developer. They've been very open to and have given us good suggestions.
When we first started out in this process, we were saying we didn't want anything
coming through that road. We were basically saying let's keep this subdivision
separate. They worked with us, counseled with us that maybe we ought to be a
little bit more free with what we want, and we accepted an emergency vehicular
access and pathway approach. The only surprise tonight is this is the first time
I've seen the design of the developer's desire for what the pathway would look
like, and I would have to get somemore information, but as I look at it, I don't like
what they're proposing. I don't think a 12 -foot asphalt pathway's good because a
car can get on that asphalt pathway pretty easily. I might have misunderstood,
so I'm willing to. listen, but I do like the Planning and Zoning's recommendation of
the 18 -foot grasscrete with a five-foot meandering sidewalk. Just so you know,
our subdivision's been very active in this. We went around our neighborhood
and you have, hopefully, our petitions. We had over 75 percent of our neighbors
sign the petitions to say that we only wanted, if anything, emergency vehicular
access. I think actually the petition said no vehicular access, we just wanted a
pathway, but we have caved and said emergency vehicular would be okay.
We've been to two Planning and Zoning meetings, and unfortunately I've been
here 'til three in the morning once and was a little disappointed when I heard you
were going to maybe continue this because, again, we sat here until this hour
tonight. We've also been represented at Ada County, and we've had quite a few
people at each meeting, and like my neighbor said, we kind of were hoping that
you would see the same way as those two government bodies. Just to give you
a brief, try to keep it real brief, is the history of the subdivision. It's over 20 years
old. I know that you've had to deal with this on the east end of our subdivision for
all the development that went with McDonald's, Chevron, and so you're probably
pretty familiar with our subdivision. You might be a little surprised that we are
Meridian City Council Sting 10
December 7, 1999
Page 63
actually working with the developer here and not against the developer. Some of
the concerns that we have and why we want to limit the access to our subdivision
is we have few street lights in our subdivision. At nighttime, it's dark in our
neighborhood. We have no sidewalks in the acre lots, so we have no place for
our children to walk freely within the subdivision which is a concern even today.
There are no stop signs on any of our — I don't know if you have a picture of our
subdivision, but there are no stop signs except for the four exits. So we have
free -wheeling going on within our subdivision and any additional traffic would just
cause more problems. In fact, as I've almost been hit head-on twice because of
people cutting the corner on the road. We have seen increased traffic coming
from Franklin to cut through so they don't go through the Franklin Eagle
exchange. They cut through our subdivision, and at night, I've watched them cut
back through and go to Franklin to avoid, and there's where I've almost been hit
head-on as cars coming, flying by there that are on their way to Franklin. The
stub road -at Weatherby has not ever been developed and has just been sitting
there. I've enjoyed the use of it for the last two years. Another thing we have in
our subdivisions, many walkers and joggers in our neighborhood. We have the
horse riding and the children. It's just a very nice little development. What we've
heard at the Planning and Zoning meeting is they've recommended the
emergency vehicular access. We understand that the first meeting, staff said no
way. It's got to be a road. Then at the second meeting, if I — I don't want to
quote incorrectly, but I think they said emergency vehicular access could be
considered. At the end of that second meeting, it was the recommendation of
Planning and Zoning to put grasscrete road and the five-foot meandering
sidewalk which, you know, same thing we heard at ACHD. The fact is, one of the
ACHD Commissioners said maybe we don't even need anything. Maybe we can
just not put anything there and then they quickly said, well, they need to be good
neighbors and have the access. We agree with that. We agree with the
developer. We think — we're in favor of the development. We know we had other
types of developments behind us, and we are very respectful of the work that
O'Niell Enterprises has done in other developments and look forward to a nice
development in our back yard. Based on everything we've heard, our
recommendation from our subdivision is that you also approve emergency
vehicular access only and make this sidewalk and grasscrete so that it doesn't
look like a road. Anyway, we respectfully ask that you follow those
recommendations of the ACHD and the Planning and Zoning and the developer.
Thanks for your time.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else like to issue testimony? Yes, sir.
McMillan: My name is Reece McMillan. I live at 870 South Locust Grove Road.
I'm not an eloquent speaker like Mr. O'Niell is. I want to get right to the point:
traffic. We now have a road coming our East Central coming down on Locust
Grove, and Mr. Bird said, well, one day we'll be (inaudible) paved. Now the City
is providing us with some pretty close police protection. We'll have another road
coming out on our road on Water Tower Lane. This road coming out of the
Meridian City Council Asting
December 7, 1999
Page 64
subdivision on this is going to throw more traffic on Locust Grove, and the only
thing I can say is that I wish this thing was postponed until they get some kind of
development down on the corner of Franklin and Locust Grove; stoplights,
something down there because right now we've got trucks coming in out of our
road which we never had before, and the traffic is more coming in. Now they're
going in Jabill, all the area up in that commercial district. Like I say, that's all I
have to say. I just wish this was postponed until we get something done on the
corner. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you.
Fox: Alan Fox, 1840 Cadillac Drive. Mayor, Councilmen, I live at Locust View
Heights Subdivision which is on the lower part of this. I would like to see if you're
going to pass it that when you issue the permit so he can start his 80th home
there, the road goes out to east because those people in here are going to use
that. I have trouble getting out at 6:30 in the morning and go to work. I got traffic
coming in. So you put 200 in there before you shove it out the other way, we're
going to have a bottleneck that's going to be like — it'll carry it. We can run
everybody through Milwaukee and Franklin, too, but nobody wants to go to it.
That's what we'll have done there with no lights on it. So when you issue the 801h
permit, the road goes out the other way, and I'll bet you half of those people will
go out that way to hit Eagle if they're going on the freeway and go out because
it's going to be — it's hard to get on Franklin in the morning. That's all.
Corrie: Okay.
Lindley: I'm Ann Lindley, and I live at 1790 East Cadillac Drive in the Locust
View Subdivision. This new subdivision would also back up to my property.
think it is well laid out. My main concern is the traffic on Locust Grove. Locust
Grove is a two-lane road, and part of it comes right off in a steep bank. Not far
from where their entrance would be. This could be a very dangerous situation.
We do need to have better access onto Franklin, and I really think this should be
postponed until Locust Grove, the Locust Grove situation is taken care of. One
other thing that I don't know whether they know that Five Mile Creek
occasionally, when we have a real heavy rainstorm does flood. It becomes very
wide. So they maybe need to know about this. I think that's about all I have
tonight. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else like to issue testimony?
Lindley: I'm Mervin Lindley. Most of my concerns have been mentioned, but —
Corrie: Give us —
Meridian City Council Aing
December 7, 1999
Page 65
Lindley: -- and concerned a little bit about the high density of housing. I prefer to
see it lower. As it was also brought up that there should be a second access to
the subdivision.
Corrie: Okay. Give me your name and —
Lindley: Mervin Lindley.
Corrie: Address.
Lindley: 1790 East Cadillac Drive.
Corrie: So we get it on the record. Thanks.
Lindley: That's all. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else? Okay. Which one of you want to take any questions that
they might have had? I guess I've got a couple of questions, Pete. Are you
aware of the Five Mile Drain and the possible flooding —
Pete O'Niell: I was going to start at the bottom and work my way up. Yeah.
We've — do that work very seriously and studied all of the data. There is a
floodway and a flood plain related to Five Mile Creek. We've walked one end of
it from and driven from one end to the other, and there's going to be a lot of
backed up culverts from one end to the other because there's all kind of places
that are pretty strained. The reason we're calling it Woodbridge is we couldn't
come up with a culvert design that would really carry the presumed flood flows if
they could get through some of the other constrictions and get down there, so we
actually planned to build a bridge, ultimately, that would pass the flood flows. As
it relates to the traffic on Locust Grove and the intersection at Locust Grove and
Franklin, we truly want to be a part of the solution, not part of the problem. At
least it seems that the way you get things done is you kind of make the problem
bad enough that there's some momentum going to fix it. I would just as soon try
to take a leadership position with the City and anyone else who would like to join
us and all of the property owners that have recently come on and will contribute
to that. There's no reason we couldn't put some kind of LID in effect and
accelerate the improvement of that intersection. We're going to try to sell homes
there. If people can't get to them or get from them, that's going to be hard to do,
so we're in agreement with the neighbors that that should be a very, very high
priority, and we'll do our pro rata share with Jabill and everybody else who is
accessing onto that road, and I work with whoever you folks would like to work
with to try and accomplish that. I think we're going to get further by being
proactive with the Highway District than just saying you can't do anything until the
road's approved — improved, and never will get approved. Other than that, the
folks from Green Hill Estates are consistent with their other representatives at
other meetings and don't really have a need to say anymore on that.
Meridian City Council ating •
December 7, 1999
Page 66
Corrie: Okay. One other question. Somebody brought up (inaudible) that east
road to Eagle Road; how soon do you want — are you planning on putting that in
80 homes or 200 homes?
Pete O'Niell: Well, the condition as written, I believe from memory, somebody
can read it while I'm — is that we need to identify prior to platting anything on the
east side of Five Mile Creek, we need to identify where that's going to be. Prior
to the issuance of the 200th building permit, which would be the beginning of
construction in the second phase, we actually have to have it built and functional.
And the Highway District said, you know, 250 is when it should be connected. It
would be, frankly, a hardship we probably could not work at 80 or 100 to build a
road all the way through to connect through some people's pasture land that
don't want to be connected early on, so I just don't think that's going to work. But
as a condition reads, we have to identify prior to platting the second phase which
is the east side of Five Mile Creek, and we have to have it operational by the
200th building permit.
Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.
Pete O'Niell: I — this would — for the record, that's like counselor says, we believe
that the conditions of approval that we hope that you will approve are included in
Appendix A with the addition of what was handed out to you earlier that says
agreed modifications to conditions of approval December 7th, and those two
combined become the recommended conditions of approval with the one addition
that in 7C, the stricken sentence that says, until the 166th certificate of occupancy
issued the emergency access may 'be (inaudible) all-weather service, that had
been inadvertently stricken; shouldn't have been because you could read that
condition that we'd have to put the grasscrete hard surface, everything in when
we connected on the 100" house for emergency purposes, so this gap and logic,
if you read that, and that shouldn't have been stricken. But other than that, I
believe those are the conditions that everyone has agreed to.
Gigray: Point of information.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I might mention that from a
procedural standpoint that I did participate on meeting with the developer's
representatives, and we used as a base document what I think Mr. O'Niell is
identifying is Appendix A, I'm looking at a document that has a reference
conditions of approval, Woodbridge Planned Development, and then it's dated
November 9, 1999, appears to be a staff report with a redlining and strikethrough
which was the source document that we used at. that meeting. Then, as I
understand it, Mr. O'Niell's representatives, and I think Mr. Ed Miller's present
here, then supplied what is called this Agreed Modifications Conditions of
Approval dated December 7, 1999, which references certain conditions therein,
Meridian City Council Sting •
December 7, 1999
Page 67
and I would, and the reason I point this out, I think this may help the Council
focus on what conditions are being talked about, and you might want to ask Shari
if that's her understanding of what she's addressing, and I would also point out
from a legal standpoint, my advice would be I would have some concern of what I
see is Condition 31, and that's not in these documents I just identified. I'm
talking about the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I
would point out that the Development Agreement which is being — has been
prepared for signature on the part of this developer would include a provision in
that that the Development Agreement would be automatically amended by the
conditions of conditional Use approval, and the circumstances of parcel A which
this is, planned development residential application which is yet to come. But the
way Condition 31 reads in the Planning and Zoning Commission, it would
supplant any conditions of a conditional use permit or at least, I would interpret
31 as implying that, and when you grant a conditional use permit and it has
conditions in it, that operates under one section of your code, and under the
State Law in terms of how you can enforce conditional use permits, Development
Agreements, the ability to enforce those is pretty restricted issues of zoning and
zoning act, and that's why I don't like Condition 31 in the Planning and Zoning
recommendation, because other — what the conditions in Appendix A and as
modified makes reference to the fact that the PDR regulations that the Planned
Development Regulations allow them certain variances if approved by Council
from a subdivision otherwise provided by the Subdivision Ordinance, and we
understand that will be part of their application process. I want to make sure that
there isn't something in your Findings that would say that you would override
your Subdivision Ordinance because you won't be. Clearly, this is a conditional
use permit process which will result in if you granted a conditional use permit
which will have an order and there are ways of enforcing those permits and
conditions through the conditional use process which is a different process of
enforcement than a Development Agreement.
Pete O'Niell: We 100 percent concur with the dating and whatnot as where these
conditions came from. The Condition 31, as submitted by Planning and Zoning
Commission has been modified in Appendix A and further modified in the
addition today to include exactly the thing that City Council pointed out that there
are conditions, there are parts of your Subdivision Ordinance and other
ordinances that govern if they're independent from any of the other things that
have been agreed to. That was a change.
Gigray: I would just recommend, and I'm sorry to interrupt here, that you might
allow Shari to address this so that you're clear you're getting her
recommendation as it relates to those documents because I think it makes it
clear to follow. That is Appendix A in this (inaudible).
Stiles: Yes. It would be under Section 5, Section 5A and starting on Page 5
through Page 13, then with the additional modifications that were faxed to us
today from Mr. Miller, I don't even have a particular problem with the 7C provided
Meridian City Council Asting is
December 7, 1999
Page 68
on Page 7 that the permanent vehicular access is a decision of ACHD and the
City of Meridian and not the developer and the residents of Green Hill Estates.
Corrie: You recommendation is (inaudible) developer offer that (inaudible) —
Stiles: Yes.
Rountree: The developer and the residents of Green Hill Estates.
Corrie: Okay. Questions of Staff? Further discussion? Still?
Rockrohr: Can I ask a question?
Corrie: Yeah. It's still a public hearing. We'll give you (inaudible).
Rockrohr: Dick Rockrohr, 2715 Autumn Way. If at the future time City of
Meridian and ACHD decide to make the emergency access into a full road, will
we be notified and have chance to comment?
Corrie: Yep. But what I'm — counselor, surely would; is that correct?
Gigray: And I think, basically, that what Shari was referring to was Item 20 in
their Appendix A and what, if I'm correct, Shari, please correct me if I
misunderstand this; she's saying what she would like left in the language as
otherwise required by the Ada County Highway District. I think this has to do with
this road section. I may be wrong. She can correct me.
Stiles: What page are you looking at?
Pete O'Niell: Pete O'Niell again. Obviously we'd love to be able to have equal
status with the City of Meridian and the Highway District, but that is not an
unreasonable request. I do think, however, as Mr. Rockrohr pointed out, would
be a reasonable request if the records show and that condition clearly showed
that it needed to be subject to a public hearing on the part of the Highway District
and the City of Meridian. Otherwise it could be — the neighbors could accuse
someone of treachery. We don't want that to happen.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move we close the public hearing.
Corrie: Okay. Motion's made. Do I hear a second?
Meridian City Council sting
December 7, 1999
Page 69
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: A motion is made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in
favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. Discussion, Council? We were supposed to close this meeting at
10:30, but if you're all satisfied with where we are, then —
Rountree: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move we instruct city attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law incorporating Staff comments and comments from staff as
amended by discussions and negotiations with the developer as provided and
submitted into evidence this evening with one specific change in our revised
12/6/99 recommendations from Planning and Zoning that Item 8C on Page 4 be
amended and strike after the words "when the ACHD" strike the words "the City
of Meridian, the developer and the residents of Green Hill Estates agree" and
insert the word "determines" so the sentence will read: As and when the ACHD
determines it should become a secondary access (or a permanent access). I'm
done.
Bentley: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made by Mr. Rountree, seconded by Mr. Bentley to have
the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with the
testimony that was heard tonight and to make the corrections as stated in the
motion. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 14. FINAL PLAT FOR THE LAKES AT CHERRY LANE NO. 8 BY
STEINER DEVELOPMENT— NW'/, SECTION 3, T.3N., RAW:
Corrie: Item No. 14, final plat for the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 8 by Steiner
Development, northwest quarter, section 3, T3N, R1W. Comments from Staff?
Shari?
*** End of Side 5 ***
Rountree: I don't know. We lost everybody.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: DECEMBER 7 1999
APPLICANT: WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 13
REQUEST: REQUEST FOR CONDMONAL USE PERAW FOR 28340T PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPOSED
WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
nTNFQ-
COMMENTS r ,
rexl� app
SEE ATTACHED RECOMMENDATIONS
C� i5 e A Ye4-0 ✓r r> -"e r,ci
All Matedals presented at public meetings shag become property of the City of Meridian.
o
GIVENS PURSLEY L'61
LAW OFFICES
277 North 6th Street, Suite 200
PO Box 2720, Boise, Idaho 83701
TELEPHONE: 208 388-1200
FACSIMILE: 208 388-1300
Shari Stiles
Meridian Planning & Zoning
200 E. Carlton, Suite 201
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: Woodbridge, CUP 99-037
Our file: 5267-1
Dear Shari:
Gary G. Allen
Kimberly 0. Maloney
Virginia L. Stukel
Christopher J. Beeson
John M. Marshall
Conley Ward
Michael C. Creamer
Kenneth R. McClure
Stephanie C. Westermeier
Thomas E. Dvorak
Cynthia A. Melillo
Robert B. White
Roy Lewis Eiguren
Christopher H. Meyer
Jeffrey C. Faraday
L. Edward Miller
Raymond 0. Givens
Richard W. Jankowski
Patrick J. Miller
James A. McClure
Amanda L. Keating
Judson B. Montgomery
OF COUNSEL
Karl T. Klein
Angela K. Nelson
Franklin G. Lee
W. Hugh O'Riordan
David R. Lombardi
Kenneth L. Pursley
December 3, 1999
11 -El"
DEC 0 3 1999
City of Meridian
City Clerk Offico
This letter follows up on our meeting on Monday, November 22; 1999. The
purpose of the meeting was to review changes the City staff proposes to the Planning &
Zoning Commission's recommended conditions of approval (the "Conditions of
Approval"). We have attached a redlined version of the Conditions of Approval,
indicating the staff's changes that O'Neill Enterprises ("OEP') is willing to support.
The following paragraphs discuss areas where OEI can and cannot support the
staff's proposed changes or where alternate language is proposed. OEI is, of course,
willing to discuss fiarther changes to meet the staff s concerns as long as they are
consistent with OEI's vision of the project.
If our recollection is correct, Conditions 7.b. and 7.c. are the only remaining places
of substantial disagreement between OEI and staff.
Introduction. OEI is willing to accept the City's suggestion that development on
Parcel B require the developer to obtain a conditional use permit and follow the planned
Shari Stiles
December 3, 1999
Page 2
development process. We have amended the introduction and added a new Condition 15
to address this issue.
Staffs proposed new Condition in Annexation and Zoning section. The staff
had proposed adding a new condition to the Annexation and Zoning section requiring a
development agreement on Parcel B. OEI has adopted this change in the introduction and
in Condition 15. In Condition 16, OEI adopted the concept that the Development will
have to comply with Subdivision Ordinance requirements that are not inconsistent with
the Conditions of Approval.
Condition 4. OEI and the City agreed to change the word "generally" to
"substantially." The staff withdrew its objection to the final sentence of this condition.
Condition 5. OEI agreed to remove the last clause of this sentence.
Condition 6. OEI has made the changes requested by the staff.
Condition 7.a. We understand that staff withdrew its proposed change to this
condition after reviewing the illustration.
Condition 7.b. We have reworded this condition to reflect the staff's preference
to trigger the secondary access construction on the number of building permits issued
rather than the number of occupancy permits issued. To give the Development sufficient
time to construct the secondary access, we believe the appropriate trigger is the 200`
building permit.
Condition 7.c. OEI strongly disagrees with the staff proposal to construct the
Weatherby Drive emergency access to standards for a full-time access road. The staff's
approach is directly opposed to the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
Commission and ACRD, the concerns of the neighbors, and OEI's desire that the
emergency access should be simply that and not a cut -through to Franklin, Eagle Road or
Locust Grove. The condition as adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission allows
the dedication of a future road as needed. In this draft, we have asked for the flexibility
to negotiate a different design for the emergency access than that approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission, if the City and OEI can agree.
0 •
Shari Stiles
December 3, 1999
Page 3
Condition 8. OEI agreed to reword this condition to meet the staff's concerns.
Condition 9.a. We believe OEI has reworded this condition to meet the staff's
concerns.
Condition 10. OEI agreed to reword this condition to meet the staff's concerns.
Condition 12. Based on our discussion, OEI understands that the staff has
withdrawn its proposed change to this condition.
Condition 14.a.5. OEI agreed to reword this condition to meet the staff's
concerns.
Condition 14.b. OEI agreed to reword this condition to meet the staff's concerns.
Condition 14.c.i. The staff withdrew its objection to this sentence.
Conditions 15 and 16. Discussed above.
Condition 18. OEI accepted the staff's recommended changes to this section.
Condition 20. The staff withdrew its objection to this sentence.
Condition 22. OEI accepted the staff's recommended change to this condition.
Condition 23. OEI and the staff agreed no changes were needed to this condition
as the intent is sufficiently clear: the wells and septic tanks on Parcel A must be taken out
of service when development begins on Parcel A, and the wells and septic tanks on Parcel
B must be taken out of service when development begins on Parcel B.
Condition 25. OEI accepted the staff's recommended changes to this condition.
Condition 27. The staff withdrew its objection to this condition.
Condition 30. This condition has been modified to meet the staff -s concerns.
•
Shari Stiles
December 3, 1999
Page 4
Condition 31. This condition has been modified to address the staff concerns.
If the staff wishes to discuss further modifications to the Conditions of Approval,
please let me know and we would be happy to sit down with you, Mr. Gigray and other
members of the staff. Please call me if you have any questions.
Edward Miller
LEM:slc
Enclosure
cc: William F. Gigray III
Peter S. O'Neill
Derick ONeill
Scott Beecham
S:\Clients\5267\1\CORR\Stiles 01 clean - LEUwpd
0
0
[Note: Strikeouts indicate language deleted and double underlines represent language
added to Planning and Zoning Commission recommended conditions of approval.]
Conditions of Approval
Woodbridge Planned Residential Development
City of Meridian CUP No. 99-037
November 9, 1999
Introduction
Woodbridge Community LLC (the "Developer") has submitted an application for a
planned residential development (the "Development" or "Woodbridge") on an
approximately 81 acre parcel ("Parcel A") on the east side of Locust Grove Road
approximately 1/4 mile south of Franklin Road. The Developer has also submitted
applications to annex Parcel A and an adjacent Parcel B, and to zone Parcel A as R-4 and
Parcel B as L -O. Any future development on Parcel B shall be subject to the conditions
of approval set forth below in Paragraphs 2 and 15 '
No development is planned at this time on Parcel B. This
- ent sets forth t
eonditions of approval of the Development on Pareel A.
Conditions of Approval
Annexation and Zoning
Annexation and Zoning - Parcel A. The City shall annex Parcel A into the City
and zone Parcel A as R-4.
2. Annexation and Zoning - Parcel B. The City shall annex Parcel B into the City
and zone Parcel B L -O.
3. Plat Compliance with Code. All plats in the Development shall comply with the
requirements of Idaho Code Section 50-222(a).
Specific Development Requirements
4. Master Site Plan. The Development shall be constructed substantially generally
in accordance with the Master Site Plan attached as Exhibit "A." The Master Site
Plan is a general guide for the Development, recognizing the need for flexibility
during the platting process.
5. Maximum Number of Units. The Development shall contain no more than 283
units, notwithstanding the f�et that the approved zoning permits the eonstruetion 0
additional ftnitl�.
6. Open Space. The Development shall include a minimum of 14 acres of open
space generally consistent with the Master Site Plan. The term "open space" shall
ffmy include, without limitation, an active recreation area and community center,
pocket parks, linear parks along roadways, greenbelt corridors along Five -Mile
Creek, on-site wetlands and corridors between neighborhoods. To the extent it is
not located in the ACHD right-of-way, tThe Developer shall convey the open
space to a homeowners' association following both the final plat approval for the
phase of the Development in which the open space is contained and the completion
of the improvements.
7. Access.
a. Primary Access. Primary Access shall be from Locust Grove Road and
shall incorporate a landscaped traffic divider at the entryway (illustration 1
to the Master Site Plan).
b. Secondary Vehicular Access. The Developer shall provide a secondary
vehicular access point to the boundary of Woodbridge to the
south/southeast as shown on the Master Site Plan (or at another point as
otherwise mutually agreed by the Developer, the City and ACRD). The
second vehicular access shall be identified prior to the final platting of any
property to the east of Five Mile Creek. The secondary vehicular access
shall-needi-te be operable prior to the issuance of the 200-'A V65' buil�din
eeenpaney permit for the Development.
C. Emer ency Access Location. The Developer shall construct emergency
access to the juncture of Weatherby Drive and the property line adjacent to
Greenhill Estates prior to the issuance of the 100`' occupancy permit for the
Development. T T� til the
The Developer
shall construct or cause to be constructed an 18 -foot -wide all-weather
grasscrete surface between Greenhill Estates and the Development
including a five-foot wide meandering pathway or another design approved
by ACRD. the City and the Developer; and shall install knock -down
bollards at the property line to prevent use except in case of emergencies.
All designs shall be approved by ACHD and the City_.
2
Developer will also put these improvements within a dedicated 50 -foot
right-of-way which would allow for a permanent vehicular access point if,
as and when the ACRD, the City of Meridian, the Developer and the
residents of Greenhill Estates agree it should become the secondary access
(or a permanent access).
8. Locust Grove Landscaping Strip. The Developer shall install landscaping along
Locust Grove Road per the plans attached as illustrations 2 and 3 to the Master
Site Plan or as otherwise required by ACRD. Developer shall construct the
landscape buffer Genstrde�: _ generally consistent with these plans in lieu of-wiR
satisfy the twenty (20) foot "landscaping strip" requirement of Meridian City Code
§ 11-9-605.G. Developer shall submit detailed landscape plans for City staff
approval, which shall be granted if the plans are consistent with illustrations 2 and
3.
9. Pathways.
a. Public Roadways. Public pathways and sidewalks will be constructed along
all roadways within the Development as identified on the pathway plan
attached to the Master Site Plan as illustration 4. An eight (8) foot wide
asphalt pathway will be constructed along, but detached from, Locust
Grove Road and Woodbridge Drive. Five (5) foot concrete sidewalks will
be constructed on both sides of all neighborhood roads as well as the loop
road identified on the east side of the Development.
b. Five Mile Creek. A soft surface pedestrian pathway will be constructed
along Five Mile Creek as generally depicted on the Master Site Plan,
illustration 4. This pathway shall be made available for public use at such
time that the pathway can be connected to a larger public pathway system
beyond the boundaries of the Development.
C. Private Pathways. Private pathways will be constructed within the
Development allowing for direct connections between individual
neighborhoods and other segments of the overall pathway plan, generally as
depicted on the Master Site Plan, illustration 4-S.
10. Five Mile Creek Enhancement. In cooperation with the Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District ("NMID") and all affected agencies, the Developer will protect
and enhance Five Mile Creek and adjacent wetlands consistent with the Master
Site Plan and applicable laws.
•
•
11. Community Center. The Development shall include a community center
designed and constructed in a location consistent with the Master Site Plan. The
community center shall include the following amenities, at a minimum:
• Multi-purpose room
• Restrooms/Changing rooms
• Mechanical/Equipment room
• Swimming pool
• Spa or children's wading pool
• Resident drop-off and parking
12. Home Types. The Development shall consist of a mix of homesite types
designated A, B, C and D as set forth on the Master Site Plan. The location and
mix of lot types shall be determined by the Developer based on market demand,
with the aggregate total not to exceed 283 units. The lots located east of Five Mile
Creek on the northern border of the Development adjacent to the Greenhill Estates
Subdivision shall be limited to Type D lots.
Approved Deviations from Subdivision and Zoning Requirements
13. Inapplicability of Certain PD -R Requirements. The City acknowledges that,
due to the fact the Development consists of single family residential construction,
the following planned development - residential ("PD -R") application and
corresponding substantive requirements do not apply to the Development:
a. Submission of specific elevation exhibits.
b. Specification of architectural style and building design.
C. Submission of building materials and color.
d. Designation of garbage, storage and public parking areas.
e. Designation of storage areas, guest parking spaces and maintenance
building.
14. Special Standards for the Woodbridge Community. The following standards
shall apply to the Development in lieu of the corresponding standards in the zoning
and subdivision ordinances:
N
0
a. Homesite Dimensional Standards:
(1) All front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. See illustration 5 in
Master Site Plan.
(2) Identifies front yard setbacks for: side -entry garage/living area/garage face. See
illustrations 5 and 6 in Master Site Plan.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for: detached garages/attached garages and living areas. See
illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
(4) Zero lot line allowance for detached garages and associated living area only, all living
area within the primary dwelling is to be set back a minimum of 5 feet. See illustration 7
in Master Site Plan.
(5) Homesites on, or adjacent to, common driveway lots (defined and regulated below), flag
lots, outside corner lots, and cul-de-sac streets may have a lesser frontage. The minimum
frontage exceptions for these lots are as follows:
Flag lots:
Outside corner lots:
Cul-de-sac streets:
Cul-de-sac bulb:
Lots taking access from common driveway lot:
5
20 feet minimum
30 foot chord minimum
60.39 foot minimum
30 foot chord minimum
No frontage required on
public street
Front
Interior
Minimum
Yard
Rear
Side
Street
Maximum
Minimum
Homesite
Lot Size
Setback
Yard
Yard
Side Yard
Building
Street
Type
(Sq. Feet)
(1)
Setback
Setback
Setback
Height
Frontage
Type A
4,800
10715720'
5'/15'
0'/5'
15'
35'
48'
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Type B
5,500
15'
5'
15'
35'
55'
(/15720'
(5)
Type C
7,500
10715720'
15'
5'
15'
35'
75'
(5)
Type D
8,000
(0'/15'/20'
15'
5'
15'
35'
80'
(5)
(1) All front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. See illustration 5 in
Master Site Plan.
(2) Identifies front yard setbacks for: side -entry garage/living area/garage face. See
illustrations 5 and 6 in Master Site Plan.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for: detached garages/attached garages and living areas. See
illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
(4) Zero lot line allowance for detached garages and associated living area only, all living
area within the primary dwelling is to be set back a minimum of 5 feet. See illustration 7
in Master Site Plan.
(5) Homesites on, or adjacent to, common driveway lots (defined and regulated below), flag
lots, outside corner lots, and cul-de-sac streets may have a lesser frontage. The minimum
frontage exceptions for these lots are as follows:
Flag lots:
Outside corner lots:
Cul-de-sac streets:
Cul-de-sac bulb:
Lots taking access from common driveway lot:
5
20 feet minimum
30 foot chord minimum
60.39 foot minimum
30 foot chord minimum
No frontage required on
public street
b. Common Driveway Lots:
The Development may include common driveway lots, which are separately
platted, non -buildable lots designed to consist of a paved common driveway
to serve other lots. Common driveway lots shall be owned and maintained
by the Homeowner's Association. The following criteria shall apply to
common driveway lots in lieu of any other requirements of the subdivision
or zoning ordinance:
Maximum length (at common driveway line): 150 feet
Minimum width: 20 feet
Minimum pavement width: 2044 feet*
Minimum building setback: 10 feet
Minimum frontage: 20 feet
Minimum on -lot driveway length: 2046 feet*
Maximum number of lots taking access from
a single common driveway 4 lots
*Unless the City Fire Department approves a narrower width or shorter
len h
Subdivision Requirements. To facilitate proper design and to
accommodate topography, the following subdivision ordinance
requirements shall not apply to the Development (i.e. the minimum and
maximum lengths defined in the ordinance shall not apply):
i. Cul-de-sac length on the cul-de-sac street south of the community
center generally as shown on the Master Site Plan.
ii. Block length.
15. Parcel B Development Any future development on Parcel B shall require that
the Developer obtain a conditional use permit and comply with the planned
development requirements of the City
General Conditions.
16. Compliance with Zoning and Subdivision Requirements. The Development
shall meet all of the requirements of the R-4 zone, except as specifically set forth
elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. The Development shall also comply
with the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to the extent
N
those requirements are not inconsistent with these Conditions of Approval The
intent is that specific subdivision zoning and other City ordinance reauiremPntc
will be applied so as to allow the implementation of the Master Site Plan and the
general intent of the Development Applications
17. Installation of Infrastructure and Utilities. Subject to the conditions set forth
elsewhere in this Agreement, the Developer shall construct or cause to be
constructed all sanitary sewers, storm drains, pumping stations, water mains and
appurtenances, fire hydrants, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, pressurized irrigation
systems, electrical transmission lines, natural gas lines, telephone lines, sidewalks,
cross drains, street surfacing, street signs, street lighting and barricades as well as
any and all other improvements required to build the Development generally
consistent with the Master Site Plan. The improvements defined in this paragraph
are hereinafter referred to as the "Infrastructure". The Developer shall have the
flexibility to design and build the Infrastructure in a way that implements the
Master Site Plan and to meet the requirements of the agencies and entities having
jurisdiction over the Infrastructure. The Infrastructure for the Development shall
be dedicated to the appropriate public entities, which shall assume all obligations
to maintain the Infrastructure.
18. Water and Sewer Sizing and Routing. Developer shall coordinate water and
sewer sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. To the extent
Developer is required to construct sewer or water lines larger than required to
serve the Development, the Developer and the City shall enter into an appropriate
late -comers agreement to reimburse Developer for the excess costs incurred by
Developer as allowed by City Ordinance.
19. Underground Utilities. All utilities within the Development will be installed
underground.
20. Road Sections. The Developer shall construct road sections generally consistent
with the street sections included as illustrations 3 8, 9 and 10in the
Master Site Plan or as otherwise required by the Ada County Highway District
("ACRD").
21. Irrigation System. Subject to the approval of the NMID, Developer shall design
and construct a pressurized irrigation system that NMID will own and operate.
This system will cover all common area landscaping and private yard areas within
the Development.
7
i 0
22. Other Irrigation and Drainage Ditches. With the exception of Five Mile Creek,
all existing irrigation and drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled per
City Ordinance 11-9-605.M or Developer shall provide an alternative delivery
system. The ditches to be tiled and/or alternative delivery systems shall be shown
on the preli�fittal plats. Plans must be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, as required by law, with
written confirmation of the approval submitted to the Public Works Department.
23. Existing Wells and Septic Systems. Existing domestic wells and /or septic
systems on Parcel A must be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance
Section 5-7-517. Existing wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation.
24. Flood Plain Permits. Developer shall obtain any permits for Flood Plain
Development that are required by City ordinance per criteria outlined in the
ordinance.
25. Signage. Detailed signage plans will be subject to design review and separate
permits as required by the terms of the Development Agreement and the approved
Conditional Use Permit
26. Trash Enclosures. Developer shall coordinate locations and construction
requirements for the community center trash enclosures with Meridian Sanitary
Service, Inc. ("MSS"), and provide a letter of approval from MSS prior to applying
for building permits for the community center.
27. Phasing and Platting. Developer intends to build the Development in two or
more phases. To commence the development of a phase, the Developer will
submit a plat application for the phase (or several phases or the entire
Development as Developer determines in its sole discretion).
28. Infrastructure Installation in Conjunction with Plat. Developer will install the
Infrastructure serving the phase as part of the phase, and will not record any plats
for subsequent phases of the Development until the Infrastructure for the ongoing
phase is completed. All Infrastructure for the Development shall be completed or
bonded for completion in a manner generally consistent with the Master Site Plan
in conjunction with the final phase of the Development, at the latest.
29. Fencing Details in Plat. Each plat shall address fencing details for the portion of
the Development covered by the plat. The perimeter fence shall be of a "good
neighbor" design, i.e., the fence shall be of a quality appearance on both sides.
0
•
30. As -Built Drawings. For each phase, Developer shall comply with the
requirements of the Meridian City Code and duly adopted City Public Works
standards and specifications for submission and inspection of plans and as -built
drawings for the Infrastructure, as well as the inspection of the constructed
Infrastructure.
31. Incorporation into Development Agreement. These conditions of approval shall
be incorporated into a Development Agreement to be approved by the City
Council, which shall replace these conditions and the final Development
Agreement and shall be the en +y -guiding document for assessing future plats in the
Development. Provided however, that the provisions of the Subdivision and
Zonin2 Ordinances shall continue to apply to the Development to the extent those
provisions are not inconsistent with these Conditions of Approval These
Conditions of Approval and the Development Agreement shall act in lieu of any
eoftfHetirtg subdivision or zoning ordinance requirements that are inconsistent with
these conditions, whether currently contained in the Meridian City Code or
subsequently adopted.
S:\Clients\5267\1\conditions of approval l - red.wpd
E
December 3, 1999 M1
O'NEILL ENTERPRISES, INC.
The Honorable Robert D. Corrie
Mayor of Meridian
Meridian City Council
33 East Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: Woodbridge, Meridian, Idaho
Dear Mayor Corrie and City Council Members:
REcE�D
DEC 0 3 1999
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
As you know, we (Woodbridge) are scheduled for a public hearing before the Meridian City
Council Tuesday evening, December 7th. To help in your preparation for that hearing, we have
attached some information for your review:
Sections II and III include the key information presented on the public record with the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission. (This is not as imposing as it appears as there
is less than 8 pages of text.)
The appendix includes additional public information.
By now, you have probably received the Planning & Zoning Commission's recommendation for
approval of CUP 99-037 for the Woodbridge Community in Meridian along with their specific
conditions of approval. We were in support of the conditions, as we understood them, at the end
of the hearing on November 9th. Subsequent to that time, we have had a work session with
Meridian staff and legal council to work through the precise conditions of approval which will, in
turn, be the basis for a development agreement for the Woodbridge community. Attached as
Appendix V-A is a "redlined" draft of the conditions of approval representing the outcome of
that meeting. The only unresolved substantive issue remaining, to our knowledge, is the use and
configuration of the connection between Woodbridge and Greenhill Estates to the north.
(Condition 7c of Conditions of Approval, Appendix V-A, Pages 6 and 7.)
In the cover letter and information we left with you at the Annexation and Zoning hearing on
November 16th, we discussed some of the essential elements of Woodbridge and related them to
other successful communities we have developed over the years. There was also a section in that
letter that discussed the use of the PUD process which always creates some confusion as it is
different from the normal subdivision process. (For your convenience, a copy of that letter is
included as Appendix V -C.)
We would like to point out that what has been submitted and requested and recommended for
approval by the Planning & Zoning Commission is more than concept plan approval for a PUD.
It includes specific development commitments (Plan Elements) in terms of open space, natural
100 North 9th Street, Suite 300 - Boise, Idaho 83702 - (208) 336-3430 - fax: (208) 336-5296
0
area, pathway systems and recreation amenities (Section III -B, Pages 9 - 11). It also includes
specific standards for Woodbridge with regard to lot dimensions, set -backs and street frontage
which are different from the "normal" R-4 subdivision standards (Section III -C, Pages 12 and
13). It is important to note that when it comes to preliminary and final plat approvals and
building permits and there are inconsistencies between the suggested specific standards in the
CU/PUD conditions of approval and the applicable standard subdivision conditions, the
conditions of approval/development agreement will govern. Otherwise, obviously, the relevant
Meridian City ordinances will govern. (See Condition 31, Appendix V-A, Page 13)
We look forward to the December 7th hearing and moving forward with Woodbridge.
Sincerely,
Peter S. O'Neill
President
PON/ja
Attachment
cc: Bill Gigray, White Peterson, Pruss, Morrow & Gigray, P.A. via fax #466-4406
Shari Stiles, Planning & Zoning Administrator via fax #
Derick O'Neill
Scott Beecham
Ed Miller, Esq.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction
I -A. Cover Letter (Attached)
I -B Table of Contents
II. Location and Existing Conditions
II -A. Proximity Narrative and Vicinity Map(s) 1
II -B. Aerial Photograph 4
II -C. Property Features Narrative and Map 5
III. Woodbridge Project Overview
III -A.
Community Overview
g
III -B.
Plan Elements
9
III -C.
Development Standards Analysis (Woodbridge vs. R-4)
12
III -D.
Master Site Plan
14
III -E.
Master Pathway Plan
15
IV. Supporting Exhibits and Illustrations
IV -A.
List of Exhibits and Illustrations
16
IV -B.
Typical Streetscapes (Elevations)
17
IV -C.
Approved Street Sections/Plans
19
IV -D.
Weatherby Drive Connection Exhibits
24
IV -E.
Setback Exhibits
27
IV -F.
Typical Lot Layouts (Type A lots)
30
IV -G.
Common Driveway Detail (as shown on Master Site Plan)
32
V. Appendix
V-A. Conditions of Approval (redlined version of Meridian Planning &Zoning's
recommendation to Meridian City Council)
V -B. Comprehensive Plan Analysis
V -C. Cover Letter to City Council 11-16-99
II -A. Proximity of Woodbridge to Community Services
The proposed site for Woodbridge was chosen for its location as much as its
physical qualities. The site is within one mile of four of the top five employers in
Meridian; it has all essential utilities on or close to the site; and, it is just one and
one half miles from downtown Meridian.
The property has excellent access to Interstate 84 at either Eagle or Meridian
Road and is just seven and one half miles from downtown Boise and three and a
half miles from the regional shopping center, Boise Town Square Mall.
The proximity of Woodbridge to these services will allow for a better quality of
life for the community's residents, as less time will be spent traveling to their
destinations. Furthermore, the un -quantifiable cost of development to the
community at large will be minimized due to its proximity to public utilities and
infrastructure.
s 0
WOODBRIDGE TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING CO.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
9777 CHINDEN
B
An O'Neill Enterprises Community PHONE: 08 323-2288 BOISE' IDAHO X_ 208-323-2399
WOODBRIDGE
An O'Neill Enterprises Community
EXISTING ZONING MAP
TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING CO.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS
9777 CHINDEN BLVD BOISE, IDAHO X: 208-323-2399 8
PHONE: 208-323-2288
FAA
IV
it I
w PIL
II -C. Property Features Narrative
Location
The Woodbridge site consists of a rectangular shaped parcel, located one
quarter of a mile south of the intersection of Franklin Road and South Locust
Grove Road in Meridian, Idaho. The site contains approximately 80 acres and
consists of the south half of the northwest quarter of section 17, Township 3
North, Range 1 East, Ada County, Idaho.
Adjacent Uses
North- An ACHD dedicated right-of-way (Weatherby Drive) links
Woodbridge to Greenhill Estates to the north, on the east side of the property,
while a number of larger acreages with single family dwellings border the
property to the north, on the west side of the property.
South- Locust View Heights, another residential development, borders the
property to the south.
East- Magic View Subdivision and Eagle Road are to the east of the property.
The Magic View Subdivision is a single family residential development that is
currently experiencing a transition to higher intensity uses in the areas closest
to Eagle Road.
West- The property to the west of the Woodbridge site, on the opposite side of
Locust Grove, is agricultural land. This property has recently been purchased
with the intent to develop.
Use
Historically the property was a family farm with a primary residence and a
number of outbuildings. These structures were removed sometime after 1985
and the site has been used solely for crop production and grazing since that
time. The use of the property for grazing ceased in July of 1999 and the land
now sits vacant.
Features
The property is largely flat on the east and west sides, but drops
approximately 20 feet at the center of the site where the property is bisected
by Five Mile Creek. In general, the creek runs on a diagonal line from the
southeast corner of the property to the middle of the north property line. A
wetland band of approximately 0.95 acres and varying in width runs across
the property from south to north, ultimately connecting with Five Mile Creek
at the north property line. This wetland ribbon, as shown on the attached
property features map, appears to be fed by an irrigation or drain ditch, which
enters the property from the south. A delineation of this wetland area has been
established and subsequently approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
In addition to the natural water features stated above, there are a number of
ditches and laterals on the property. The Barker Lateral, which irrigates the
portion of the property east of Five Mile Creek, enters the property at the
northeast corner where it splits and runs along the north and east property
lines until each connects with the creek. The Cook Lateral, which irrigates the
portion of the property west of Five Mile Creek, enters the property
approximately 900 feet east of Locust Grove Road at the south property line.
This lateral continues north and slightly west across the property to a point on
the north property line approximately 600 feet east of Locust Grove Road. A.
waste ditch runs diagonally across the property as well. This ditch is located at
the far southwest corner of the property and drains through a culvert to the
opposite (west) side of Locust Grove Road.
Character
The immediate area surrounding Woodbridge is predominantly single family
residential. However, there is a transition of land use from residential to office
and commercial on both the east and west sides of the property. While Locust
Grove Road is narrow and has the appearance of a country road, ACHD plans
call for a widening of the roadway to five (5) lanes within a ninety six foot
(96') right-of-way and identification of an overpass for Locust Grove at
Interstate 84. These changes will likely further the transition of adjacent lands
to a more intense use.
6
III -A. Community Overview
OEI's goal for the Woodbridge property is to create a community of lasting value
which will provide the residents of the City of Meridian with a.choice of living
environments within a master planned residential community in close proximity
to public services. The community will provide quality housing, in a variety of
price points, among abundant open space and natural waterway features that have
been carefully preserved and enhanced. It will promote and maintain wildlife
habitat along critical riparian corridors; and, it will include active and passive
recreation opportunities for the residents of the community and the City of
Meridian as a whole.
Development Plan
Woodbridge consists of approximately 81 total acres (per the legal description)
with 50 acres identified for homesites, 11.5 acres for roadways, 3 acres of
sidewalks, and roughly 16.5 acres, or 20% of the land area, set aside for open
space. Two Hundred and eighty three (283) homes, ranging in *size from 1,200 to
3,000+ s.f. are proposed for the community at a gross density of 3.5 units per
acre.
Included in the 16.5 acres of open space will be substantial corridors for natural
water features, linear parks between neighborhoods and along roadways, "pocket
parks" within neighborhoods, common area open space at neighborhood entrances
and a large area set aside for a community center and active play area at the heart
of the community. A comprehensive off-road pathway system will connect
neighborhoods and traverse open space corridors, leading residents to the
community center or simply providing an opportunity for residents to take a walk
without competing with vehicles.
A wooden bridge that spans Five Mile Creek and provides the design impetus for
the community is planned adjacent to the community center, at the heart of the
development. The theme established by this focal point will carry throughout the
development in all design detailing.
Design Considerations
In order to achieve the design goals of the project, a number of adjustments will need to
be made to standard development requirements. Through the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) process, allowances will be requested for modified dimensional requirements that
will allow for greater efficiency in site planning, a greater variety of housing alternatives,
increased open space and privacy, and improved street scenes and community design.
These modifications, as encouraged by the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, will help the
City of Meridian meet its goals for diversity and high quality design.
•
III -B. Plan Elements
1. Housing Opportunities
0
Through the PUD process, the Woodbridge community will offer a variety of
housing sizes and price ranges designed to accommodate consumers with varying
budget and lifestyle needs. The individual neighborhoods within Woodbridge will
contain distinctly different housing opportunities which will allow for a diversity
of residents within the community as a whole, while at the same time, providing
for innovative land use planning and efficient use of the land.
In addition to providing a variety of housing opportunities, the benefits of this
approach to development include increased open space, preservation of natural
features and the allowance of recreational amenities.
This development pattern and. the diversity it allows has been a trademark of
every community that OEI has been involved in and has been a major contributor
to the success of our communities. To accomplish this diversity at Woodbridge,
certain modifications will need to be made to the standard dimensional
requirements outlined in the zoning ordinance. Specific goals and policies of the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan also support allowing these modifications through
the PUD process. Housing opportunities, identified by "homesite type" are listed
below. See Section III -E for typical home elevations and layouts.
Housing Matrix:
Homesite Type
Homesite Size
(Typical)
Home Size
(Typical)
Estimated Finished
Home Price
Type A
4,800-6,000 s.f.
1,200-1,800 s.f.
$140,0004170,000
Type B
5,500-7,000 s.f
1,800-2,500 s.f.
$170,0004200,000
Type C
7,500-8,500 s.f.
2,200-2,800 s.f.
$200,0004250,000
Type D
8,000-12,000 s.f
2,500-3,200 s.f.
$250,000-$300,000+
2. Circulation
The circulation plan proposed for Woodbridge contains a hierarchy of roadway
types that will allow for the safe movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
Locust Grove Road, a roadway that is planned for 5 lanes in the future, will feed
traffic onto Woodbridge Drive and into the development. Woodbridge Drive is
planned as a "spine road" with two vehicular travel lanes, two bike lanes and a
detached pedestrian pathway meandering through an open space corridor, or
lineal park. A series of neighborhood loop roads will take access off of
Woodbridge Drive and provide access to individual homesites. Detailed
11
•
information regarding these sections can be found in Section III -D.
3. Open Space
a. Private Active Community Center
Planned for the first phase, a community center will be situated in the
heart of the community adjacent to approximately 4 acres of open space
including the corridor along Five Mile Creek. As currently planned, it will
include an open clubhouse, restrooms, changing rooms, a swimming pool,
spa, a large active recreation area, and a children's play area. All
pedestrian and bike pathways within Woodbridge will lead to the
community center
b Landscaped Passive Open Space/Linear Parks
There are approximately 8.5 acres of landscaped passive open space. This
area includes linear parks along Locust Grove and Woodbridge Drive as
well as common areas that will provide a buffer area between
neighborhoods. Pedestrian pathways will run throughout these landscaped
areas providing connections between individual neighborhoods and to the
community center. This network of pathways and landscaped areas, as
shown in the Development Plan in Section III -A., creates a location for the
off-street pathway system, minimizes the need for back -yard perimeter
fencing, and provides for a more spacious and gracious living
environment.
c Natural Open Space/Five Mile Creek Zone
There are approximately 4 acres of natural open space designated along
Five Mile Creek. Running from the southeast corner to approximately the
midpoint of the north property line, this area will be restored to a natural
condition and protected from impacts of development. A 100 -foot open
space corridor surrounding the creek has been planned to provide for
protection of the creek and the valuable wildlife habitat associated with it.
A passive picnic area is planned for this natural area in order to provide a
peaceful and secluded area for residents to enjoy the on-site water
amenities and the mountain views beyond.
4. Off -Street Pathway System
In addition to the pedestrian and bike system accommodated by the roadway
network, an off-street pathway system will be included in Woodbridge. These
pathways will be set back from and meander through a linear parkway along
Locust Grove and Woodbridge Drive (the spine road); will run through most of
the landscaped open space/common area, as well as, along sections of the 4 acres
of natural open space. The pedestrian/bike path incorporated in the spine road
right-of-way will be paved. The off-street pedestrian pathway system is designed
as a linear park to provide a pleasant visual and open space experience for the
10
residents and make it easy for residents to connect between neighborhoods, from
their home to the active community center, and from their home to the passive
picnic area. Off-street pathway systems have proven to be a very substantial
recreation amenity in other OEI communities, and will surely be a signature
element at Woodbridge.
5. Neighborhood Buffer
Perimeter fencing is another critical element of Woodbridge. A "good neighbor"
fence section and detail will be designed for the community in order to establish a
buffer between adjacent uses. This fencing will offer visual appeal from both
sides and will be used around the periphery of the site as well as internally where
solid fencing is desired.
6. Other Elements (some not totally in the control of Woodbridge Community, LLC)
a. Interface with Meridian City Parks and Pathway Plan- Currently, there are
no formal plans in place for a city pathway system, and therefore no
opportunity to connect Woodbridge to a larger pathway system in the near
future. However, the public pathway system at Woodbridge will be built
such that, if and when the City of Meridian continues a path along Five
Mile Creek, it would connect with Woodbridge on the north and south
sides of the property. Woodbridge Community, LLC is sincerely
interested in being a catalyst to help tie this pathway system together.
b. Locust Grove Street Section — Woodbridge Community, LLC will work
with ACHD to improve the street sections at the time of development so
that when Locust Grove is widened in the future, the impact on the
neighborhood will be minimized. This street section will also incorporate
pathways that will allow the residents of Woodbridge to access adjacent
uses such as their places of employment.
Use of Pressurized Irrigation System - Woodbridge will transfer its water
rights to the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District who will in turn create a
pressurized irrigation system. This system will be operated and maintained
by the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District and will provide non -potable
irrigation water to all private yard and common open space areas.
d. Overall Density - Woodbridge Community, LLC is willing to limit itself,
regardless of the actual zone applied to the property, to a total of no more
that 283 homes for the Woodbridge development. This density will be
properly planned and implemented with an overall gross density of 3.5
units per acre. Because of the careful planning, landscaping and
concentration of certain densities, as encouraged by the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan, Woodbridge should not be perceived as a densely
populated community.
11
•
III -C. Development Standards Analysis
0
As demonstrated in the Master Site Plan, the flexibility in dimensional standards, allowed
for through the planned development process, provides a diversity of housing types
which meet the needs of different segments of the housing market. The Meridian
Comprehensive Plan lends further support for the modification of dimensional standards
through the policies of the Housing Chapter that specifically address planned
development methods. In addition to a variety of housing opportunities, the benefit of
modifying the development standards in Woodbridge will be apparent through increased
open space and improved street scenes.
The following table compares dimensional requirements proposed for Woodbridge and
the City of Meridian's R-4 zoning district, the underlying zone proposed for Woodbrdige.
Woodbridge
City of Meridian / R-4 zone
Illustration
Minimum Lot Size
Minimum Lot Size
Reference
• Type A
4,800 s.f.
• All lots
8,000 s.f.
Page #30 & 31
• Type B
5,500 s.f.
• Type C
7,500 s.f.
• Type D
8,000 s.f.
Setbacks
Setbacks
• Front (as measured from back
of sidewalk)
- Side -entry Garage
- Porch/Living Area
- Garage Face
10'
15'
20'
• Front (as measured from
property line)
- All Lots
20'
Page #27
Page #28
Page #28
• Rear
• Rear
- Standard
15'
- All Lots
15'
- Detached Garage (including
associated living area)
5'
Page #29
• Interior Side Yard
• Interior Side Yard
- Standard
5'
- All Lots
5'/story
- Detached Garage (including
associated living area)
0'
Page #29
• Street Side Yard
• Street Side Yard
- All lots (Lots adjacent to
Woodbridge Dr. not
applicable)
15'
- All Lots
20'
Maximum Building Height
Maximum Building Height
• All Lots
35'
All Lots
35'
Minimum Street Frontage
Minimum Street Frontage
• Standard
'
• Standard
80'
- Type A
48'
- Type B
55'
- Type C
75'
- Type D
• Flag Lots
80'
20'
• Flag Lots
30'
• Outside Corner Lots
30' (chord)
• Cul-de-sac Lots
30' (chord)
• Cul-de-sac Lots
40' (chord)
• Cul-de-sac Street Lots
60'
12
•
Common Driveway Lots
• Maximum Length
150'
Common Driveway Lots
(Not addressed in Ordinance) Page #32
• Minimum Width
20'
• Minimum Pavement Width
14'
• Minimum Landscaped
Setback
3'
• Minimum Building Setback
10'
• Minimum Frontage
20'
• Min. on -lot driveway length
16'
• Maximum number of lots
taking access
Maximum Cul-de-sac Length
4
650'(*)
Maximum Cul-de-sac Length 450'
Maximum Block Length
1200, (*)
Maximum Block Length 1000'
Minimum. Home Size
1,200 sf.
Minimum Home Size 1,400 sf.
(x),llepenaent upon aermition.
13
,RIM 01, M 'M1.LN; IS W PRePFR-' .1
ClU 4hY 9SWO11 rft. REtr)L Wl W01110110N % THS MTRUMEW OR as (-L" Mlln
>
U u
W
LOCUST GROVE ROAD
14
M 0
z
A
-4
M
7
F-
i
7
L
v. g%
>
M
GO
Ai
LOOPROAD
00
L
w OODBRIDGE
TOOTHMAN—ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY
AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY
CONSULTIpla DWWg"L sWirYINS MO PLANNERS
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
affil 32 nm
—4
MASTER SIT E PLAN
--
X —) ns 1.-
14
M.,W,MTm qFFMIX. k Nle M WULN; F -W PRWFrl 0I TMP
I Ft,
IH6 MIRMW M A C -1 -IL-15 WIWI 'j;. -
L3
V
WOODBRIDGE TOOTHMAN—ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY
amm
AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY Co.," Eim wr4ym mo
q MERIDIAN, IDAHO
MASTER TRAIL SYSTEM
eF T"up"-woh ucNaK co Is im ? , "..u. w
F( � -:I] ME
o
I Ft,
IH6 MIRMW M A C -1 -IL-15 WIWI 'j;. -
L3
V
WOODBRIDGE TOOTHMAN—ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY
amm
AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY Co.," Eim wr4ym mo
q MERIDIAN, IDAHO
MASTER TRAIL SYSTEM
eF T"up"-woh ucNaK co Is im ? , "..u. w
F( � -:I] ME
IV -A. List of Exhibits and Illustrations
Sheet Title
Page #
Typical Streetscape — Lot Types A & B
17
Typical Streetscape — Lot Types C & D
18
Locust Grove Road — Plan View
19
Locust Grove Road — Section
20
Woodbridge Drive (Spine Road) Section
21
Loop Road Section
22
Neighborhood Road Section
23
Weatherby Drive Connection (as recommended by ACRD)
24
Weatherby Drive Connection (as recommended by Meridian P&Z)
25
Weatherby Drive Connection (as recommended by OEI)
26
Setback Exhibit — Side Entry Garage
27
Setback Exhibit — Living Area & Garage Face
28
Setback Exhibit — Zero Lot Line (Garage)
29
Typical Lot Layout (Yard Area Comparison) — Type A vs. R-4
30
Typical Lot Layout — Type A vs. R-4
31
Common Driveway Detail
32
16
• • 4
`eR#e
ma
I 1
L4.
iw
W
o..
H
F-
O
71.
Lis
AVlA-30-.LH DRI .A-.96
l
U`�
w •<�
I
•i i I'i.
f
i
i
dH,4-qng .9 -,ZZ
AVlA-30-.LH DRI .A-.96
;>
�w�ox w3vn
w
z
a-
z
w
z
a
x
x
E -
w
z
w
x
x
w
�
x
pra
O
�
N
'd
o
_w
Qui
0
it
y.r
cn
U
O
r -a
4i
a.>
20
i
21
'II'llil '1ii111 IIS'
•
lig I!�
CCS
b
a)
a)
"d
3-i
ra
¢
3
z
a
w
z
0
H
U
�
x
a
Q
o
a
'^
H
w
a
a
w
3
s=
a;
U
•
R
c
a
c
C
f..
a.
E-
a
a
v
j 22
23
'-v
a�
I
a
a
3
z
a
a
a
H
�-
z
3
w
�
w
Q
U
�
o
�
�
N
O
i
z
o
a
a
�a
a
3
�
0
U
GJ
cn
a
Q
A
C
Ci
J..
a
�
z
t �
23
j 24
AdIL
0
AAAA, 3o J,HJI'd .og
b
'O
a�
z
^°
o
w
°o
�
w
o
N
Ll
Q
_o
P
�..
U
�
C
Cw7
w
N
Q
�
�
o
U
>
a:
R
a:
a
F
tiI
a
v
j 24
25
26
j 27
0
�
I
b
a�
a�
r f
�
I I
I I
� � I
t � t
t
r
�
I(
I } r
tI
I �Li
Lcr
R
U
d
a:
a
.c
V.
j 27
0
28
•
w
J 1
�5M1
In
V1-: N
c
-----------------
I —_--------------
30
31
Kill
uuunu�
•
�, Eos. 4
1 %< 6 4 4. P.�4
nga'^:4 C '4.'A 'tl
,�a...J+.
J. ..�
""la._
�
z , ✓
1
s
_
�"�y
.
I�{ " � i
N li►�.l
it }
t
i
lRF
Vq
i
31
32
0
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
LAW OFFICES
277 North 6th Street, Suite 200
PO Box 2720, Boise, Idaho 83701
TELEPNoNE:208 368-1200
mcamms: 208 388.1300
Shari Stiles
Meridian Planning & Zoning
200 E. Carlton, Suite 201
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: Woodbridge, CUP 99-037
Our file: 5267-1
Dear Shari:
•
Gary G. Allen
Kimberly D. Maloney
Christopher J. Beeson
John M. Marshall
Michael C. Creamer
Kenneth R. McClure
Thomas E. Dvorak
Cynthia A. Melillo
Roy Lewis Eiguren
Christopher H. Meyer
Jeffrey C. Faraday
L Edward Miller
Richard W, ismitowaki
Patrick J. Miler
Amends L Keating
Judson B. Montgomery
Karl T. Klein
Angela K. Nelson
Franklin G. Lee
W. Hugh WRiordan
David R. Lombardi
Kenneth L Pursley
December 3, 1999
Yeginis L Stukel
Conley Ward
Stephanie C. Wester neier
Robert B. White
Raymond D. Givens
James A. McClure
a c —tL
This letter follows up on our meeting on Monday, November 22, 1999. The
purpose of the meeting was to review changes the City staff proposes to the Planning &
Zoning Commission's recommended conditions of approval (the "Conditions of
Approval"). We have attached a redlined version of the Conditions of Approval,
indicating the staff's changes that O'Neill Enterprises ("OEP') is willing to support.
The following paragraphs discuss areas where OEI can and cannot support the
staff's proposed changes or where alternate language is proposed. OEI is, of course,
willing to discuss further changes to meet the staff's concerns as long as they are
consistent with OEI's vision of the project.
If our recollection is correct, Conditions 7.b. and 7.c. are the only remaining places
of substantial disagreement between OEI and staff.
Introduction. OEI is willing to accept the City's suggestion that development on
Parcel B require the developer to obtain a conditional use permit and follow the planned
APPENDIX V—A — PAGE 1
0 •
Shari Stiles
December 3, 1999
Page 2
development process. We have amended the introduction and added a new Condition 15
to address this issue.
Staff's proposed new Condition in Annexation and Zoning section. The staff
had proposed adding a new condition to the Annexation and Zoning section requiring a
development agreement on Parcel B. OEI has adopted this change in the introduction and
in Condition 15. In Condition 16, OEI adopted the concept that the Development will
have to comply with Subdivision Ordinance requirements that are not inconsistent with
the Conditions of Approval.
Condition 4. OEI and the City agreed to change the word "generally" to
"substantially." The staff withdrew its objection to the final sentence of this condition.
Condition 5. OEI agreed to remove the last clause of this sentence.
Condition 6. OEI has made the changes requested by the staff.
Condition 7.a. We understand that staff withdrew its proposed change to this
condition after reviewing the illustration.
Condition 7.b. We have reworded this condition to reflect the staff's preference
to trigger the secondary access construction on the number of building permits issued
rather than the number of occupancy permits issued. To give the Development sufficient
time to construct the secondary access, we believe the appropriate trigger is the 200'
building permit.
Condition 7.c. OEI strongly disagrees with the staff proposal to construct the
Weatherby Drive emergency access to standards for a full-time access road. The staff's
approach is directly opposed to the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
Commission and ACRD, the concerns of the neighbors, and OEI's desire that the
emergency access should be simply that and not a cut -through to Franklin, Eagle Road or
Locust Grove. The condition as adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission allows
the dedication of a future road as needed. In this draft, we have asked for the flexibility
to negotiate a different design for the emergency access than that approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission, if the City and OEI can agree.
APPENDIX V-A - PAGE 2
0
Shari Stiles
December 3, 1999
Page 3
Condition 8. OEI agreed to reword this condition to meet the staff's concerns.
Condition 9.a. We believe OEI has reworded this condition to meet the staff's
concerns.
Condition 10. OEI agreed to reword this condition to meet the staffs concerns.
Condition 12. Based on our discussion, OEI understands that the staff has
withdrawn its proposed change to this condition.
Condition 14.a.5. OEI agreed to reword this condition to meet the staff's
concerns.
Condition 14.b. OEI agreed to reword this condition to meet the staff's concerns.
Condition 14.c.i. The staff withdrew its objection to this sentence.
Conditions 15 and 16. Discussed above.
Condition 18. OEI accepted the staf s recommended changes to this section.
Condition 20. The staff withdrew its objection to this sentence.
Condition 22. OEI accepted the staff's recommended change to this condition.
Condition 23. OEI and the staff agreed no changes were needed to this condition
as the intent is sufficiently clear: the wells and septic tanks on Parcel A must be taken out
of service when development begins on Parcel A, and the wells and septic tanks on Parcel
B must be taken out of service when development begins on Parcel B.
Condition 25. OEI accepted the staff's recommended changes to this condition.
Condition 27. The staff withdrew its objection to this condition.
Condition 30. This condition has been modified to meet the staff's concerns.
APPENDIX V-A - PAGE 3
0 0
Shari Stiles
December 3, 1999
Page 4
Condition 31. This condition has been modified to address the staff concerns.
If the staff wishes to discuss further modifications to the Conditions of Approval,
please let me know and we would be happy to sit down with you, Mr. Gigray and other
members of the staff. Please call me if you have any questions.
Edward Miller
LEM:slc
Enclosure
cc: William F. Gigray III
Peter S. O'Neill
Derick O'Neill
Scott Beecham
APPENDIX V-A - PAGE 4
•
0
[Note: Strikeouts indicate language deleted and double underlines represent language
added to Planning and Zoning Commission recommended conditions of approval.]
Conditions of Approval
Woodbridge Planned Residential Development
City of Meridian CUP No. 99-037
November 9, 1999
Introduction
Woodbridge Community LLC (the "Developer") has submitted an application for a
planned residential development (the "Development" or "Woodbridge") on an
approximately 81 acre parcel ("Parcel A") on the east side of Locust Grove Road
approximately 1/4 mile south of Franklin Road. The Developer has also submitted
applications to annex Parcel A and an adjacent Parcel B, and to zone Parcel A as R-4 and
Parcel B as L -O. Any future development on Parcel B shall be subject to the conditions
of avuroval set forth below in Paraerauhs 2 and 15 .
No development is planned at this time on Parcel B. %s document sets fat th the
conditions of approval of the Development on Parcel..O.-
Conditions of Approval
Annexation and Zoning
1. Annexation and Zoning - Parcel A. The City -shall annex Parcel A into the City
and zone Parcel A as R-4.
2. Annexation and Zoning - Parcel B. The City shall annex Parcel B into the City
and zone Parcel B L -O.
3. Plat Compliance with Code. All plats in the Development shall comply with the
requirements of Idaho Code Section 50-222(a).
Specific Development Requirements
4. Master Site Plan. The Development shall be constructed substantiallv-generaHp
in accordance with the Master Site Plan attached as Exhibit "A." The Master Site
Plan is a generaFguide for the Development, recognizing the need for flexibility
during the platting process.
APPENDIX V-A - PAGE 5
0 •
5. Maximum Number of Units. The Development shall contain no more than 283
units,
additional units.
6. Open Space. The Development shall include a minimum of 14 acres of open
space generally consistent with the Master Site Plan. The term "open space" shall
may include, without limitation, an active recreation area and community center,
pocket parks, linear parks along roadways, greenbelt corridors along Five -Mile
Creek, on-site wetlands and corridors between neighborhoods. To the extent it is
not located in the ACHD right-of-way. tThe Developer shall convey the open
space to a homeowners' association following both the final plat approval for the
phase of the Development in which the open space is contained and the
completion of the improvements.
7. Access.
a. Primary Access. Primary Access shall be from Locust Grove Road and
shall incorporate a landscaped traffic divider at the entryway (illustration 1
to the Master Site Plan).
b. Secondary Vehicular Access. The Developer shall provide a secondary
vehicular access point to the boundary of Woodbridge to the
south/southeast as shown on the Master Site Plan (or at another point as
otherwise mutually agreed by the Developer, the City and ACHD). The
second vehicular access shall be identified prior to the final Platting of any
property to the east of Five Mile Creek. The secondary vehicular access
shall -needs -to be operable prior to the issuance of the 200460' buildin
occupancy permit for the Development.
C. Emergency Access Location. The Developer shall construct emergency
access to the juncture of Weatherby Drive and the property line adjacent to
Greenhill Estates prior to the issuance of the 100'b occupancy permit for the
Development. 6'�ed; the
emergency access may be an unpaved aH weather surface. The Developer
shall construct or cause to be constructed an 18 -foot -wide all-weather
grasscrete surface between Greenhill Estates and the Development
including a five-foot wide meandering pathway or another design approved
by ACHD. the City and the Developer; and shall install knock -down
bollards at the property line to prevent use except in case of emergencies.
All designs shall be approved by ACRD and the City.
APPENDIX V-A - PAGE 6
Developer will also put these improvements within a dedicated 50 -foot
right-of-way which would allow for a permanent vehicular access point it
as and when the ACRD, the City of Meridian, the Developer and the
residents of Greenhill Estates agree it should become the secondary access
(or a permanent access).
8. Locust Grove Landscaping Strip. The Developer shall install landscaping along
Locust Grove Road per the plans attached as illustrations 2 and 3 to the Master
Site Plan or as otherwise required by ACRD. Developer shall construct the
landscape buffer-C-oastrnetioa generally consistent with these plans in li Wf-wifl
satisfy the twenty (20) foot "landscaping strip" requirement of Meridian City Code
§ 11-9-605.G. Developer shall submit detailed landscape plans for City staff
approval which shall be ¢ranted if the plans are consistent with ag=111=2 and
3.
9. Pathways.
a. Public Roadways. Public pathways and sidewalks will be constructed
along all roadways within the Development as identified on the pathway
plan attached to the Master Site Plan as illustration 4. An eight (8) foot
wide asu�public pathway will be constructed along, but detached from,
Locust Grove Road and Woodbridge Drive. Five (5) foot concrete
sidewalks will be constructed on both sides of all neighborhood roads as
well as the loop road identified on the east side of the Development.
b. Five Mile Creek. A soft surface pedestrian pathway will be constructed
along Five Mile Creek as generally depicted on the Master Site Plan,
illustration 4. This pathway shall be made available for public use at such
time that the pathway can be connected to a larger public pathway system
beyond the boundaries of the Development.
C. Private Pathways. Private pathways will be constructed within the
Development allowing for direct connections between individual
neighborhoods and other segments of the overall pathway plan, generally as
depicted on the Master Site Plan, illustration 4-5.
10. Five Mile Creek Enhancement. In cooperation with the Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District ("NMID") and all affected agencies, the Developer will protect
APPENDIX V-A - PAGE 7
•
and enhance Five Mile Creek and adjacent wetlands consistent with the Master
Site Plan and applicable laws.
11. Community Center. The Development shall include a community center
designed and constructed in a location consistent with the Master Site Plan. The
community center shall include the following amenities, at a minimum:
• Multi-purpose room
• Restrooms/Changing rooms
• Mechanical/Equipment room
• Swimming pool
• Spa or children's wading pool
• Resident drop-off and parking
12. Home Types. The Development shall consist of a mix of homesite types
designated A, B, C and D as set forth on the Master Site Plan. The location and
mix of lot types shall be determined by the Developer based on market demand,
with the aggregate total not to exceed 283 units. The lots located east of Five Mile
Creek on the northern border of the Development adjacent to the Greenhill Estates
Subdivision shall be limited to Type D lots.
Approved Deviations from Subdivision and Zoning Requirements
13. Inapplicability of Certain PD -R Requirements. The City acknowledges that,
due to the fact the Development consists of single family residential construction,
the following planned development - residential C'PD-R") application and
corresponding substantive requirements do not apply to the Development:
a. Submission of specific elevation exhibits.
b. Specification of architectural style and building design.
C. Submission of building materials and color.
d. Designation of garbage, storage and public parking areas.
e. Designation of storage areas, guest parking spaces and maintenance
building.
APPENDIX V-A - PAGE 8
14. Special Standards for the Woodbridge Community. The following standards
shall apply to the Development in lieu of the corresponding standards in the
zoning and subdivision ordinances:
a. Homesite Dimensional Standards:
(1) All front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. See illustration 5 in
Master Site Plan.
(2) Identifies front yard setbacks for: side -entry garage/living area/garage face. See
illustrations 5 and 6 in Master Site Plan.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for: detached garages/attached garages and living areas. See
illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
(4) Zero lot line allowance for detached garages and associated living area only, all living area
within the primary dwelling is to be set back a minimum of 5 feet. See illustration 7 in
Master Site Plan.
(5) Homesites on, or adjacent to, common driveway lots (defined and regulated below), flag
lots, outside corner lots, and cul-de-sac streets may have a lesser frontage. The minimum
frontage exceptions for these lots are as follows:
Flag lots:
Outside corner lots:
Cul-de-sac streets:
Cul-de-sac bulb:
Lots taking access from common driveway lot:
APPENDIX V-A - PAGE 9
20 feet minimum
30 foot chord minimum
60-M foot minimum
30 foot chord minimum
No frontage required on
public street
Front
Interior
Minimum
Yard
Rear
Side
Street
Maximum
Minimum
Homesite
Lot Size
Setback
Yard
Yard
Side Yard
Building
Street
Type
(Sq. Feet)
(1)
Setback
Setback
Setback
Height
Frontage
10715720'
5715'
0'/5'
15'
35'
48'
Type A
41800
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Type B
51,500
10715720'
15'
S'
15'
35'
55)
Type C
7,500
10715720'
(2)
15'
S'
15'
35'
75'
(5)
Type D
81,000
101/15720'
(2)
15'
1
S'
15'
1
35'
1
80'
1 (5)
(1) All front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. See illustration 5 in
Master Site Plan.
(2) Identifies front yard setbacks for: side -entry garage/living area/garage face. See
illustrations 5 and 6 in Master Site Plan.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for: detached garages/attached garages and living areas. See
illustration 7 in Master Site Plan.
(4) Zero lot line allowance for detached garages and associated living area only, all living area
within the primary dwelling is to be set back a minimum of 5 feet. See illustration 7 in
Master Site Plan.
(5) Homesites on, or adjacent to, common driveway lots (defined and regulated below), flag
lots, outside corner lots, and cul-de-sac streets may have a lesser frontage. The minimum
frontage exceptions for these lots are as follows:
Flag lots:
Outside corner lots:
Cul-de-sac streets:
Cul-de-sac bulb:
Lots taking access from common driveway lot:
APPENDIX V-A - PAGE 9
20 feet minimum
30 foot chord minimum
60-M foot minimum
30 foot chord minimum
No frontage required on
public street
b. Common Driveway Lots:
The Development may include common driveway lots, which are separately
platted, non -buildable lots designed to consist of a paved common driveway
to serve other lots. Common driveway lots shall be owned and maintained
by the Homeowner's Association. The following criteria shall apply to
common driveway lots in lieu of any other requirements of the subdivision
or zoning ordinance:
Maximum length (at common driveway line): 150 feet
Minimum width: 20 feet
Minimum pavement width: 2044 feet*
Minimam landscape setback. 3 feet
Minimum building setback: 10 feet
Minimum frontage: 20 feet
Minimum on -lot driveway length: 2046 feet*
Maximum number of lots taking access from
a single common driveway 4 lots
*Unless the City Fire Department approves a narrower width or shorter
len
C. Subdivision Requirements. To facilitate proper design and to
accommodate topography, the following subdivision ordinance
requirements shall not apply to the Development (i.e. the minimum and
maximum lengths defined in the ordinance shall not apply):
i. Cul-de-sac length on the cul-de-sac street south of the community
center generally as shown on the Master Site Plan.
ii. Block length.
15. Parcel B Development. AM future development on Parcel B shall require that
the Developer obtain a conditional use permit and comply with the planned
development requirements of the Citv.
General Conditions.
16. Compliance with Zoning and Subdivision Requirements. The Development
shall meet all of the requirements of the R-4 zone, except as specifically set forth
elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. The Development shall also comply
with the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. to the extent
APPENDIX V-A - PAGE 10
those requirements are not inconsistent with these Conditions of & roval. The
intent is that specific subdivision. zoning and other City ordinance requirements
will be applied so as to allow the implementation of the Master Site Plan and the
general intent of the Development Applications.
17. Installation of Infrastructure and Utilities. Subject to the conditions set forth
elsewhere in this Agreement, the Developer shall construct or cause to be
constructed all sanitary sewers, storm drains, pumping stations, water mains and
appurtenances, fire hydrants, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, pressurized irrigation
systems, electrical transmission lines, natural gas lines, telephone lines, sidewalks,
cross drains, street surfacing, street signs, street lighting and barricades as well as
any and all other improvements required to build the Development generally
consistent with the Master Site Plan. The improvements defined in this paragraph
are hereinafter referred to as the "Infrastructure". The Developer shall have the
flexibility to design and build the Infrastructure in a way that implements the
Master Site Plan and to meet the requirements of the agencies and entities having
jurisdiction over the Infrastructure. The Infrastructure for the Development shall
be dedicated to the appropriate public entities, which shall assume all obligations
to maintain the Infrastructure.
18. Water and Sewer Sizing and Routing. Developer shall coordinate water and
sewer sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. To the extent
Developer is required to construct sewer or water lines larger than required to
serve the Development, the Developer and the City shall enter into an appropriate
late -comers agreement to reimburse Developer for the excess costs incurred by
Developer as allowed by City Ordinance.
19. Underground Utilities. All utilities within the Development will be installed
underground.
20. Road Sections. The Developer shall construct road sections generally consistent
with the street sections included as illustrations 3,8 d I04neuglr * in the
Master Site Plan or as otherwise required by the Ada County Highway District
("ACHD").
21. Irrigation System. Subject to the approval of the NMID, Developer shall design
and construct a pressurized irrigation system that NMID will own and operate.
This system will cover all common area landscaping and private yard areas within
the Development.
APPENDIX V-A - PAGE 11
•
22. Other Irrigation and Drainage Ditches. With the exception of Five Mile Creek,
all existing irrigation and drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled per
City Ordinance 11-9-605.M or Developer shall provide an alternative delivery
system. The ditches to be tiled and/or alternative delivery systems shall be shown
on the prem plats. Plans must be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, as required by law, with
written confirmation of the approval submitted to the Public Works Department.
23. Existing Wells and Septic Systems. Existing domestic wells and /or septic
systems on Parcel A must be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance
Section 5-7-517. Existing wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation.
24. Flood Plain Permits. Developer shall obtain any permits for Flood Plain
Development that are required by City ordinance per criteria outlined in the
ordinance.
25. Signage. Detailed signage plans will be subject to design review and separate
permits as required by the terms of the Development Agreement and the approved
Conditional Use Permi
26. Trash Enclosures. Developer shall coordinate locations and construction
requirements for the community center trash enclosures with Meridian Sanitary
Service, Inc. ("MSS"), and provide a letter of approval from MSS prior to applying
for building permits for the community center.
27. Phasing and Platting. Developer intends to build the Development in two or
more phases. To commence the development of a phase, the Developer will
submit a plat application for the phase (or several phases or the entire
Development as Developer determines in its sole discretion).
28. Infrastructure Installation in Conjunction with Plat. Developer will install the
Infrastructure serving the phase as part of the phase, and will not record any plats
for subsequent phases of the Development until the Infrastructure for the ongoing
phase is completed. All Infrastructure for the Development shall be completed or
bonded for completion in a manner generally consistent with the Master Site Plan
in conjunction with the final phase of the Development, at the latest.
APPENDIX V-A - PAGE 12
29. Fencing Details in Plat. Each plat shall address fencing details for the portion of
the Development covered by the plat. The perimeter fence shall be of a "good
neighbor" design, i.e., the fence shall be of a quality appearance on both sides.
30. As -Built Drawings. For each phase, Developer shall comply with the
requirements of the Meridian City Code and duly adopted City Public Works
standards and specifications for submission and inspection of plans and as -built
drawings for the Infrastructure, as well as the inspection of the constructed
Infrastructure.
31. Incorporation into Development Agreement. These conditions of approval shall
be incorporated into a Development Agreement to be approved by the City
Council, which shall replace these conditions and the final Development
Agreement and shall be the only -guiding document for assessing future plats in the
Development. Provided. however. that the provisions of the Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinances shall continue to apply to the Development to the extent those
provisions are not inconsistent with these Conditions of Approval. These
Conditions of Approval and the Development Agreement shall act in lieu of any
conflictnig subdivision or zoning ordinance requirements that are inconsistent with
these conditions, whether currently contained in the Meridian City Code or
subsequently adopted.
APPENDIX V-A - PAGE 13
Crl
A r� u
u E y LOCUST GROvE ROAD K
IL
ri
C
9s
WOODBRIDGE TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY
AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY eoNlULTING ENOINE[R5. 3UiVC/ON5 AND MANNERS ._.
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
-' MASTER SITE PLAN w i>ue, vi xsn -
CD
0
00
C)
> tv
P!3 0
tri
0 R
> t" %-
0 CA 0
tTj a
0 co
96'-0" RIGHT-OF-WAY
ID
22'-6" BUFFER
CD
100
a
CD
0
00
C)
> tv
P!3 0
tri
0 R
> t" %-
0 CA 0
tTj a
0 co
(f; t999 mr—u-(A m [I?wrmiM �U NM MS'INYLIII 15 W PRf. rr, OF T*, LNi:NIl1MnG CO. WY RPRClAKI16Y. RNSE UR ."VIM a IMS I.SIRM. OR tK i. LNH 'FlIII Fl: NP1RPo FGRUSGtlN 1: iWIIIW.4-ONI01 UIQXLRAG CO :i i+. f.T irttnnUi.;.p
0
LOCUST GROVE ROAD
r
R �
K m m
it �I
Pr
H / • t 3�
w 5r
i l 1'J
p
.p r —
I I
I�
o .
WOODBRIDGE TOOTRMAN—ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY
_ AN O'NEILL ENTERPRISES COMMUNITY coRmLTRIG aonntEllS. wwe/oRs AND PIANNEIIS � �� ►�L�4I.!
s.�MERIDIAN, IDAHO um as ow eouuvN o u'rrtcs 1"
- T3 ip1oe"ss" uee"�-��n ,:owx a'Awli. ipwo +.0
MASTER TRAIL SYSTEM
A
c�
n
�
z-
G
u 3
tQ
—
I�
A�
t
I
�
I
I
�
1
�
1
a
a
1
0
CA
cu
CD
CD
CD
f7
r
CD
{
M
n
r:
N4
..om
5A
t
G
c
1,
I
I
G
o
I
a
a
0
c�
CD
R
M
I
�r
Z
00
cu
c�
CD
O
t
G
�
CD
f r,
�
►rl
►a -j
tz
�
G
�
a
`•
e
COO
co
o
yt
CZZ7 M
v
x
W
C)
a
tri
3
y
x
°z
a
Z
tTj
i
W
0
—
r �
CL
�
gr
I
CD
�J.
a
0
V -B. Meridian Comprehensive Plan Analysis
The sections below set forth the applicable sections of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan along
with a narrative supporting Woodbridge's compliance with each comprehensive plan policy.
Population Growth
Goal Statement:
Anticipate growth and development demand to continue. Plan for and
promote high quality development that provides for necessary public
services to maintain a quality lifestyle.
Supporting Policies:
1.1 Approximately 92% to 95% of the new residential development
shall occur within the Urban Service Planning Area, where public
facilities, essential services and utilities are planned for or are
readily available.
Narrative: Woodbridge is located within the Urban Service
Planning Area. Sewer is currently on the property, with
water and other utilities immediately adjacent or
nearby.
1.3 Unimproved or unrealized land within the Meridian city limits and
Urban Service Planning Area should be utilized in order to
maximize public investments, curtail urban sprawl and protect
existing agricultural lands from unnecessary infringement.
Narrative: The subject property, located in an Ada County enclave
1 %2 miles east of downtown Meridian, is currently
vacant. The property is within 1 mile of four of the top
five employers in the City of Meridian. Furthermore, it
is within walking distance of three of those employers.
All essential public services exist in the immediate area
of the proposed development and no (unplanned)
improvements will be required because of the
development. Lands adjacent to the parcel are largely
built out with the only "underutilized" land lying to the
west of the property.
Economic Development
Goal Statement (Housing):
Provide a full cost range of desirable housing for individuals and families
who have chosen Meridian as their home.
Supporting Policies:
3. lU Approve quality housing projects that meet the needs of all
economic levels.
Narrative: The planned community will provide for a diversity of
housing choices, meeting a wide range of personal tastes
and economic levels.
CAMy Documents\Woodbridge\Applications\supplement application\Meridian Comprehensive Plan Analysis.doc 12/03/99
•
U
3.2U Encourage efforts to develop and maintain quality neighborhoods
and housing which are recognized as basic infrastructure
requirements of economic development.
Narrative: Woodbridge, as with all OEI developments, will be
designed, built and maintained with the highest
standards for quality and lasting value. Its proximity to
employment, downtown Meridian and other public
services will ensure lasting value.
Land Use
Goal Statement:
All land use development in the Meridian Area will be considered an asset
to the community and not detract from out quality of life.
Supporting Policies (General):
1.5U Encourage a balance of land uses to ensure that Meridian remains
a desirable, stable and self-sufficient community.
Narrative: The area east of Meridian, identified for the
Woodbridge development is in an area that is
experiencing pressure from commercial infringement
from the west (Central Valley Business Center), the east
(the Eagle Road corridor) and the south (the Franklin
Road corridor). Failure to secure this property as
residential land could lead to a further transition of
existing residential properties to higher intensity uses.
LI I U Protect citizen investments in existing public facilities, (water,
sewer, streets, fire, and police) by encouraging controlled growth
through city planning reviews and development agreements.
Narrative: Citizen investment will not only be protected, but also
enhanced through the introduction of private
development monies, as adequate services are already
existing in this location adjacent to town. Increased
contribution to these services will only improve the
current level of service.
Supporting Policies (Residential):
2.1 U Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-
family, multi family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments,
condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a
range of affordable housing opportunities.
Narrative: While the Woodbridge proposal is for single family
residential housing only, it will provide a variety of
housing choices at varying levels of affordability.
Housing diversity will be accomplished through home
and homesite size and design.
2.3U Protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values,
improve each neighborhood's physical condition and enhance its
quality of life for residents.
CAMy Documents\Woodbridge\Applications\supplement application\Meridian Comprehensive Plan Analysis.doc 12/02/99 2
r
M
Narrative: Property values will be protected and enhanced through
the development of Woodbridge as it will introduce a
high quality "like" use adjacent to aging residential
properties of varying qualtiy.
Supporting Policies (Rural Areas):
6.3c. Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur
in densities as low as 3 dwelling units per acre if physical
connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and sewer
service and the property is platted and subdivided in accordance
with Ada County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances Policy...
Narrative: Woodbridge is proposed at a gross density of 3.5
units/acre.
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas
Goal Statement (Natural Resources):
Retain the existing high quality environment for ourselves and future
generations, by ensuring that land, air, water, vegetation and wildlife are
not diminished in quality or quantity by future activity.
Supporting Policies:
1.1 U Identify and protect areas with special characteristics such as
stream corridors, canals, and wetlands. Control and preserve the
natural beauty of Ten Mile Creek, South Slough, and Five Mile
Creek.
Narrative: Woodbridge will protect and enhance Five Mile Creek
and adjacent wetlands. The protection and
enhancement of these areas has long been a trademark
of OEI developments. Specific measures at the
Woodbridge site will include a 100' +/- corridor
surrounding these natural amenities as well as a
proposed bridge that will span the creek crossing rather
than filling it and using culverts.
Goal Statement (Natural Waterways):
The community will protect natural waterway corridors from degradation
and manage them as a valuable resource.
Supporting Policies:
3.1 U Manage and prevent unsuitable uses along drainageways and
protect the floodplain of creeks and drains.
Narrative: A 100'+/- buffer area is planned around water
amenities on the Woodbridge site. Impacts to the
floodplain will be minimized through the siting of open
space along floodways and floodplains.
3.2U Protect the potential beauty and recreational trail opportunities of
all Meridian waterways.
CAMy Documents\Woodbridge\Applications\supplement applicationWeridian Comprehensive Plan Analysis.doc 12/02/99
• 0
Narrative: A pathway is planned along Five Mile Creek within a
100' buffer area that is designed to provide for
protection of the waterway.
Goal Statement (Hazardous Areas):
No goal statement
Supporting Policies:
4.1 U Developments contiguous to natural waterways, irrigation canals,
laterals and drainage ditches must consider all available
information concerning floodplain waterways.
Narrative: A floodplain study has been conducted on the subject
property that identifies lands within the floodway and
floodplain.
4.2U Prohibit construction in floodways unless clearly proven to be in
the public interest.
Narrative: No construction is proposed for the floodway within
Woodbridge.
Transportation
Goal Statement (General):
To develop a balanced and mixed transportation system in accord with all
air quality and environmental concerns which provides for the efficient
and safe movement of people and goods in both short and long terms.
Supporting Policies:
1.1 U Achieve a balanced transportation system inclusive of roadways,
public transit, bicycle route, sidewalks, etc., and reduce the use of
single occupancy vehicles when and where alternatives are
available.
Narrative: The proximity of Woodbridge to downtown Meridian
and a number of employment and recreation
opportunities, along with the proposed pathway system,
will encourage alternative transportation within the
community. Accommodations may be made for public
transit as it becomes available.
ISU Encourage residential and non-residential developments to
provide adequate easements for future pathways.
Narrative: Woodbridge will include pathways in excess of the goals
and policies of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and
the ACHD Development Policy Manual.
I.IOU Require traffic studies evaluating the impact ofgenerated traffic
volumes (internal and external circulation) on adjacent streets and
to preserve the integrity of residential neighborhoods, as requested
by the city.
Narrative: A traffic study has been conducted and prepared for
Woodbridge including projected impacts of adjacent
CAMy Documents\Woodbridge\Applications\supplement application\Meridian Comprehensive Plan Analysis.doc 12/02/99
pending and proposed developments. OEI has
researched and is willing to discuss, with ACHD and the
City of Meridian, the possibility of providing reasonable
interim improvements to adjacent roadways where
practical.
Goal Statement (Street Reclassification):
Develop a long range plan that identifies streets as collectors, minor
arterials and major arterials including:
Supporting Policies:
2.7U Designate Locust Grove Road, from Fairview to Overland, as a
Minor Arterial.
Narrative: Woodbridge's plan allows for the improvement of
Locust Grove Road to a 5 lane minor arterial (96' right-
of-way).
Goal Statement (Facility Development):
Meridian will identify transportation projects that need to be funded and
constructed for sound community development.
Supporting Policies:
3.3 Extend Locust Grove via an overpass to connect with its southern
leg, south of I-84.
Narrative: Woodbridge's roadway improvement plans are
consistent with the pending plans for the construction of
an overpass at Locust Grove Road.
Goal Statement (Pathways):
Meridian will provide equal emphasis on pedestrians, bicyclists, and
equestrians as it does on vehicular traffic in all land use decisions.
Supporting Policies:
4.1 Multiple Use Pathways:
Five Mile Creek
South Slough
Ten Mile Creek
Jackson Drain
Narrative: Woodbridge plans to develop Five Mile Creek as a
multiple use pathway as a part of a larger (future)
pathway system and as a critical component to the on-
site pathway system being proposed in the development.
Open Space, Parks and Recreation
Goal Statement (Park Acquisition):
Create new public recreation opportunities by acquiring new parkland and
expanding existing facilities that respond to the needs of the community.
Supporting Policies:
CAMy Documents\Woodbridge\Applications\supplement application\Meridian Comprehensive Plan Analysis.doc 12/02/99
• i
2.5U New subdivision development, highway improvements, and all
changes of land use will be considered as opportunities to:
a. Provide Greenways, bicycle paths or pedestrian
access to public parks, and links between parks,
schools and neighborhoods.
C. Encourage the development of recreational open
spaces and parks as part of new planned
developments.
Narrative: A comprehensive pathway and open space system is
planned for Woodbridge including both public and
private components. An off street pathway along Locust
Grove Road will provide a starting point for a
connection to the soccer fields planned adjacent to the
Jabil Circuit site.
Goal Statement (Pathway):
Support the establishment and maintenance of a linear open space
network, including the preservation of prime natural areas.
Supporting Policies:
3.1 To establish a network of open space corridors that are either
improved (landscaped), semi -improved (landscaped pathway
only), or unimproved (left natural), which have the potential to:
a. Interconnect the park and open space system with
rights-of-way for trails, walkways, bicycleways, and
horse use.
b. Play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural values, especially waterways,
drainageways, and natural habitat.
Narrative: The Woodbridge master plan allows for inter-
connections of open spaces through a network of public
and private pathways. Natural areas on the site will be
protected and enhanced during the development
process and will be accessible for enjoyment of the
community through the pathway system.
3.4U Through subdivision review, annexation, and zoning, emphasize
the establishment of connecting trails and open space networks.
Narrative: The Woodbridge master plan allows for inter-
connections of open spaces through a network of public
and private pathways.
Goal Statement (Special Recreation Areas):
No goal statement
Supportin>; Policies:
5.1 As Meridian grows and expands, efforts should be made to
minimize the degradation of the area's natural resources through
good planning analysis.
CAMy Documents\Woodbridge\Applications\supplement application\Meridian Comprehensive Plan Analysis.doc 12/02/99
0
Narrative: Natural resources, such as stream corridors and
wetlands, will be protected and enhanced through the
development process. Careful consideration has been
taken in planning for roadway crossings of all natural
areas.
5.3 Any fish, wildlife and vegetation species and habitat should be
protected and maintained along Five Mile, Nine Mile and Ten Mile
Creeks, and the South Slough, provided it is in the best interest of
the City of Meridian. Consideration should be made for the land
uses in these areas to minimize the risk of pollution.
Narrative: The developers of Woodbridge have worked with
various agencies, including the Nampa -Meridian
Irrigation District and the U.S. Army Corps of
engineers, to ensure the protection of natural resources
in the proposed community. Any storm water that is
discharged into Five Mile Creek will be treated per the
standard requirements prior to doing so. Provisions for
the treatment of these waters has been addressed in the
storm water management plan.
Housing
Goal Statement:
Provide a sufficient choice of adequate housing in the community to meet
the needs of individuals of all socio-economic backgrounds, the elderly
and the disabled. All housing should be maintained in an attractive, safe,
and sanitary condition for its useful life and for the general appearance of
the city.
Supporting Policies:
1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of
housing types (single family, modular, mobile homes and multi-
family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental
dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations
suitable for residential development.
Narrative: A variety of single family owned, residential housing
choices are planned for the Woodbridge community.
The inclusion of architecturally designed housing
opportunities will allow for various levels of
affordability in an aesthetically pleasing, high quality
environment.
1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to
employment and shopping centers should be encouraged.
Narrative: A wide range of housing affordability will be
represented in Woodbridge in close proximity to four of
the top five employers in Meridian, shopping and
recreational opportunities.
CAMy Documents\Woodbridge\Applications\supplement application\Meridian Comprehensive Plan Analysis.doc 12/02/99 7
• 0
1.7 Residential developments shall be phased in accordance with their
connection to the municipal sewer system.
Narrative: Sewer service is currently available on the Woodbridge
site.
1.13U Infilling of random vacant lots in substantially developed, single
family areas should be considered at densities similar to
surrounding development. Increased densities on random vacant
lots should be considered if
a. The cost of such a parcel of land precludes
development at surrounding densities; or
C. It complies with the updated Comprehensive Plan.
Narrative: The proposed density of Woodbridge is consistent with
the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
1.17 The City of Meridian intends to consider the implementation of
Planned Development (PD) methods and the use of performance
standards through revisions of the City's land use control
ordinances.
Narrative: Woodbridge requires a Planned Residential
Development permit to achieve the design goals
established for the development and the goals of the
comprehensive plan.
Community Design
Goal Statement (Community Identification):
Create visual quality and functional identity for the City of Meridian and
its surrounding enviromnent.
Supporting Policies:
1.3 Open space areas within all development should be encouraged.
Narrative: Woodbridge will include a total of +/-16.5 acres of
passive and active open space.
1.8 The appearance of natural creeks (Five Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile
and South Slough) throughout commercial activity centers,
industrial review areas, residential areas and Old Town should be
improved and harmonized with adjoining land uses in order to
protect water quality of the streams for beneficial uses; as well as,
to enhance their environmental amenities.
Narrative: Woodbridge will include setback lands, adjacent to
waterways, throughout the community in order to
protect the natural resources associated with Five Mile
Creek and adjacent wetlands.
Goal Statement (Neighborhood Identity):
Every neighborhood in Meridian will be attractive and regarded as a nice
place to live.
Supporting Policies:
CAMy Documen ts\Woodbridge\Applications\supplement application\Meridian Comprehensive Plan Analysis.doc 12/02/99
• 0
6.2U Pedestrian access connectors will be required in all new
development to link subdivisions together to promote
neighborhood identity.
Narrative: Micro -path and sidewalk connections between
neighborhoods are proposed in the Woodbridge
development.
CAMy Documents\Woodbridge\Applications\supplement application\Meridian Comprehensive Plan Analysis.doc 12/02/99
• Em •
O'NEILL ENTERPRISES, INC.
11/16/99
The Honorable Robert D. Corrie
Mayor of Meridian
Meridian City Council
33 East Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: Woodbridge, Meridian, Idaho
Dear Mayor Come and City Council Members:
Ablx V -C.
As an introduction to Woodbridge and O'Neill Enterprises, Inc. and in anticipation of our Conditional Use
Permit hearing scheduled for December 7, 1999, we have attached a Master Site Plan for Woodbridge and
corporate portfolio for your review. In addition, we have also attached the following excerpt from our
submittal letter to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission in hopes of providing you with the
information necessary to become acquainted with Woodbridge.
We at O'Neill Enterprises are indeed pleased to be presenting to the City of Meridian for approval
a plan on the 80 acres of property bisected by Five Mile Creek east of Locust Grove Road and
between Franklin Road and the Interstate. While each of the communities we have developed in
the last 20 years (River Run, Spring Meadow, The Springs, Meadow Creek, Surprise Valley in
Boise; Lane Ranch in Sun Valley; and Spring Mountain Ranch in McCall) are unique in their
design, they all share common elements and approaches to community design and development.
They all:
1. are composed of a variety of housing types, sizes and price ranges appealing to different
buyer tastes, lifestyles and budgets;
2. are made up of distinct human -scale neighborhoods of 20 to 50 homes each;
3. share a hierarchy of roads typically with some kind of spine road or residential collector
that services smaller neighborhood streets, which have no function other than to serve
those who live on them;
4. include open spaces between the human -scale neighborhoods;
5. include man-made amenities such as recreation facilities and walking paths which link all
of the neighborhoods to the community center or recreation facilities;
6. include enhanced, or in some cases created, natural amenities such as streams, creeks,
ponds, wetlands, etc. as habitat for wildlife;
7. include extensive landscaping that holds all of the other plan elements together;
8. contain a variety of, but consistent, quality architecture; and
9. include a selected builder team and focused marketing effort.
The end result is a group of communities which have proven popular with buyers and residents
and have demonstrated an exceptional and lasting value to them and the community at large.
The other common element in all of these communities is the fact that we chose to go through the
Planned Unit Development entitlement process in the relevant jurisdictional area in order to
achieve the qualities desired and made possible through the PUD process. Unfortunately, another
common element is the fact that most Planning and Zoning Commissions, and indeed City
100 North 9th Street, Suite 300 • Boise, Idaho 83702 • (208) 336-3430 • fax: (208) 336-5296
AfeeLDw V -C.
PA C-4 5 2
Councils, are not used to dealing with the planned unit development concept and consequently,
resist them. The whole premise of the PUD portion of comprehensive plans and PUD ordinances
is based on the notion of trade-offs as identified in the Meridian Zoning and Development
Ordinance under Section 9-607.A. In order to encourage more innovative design, more open
space, more community amenities and a greater variety of housing, it is recognized that the PUD
process has the authority to override some of the standards regarding lot size and setbacks
required in the subdivision ordinance (Section 9-607.B. of the Meridian Zoning and Development
Ordinance). Said another way, in order to provide a maximum choice of living environments and
the amenity level that we do in terms of open space, recreation facilities, pathway system,
enhanced wildlife habitat and exceptional landscaping, we need the flexibility to provide for a
reduction in lot dimensions, yards, building setbacks and area requirements.
We are convinced the "trade-offs" provided through the PUD process is good for the community
and we have made it work for us with upwards of 2000 contented residents in our communities.
Moreover, I believe any study would indicate that the absorption (annual sales pace) within our
communities and the re -sale prices generated over the years (not to mention the increase in
assessed tax base) would indicate that the concept, when well executed, does indeed create
exceptional and lasting value for our residents and the community at large.
We believe with the unique site we are dealing with, Woodbridge, as a well planned and well
executed PUD, will be a successful community, and one in which both OEI and the City of
Meridian can take pride.
Thank you for your consideration.
Silid)
tb..
Peter S. O'Neill
President
PON/ja
Attachments
•
BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR 283 LOT
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY,
LLC.
Applicant
Case No. CUP -99-037
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY
COUNCIL
INTRODUCTION
I . The property is located at 450 S. Locust Grove Road, Meridian, Idaho.
2. The owner of record of the subject property James F. Griffin c/o First
Security Bank Trust Group, of Boise, Idaho.
3. Applicant is Woodbridge Community, LLC, of 100 N. 9th Street, Boise.
4. The subject property is currently zoned Ada County (R -T) with a
pending application to annex and change the zoning to Meridian, Low Density
Residential R-4. The zoning district of R-4 is defined within the City of Meridian
Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section 11-2-408(12).
5. The proposed application requests a conditional use permit for a 283
Lot Planned United development. The R-4 zoning designation within the City of
Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance requires a conditional use permit be
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - I
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES — WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
obtained for most uses including those requested by the Applicant. (Meridian City
Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section 11-2-409A).
6. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes that the
proposed application is in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as
enumerated in the Recommendations of Approval to the City Council for Annexation
and Zoning of the Subject Property.
7. The use proposed within the subject application will in fact, constitute a
conditional use as determined by City Policy.
S. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes that the
proposed application is in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as
enumerated in the Recommendations of Approval to the City Council for Annexation
and Zoning of the Subject Property.
9. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission takes note of and
recognizes the concerns of neighborhood residents concerning the emergency access
junction with Weatherby Drive, Meridian, Idaho, dated November 9, 1999 at the
public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
1. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to
the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES — WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
•
permit as requested by the applicant, subject to the following:
1.1 Both the Comprehensive Plan (Housing chapter, pg. 68, para. 1.18) and
the Subdivision Ordinance (1 1-9-607.F.7) require that variations
pertaining to PD's shall not exceed 25% of the existing requirements.
Applicant shall provide further detail, specifically showing that bonus
densities related to the Lot Types A -D are in compliance with the
above-cited ordinance and that 75% comply with the existing R-4
standards. Also include the percentage of open space provided.
1.2 The Concept Plan shows only a pedestrian access/pathway to connect
with Weatherby Drive to the north. Staff recommends a vehicular
connection be provided to the Weatherby stub. The applicant for
Woodbridge will be required to complete the improvements to ACED
standards. Staff recommends that development be restricted to 100
homes until a permanent, public right-of-way is extended through
Greenhill Estates or Magic View Subdivision.
1.3 Staff recommends the connection with Magic View Subdivision be
further to the north in order to provide a more direct alignment with
Magic View Drive. This placement would facilitate easier and less
congested access to Eagle Road versus the more circuitous route via
Wells Street.
1.4 The City of Meridian requires developments within flood plains to
obtain a permit for Flood Plain Development from the Meridian
Building Department prior to the commencement of any work.
1.5 City Ordinance requires a minimum 20 -foot -wide planting strip beyond
required right-of-way on Locust Grove Road. The buffer width shall be
increased to 20 -feet beyond the required right-of-way.
1.6 No encroachments into the existing sanitary sewer easements will be
allowed.
1.7 Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer mains to and
through this proposed development. Project designer to coordinate
sizing and routing with the Public Works Department.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES — WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
1.8 Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and
through this proposed development. Project designer to coordinate main
sizing and routing with the Public Works Department.
1.9 Staff recommends monument -type signage along Locust Grove. Detailed
signage plans will be subject to design review and separate permits.
1.10 Underground pressurized irrigation must be provided to all landscape
areas on site. Please submit hook-up and design details based on the
proposed landscaping. Due to the landscape area required (minimum of
eight acres), primary water supply connection to the City's mains will
not be allowed. Developer shall be required to utilize any existing
surface or well water for the primary source. If City water is proposed as
a secondary source, developer shall be responsible to pay water
assessments for the entire common open area.
1.11 Staff requests the Applicant address intentions for fencing during the
CUP hearing. Fencing should be designed considering public safety and
aesthetics that match the high quality of the development.
1.12 Ordinance 11-9-607.G.4. requires that all PD's provide underground
utilities throughout the entire project site.
1.13 Provide the Public Works Department with information on anticipated
fire flow and domestic water requirements for the proposed site. Flow
and pressure from the existing mains should be monitored with the
Meridian Water Department to determine whether adequate fire
protection exists.
1.14 Applicant shall be required to enter into an Assessment Agreement with
the City of Meridian for the clubhouse building.
1.15 Applicant shall coordinate locations and construction requirements of
the community recreation facility/area trash enclosures with Meridian
Sanitary Service, Inc., and provide a letter of approval from their office
prior to applying for building permits.
1.16 Five Mile Creek habitat should be protected and maintained, provided
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES — WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
•
•
it is in the best interests of the City of Meridian. Consideration should
be made for the land uses in these areas to minimize the risk of
pollution and to preserve the natural beauty of Five Mile Creek.
1.17 Planning and Zoning recommends that access to the Greenhill Estates is
to be an 18' wide grass crete right-of-way with the balance to be
maintained with landscaping.
Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Fire Dept. as follows:
1.18 All roads will be installed before building is started and signed with
appropriate street name signs.
1.19 No parking of vehicles or trailers in cul-de-sac or the roads for the flag
lots.
1.20 Access shall be provided for fire hoses around the clubhouse.
1.21 A second access is required for this subdivision.
Adopt the Recommended Conditions of the Developer as follows:
Conditions of Approval DRAFT Woodbridge Planned Residential Development
City of Meridian CUP No. 99-037
November 9, 1999
Introduction
Woodbridge Community LLC (the "Developer") has submitted an application for a
planned residential development (the "Development" or "Woodbridge") on an
approximately 81 acre parcel ("Parcel A") on the east side of Locust Grove Road
approximately 1/4 mile south of Franklin Road. The Developer has also submitted
applications to annex Parcel A and an adjacent Parcel B, and to zone Parcel A as R-4
and Parcel B as L -O. Any future development on Parcel B shall be subject to the
City's requirements for the L-0 zone. No development is planned at this time on
Parcel B. This document sets forth the conditions of approval of the Development on
Parcel A.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES — WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
Conditions of Approval
Annexation and Zoning
1. Annexation and Zoning - Parcel A. The City shall annex Parcel A into the City
and zone Parcel A as R-4.
2. Annexation and Zoning - Parcel B. The City shall annex Parcel B into the City
and zone Parcel B L -O.
3. Plat Compliance with Code. All plats in the Development shall comply with
the requirements of Idaho Code Section 5 0-222(a).
4. Development Agreement Required. Both Parcels A and B shall be subject to a
development agreement, the terms of which must be approved by City
Council, as may be amended to reflect terms of the conditional use permits
associated with each parcel and conditions placed on platting of the property.
Specific Development Requirements
4. Master Site Plan. The Development shall be constructed generally in
accordance with the Master Site Plan attached as Exhibit "A." The Master Site Plan
is a general guide for the Development, recognizing the need for flexibility during the
platting process.
5. Maximum Number of Units. The Development shall contain no more than
283 units, notwithstanding the fact that the approved zoning permits the
construction of additional units.
6. Open Space. The Development shall include a minimum of 14 acres of open
space generally consistent with the Master Site Plan. The term "open space" may
include, without limitation, an active recreation area and community center, pocket
parks, linear parks along roadways, greenbelt corridors along Five -Mile Creek, only
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 6
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES — WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
0 0
site wetlands and corridors between neighborhoods. The Developer shall convey the
open space to a homeowners' association following both the final plat approval for
the phase of the Development in which the open space is contained and the
completion of the improvements.
7. Access.
a. Primary Access. Primary Access shall be from Locust Grove Road and shall
incorporate a landscaped traffic divider at the entryway (illustration 1 to the
Master Site Plan).
b. Secondary Vehicular Access. The Developer shall provide a secondary
vehicular access point to the boundary of Woodbridge to the south-southeast
as shown on the Master Site Plan (or at another point as otherwise mutually
agreed by the Developer, the City and ACHD). The second vehicular access
shall be identified prior to the platting of any property to the east of Five Mile
Creek. The secondary vehicular access needs to be operable prior to the
issuance of the 166`' occupancy permit for the Development.
C. Emergency Access Location. The Developer shall construct emergency access to
the juncture of Weatherby Drive and the property line adjacent to Greenhill
Estates prior to the issuance of the 100`'' occupancy permit for the
Development. Until the 166t'' certificate of occupancy is issued, the emergency
access may be an unpaved all-weather surface. Prior to or upon the issuance of
the 166`'' certificate of occupancy, the Developer shall construct a 24 -foot rural
street section on existing right-of-way on the Greenhill Estates side of the
property line; shall install knock -down bollards at the property tine to prevent
use except in case of emergencies; and shall provide a 12 feet of paving with 4
feet of grasscrete on each side on the Woodbridge side of the connection. All
designs shall be approved by ACHD.
Developer will also put these improvements within a dedicated 50 -foot right-
of-way which would allow for a permanent vehicular access point if, as and
when the ACHD, the City of Meridian, the Developer and the residents of
Greenhill Estates agree it should become the secondary access (or a permanent
access).
8. Locust Grove Landscaping Strip. The Developer shall install landscaping along
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 7
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES — WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
•
0
Locust Grove Road per the plans attached as illustration 1 to the Master Site Plan or
as otherwise required by ACRD. Construction generally consistent with these plans
will satisfy the twenty (20) foot "landscaping strip" requirement of Meridian City
Code § 11-9-605.G.
9. Pathways.
a. Public Roadways. Public pathways and sidewalks will be constructed along all
roadways within the Development as identified on the pathway plan attached
to the Master Site Plan as illustration 2. An eight (8) foot wide public
pathway will be constructed along, but detached from, Locust Grove Road and
Woodbridge Drive. Five (5) foot sidewalks will be constructed on both sides of
all neighborhood roads as well as the loop road identified on the east side of
the Development.
b. Five Mile Creek. A soft surface pedestrian pathway will be constructed along
Five Mile Creek as generally depicted on the Master Site Plan, illustration 2.
This pathway shall be made available for public use at such time that the
pathway can be connected to a larger public pathway system beyond the
boundaries of the Development.
C. Private Pathways. Private pathways will be constructed within the
Development allowing for direct connections between individual
neighborhoods and other segments of the overall pathway plan, generally as
depicted on the Master Site Plan, illustration 2.
10. Five Mile Creek Enhancement. In cooperation with the Nampa SL Meridian
Irrigation District ("NMID"), the Developer will protect and enhance Five Mile
Creek and adjacent wetlands consistent with the Master Site Plan and applicable
laws.
11. Community Center. The Development shall include a community center
designed and constructed in a location consistent with the Master Site Plan. The
community center shall include the following amenities, at a minimum:
• Multi-purpose room
• Restrooms/Changing rooms
• Mechanical Equipment room
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 8
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES — WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
• 0
• Swimming pool
• Spa or children's wading pool
• Resident drop-off and parking
12. Home Types. The Development shall consist of a mix of homesite types
designated A, B, C and D as set forth on the Master Site Plan. The location and mix
of lot types shall be determined by the Developer based on market demand, with the
aggregate total not to exceed 283 units. The lots located east of Five Mile Creek on
the northern border of the Development adjacent to the Greenhill Estates
Subdivision shall be limited to Type D lots.
Approved Deviations from Subdivision and Zoning Requirements
13. Inapplicability of Certain PD -R Requirements. The City acknowledges that,
due to the fact the Development consists of single family residential construction. the
following planned development - residential ("PD -R") application and corresponding
substantive requirements do not apply to the Development:
a. Submission of specific elevation exhibits.
b. Specification of architectural style and building design.
C. Submission of building materials and color.
d. Designation of garbage, storage and public parking areas.
e. Designation of storage areas, guest parking spaces and maintenance building.
14. Special Standards for the Woodbridge Community. The following standards
shall apply to the Development in lieu of the corresponding standards in the zoning
and subdivision ordinances:
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 9
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES — WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
0
a. Homesite Dimensional Standards:
Homesite
Minimum
Front
Rear
Interior
Street
Maximum
Minimum
Type
Lot Size
Yard
Yard
Side
Side Yard
Building
Street
(Sq. Feet)
Setback
Setback
Yard
Setback
Height
Frontage
(1)
Setback
4,800
10'/15'/20'
5'/15'
0'/5'
15'
35'
48'
Type A
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
5,500
10'/15'/20'
15'
S'
15'
35'
(5)
Type B
(2)
7,500
10'/15'/20'
15'
S'
15'35'
(5)
Type C
(2)
8,000
10'/15'/20'
15'
S'
15'
35'
80'
Type D
(2)
(5)
(1) All front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. See illustration
in Master Site Plan.
(2) Identifies front yard setbacks for: side -entry garage/living area/garage face. See
illustrations 3 through 5 in Master Site Plan.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for: detached garages/attached garages and living
areas. See illustration in Master Site Plan.
(4) Zero lot line allowance for detached garages and associated living area only, all
living area within the primary dwelling is to be set back a minimum of 5 feet. See
illustration 5 in Master Site Plan.
(5) Homesites on, or adjacent to, common driveway lots (defined and regulated
below), flag lots, outside corner lots, and cul-de-sac streets may have a lesser frontage.
The minimum frontage exceptions for these lots are as follows:
Flag lots:
Outside corner lots:
Cul-de-sac streets:
Cul-de-sac bulb:
20 feet minimum
30 foot chord minimum
30 foot minimum
30 foot chord minimum
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 10
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES — WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
•
Lots taking access from common driveway lot:
b. Common Driveway Lots.
0
No frontage required on
public street
The Development may include common driveway lots, which are
separately platted, non -buildable lots designed to consist of a paved
common driveway to serve other lots. Common driveway lots shall be
owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The following
criteria shall apply to common driveway lots in lieu of any other
requirements of the subdivision or zoning ordinance:
Maximum length (at common driveway line): 150 feet
Minimum width: 20 feet
Minimum pavement width:
14 feet
Minimum landscape setback:
3 feet
Minimum building setback:
10 feet
Minimum frontage:
20 feet
Minimum on -lot driveway length:
16 feet
Maximum number of lots taking access from
a single common driveway
4 lots
d. Subdivision Requirements. To facilitate proper design and to accommodate
topography, the following subdivision ordinance requirements shall not apply
to the Development (i.e. the minimum and maximum lengths defined in the
ordinance shall not apply):
i. Cul-de-sac length on the cul-de-sac street south of the community center
generally as shown on the Master Site Plan.
ii Block length.
General Conditions.
15. Compliance with Zoning. The Development shall meet all of the requirements
of the R-4 zone, except as specifically set forth elsewhere in these Conditions of
Approval.
16. Installation of Infrastructure and Utilities. Subject to the conditions set forth
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 11
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES — WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
elsewhere in this Agreement, the Developer shall construct or cause to be constructed
all sanitary sewers, storm drains, pumping stations, water mains and appurtenances,
fire hydrants, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, pressurized irrigation systems, electrical
transmission lines, natural gas lines, telephone lines, sidewalks, cross drains, street
surfacing, street signs, street lighting and barricades as well as any and all other
improvements required to build the Development generally consistent with the Master
Site Plan. The improvements defined in this paragraph are hereinafter referred to as
the "Infrastructure". The Developer shall have the flexibility to design and build the
Infrastructure in a way that implements the Master Site Plan and to meet the
requirements of the agencies and entities having jurisdiction over the Infrastructure.
The Infrastructure for the Development shall be dedicated to the appropriate public
entities, which shall assume all obligations to maintain the Infrastructure.
17. Water and Sewer Sizing and Routing. Developer shall coordinate water and
sewer sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. To the extent Developer
is required to construct sewer or water lines larger than required to serve the
Development, the Developer and the City shall enter into an appropriate late -comers
agreement to reimburse Developer for the excess costs incurred by Developer.
18. Underground Utilities. All utilities within the Development will be installed
underground.
19. Road Sections. The Developer shall construct road sections generally consistent
with the street sections included as illustrations 6 through 9 in the Master Site Plan or
as otherwise required by the Ada County Highway District ("ACHD").
20. Irrigation System. Subject to the approval of the NMID, Developer shall design
and construct a pressurized irrigation system that NMID will own and operate. This
system will cover all common area landscaping and private yard areas within the
Development.
21. Other Irrigation and Drainage Ditches. With the exception of Five Mile Creek,
all existing irrigation and drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled per City
Ordinance 11-9-605.M or Developer shall provide an alternative delivery system. The
ditches to be tiled and/or alternative delivery systems shall be shown on the final
plats. Plans must be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral
users association, as required by law, with written confirmation of the approval
submitted to the Public Worlcs Department.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 12
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES — WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
0
•
22. Existing Wells and Septic Systems. Existing domestic wells and /or septic
systems on Parcel A must be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance
Section 5-7-517. Existing wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation.
23. Flood Plain Permits. Developer shall obtain any permits for Flood Plain
Development that are required by City ordinance per criteria outlined in the
ordinance.
24. Signage. Detailed signage plans will be subject to design review and separate
permits as required by City ordinance.
25. Trash Enclosures. Developer shall coordinate locations and construction
requirements for the community center trash enclosures with Meridian Sanitary
Service, Inc. ("MSS"), and provide a letter of approval from MSS prior to applying for
building permits for the community center.
26. Phasing and Platting. Developer intends to build the Development in two or
more phases. To commence the development of a phase, the Developer will submit a
plat application for the phase (or several phases or the entire Development as
Developer determines in its sole discretion).
27. Infrastructure Installation in Conjunction with Plat. Developer will install the
Infrastructure serving the phase as part of the phase, and will not record any plats for
subsequent phases of the Development until the Infrastructure for the ongoing phase
is completed. All Infrastructure for the Development shall be completed or bonded for
completion in a manner generally consistent with the Master Site Plan in conjunction
with the final phase of the Development, at the latest.
28. Fencing Details in Plat. Each plat shall address fencing details for the portion of
the Development covered by the plat. The perimeter fence shall be of a "good
neighbor" design, i.e., the fence shall be of a quality appearance on both sides.
29. As -Built Drawings. For each phase, Developer shall comply with the
requirements of the Meridian City Code for submission and inspection of plans and
as -built drawings for the Infrastructure, as well as the inspection of the constructed
Infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 13
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES — WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
i
0
30. Incorporation into Development Agreement. These conditions of approval shall
be incorporated into a Development Agreement to be approved by the City Council,
which shall replace these conditions and the final Development Agreement shall be
the only guiding document for assessing future plats in the Development. These
Conditions of Approval and the Development Agreement shall act in lieu of any
conflicting subdivision or zoning ordinance requirements, whether currently contained
in the Meridian City Code or subsequently adopted.
ey/Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Woodbridge Community\CUPRec.wpd
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 14
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON
80.83 ACRES — WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
i
November 5, 1999
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: NOVEMBER 9 1999
APPLICANT: WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC ITEM NUMBER: 8
REQUEST: CUP FOR 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES FROM R -T TO R-4
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: SEE PREVIOUS PACKET
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: I
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: �✓ ` _
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: rt(�
SETTLERS IRRIGATION: V ~
IDAHO POWER: ej
US WEST:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
SANITARY SERVICE:
OTHER:
City of Meridian.
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property -s6&.
e
CIN;��I (�i--Prie,-es 4'02-
0 IFNI —
GNEU ENTERPRISES, INC.
November 5, 1999
Via Hand Delivery
Keith Borup, Chairman
City of Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission
200 East Carlton
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: Woodbridge, Meridian, Idaho
Dear Chairman Borup and Commissioners:
RECEIVED
Nov - 51999
Cityof Meridian
City Clerk Office
The purpose of this letter is twofold. First, to thank you for the time and energy you devoted to
the public hearing for the Woodbridge annexation, zoning and PUD applications on the evening
and morning of October 12 and 13, 1999. Moreover, I would like to acknowledge our complete
understanding with the feeling that there was an awful lot of information to be digested at a very
late hour, and deferring a decision to the 9th of November was a wise thing to do. In addition,
we appreciate the fact that you tried to narrow the focus regarding unresolved issues, which I will
identify in a moment.
The other purpose of this letter is to provide for the Commission what we feel are a complete set
of Conditions of Approval for Woodbridge. Pursuant to your direction at the end of the last
hearing, we have worked with staff and tried to "flesh out" all of the Conditions. In most cases,
it is simply a re -arranging of the staff report as well as our requests in the applications. There are
no new requests or "surprises".
As requested by the Commission on the 13th, we have taken a specific look at the landscaping
and fencing associated with the setback from Locust Grove Road, which is addressed in
Condition 8, and the vehicle and emergency access issues which are addressed in Condition 7.
Additionally, an illustrative section and landscape plan are shown in Illustrations 2 and 3 of the
"Master Site Plan".
Shari Stiles has suggested that perhaps the Planning and Zoning Commission might not want to
proceed further until you receive the report of the ACHD Commission public hearing on the
Woodbridge application. This item was deferred from the ACHD Commission meeting on
October 27th, and is scheduled for a public hearing on November 17th. In our view, the
connections to Greenhill Estates and Magic View Estates are very important issues for the City,
the neighbors and Woodbridge. The suggested Conditions 7.b. and 7.c., in our view, represent
the consensus of the testimony and the Commission's comments from the October 12th/I3th
100 North 9th Street, Suite 300 ■ Boise, Idaho 83702 - (208) 336-3430 • fax: (208) 336-5296
•
hearing, and are acceptable to us. Therefore, the recommendation for approval of Woodbridge
with Conditions 7.b. and 7.c. by the Planning and Zoning Commission should strengthen our
collective position with ACHD.
We have worked with staff on these Conditions with the idea of getting them to you to digest in
advance of the hearing. We are excited about Woodbridge in Meridian and look forward to the
hearing on the 9th and a positive recommendation to the City Council. If you have any questions,
please don't hesitate to give me or Pete or Scott a call.
Since ly,
i
V
Derick O'Neill
Vice President
Attachments
cc: Shari Stiles, Planning & Zoning Administrator
Gary Smith, City Engineer
Steve Rutherford, City Attorney
Ed Miller
Pete O'Neill
Scott Beecham
NV'ld HITS USISVW
OHVUI'NVI(IIUHW
ALINIIWWOD Sasl)ldllalxa IIIIHN.0 NV
ANVIINOO ONIMN[fm NOLHO—KYNHLOOI ROGINg(TOOM
rid
N
.......
"n 191. NNUAIWwk
Of
8
6
ig
25
z
El
�-1
0
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
w
O
cr
CL
a
a
w
rn
3
LJ
S
t -
O
N
Q
Q:
O
N
Q
O
Z
Q
N
O
S
U
Q
W It
�- w
O o'
Z
cpo rn 8
z
ci
W N N gi
Z
�M M
(0j
CO
cn
y
Z
•CN
A
to
a
NNS 7
t.6
p,
Z
Fir
W
a:O
Oco 3
ai
d
W .
W
W
H
;
N -
im
�
WC4)
oN
a
d
z
za
Goo
O
No
�ZN
x
O
2^ Z
`'
d
O
X 4
wo
6
w
O
cr
CL
a
a
w
rn
3
LJ
S
t -
O
N
Q
Q:
O
N
Q
O
Z
Q
N
O
S
U
Q
W It
�- w
O o'
Z
O
b
'i
7:3
a�
I
^d
'i
b
¢
w
a
H
w
�z
!
ra
a
'a
y
cn
En
N
c�/
�
fi+
� L
¢
O
>
U.
L
C
UwX�
C7 A
�aA
>z"
aw�oZ
¢¢w
W ¢
a
a
a:
V.
m
111 E,
4T ----Wqjsxs -IT-VHt
OHV(11'NVIUIHHW
—, I. .— `-.
SV3WMnd QKV SHOA3AM -51033NME13 M11111SHM A.LlN(IWWO:) S3S1'dc1S9J.N9 '111-9N.0 NV
ANVJwo.) -)r4j833pjT0N3 N01HO—KYNH1001 HD(IlHEIUOOM ail
0111111I.I.I i 01u 5: YI .'Offl. w .Kmw ME
Amokb
0
rd
a�
1
�3
0
11 � II
r
R
ai
Q
R
a:
U
a
F
a
a
v
h
0
o
/
Cd
d
%§
r�
}00
k
CIA
pn
Q
b C)
cn
k
CO
2
A_
&
Enin
3 $
z 0:
2
A
S>
00
E- kk co C ai
�
C4 q�§
§
z
§
z
§
coo U
q
CE
tnA
%
§
�
§\ g
q .
. §
d
k OZ ^ \
E- 3a) a 3
]
u
§
a
-
c
»w
a
.
§
(x -i
2/
$
�CN
/
e
CS
§
to
&
® k
�
§
.
V)
U
.
to
W o
®
/
C
.
$m
.
0
LLJ I
-
/
0
-
$
LLI
■
¥u
�
§
kd
w J
k
K
D
\
/
70
Sq
Ln
_}
ry
L3
\
0
b
m
&2
�
«
§
ck:
0
*
«
V)
ina
0
CL
2
'c
aG
k
a
2
2
�k
a
u
wE
7
a
g
§
§
@
/
Cd
d
9
ts
25
I
J
\
a
0
0
C7
Z o
Y n
Q
a. w
J
O U
Z `n
6
LJ
O
d
a
a
w
N
3
w
F-
O
N
Q
Of
O
N
O
cr
Q
O
Z
Ia-
N
O
U
Q
8
O w � N i?v
z.
z�
Z (LCN
W �o�
W N
Z X A
c� LI) N
Z 0: 0 -
W Om ej
o �� 00 N 5
aN� N
O 8 cMv
1 . m ;�
Z ao
-CC LLJ
w O
cr Z N
ZU Z
O �0
O Z� Z
E—w (na
0 0
N
LO
J
Q
U
N
E-
.�-zOhh
V
� z
o a
U W
0
W
Wd z
cn A z
A w a W
Oza FO,
O
w z
z d
O x
z 0
d O
O
E-
0
W
O
a. a
Y
J
3
W W
N �
3 N
CX W
W 0
O Y
U
N m
Q
O 0
m
N LL.
0 0
cr W
Q Q
to taJ
0 N
= Y
Q U
0a N
Z
Ygo CD
OCn
1
J N Nzi
Zv
Q
� M7
,J N �
a 00
I
O 00
?d O
. O N
41< n
wN_ W
X O
Om ,
> 00
O 00
N C4 N
J M
N
. m M
I �
Z 00 psi
�0O
0: ? N
ZU Z
O
z� _
w rn Q.
O
O
Cd
kt
O
00
cr
Y
O =
Q
� r
0
\
0:
Y
U
ul
m
M
O =
r F..
N
LO
J
Q
U
N
E-
.�-zOhh
V
� z
o a
U W
0
W
Wd z
cn A z
A w a W
Oza FO,
O
w z
z d
O x
z 0
d O
O
E-
0
W
O
a. a
Y
J
3
W W
N �
3 N
CX W
W 0
O Y
U
N m
Q
O 0
m
N LL.
0 0
cr W
Q Q
to taJ
0 N
= Y
Q U
0a N
Z
Ygo CD
OCn
1
J N Nzi
Zv
Q
� M7
,J N �
a 00
I
O 00
?d O
. O N
41< n
wN_ W
X O
Om ,
> 00
O 00
N C4 N
J M
N
. m M
I �
Z 00 psi
�0O
0: ? N
ZU Z
O
z� _
w rn Q.
O
O
Cd
kt
2
o
m\ i§
$
R
z
k'
Z
a.w) K
q
\i
2
k
z
.L~�
cn
zkm
/\
k
A
S
E-
k'c�
Oo S2
p
Z
C14 is
kk
)
i
'm
2
2�
V)
k
W� Q
s
2
C)
3 z
a
.
O
rl Lis
$�?■
§
a
E-
uCn 13
@
Z .
$
O�
_
C)/
k�
w
§
�
V) �
� �
§
#
2
LLI < 5
s
L -
7
5
LO
15cy
M
F "
V) �.
W.
N
'<
\
OOk
�
■
\
e
2
�
.
G 7
~ui
co
M
B
§
u
zC).
w
k
�
/
�§
.
\
$
\
b
4
)In
In
/
»
a
:
_
.
LLI
�
\
§
-
�
\
�
�
3
\
<
7I
b/
(n
a
2
�
7
�
§
@
DRAFT
Conditions of Approval
Woodbridge Planned Residential Development
City of Meridian CUP No. 99-037
November 9, 1999
Introduction
Woodbridge Community LLC (the "Developer") has submitted an application for a
planned residential development (the "Development" or "Woodbridge") on an
approximately 81 acre parcel ("Parcel A") on the east side of Locust Grove Road
approximately 1/4 mile south of Franklin Road. The Developer has also submitted
applications to annex Parcel A and an adjacent Parcel B, and to zone Parcel A as R-4 and
Parcel B as L -O. Any future development on Parcel B shall be subject to the City's
requirements for the L-0 zone. No development is planned at this time on Parcel B. This
document sets forth the conditions of approval of the Development on Parcel A.
Conditions of Approval
Annexation and Zoning
1. Annexation and Zoning - Parcel A. The City shall annex Parcel A into the City
and zone Parcel A as R-4.
2. Annexation and Zoning - Parcel B. The City shall annex Parcel B into the City
and zone Parcel B L -O.
3. Plat Compliance with Code. All plats in the Development shall comply with the
requirements of Idaho Code Section 50-222(a).
Specific Development Requirements
4. Master Site Plan. The Development shall be constructed generally in accordance
with the Master Site Plan attached as Exhibit "A." The Master Site Plan is a
general guide for the Development, recognizing the need for flexibility during the
platting process.
5. Maximum Number of Units. The Development shall contain no more than 283
units, notwithstanding the fact that the approved zoning permits the construction of
additional units.
6. Open Space. The Development shall include a minimum of 14 acres of open
space generally consistent with the Master Site Plan. The term "open space" may
include, without limitation, an active recreation area and community center, pocket
parks, linear parks along roadways, greenbelt corridors along Five -Mile Creek, on-
0
0
site wetlands and corridors between neighborhoods. The Developer shall convey
the open space to a homeowners' association following both the final plat approval
for the phase of the Development in which the open space is contained and the
completion of the improvements.
7. Access.
a. Primary Access. Primary Access shall be from Locust Grove Road and
shall incorporate a landscaped traffic divider at the entryway (illustration 1
to the Master Site Plan).
b. Secondary Vehicular Access. The Developer shall provide a secondary
vehicular access point to the boundary of Woodbridge to the
south/southeast as shown on the Master Site Plan (or at another point as
otherwise mutually agreed by the Developer, the City and ACHD. The
second vehicular access shall be identified prior to the platting of any
property to the east of Five Mile Creek. The secondary vehicular access
needs to be operable prior to the issuance of the 166` occupancy permit for
the Development.
C. Emergency Access Location. The Developer shall construct emergency
access to the juncture of Weatherby Drive and the property line adjacent to
Greenhill Estates prior to the issuance of the 100' occupancy permit for the
Development. Until the 166` certificate of occupancy is issued, the
emergency access may be an unpaved all-weather surface. Prior to or upon
the issuance of the 166' certificate of occupancy, the Developer shall
construct a 24 -foot rural street section on existing right-of-way on the
Greenhill Estates side of the property line; shall install knock -down bollards
at the property line to prevent use except in case of emergencies; and shall
provide a 12 feet of paving with 4 feet of grasscrete on each side on the
Woodbridge side of the connection. All designs shall be approved by
ACHD.
Developer will also put these improvements within a dedicated 50 -foot
right-of-way which would allow for a permanent vehicular access point if,
as and when the ACHD, the City of Meridian, the Developer and the
residents of Greenhill Estates agree it should become the secondary access
(or a permanent access).
8. Locust Grove Landscaping Strip. The Developer shall install landscaping along
Locust Grove Road per the plans attached as illustration 1 to the Master Site Plan
or as otherwise required by ACHD. Construction generally consistent with these
plans will satisfy the twenty (20) foot "landscaping strip" requirement of Meridian
City Code § 11-9-605.G.
2
0
9. Pathways.
a. Public Roadways. Public pathways and sidewalks will be constructed
along all roadways within the Development as identified on the pathway
plan attached to the Master Site Plan as illustration 2. An eight (8) foot
wide public pathway will be constructed along, but detached from, Locust
Grove Road and Woodbridge Drive. Five (5) foot sidewalks will be
constructed on both sides of all neighborhood roads as well as the loop road
identified on the east side of the Development.
b. Five Mile Creek. A soft surface pedestrian pathway will be constructed
along Five Mile Creek as generally depicted on the Master Site Plan,
illustration 2. This pathway shall be made available for public use at such
time that the pathway can be connected to a larger public pathway system
beyond the boundaries of the Development.
C. Private Pathways. Private pathways will be constructed within the
Development allowing for direct connections between individual
neighborhoods and other segments of the overall pathway plan, generally as
depicted on the Master Site Plan, illustration 2.
10. Five Mile Creek Enhancement. In cooperation with the Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District ("NMID"), the Developer will protect and enhance Five Mile
Creek and adjacent wetlands consistent with the Master Site Plan and applicable
laws.
11. Community Center. The Development shall include a community center
designed and constructed in a location consistent with the Master Site Plan. The
community center shall include the following amenities, at a minimum:
• Multi-purpose room
• Restrooms/Changing rooms
• Mechanical/Equipment room
• Swimming pool
• Spa or children's wading pool
• Resident drop-off and parking
12. Home Types. The Development shall consist of a mix of homesite types
designated A, B, C and D as set forth on the Master Site Plan. The location and
mix of lot types shall be determined by the Developer based on market demand,
with the aggregate total not to exceed 283 units. The lots located east of Five Mile
Creek on the northem border of the Development adjacent to the Greenhill Estates
Subdivision shall be limited to Type D lots.
Approved Deviations from Subdivision and Zoning Requirements
3
0
•
13. Inapplicability of Certain PD -R Requirements. The City acknowledges that,
due to the fact the Development consists of single family residential construction,
the following planned development - residential ("PD -R") application and
corresponding substantive requirements do not apply to the Development:
a. Submission of specific elevation exhibits.
b. Specification of architectural style and building design.
C. Submission of building materials and color.
d. Designation of garbage, storage and public parking areas.
e. Designation of storage areas, guest parking spaces and maintenance
building.
14. Special Standards for the Woodbridge Community. The following standards
shall apply to the Development in lieu of the corresponding standards in the
zoning and subdivision ordinances:
a. Homesite Dimensional Standards:
(1) All front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. See illustration _ in
Master Site Plan.
(2) Identifies front yard setbacks for: side -entry garage/living area/garage face. See
illustrations 3 through 5 in Master Site Plan.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for: detached garages/attached garages and living areas. See
illustration in Master Site Plan.
F11
Front
Interior
Minimum
Yard
Rear
Side
Street
Maximum
Minimum
Homesite
Lot Size
Setback
Yard
Yard
Side Yard
Building
Street
Type
(Sq. Feet)
(1)
Setback
Setback
Setback
Height
Frontage
10715720'
5'/15'
0'/5'
15'
35'
48'
Type A
4,800
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Type B
5,500
10 15'/20'
15'
5'
15'
35'
55)
Type C
7,500
10715720'
(2)
15'
5'
15'
35'
75'
(5)
Type D
8,000
10715720'
(2)
15'
5'
15'
35'
80'
(5)
(1) All front yard setbacks shall be measured from back of sidewalk. See illustration _ in
Master Site Plan.
(2) Identifies front yard setbacks for: side -entry garage/living area/garage face. See
illustrations 3 through 5 in Master Site Plan.
(3) Identifies rear yard setbacks for: detached garages/attached garages and living areas. See
illustration in Master Site Plan.
F11
(44) Zero lot line allowance for detached garages and associated living area only, all living area
within the primary dwelling is to be set back a minimum of 5 feet. See illustration 5 in
Master Site Plan.
(5) Homesites on, or adjacent to, common driveway lots (defined and regulated below), flag
lots, outside comer lots, and cul-de-sac streets may have a lesser frontage. The minimum
frontage exceptions for these lots are as follows:
Flag lots:
Outside corner lots:
Cul-de-sac streets:
Cul-de-sac bulb:
Lots taking access from common driveway lot:
b. Common Driveway Lots.
20 feet minimum
30 foot chord minimum
30 foot minimum
30 foot chord minimum
No frontage required on
public street
The Development may include common driveway lots, which are separately
platted, non -buildable lots designed to consist of a paved common driveway
to serve other lots. Common driveway lots shall be owned and maintained
by the Homeowner's Association. The following criteria shall apply to
common driveway lots in lieu of any other requirements of the subdivision
or zoning ordinance:
Maximum length (at common driveway line):
150 feet
Minimum width:
20 feet
Minimum pavement width:
14 feet
Minimum landscape setback:
3 feet
Minimum building setback:
10 feet
Minimum frontage:
20 feet
Minimum on -lot driveway length:
16 feet
Maximum number of lots taking access from
a single common driveway
4 lots
C. Subdivision Requirements. To facilitate proper design and to accommodate
topography, the following subdivision ordinance requirements shall not
apply to the Development (i.e. the minimum and maximum lengths defined
in the ordinance shall not apply):
i. Cul-de-sac length on the cul-de-sac street south of the community
center generally as shown on the Master Site Plan.
ii. Block length.
General Conditions.
15. Compliance with Zoning. The Development shall meet all of the requirements of
the R-4 zone, except as specifically set forth elsewhere in these Conditions of
Approval.
16. Installation of Infrastructure and Utilities. Subject to the conditions set forth
elsewhere in this Agreement, the Developer shall construct or cause to be
constructed all sanitary sewers, storm drains, pumping stations, water mains and
appurtenances, fire hydrants, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, pressurized irrigation
systems, electrical transmission lines, natural gas lines, telephone lines, sidewalks,
cross drains, street surfacing, street signs, street lighting and barricades as well as
any and all other improvements required to build the Development generally
consistent with the Master Site Plan. The improvements defined in this paragraph
are hereinafter referred to as the "Infrastructure". The Developer shall have the
flexibility to design and build the Infrastructure in a way that implements the
Master Site Plan and to meet the requirements of the agencies and entities having
jurisdiction over the Infrastructure. The Infrastructure for the Development shall
be dedicated to the appropriate public entities, which shall assume all obligations
to maintain the Infrastructure.
17. Water and Sewer Sizing and Routing. Developer shall coordinate water and
sewer sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. To the extent
Developer is required to construct sewer or water lines larger than required to
serve the Development, the Developer and the City shall enter into an appropriate
late -comers agreement to reimburse Developer for the excess costs incurred by
Developer.
18. Underground Utilities. All utilities within the Development will be installed
underground.
19. Road Sections. The Developer shall construct road sections generally consistent
with the street sections included as illustrations 6 through 9 in the Master Site Plan
or as otherwise required by the Ada County Highway District ("ACHD").
20. Irrigation System. Subject to the approval of the NMID, Developer shall design
and construct a pressurized irrigation system that NMID will own and operate.
This system will cover all common area landscaping and private yard areas within
the Development.
21. Other Irrigation and Drainage Ditches. With the exception of Five Mile Creek,
all existing irrigation and drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled per
City Ordinance 11-9-605.M or Developer shall provide an alternative delivery
system. The ditches to be tiled and/or alternative delivery systems shall be shown
on the final plats. Plans must be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage
district, or lateral users association, as required by law, with written confirmation
of the approval submitted to the Public Works Department.
22. Existing Wells and Septic Systems. Existing domestic wells and /or septic
systems on Parcel A must be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance
Section 5-7-517. Existing wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation.
23. Flood Plain Permits. Developer shall obtain any permits for Flood Plain
Development that are required by City ordinance per criteria outlined in the
ordinance.
24. Signage. Detailed signage plans will be subject to design review and separate
permits as required by City ordinance.
25. Trash Enclosures. Developer shall coordinate locations and construction
requirements for the community center trash enclosures with Meridian Sanitary
Service, Inc. ("MSS"), and provide a letter of approval from MSS prior to applying
for building permits for the community center.
26. Phasing and Platting. Developer intends to build the Development in two or
more phases. To commence the development of a phase, the Developer will
submit a plat application for the phase (or several phases or the entire
Development as Developer determines in its sole discretion).
27. Infrastructure Installation in Conjunction with Plat. Developer will install the
Infrastructure serving the phase as part of the phase, and will not record any plats
for subsequent phases of the Development until the Infrastructure for the ongoing
phase is completed. All Infrastructure for the Development shall be completed or
bonded for completion in a manner generally consistent with the Master Site Plan
in conjunction with the final phase of the Development, at the latest.
28. Fencing Details in Plat. Each plat shall address fencing details for the portion of
the Development covered by the plat. The perimeter fence shall be of a "good
neighbor" design, i.e., the fence shall be of a quality appearance on both sides.
29. As -Built Drawings. For each phase, Developer shall comply with the
requirements of the Meridian City Code for submission and inspection of plans
and as -built drawings for the Infrastructure, as well as the inspection of the
constructed Infrastructure.
30. Incorporation into Development Agreement. These conditions of approval shall
be incorporated into a Development Agreement to be approved by the City
Council, which shall replace these conditions and the final Development
Agreement shall be the only guiding document for assessing future plats in the
Development. These Conditions of Approval and the Development Agreement
7
•
9
shall act in lieu of any conflicting subdivision or zoning ordinance requirements,
whether currently contained in the Meridian City Code or subsequently adopted..
SAClients\526 7Tl\conditions of approvall.wpd
g
Re: Request for Annexation and Zoning of a 1.5 -Acre Parcel to L -O and a 80.83 -Acre
Parcel to R-4 with a Conditional Use Permit for a 283 -Lot Planned Single-family
Development by Woodbridge Community, L.L.C.
We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the
applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by
motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATIONS SUMMARY
There are two (2) separate properties and two (2) separate applications covered in this
report. The Annexation & Zoning application (File AZ -99-020) is proposing to annex an
80.83 -acre piece (Parcel A) for a proposed single-family subdivision and a 1.5 -acre piece
(Parcel B) for an office use (no specific development application is proposed). The C.U.P.
application (File CUP -99-037) is associated with the 80.83 -acre parcel only and requests a
Planned Unit Development -Residential for 283 homes.
Since Parcel A is not currently contiguous to City limits and is not eligible for annexation
until Parcel B is annexed, the Commission should consider and make a recommendation on
Parcel B prior to any consideration of Parcel A. If both parcels are annexed to the
centerline of Locust Grove (as included in their legal description), it would result in a
point-to-point adjacency, which the City has deemed an eligible standard for previous
annexations. For this reason, Staff comments below will consider Parcel B separate from
and before Parcel A.
In pre -application discussions with Staff, the Applicant expressed the intention to submit a
Preliminary Plat application for the Parcel A subdivision. However, given the alternate
density and design standards requested for the Planned Development in an R-4 zone and
the lack of precedence in the City for mixed density subdivisions, the Applicant chose to
submit for the Annexation and CUP only at this time.
WoodWw.AzcUP
AZ -99-020 and CUP -99-037
0 HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 41
Mayor
ROBERT D. CORRIE
A Good Place to Live
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 288-2499 •Fax 288-2501
CITY OF MERIDIAN
City Council Members
PUBLIC WORKS
CHARLES ROUNTREE
33 EAST IDAHO
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
GLENN BENTLEY
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 887-2211 - Fax 887-1297
RON ANDERSON
(208) 888-4433'- Fax (208) 887-4813
PLANNING AND ZONING
KEITH BIRD
City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218
DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533 - Faz 887-1297
r�
MEMORANDUM:P/Z3
z .� �
October 8, 1999
,
To:
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
Assistant to City Engineer
From:
Bruce Freckleton,
Brad Hawkins -Clark, Assistant Planner ISW--
Re: Request for Annexation and Zoning of a 1.5 -Acre Parcel to L -O and a 80.83 -Acre
Parcel to R-4 with a Conditional Use Permit for a 283 -Lot Planned Single-family
Development by Woodbridge Community, L.L.C.
We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the
applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by
motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATIONS SUMMARY
There are two (2) separate properties and two (2) separate applications covered in this
report. The Annexation & Zoning application (File AZ -99-020) is proposing to annex an
80.83 -acre piece (Parcel A) for a proposed single-family subdivision and a 1.5 -acre piece
(Parcel B) for an office use (no specific development application is proposed). The C.U.P.
application (File CUP -99-037) is associated with the 80.83 -acre parcel only and requests a
Planned Unit Development -Residential for 283 homes.
Since Parcel A is not currently contiguous to City limits and is not eligible for annexation
until Parcel B is annexed, the Commission should consider and make a recommendation on
Parcel B prior to any consideration of Parcel A. If both parcels are annexed to the
centerline of Locust Grove (as included in their legal description), it would result in a
point-to-point adjacency, which the City has deemed an eligible standard for previous
annexations. For this reason, Staff comments below will consider Parcel B separate from
and before Parcel A.
In pre -application discussions with Staff, the Applicant expressed the intention to submit a
Preliminary Plat application for the Parcel A subdivision. However, given the alternate
density and design standards requested for the Planned Development in an R-4 zone and
the lack of precedence in the City for mixed density subdivisions, the Applicant chose to
submit for the Annexation and CUP only at this time.
WoodWw.AzcUP
AZ -99-020 and CUP -99-037
Mayor, Council and P&Z •
October 8, 1999
Page 2
LOCATION
Both parcels front on Locust Grove Road and are approximately '/a mile south of Franklin
Road. Parcel A (Section 17) is located on the east side of Locust Grove and Parcel B
(Section 18) is located on the west side.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
Parcel A: This parcel is bordered by three Ada County residential subdivisions — Greenhill
to the north (R1 zone), Magic View to the east (RT zone) and Locust View Heights to the
south (R1 zone). There are also two (2) unplatted county parcels with rural residential uses
adjacent to the north. Immediately across Locust Grove to the west are two (2) vacant,
agricultural parcels, currently designated Single-family Residential in the Comprehensive
Plan. The Jabil manufacturing facility is approximately 1,100 feet south on Locust Grove.
Parcel B: The two (2) vacant, agricultural parcels mentioned above border this parcel on
the south. Stonebridge Business Park, zoned I -L, lies immediately west and a rural, single-
family residence borders to the north (Rl zone). The proposed Cobblestone Village
apartment complex (96 -units) is approximately 1,000 feet to the north at the southwest
corner of Locust Grove and Franklin.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
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. The ditches to be piped should be
shown on the site plans. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said
approval submitted to the Public Works Department. No variances have been requested
for tiling of any ditches crossing this project.
2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be
used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
3. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City of
Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and/or as detailed in site-specific
requirements.
4. Paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Sections
11-2414.D.4 and 11-2-414.D.5 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development
Ordinance and in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
5. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required
and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking
areas. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site.
WoodbridV ALCUP
AZ -99-020 and CUP -99-037
Mayor, Council and P&Z • •
October 8, 1999
Page 3
6. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to direct illumination on any
nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414.D.3.
7. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-2-415 of the
City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. No temporary signage, flags,
banners or flashing signs will be permitted.
8. Provide five -foot -wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B.
9. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
10. If possible, please reply in writing to all comments contained in this memorandum by
noon on October 12, 1999.
ANNEXATION AND ZONING GENERAL COMMENTS
1. The legal description submitted for Parcel B is correct and places the parcel contiguous to
Phase 2 of Medimont Subdivision (Stonebridge Park). The legal description for Parcel A
is correct and places the parcel contiguous to Parcel B at the centerline of Locust Grove
Road.
2. Staff agrees with the proposed L -O zone for Parcel B. It provides a good transitional
zoning from I -L on the west to single family on the east.
3. The two (2) vacant, 20 -acre parcels to the south of Parcel B are currently designated
Single-family in the Comprehensive Plan. However, Staff has done an initial review of
these parcels in regard to the current Comprehensive Plan Update process. Staff is
supportive of a re -designation of these parcels to Mixed/Planned Use Development to
provide more compatible uses with the State Law Enforcement headquarters, Jabil, and
the future Locust Grove/I-84 overpass. In this light, the requested L -O zone would be
compatible.
ANNEXATION SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
1. Parcel B: As required in the Comprehensive Plan for Mixed/Planned Use Development
areas, any future development on this parcel will be required to follow the Conditional Use
process.
2. Due to the single-family use adjacent to the north of this parcel, a minimum 20 -foot
landscape buffer is required and shall be a condition attached to this property in the
Development Agreement.
Woodbridge.AZCUP
AZ 99-020 and CUP -99-037
Mayor, Council and P&Z • •
October 8, 1999
Page 4
3. Parcel A: Ordinance No. 9-607.F. states that any conditions attached to a Final Development
Plan for Planned Development projects run with the land and shall not lapse or be waived as
the result of any subsequent change in tenancy or ownership.
4. A Development Agreement will be required as a condition of annexation for both parcels.
CONDITIONAL USE COMMENTS
1. As part of a conditional use permit, the City of Meridian may impose additional
restrictions/conditions.
2. Conceptually (based upon the submitted Master Concept Plan), Staff believes the subdivision
is in accord with the purpose of Planned Developments as outlined in Ordinance 11-9-607.A.
The vast majority of the Comprehensive Plan policies cited below are met with this plan.
3. Both the Comprehensive Plan (Housing chapter, pg. 68, para. 1.18) and the Subdivision
Ordinance (11-9-607.F.7) require that variations pertaining to PD's shall not exceed 25% of
the existing requirements. Based upon the "Development Standards Matrix" submitted by
Woodbridge in their supplemental 10/09/99 letter and without a Preliminary Plat, it is
difficult to determine if the 25% maximum change is exceeded.
Staff requests that the Applicant provide further detail, specifically showing that bonus
densities related to the Lot Types A -D are in compliance with the above-cited ordinance and
that 75% comply with the existing R-4 standards. Also include the percentage of open space
provided.
4. Development Accessibility and Circulation: The Concept Plan shows only a pedestrian
access/pathway to connect with Weatherby Drive to the north. While this issue needs input
from ACRD, Staff recommends a vehicular connection be provided to the Weatherby stub.
The right-of-way on the Greenhill Estates portion of Weatherby has not been constructed.
The applicant for Woodbridge will be required to complete the improvements to ACRD
standards. In addition, since the Applicant is proposing to initially construct Phase 1 only to
the west boundary of the Five Mile Creek easement, it will result in only one ingress/egress
access for approximately 150 homes. While Staff understands the intent to create
neighborhood protection and integrity, we question if a single outlet for 150 homes in Phase
1 meets adequate circulation and safety for the area. Staff recommends that development be
restricted to 100 homes until a permanent, public right-of-way is extended through Greenhill
Estates or Magic View Subdivision.
The Concept Plan proposes a stub road in Phase 2 at the southeast corner of the development,
which, presumably, will provide access to Magic View Subdivision and eventually to Eagle
Road via Wells Street. Staff strongly agrees that an easterly ingress/egress be provided, but
disagrees with this placement. Staff recommends the connection with Magic View
Subdivision be further to the north in order to provide a more direct alignment with Magic
Woodbridge.AZ.CUP
AZ -99 020 and CUP -99-037
Mayor, Council and P&Z • •
October 8, 1999
Page 5
View Drive. This placement would facilitate easier and less congested access to Eagle Road
versus the more circuitous route via Wells Street.
Ordinance 11-9-607.G.1. (Standards for Planned Developments) states that design elements
shall be incorporated to discourage public through -traffic. Staff feels the proposed,
meandering road configuration and other potential tools such as narrower streets and pavers
at pedestrian crosswalks meet this intent. Should ACHD and the Commission recommend
approval of the two (2) street connections to the north, we feel these other design elements
will discourage heavy through traffic even with the north connections and, simultaneously,
provide improved emergency access and greater connectivity for the residents of
Woodbridge and Greenhill Estates.
5. A portion of this proposed development is within FEMA floodplain boundary designation
Zones X and AE. The designations are shown on the "Countywide Flood Insurance Rate
Maps" with an effective date of September 22, 1999. The City of Meridian requires
developments within flood plains to obtain a permit for Flood Plain Development from the
Meridian Building Department prior to the commencement of any work.
6. The Concept Plan shows what appears to be a ten -foot landscape buffer and pathway
adjacent to Locust Grove Road the full length of the development. City Ordinance requires a
minimum 20 -foot -wide planting strip beyond required right-of-way on Locust Grove Road.
While the total amount of open space and landscaping proposed for the development exceed
City requirements, a ten -foot buffer is inadequate to mitigate the future Locust Grove traffic
volume, especially once the overpass is constructed. From the plan shown, it is also not clear
where the centerline of Locust Grove Road is and whether the required right-of-way has been
accommodated. The buffer width shall be increased to 20 -feet beyond the required right-of-
way.
7. The City of Meridian owns and maintains an existing 18 -inch sanitary sewer trunk line along
the east side of the Five Mile Creek. There is a single eight -inch main crossing under Five
Mile Creek just north of the proposed clubhouse. This eight -inch main will provide service
to the west side of Five Mile Creek. No encroachments into the existing sanitary sewer
easements will be allowed.
8. Sanitary sewer service to this site will be via an extension from the existing trunk line and
main adjacent to the proposed development. Applicant will be responsible to construct the
sewer mains to and through this proposed development. Project designer to coordinate sizing
and routing with the Public Works Department.
9. Water service to this site will be via extensions of existing mains installed adjacent to subject
site. Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed
development. Project designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works
Department
woodnrid9e.A7 CUP
A7-99-020 and CUP -99-037
Mayor, Council and P&Z
October 8, 1999
Page 6
10. No signage details were submitted (design or location). Staff recommends monument -type
signage along Locust Grove. Detailed signage plans will be subject to design review and
separate permits.
11. Underground pressurized irrigation must be provided to all landscape areas on site. Please
submit hook-up and design details based on the proposed landscaping. Due to the landscape
area required (minimum of eight acres), primary water supply connection to the City's mains
will not be allowed. Developer shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water
for the primary source. If City water is proposed as a secondary source, developer shall be
responsible to pay water assessments for the entire common open area.
12. No fencing details were submitted for the boundaries adjacent to the Ada County
subdivisions. While this item can be addressed during the Preliminary Plat application
process, Staff requests the Applicant address intentions for fencing during the CUP hearing.
Fencing should be designed considering public safety and aesthetics that match the high
quality of the development.
13. Staff strongly supports the proposed Planned Development design elements of detached
garages, shallower setbacks, and parkways along the road system.
14. Ordinance 11-9-607.G.4. requires that all PD's provide underground utilities throughout the
entire project site.
15. Provide the Public Works Department with information on anticipated fire flow and domestic
water requirements for the proposed site. Flow and pressure from the existing mains should
be monitored with the Meridian Water Department to determine whether adequate fire
protection exists.
16. Applicant shall be required to enter into an Assessment Agreement with the City of Meridian
for the clubhouse building.
17. Applicant shall coordinate locations and construction requirements of the community
recreation facility/area trash enclosures with Meridian Sanitary Service, Inc., and provide a
letter of approval from their office prior to applying for building permits.
18. Five Mile Creek habitat should be protected and maintained, provided it is in the best
interests of the City of Meridian. Consideration should be made for the land uses in these
areas to minimize the risk of pollution and to preserve the natural beauty of Five Mile Creek.
19. Staff reserves the right to prepare additional comments when a revised site plan has been
received and approval letters are received from the applicable agencies regarding
construction in the Five Mile Creek easement.
Woodbridge.AZ.CUP
AZ -99.020 and CUP -99-037
Mayor, Council and P&Z
October 8, 1999
Page 7
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recognizes and supports the more innovative design features of this development,
particularly the preservation of the Five Mile Creek habitat and streamside areas, the infill nature
of this parcel (while not bounded immediately by City limits, it is within a large County
enclave), the good mix of uses and house types and other features. Our primary concern with the
conceptual plan remains the accessibility and connectivity (as noted under the Conditional Use
Comments section). An option for the Commission to consider is to table the CUP until ACHD
completes their traffic study, which is targeting existing and projected volumes and new
roadways in the general area of Franklin, Locust Grove, and Eagle Roads.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
The 1993 Comprehensive Plan contains a variety of goals and policies that are relevant to
this application. Staff has selected the following sections that most directly apply to the
proposed project:
Parcel B (1.5 Acres, Proposed L -O zone)
The subject property is located in an
in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
Area.
Economic Development Chapter
Policies 1.2 and 1.3
Land Use Chapter
Policies 4.5U, 4.8U, 5.8, 5.9, and 5.11
area designated as Mixed/Planned Use Development
. It is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning
Transportation Chapter
This section of Locust Grove is currently designated as a Minor Arterial on the Functional
Street Classification map. Due to their required width, Minor Arterials may serve as land
use buffers for incompatible uses and boundaries between neighborhoods. On July 19,
1999, the APA Board moved the proposed Locust Grove/I-84 overpass from the
Destination 2020 Plan (soft projection) to the Transportation Improvement Plan (hard
planning document). APA projects a dramatic increase in traffic for Locust Grove south of
Franklin when the overpass is constructed.
Community Design Chapter
Policy 2.lU
Parcel A (80.83 Acres, Proposed R-4 zone)
The subject property is located in an area designated as Single-family Residential in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan. It is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area.
Waodbfi*.AZ CUP
AZ -99-020 and CUP -99-037
Mayor, Council and P&Z
October 8, 1999
Page 8
Economic Development Chapter
Policies 3.1U, 3.2U
Land Use Chapter
Policies 2.1U, 2.2U, 2.3U, 6.3.c
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas Chanter
Policies 1.1U, 2.1U, 2.5U, 3.1U, 4.1U
Transportation Chapter
Policies 1.6U, 1.9U
Open Space Parks & Recreation
Policies 3.1, 5.3
Housing Chapter
Policies 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 1.12, 1.13U, 1.18
Community Design Chapter
Policies 1.8, 5.2U
woWbddW.AZCUP
Az -99-020 and CUP -99-037
Meridian Planning anAning Commission Meeting •
October 12, 1999
Page 111
Stiles: --motion.
Borup: -- to act on Parcel B as a separate motion first? Well, they can be one
annexation. Okay. Any other discussion?
Hatcher: No.
Borup: Don't have any other addition to the motion?
Barbeiro: I wish to amend the motion as described by staff, the annexation and zoning
of Parcel A from R -T to R-4 and Parcel B, R -T to L -O.
Stiles: Is it R-1?
Barbeiro: Is it R-1? Excuse me. From an R-1 to an L -O.
Brown: I'll second that.
Borup: Okay. Any other discussion?
Brown: I shouldn't have seconded. No discussion.
Borup: No discussion. Any question on – okay. Call for a vote. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: It passes. Go on to recommend City Council.
ITEM 14. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 283 LOT
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES FROM R -T TO R-4 BY
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC—SOUTH OF E. FRANKLIN ROAD
AND EAST OF S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD:
Borup: Okay. Item No. 14. Public hearing for conditional use permit for 283 -lot
planned development on 80.3 acres from R -T to R-4 for Woodbridge Community, LLC.
Staff, anything additional?
Stiles: It's, again, this is a strange wording of the Item. They're not asking for a
conditional use permit from R -T to R-4. They're asking you to approve a planned -unit
development that you basically buy off on their concept. It doesn't include the
configuration of the streets as they are particularly now. That'll have to go through the
platting process. I believe they're proposing that narrower roads. They're proposing
Meridian Planning anooning Commission Meeting •
October 12, 1999
Page 112
sidewalk on one side only. They're proposing varying lot sizes that are below the R-4
standard, and, of course, their block lengths would exceed what our block lengths are
cul-de-sac, would exceed cul-de-sac lengths. But they are providing the minimum 10
percent —
Borup: Is that it?
Hatcher: The 10 percent what?
Borup: Open space.
Stiles: Yeah. They have the — what is the percentage? (inaudible) percentage they
had proposed. I guess I need a little input from legal counsel how bound we are to this
— I mean, are we saying if you're recommending this, are you saying what you see is
what you get? That's what you're approving, or can that be — that recommendation be
worded that the basic concept is approved? Staff would recommend the narrower
streets be approved provided the ACHD will accept them as public streets. We would
not recommend private streets.
Rutherford: My inclination at this point would be that you're buying off on the concept
and specifics of the concept as discussed tonight in this hearing, I think, would be
included.
Pete O'Niell: That's not what we submitted.
Borup: Well, we'll have you — the opportunity to (inaudible).
Rutherford: Shari, you'd be better versed on conditional use permit versus planned -unit
development. I'd have to look into that. My inclination is, at this point, on conditional
use permit it would be the concept not specifics.
Stiles: As far as a conditional use permit, normally we would have every tree accounted
for as part of a conditional use permit. The site plan would be exact. You would not be
moving streets, you would not be changing any of those details.
Borup: That's the way it's been.
Stiles: Maybe Kent has some —
Brown: No. That's right.
Stiles: So, basically, what they're asking for is that you take this exactly as you see it
and that's it.
Meridian Planning anconing Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 113
Borup: You're saying the conditional use process is that, but that's not what you said
the applicant's initial intention was.
Stiles: I believe their intention was just to get the concept approved so that they could
work out the details later. That's what I was told.
Borup: Yes. And you're saying that does not fit in with our normal conditional use
process.
Stiles: I guess I'd like an explanation from Mr. O'Niell. I know the public hearing is
closed, but —
Borup: No.
Stiles: Oh. It's still open?
Borup: No. We're open — we're on a new Item.
Stiles: Oh. You just open it again?
Borup: No. Open for the first time.
Stiles: Oh. For the first time.
Borup: We're on Item No. 14 — 13. Whatever we're on here.
Stiles: Okay.
Borup: We're on Item No. —13 is closed. 14 has just been opened.
Stiles: I guess before I comment, then, I would like to hear what they expect this to get
them.
Borup: Okay. Mr. O'Niell.
Rutherford: And where the preliminary plat fits into the whole scheme.
Pete O'Niell: Yeah. I must say I'm confused at this point in time.
Borup: Okay. This is a new public hearing.
Pete O'Niell: I thought the testimony was on both issues.
Borup: It can — one —
Meridian Planning ancening Commission Meeting •
October 12, 1999
Page 114
Hatcher: We'll carry it over —
Borup: Will be incorporated.
Hatcher: -- to this so you don't have to go through all that again.
Borup: No.
Pete O'Niell: Is that okay, counselor?
Rutherford: Please don't.
Pete O'Niell: We don't like to give you reasons for somebody (inaudible). Scott, you're
going to have to help me with the technicalities on this. We like the PUD concept.
There's no such thing as a PUD application. You have to go through a CU process in
order to get a PUD, so the comments in the staff report, and I think the general
mentality, if you will, of a PUD in Meridian is a CU which typically has to do with a
shopping center or an apartment, and you look at all of the details. So this is a strange
beast when you look at a all single-family residential PUD.
Borup: We had — and we do have a few.
Pete O'Niell: Yeah. And what are we expecting out of it? We're saying this is a general
land use plan that we like. It's a circulation plan that we like. We've presented very
specifically road dimensions. They've been approved by ACHD, by the way. They've
been built by us, by the way, and they've been accepted as public roads by ACHD. So
that shouldn't be an issue. There is no question that the lot standards when we come in
with the plat, if the Public Works Department says, "Wait a minute. This is a
subdivision, and it doesn't meet the R-4 subdivision requirements. You can't do this," —
Borup: I think we're clear on all of that.
Pete O'Niell: Okay.
Borup: I think staff's only comment— I think Shari's only concern was on ACHD
maintaining the roads, and you say you (inaudible) on that and they will do that.
Pete O'Niell: Yeah.
Borup: I think that answers that.
Pete O'Niell: But as far as the other things that we're expecting to get out of this, we
don't have to want to go through the debate at a preliminary plat stage of whether or not
50 -foot lots are acceptable, whether or not five-foot side -yards are acceptable, whether
Meridian Planning an(oning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 115
15, 10- or 15 -foot front yard setbacks on the side -entry garage are acceptable, all of
which were very specifically requested.
Borup: You're saying you're expected approval would include all the items on your
matrix?
Pete O'Niell: That — and our view, the only way to work that out is through the
development agreement. To get very, very specific, and that would be a condition of
final approval by City Council, I think. That protects everybody. We know that you've
approved what we've asked for, you know that we're going to commit to do certain
things that we've represented, and that's what the development agreement is.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Mr. O'Niell, on the flip -side of that as well, I completely understand where
you're coming from and what you're asking. But on the other aspect, we've got to make
sure that what you're proposing is a general acceptance of the concept and that if the
secondary access to the eastern — your east goes from that bottom corner up to the top,
you know, I don't want it in any way to be construed that what you see is what you get.
You approved it last month. We're not changing it. I mean, when it comes back for
preliminary plat, I want to be able to make sure that we have a mutual agreement here
that over the course of design, because design evolves, that you will be open to
modifications as necessary as things develop.
Pete O'Niell: Absolutely. Our Point No. 4 in our letter today in terms of the location and
secondary access point makes that very clear. We've made a proposal, you've made
some other suggestions, we're perfectly willing to work with the appropriate folks on a
mutually acceptable location. We're sticking by our guns until everything closes.
There's something —
Borup: I think what you're saying, you're saying you've got a Type A, B, C —
Pete O'Niell: These ought to be made a part of the record that's part of what it is you're
approving.
Borup: Today's letter.
Pete O'Niell: Yeah.
Borup: Well, essentially, you're saying you've got Type A, B, C and D lots with the
minimum footages, the setbacks as outlined in here, and that's what you're asking for
approval of. So even though the plat design may change, you're still looking at 283
home sites —
Meridian Planning ancooning Commission Meeting 46,
October 12, 1999
Page 116
Pete O'Niell: And we'd be willing —
Borup: -- you're looking at seven, how many acres of open did you say you had?
Seven —
Pete O'Niell: I think there's 16.
Borup: Sixteen -some acres. That's going to stay the same. The configuration could
change a little bit, but I think that's all we're saying too. I think we're on the same.
Pete O'Niell: We agreed to stick to not exceeding the 283 even though the R-4 would
allow for 320 and with the density bonus you could get up to 370. We're not asking for
that. We're saying 283 is as much as we need.
Borup: That gives as much — yeah. That gives as much insurance as can be and as
needed. And that still gives them flexibility on specific street layouts and whatever you
run into as you get further into the design. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. —
Brown: Yes. Your minimum lot frontage, then, you have a few flag — looks like flag lots.
Either flag lots or common drives or private streets or —
Pete O'Niell: We're promoting some common drives.
Brown: Okay.
Pete O'Niell: We're saying the frontage of the common drive needs to be 20 feet on a
public access, but we could go into a long discussion why we like those little common
drives, and we've done some recently as opposed to what you get at typically is those
big fan lots as you go around the corner, and you get all front and no back.
Borup: So your questions was just for clarification and what those were?
Brown: What the minimum frontage was and what that would be.
Pete O'Niell: I think that's laid out. Where is that, Scott? Was that in the original
application or in the —
Rutherford: Footnote No. 5 gives the specifics on where the — where and what the
frontage is to be. That matrix generally identifies frontages for each lot type; however, it
excludes certain situations including the exterior corner lots, lots on — flag lots, lots on
common driveway lots which would be separate lots altogether; therefore, I think in
answer to your question, Kent, there are some lots that wouldn't have necessarily
frontage on the public street, but frontage on the common driveway lot such as was
approved at James Place in Ashford Greens.
Meridian Planning and#ning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 117
Borup: Thank you. Does that answer that question? Okay. Do we have anyone from
the audience that — well, Mr. O'Niell, did you — were you complete? Were you finished?
Pete O'Niell: Yeah.
Borup: Okay. Yes. Come on up, Mrs. Smith.
Smith: Yes. I'm Jere Smith. I'm concerned that you've lumped this together, and I
understand that one development is much larger than the other, but I'm very interested
in what's going on next door because, just like Mr. O'Niell said, they don't really know
what's going to go on next door, and they don't have any drawing, they have nothing
concerning that plot, and I'm very interested in that. You've grouped it together and
went ahead and sent it, but —
Borup: You're concern is the style of the building?
Smith: I'm concerned with all parts of it.
Borup: Okay. At this point, I mean, the application was for limited office.
Smith: Right. And I — and there's no drawing, there's nothing.
Borup: Right. That's why I say your concern is —
Smith: Yeah. I'm very concerned.
Borup: -- the exterior style of the building.
Smith: Yes. If you live next door to it, and I'd like to know how it's going to be
developed and the whole bit, and you've lumped it in with this other —
Brown: Mr. Chairman, it's —
Hatcher: The first one was annexation and zoning of that lot. This conditional use PUD
is only for the large parcel. If any development on the small parcel that you're
concerned about occurs, then that will have to be resubmitted — not even — it'll have to
be submitted to the Planning Department and go through this entire process for
whatever it is they decide to do with that property. As of right now, they can't do
anything to that property until it comes back through public hearing and the CU.
Smith: So it has to come back to Planning and Zoning before anything can be done
there?
Hatcher: That's correct.
Meridian Planning and9ning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 118
Smith: With nothing.
Hatcher: Yes, because what we're talking about right now is for the big lot, not — and it
has nothing to do with the little one.
Smith: Well, I thought when Tom — or Mr. Barbeiro presented that, I thought he said for
annexation —
Borup: Yes.
Hatcher: Yes. For the annexation and zoning.
Smith: -- this — that's just for annexation and nothing more.
Hatcher: That was it.
Smith: Okay. Thank you very much.
Borup: And that little section was —
Smith: I stand to be corrected.
Borup: -- that little section was annexed so this one could be too. Have contiguous
piece.
Smith: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: They bought that just to get contiguous to the city here.
Smith: Is it —
Borup: Probably didn't even want that property.
Smith: -- for access to the power and —
Borup: No. Just —
Smith: -- sewer or anything?
Borup: -- just land itself to be contiguous.
Smith: Thank you.
Borup: I think they probably didn't even want that. Anyone else? This —
Meridian Planning and9ning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 119
Pete O'Niell: What we've got is the annexation, the zone and you (inaudible), and you
get to look at it again.
Rockrohr: Dick Rockrohr, 2715 Autumn Way. Just a quick question, now. If we're
buying in on the concept, are you going to come back and have a plat meeting where
we have to sit through this or are we going to — now the roads, which is, of course, my
major concern, you're buying in the concept that we're exiting to the east onto Magic
View and then to Eagle Road, eventually, that way, and the concept was that it would
be an emergency access into Green Hill Estates, or do we come back and do another
six hours?
Borup: Well —
Rockrohr: Some of the —
Borup: -- we'll be here whether you come. It's up to you.
Rockrohr: But we'll be re -addressed again, and we'll need to be here for that one, or is
this going — if you approve it like they've proposed it now and it's put up there on the
wall now is concept that way and we don't have to address it again.
Borup: Well, the understanding is a concept will be substantially the same as what
we've seen.
Rockrohr: So we should be —
Borup: But they'll come in with specific plans showing all dimensions of the lot lines,
you know, the size and dimensions and engineering of the street, sewer lines, etcetera.
Rockrohr: But that secondary access and when it gets to Phase II won't just go, well,
it's a lot easier to punch right through here so we're just going to do that. We've got a
commitment —
Borup: That's got to be all approved, and I think we've come to a conclusion, at least in
my mind that these access to the north would be emergency access only. The
secondary access would be to the east in the Magic View. One — you know, we're at
the location may change, but that's where it would be.
Rockrohr: Yeah. And so when you all vote on that, that's pretty much going to lock it in
as your recommendation to the City Council, right?
Borup: Yes.
Rockrohr: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and*ning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 120
Borup: Mr. O'Niell.
Pete O'Niell: At all, at least our experience is the next big bite of the apple is this same
process over again with City Council, and then you — that might include at the separate
hearing the conditions attached in the development agreement. So all of that happens
before you get into the platting process. You get a whole other chance to go through
the public hearing process again. At least, it's been our experience that if we do a good
job and the City does a good job in this process, then the development agreement — the
plats come pretty straight forward. Because you're either consistent with what's been
approved or not, so that typically isn't time you have a great big debate.
Borup: The only time we've had problems is when a developer is —
Pete O'Niell: Changes his mind.
Borup: -- yeah. Tells us one thing and draws another. Designs another —
Pete O'Niell: Well, one of the reasons I — Keith, you're old enough, you and I are
probably the only guys here that remember Al Marston and a lot of those early plans in
town, and I'm very sensitive to what I call the wick -pen concept drawings, and that's
why we've submitted as much backup information that we have. This is not a wick -pen
concept. This is substantive concept.
Borup: (inaudible) thank you. Anyone else? Come on up and get on record if you want
to speak.
Mecham: I'm Bryan Mecham, again, from 2159 Autumn Way. I just want my previous
comments to be part of this also.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. we took — I just make a blanket statement that we would
consider all the comments made earlier as also part of this application so that they go
on the record as such. Anyone else?
Rutherford: Commissioner, if I might follow-up the question that Shari asked me just a
few minutes ago. In light of what Mr. O'Niell is requesting tonight, do you have the
appropriate information to have the Commission act on your comments in light of that?
Stiles: I guess that's why I was asking you the question. I mean, obviously, the O'Niells
are much more sophisticated at this process and have been through many other
jurisdictions, and anytime somebody brings an attorney with them, it makes me
nervous. So I'm just wanting to make sure that we're not — that what we see is not
exactly what we're going to get; that we're going to get the buffer on Locust Grove; that
we're going to nail down those details as part of the plat and nail down the accesses
and those kinds of things; and that simply because we approved a Type -A that allows
Meridian Planning and(kning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 121
down to 4800 is that going to be interpreted later as, well, we can make them all 4800
because they basically approved that? But, that's why I was —
*** End of Tape 8 ***
Borup: -- and just by stating that, that would make part of our recommendation. The
letter from OEI with their development matrix.
Stiles: And what about our comments as far.as additional right-of-way on Locust Grove,
additional buffering on Locust Grove which is going to slightly alter their plan. It's not
going to make a major difference, but I was — since no — we've never done a PUD that
had the concept first.
Rutherford: Understand. My inclination would be that's subject to the development
agreement, and that's what that's for.
Stiles: That we could nail down all those details with the development agreement?
Rutherford: That's correct.
Stiles: Okay.
Borup: So — ask Mr. O'Niell. Did — was there anything in the staff comments that you
felt would be a concern?
Pete O'Niell: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Pete O'Niell: There's a letter dated October 11 to the Commissioners, a copy of which
is in — has been officially submitted. We took exception to several things very
specifically and laid them out and then had a general category that there's a number of
them that depending on how you interpret them could change the plan or the what the
City thought they were getting so that those should be subject to a development
agreement and worked out very carefully between now and City Council. But to be
specific, we do not agree with staff's comment that we think a 22 and -a -half landscape
buffer and sound wall as we've proposed along Locust Grove Road is appropriate, and
we don't need an additional 10 feet which staff is suggesting which is our answer on
second page to the proper requirement under No. 6 here. What I'm concerned about
now, and the reason we do bring a lawyer along is if things aren't handled properly, the
City opens themselves up to lawsuits, and it — I'm concerned that this is piecemeal and
certain staff comments are taken as a condition and others aren't. I mean, at some
point in time, we've got to go through all of those conditions that would be attached to a
final PUD approval which is related to a development agreement and as a City Council
function. If you want to discuss the areas, I mean, the emergency access
Meridian Planning and0ning Commission Meeting 0
October 12, 1999
Page 122
recommendation by staff, I don't think we agree with. We don't agree with the
permanent secondary access has to be in at 100 lots, we don't agree with that. It's
almost physically impossible, and the whole circulation system where they want the full-
time access to Green Hill Estates as well as to the east, we don't agree with that as well
as the — we've addressed the buffer issues on Woodbridge Drive that they did not
comment on, but they did comment on the Locust Grove buffer. We would suggest this
clearly as part of the record is — well —
Borup: I think we've covered at least what — I do have a question on your comment on
the buffer. I thought I understood and now I'm confused. You're proposing a 22 -foot
buffer? 22 and -a -half foot landscape strip outside of their right-of-way?
Pete O'Niell: No. There's detailed plans that have been submitted that if you're looking
ata—
Borup: I'm looking at Comment No. — on —
Pete O'Niell: The issue, I think, is how much is enough, and I believe it's a City policy
and staff's recommendation that whatever you have, we want an additional 20 feet of
project property as a buffer regardless of how much buffer there is in the right-of-way.
Borup: So where does this 22 and -a -half feet —
Pete O'Niell: Twenty-two and -a -half feet is 12 and -a -half feet of the right-of-way and 10
additional feet. Within that, we're suggesting rather than a 5 -foot sidewalk right behind
the curb, we're suggesting a 22 and -a -half foot landscape section with an 8 -foot
meandering bicycle and pedestrian path as well as full landscaping and a fence and
berming.
Borup: Then you'd be proposing to have an agreement with ACHD on that, then?
Pete O'Niell: Most likely we'd end up with a maintenance agreement with — a license
agreement which we've done in virtually every project.
Borup: Is there still a concern on that, Shari? Didn't the family center do that partially?
Stiles: It appears from the roadway sections they provided that 10 feet of their planning
area would be, well, let's see. There's more than that. Twelve and -a -half feet would be
in the right-of-way.
Borup: Yes. That's what he stated, and 10 feet would be on their property.
Stiles: So with the full construction of that roadway, it seems like the planning strip, 6 -
foot planning strip would be eliminated if they're going to have a 48 -foot right-of-way.
Meridian Planning and0ning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 123
Pete O'Niell: The 48 -foot fence —
Stiles: Forty-eight from center line.
Pete O'Niell: -- half right-of-way includes a 12 -foot turning lane, 12 -foot turning — no. It's
half of a turning lane of — how much, Scott?
Beacham: It's a 12 foot total, six foot is half from the center line and six feet — 12 -foot
drive lane and bike lane, curb and 12 and -a -half feet of the remaining (inaudible)
Pete O'Niell: It's a five -lane section that is allowed for there which is the same as the
fully developed Eagle Road section is today. The traffic capacity of that is enormous
coupled with the fact that Eagle Road and Meridian Road are going to be expanded to
seven -lane before Locust Grove would be expanded to seven -lane, and the likelihood of
this ever needing the full 98 feet for pavement is diminimous, and I think the data can be
developed to support that.
Borup: So is that what your concern is, Shari, if this ever went to seven lanes?
Stiles: Their right-of-way they're going to need, what they require on all these section
line roads is 96 feet.
Pete O'Niell: Okay. They've got it.
Stiles: Our only comment was based on looking at scaling this map that we have.
That's where the comment came from.
Borup: Okay. So that's where the problem from; maybe the map wasn't —
Stiles: Well, still —
Borup: Did you — you're analyzing their cross-section here now, though? Does that
clarify that?
Stiles: So they would basically have 22 and -a -half feet of landscaping that includes 8
feet of a sidewalk.
Pete O'Niell: Detached meandering sidewalk. Very similar except it's eight feet rather
than ten feet to the Surprise Valley sidewalk.
Borup: So they're talking landscaping between the sidewalk and the street? It still
looks like it provides for five lanes and a bike lane.
Stiles: But you're really getting 12 feet of buffering.
Meridian Planning and9ning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 124
Pete O'Niell: You're getting 22 and -a -half feet of buffering, and I don't want to debate at
this — I don't think this is the correct hearing to debate 20 -foot buffer, and our analysis of
that, I think, there's some real loose wording in the City's policy on that because they're
talking — you know, we're going by the intent because if you read visual — it is for visual
separation, and I'm not sure what 20 feet versus 10 feet of private property does in
terms of visual separation. I think the visual separation, the sound separation, has to do
with walls and landscaping, not how many feet of unlandscaped no -man's land you've
created all over your community. I don't think that's solves the intent of the problem
which is to create a separation of the uses. I think a more intense use of 22 and -a -half
feet would be better than a less intense landscaping of 32 and -a -half feet.
Borup: And we've discussed that before. That — we've done some reduced buffering
because of more intensive landscaping.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: I think this is an issue that could be finalized within the development
agreement between staff and the developer.
Borup: I would like that.
Hatcher: And we could — we've got an opportunity to review it one last time during the
preliminary plat, but I would like to just bring up my concern. Our ordinances for
landscape buffering and everything is a certain amount of feet from the right-of-way. I
think in this case we have to have 20 feet from the right-of-way, and Mr. O'Niell's
interpretation of our code and of whether it's five lanes or seven lanes or — I don't think
that that's an issue. I think that we need to provide X -amount of feet from the right-of-
way. But I would defer that to staff and Mr. O'Niell to finalize the development
agreement, and if the lots have to move, the lots have to move. What I see that —
Borup: But we have done reduced setbacks when the landscaping intensity increased
appropriately.
Hatcher: Yeah. I understand that, and I completely agree with what Mr. O'Niell's
proposing if it were to stay five lanes because then you have compact landscaping
which meet and exceed the requirements. But once again, we cannot foresee the
future, and if you'd — we'd only have 10 feet of landscaping from the way it's shown right
now, from the right-of-way.
Borup: I don't think we're going to see seven lanes — anybody in this room — nobody in
this room's going to see seven lanes.
Hatcher: Not on that road. So —
Meridian Planning andening Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 125
Borup: Okay. Are we ready to proceed? We still have a public hearing open. Do you
have anyone else that you would like to —
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: Motion is seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. Do we need some discussion how to draft this motion? I think we've
talked about is staff comments. There may be some clarification needed there. We
also have the letter dated September 9th from OEI which goes into the development
standard matrix on home site types, yard setbacks, minimum heights, et cetera. I think
that was the intent of the applicant is that we would be approving what they have
submitted, the understanding that the design may change slightly, but that this would be
the number of lots with this number of breakdown. Anything else that needed to be in
there? Maybe how do we handle the staff question on the setback buffer. Shari, is that
specifically how that ordinance says? It says 20 feet from right-of-way, period.
Stiles: It's a 20 -foot separation next to incompatible uses.
Borup: So not necessarily on the road right-of-way.
Stiles: Well, we have been consistent in requiring the 20 -foot beyond right-of-way.
Borup: Well, for subdivisions or for everything?
Stiles: It's hard to tell from what's been submitted if, you know, what that landscaping
is.
Borup: Well —
Stiles: It's not scaled.
Borup: We don't have — there isn't any landscaping plan submitted, is there? This
shows greenscape there and that's it and a pathway.
Stiles: No. They — what was I just looking at?
Borup: Oh. The other — right. The other one.
Meridian Planning and0ning Commission Meeting 1101
October 12, 1999
Page 126
Stiles: In what they submitted today or — on the 11th, they do have some sections, but it
doesn't show —
Borup: Oh. The cross-section —
Stiles: -- is not to scale.
Borup: -- and it shows — I'm not even sure if that's to scale necessarily. Well, how do
we need —
Stiles: That is another item they can propose as part of a PUD. It's just got to be that's
what you approve or not. It's hard to get all this information and know exactly what's
changed or what's in addition.
Borup: And that's going to show — that's going to be on the plat.
Stiles: They're not going to show landscaping on a plat. They'll have to provide a
detailed landscape plan as part of the final plat, but my problem is I'm afraid it'll come
back that say, well, you approved this. This is what you — you can't ask for anything
more.
Borup: Well, I'm not sure what we're approving there.
Stiles: That's what I'm afraid of.
Borup: Oh. I guess at some point it's got to come down to the integrity and the history
of the developer. You know, what has their past history showed and whether we can
expect the same in the future.
Stiles: I have absolutely no problems when it comes with that. But you can't base it on
that. I mean, it would be nice if you could, but they could sell it tomorrow to someone
else. I'm not questioning that at all. I think the project is great.
Borup: Can we — your statement about — repeat again on where the landscape — you
say we would need a landscaping detail? Would come before who at what point?
Stiles: Typically it wouldn't come before anyone except as part of their submittal for a
final plat, but they have made a proposal as part of their conditional use permit what
they submitted yesterday.
Borup: But that proposal does not give dimensions.
Stiles: No. It doesn't.
Borup: So I consider that a concept without specific dimensions --
Meridian Planning and0ning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 127
Stiles: They're showing roadway sections.
Borup: -- or specific tree spacing or whatever.
Stiles: But they are showing roadway sections.
Borup: Yes.
Hatcher: Keith, if we were to accept or recommend approval based upon what has
been submitted, then we would, I think, legally have a sticky point that we would be
obligated to the dimensions in which these cross-sections show.
Borup: Right. On the cross-section. That's going to show the 22 and — you're saying
the 22 and -a -half feet.
Hatcher: Correct. Or the ten -foot. Depending on how you interpret it.
Borup: In my mind —
Hatcher: It's something that needs to be addressed specifically so that we don't have a
problem down the line.
Borup: Address specifically as what we're —
Hatcher: As to whether we approve it as submitted or we make a modification on staff's
recommendations.
Borup: Well, yes. That needs to be clarified because we've got two different
statements here.
Hatcher: Right.
Borup: So do we have a solution? In my mind, what counts is what that streetscape is
going to look like. Not — what it's visually going to look like more than how many feet it
is.
Hatcher: I agree.
Borup: I guess that may be —
Stiles: Chairman.
Borup: Yes.
Meridian Planning andking Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 128
Stiles: That planning strip ordinance, the Commission can approve something less than
that if they agree with this concept. I guess I would rather you approve what they're
proposing rather than leave it up to staff later because we don't like to have —
(inaudible) never like to negotiate that stuff after the fact. They want to know what's
approved now. It's a little difficult to say — to see here from what that fence construction
is, but we've certainly seen a lot worse in that 20 -foot planting strip. If these are roughly
to scale, I tried to just scale the sidewalk, if that's — if it's roughly to scale, it's about one
to forty, and it appears that the trees, at least in this typical section they have would be
about 40 feet on center.
Borup: I'm coming out closer to 35 if the — 35 and -a -half.
Stiles: On Locust Grove Road?
Borup: Yes. I'm not using a scale. I took the paper. Go down there where it's 35 and -
a -half feet, draw two little lines and then go up to where the trees are, and it's about the
same. So our assumption would be that the tree spacing is about 35 and -a -half.
Stiles: Is that one scaled?
Borup: That's about — that's as close as you're going to want trees; isn't it? (inaudible).
Stiles: The Commission needs to accept this as — unless you want changes to this, you
need to accept that as they presented it.
Borup: Okay. Make an assumption that the spacing is 35 to 40 feet. Can we add that?
Stiles: Well, that's as they presented it. This is a scaled drawing.
Borup: Okay. Commissioners, I think we're ready and we can accept this as —
: We have a suggestion to make if the Commission would entertain it.
Borup: Anybody else from Commission like to open the public hearing? Okay. I think
what we got an option of, we can approve it as submitted, make an assumption and
how I scale this is that the — those trees are spaced 35 to 40 feet.
Hatcher: You know, to be perfectly honest, what I would really like to see is talking with
legal counsel, what I'd really like to see, I'd like to take and put this off and have the
developer and staff work out all of these items as to what it is is going to be done
because we need to — we have to approve or recommend approval to City Council of
this is what we're doing.
Borup: Are we down to any other items besides this landscaping?
Meridian Planning and0ning Commission Meeting •
October 12, 1999
Page 129
Hatcher: Well, one of my concerns, and it has nothing — I know the track record of the
developer, you know, integrity level, I have no problems with it. The problem that I
foresee a whole can of worms opening up is we get back to that exact same thing.
We're going to apply it — we're going to approve it in a general consensus, yeah, the
overall plan looks great. Go for it. And then between now and the development
agreement, all these things are going to - loose ends, and, well, that's no — you
approved it. We submitted it; you approved it; that's what you're getting. Then on the
other flip side of that —
Borup: You mean you're thinking if something is going to come in that's not going to
show up on the plat?
Hatcher: There's so much here —
Borup: That's not going to show on the plat?
Hatcher: There's so much here that I know there's issues here that we haven't even
discussed tonight, and we've been at it, for what, four hours, and I know that Mr. O'Niell
brought it up himself, you know, that we need to address all of these issues specifically,
otherwise the City opens up itself for a lawsuit. We cannot just say, well, yeah, I
approve Mr. O'Niell's response letter dated such -and -such when he has a paragraph at
the bottom that says, "in addition to the comments from the staff report that are
addressed above, Woodbridge Community would like to voice our concern that several
of the comments contained in the staff report, depending on their interpretation, could
be contrary to the intent of the plan," da da da. What is he saying? He's not saying
anything other than—
Pete O'Niell: Read the rest of it.
Hatcher: -- have some concerns about all of it — No. I have read it. I have read it a
couple of times. I'm just bringing up the whole thing that I'm concerned of loose ends.
That we're talking too many generalities.
Borup: -- on his final comment was I'd like to work with staff —
Hatcher: And that's what I'm saying.
Borup: -- and to prepare a draft development agreement.
Pete O'Niell: For consideration (inaudible).
Borup: Yeah. Which at this point, Shari, is the — at what point now is City Council
wanting to see the development agreement? At what point in the process?
Stiles: Prior to annexation.
Meridian Planning and9ning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 130
Borup: Prior to annexation.
Pete O'Niell: Too late.
Hatcher: We just recommended it.
Borup: No. Nothing's been annexed, yet, sir.
Pete O'Niell: Yeah. That's true. I'm sorry.
Borup: Okay. Well, then, would that answer that concern?
Hatcher: Rephrase it.
Borup: Well —
Hatcher: What would answer my concern?
Borup: The development agreement is going to be written and approved prior to
annexation by City Council. So those details do need to be worked out before they're
going to annex. I guess they need some type of recommendation from us, don't they,
before they can proceed ahead with that.
Hatcher: Correct.
Borup: So then don't we need a recommendation be just on the annexation? Maybe
we don't need to — I don't know if we need to address every issue in the motion, but it is
getting late. Commissioners, we're open for suggestion.
Rutherford: I've got to tell you. I'm the gentleman that drafts the recommendations, and
to tell you the truth, from what I'm understanding, I don't know what to put in those
recommendations. I've got staff comments, a number of them, I have Mr. O'Niell's
response, which he'd just like to incorporate in the record, and I can't very well put all
that information in the recommendation because you really would be sending my
opinion to City Council a bunch of incomprehensible — it is my opinion that you need to
be recommending to the City Council something comprehensible. Again, my opinion is
that it would include getting — I guess you have a couple different options. I think
counsel for Mr. O'Niell has potential; a good alternative, and that's to include specifically
in your recommendation that with regard to landscape, the second access and when
that's to go in and the Green Hill Estates access that those issues are to be worked out
with staff by way of a development agreement. Or we sit here tonight, we (inaudible)
and you make specific recommendations about those issues up to the City Council.
Meridian Planning and9ning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 131
Borup: It looks like we're down to, specifically, the letter, I think, addressed five items
and addressing staff comments. You're saying we either need to maybe address those
five items that there was not agreement on or have them work it out with staff in a
development agreement? Are those the two options you're saying?
Rutherford: I my opinion, those are your two options.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: I think we have another option of continuing the public hearing for the
(inaudible) bring us his (inaudible) of plat plan and development agreement.
Borup: Yeah.
Rutherford: Commissioners, I guess there is a third option which I didn't mention. You
always have an option of you can — I really don't think tabling this would be the method
to go to because then you couldn't get anymore input from Mr. O'Niell and his staff.
Potentially, re -opening the public hearing and continuing this matter and staff and Mr.
O'Niell and his staff can get together and work out these issues with staff.
Borup: I think we could address the five issues right now if we wanted without going
into a lot of detail. If those are the only ones that — I see five. One's the emergency
vehicle access. That'd be a recommendation that would be strictly an emergency
vehicle with — whether it can be the grass pavers or what could be worked out with
ACHD. Their second item was access to Weatherby which is the same thing. That
would not be the permanent access. Third was circulation. Staff was concerned about
limiting the 100 units before the second access. ACHD was saying 50 with the proposal
that was mentioned earlier, and I don't know how the numbers come out, but it would be
essentially half of the development, and then there would be that second access point
when the second half was developed. That would answer that. Number four is also the
secondary access point. Staff comment was just locate further to the north to have a
more straight shot to Magic View. I'd have to — I mean, it was brought up earlier that
you don't want those straight shots. You want to make a more indirect route. We could
answer that. The last item is the buffer. We do have a concept before us. We could
make some assumptions on size and put that in the motion, and I think that would
address everything. Shari, those five items, essentially, are the only ones that you see
that was maybe different from staff comments of any substance that would —
Stiles: Unless something contained in the last paragraph was something that we didn't
know about or —
Borup: And that ended by saying that would be worked out with staff. I don't know what
— okay, Commissioners, do you want to try to incorporate that in or do you want to —
Meridian Planning and wing Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 132
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself, I've been up for 22 hours. The volume of
material that has been brought before us beginning yesterday and the additional
material today, I am not in a position to comprehend or make a viable recommendation
here with what we have in front of us just because of the lateness of the hour and the
volume of the material, and I have had a real difficult time following everything that is
here and keeping along Steve's notes that he has without a direction on how we would
draft this to City Council.
Borup: Are you leading you'd like to continue?
Barbeiro: I'd like to re -open the public hearing and continue it and allow the developer
to present his more specific form of the plat.
Borup: The plat — I don't know if we're going to get more specific on the plat.
Barbeiro: I'm finding so many unanswered questions and open-ended items here that I
have lost track of (inaudible).
Borup: I guess I don't see that many. You've been writing them down?
Barbeiro: Have I been writing them down?
Borup: Well, if you want answers to questions, you've got to be able to ask them.
Commissioner Brown, any comment?
Brown: I'd second a motion if he wants to make a motion to re -open the hearing to
continue it.
Borup: Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: I would lean that way as well.
Borup: My first tendency would be to try to get it done, but it's getting too late. Yes. It's
because of the lateness of the hour is probably the only reason I would agree with that
too. There is a limit to how much we can handle in one night.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we re -open the public hearing and continue it to
our next available date.
Borup: November 9th.
Barbeiro: (inaudible)
Borup: Not unless you want to have a special meeting.
Meridian Planning and Ring Commission Meeting •
October 12, 1999
Page 133
Barbeiro: I'm not inclined.
Borup: Motion is to open a public hearing and continue it to November 91n
Brown: Second.
Borup: Okay. We do have a second. Do we have any specific requests from the
applicant then, any information that you'd like to see? I don't know how he can bring us
anything if we don't give him some specific —
Rutherford: Commissioner, if I could have for bookkeeping purposes, a vote on the
motion to re -open and then a separate motion and vote on a continuation.
Borup: Okay. Motion for — vote first on the motion to re -open the hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. The hearing has been opened, re -opened. Vote on continuation. All in
favor?
Or do you want another motion? Steve, do you want a new motion?
Rutherford: Please.
Borup: Okay.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we continue the public hearing to
November 9th.
Brown: I second it.
Borup: Okay. Is there an request from the applicant? Is there anything different he
should come November 9h with what he already has? Anything new that he hasn't
already presented?
Brown: Specifically, some of the things that I can think of is, I'd like to know the things
that we're hearing from staff and the (inaudible) is to where we're not in compliance with
the zone so that we know what it is that we're doing, and that would be just information
in the staff report that — I think that the two need to get together to work out these
conditions, and I think the direction that we could give them is that — you know, if I could
get support from my fellow Commissioners the condition asking for the 100 -foot cut-off
is not reasonable.
Borup: Do you mean the 100 lot?
Meridian Planning and wing Commission Meeting •
October 12, 1999
Page 134
Brown: Hundred lot cut-off is not reasonable.
Borup: So you're saying you'd support the Phase I?
Brown: Right. Number one is being proposed to provide the temporary access to
service those first hundreds until Phase II is provided. I think we have two different
issues, correct? One and two, Mr. O'Niell? Scott, are you saying it's a temporary
alignment or by that —
Pete O'Niell: The reason (inaudible) to answer the question in general that you raised —
let me answer your specific one, first. Yeah. There was a recommendation to the staff
that a secondary — emergency access, we put in a permanent right-of-way by the
hundredth house or building permit or whatever. We don't even know — we may not
even know what that is. We, by the 100 houses, we'll guarantee an emergency vehicle
as another way in to service. I think we said by the 100th (inaudible) occupancy permit
as opposed to building permit. By the time you have 100 people out there, you'll have
another way in that you can get in all year round. Again, we've done that before. We
don't even know what the right-of-way is, so shouldn't be a big argument over that.
Then the access to Weatherby, we've gone over and over that.
Brown: Agree that's going to be emergency access, pedestrian access. I think we've
agreed to that. I figured we got two different issues. One is — one and two are not the
same issue.
Pete O'Niell: Right. And then the location and then the circulation was that at 100 we
had to have the second way out, and we're saying that doesn't make any sense. ACHD
is 250 and we've said, you know, at 165 or 170 occupants, we've got to have the
second because we're into the second phase.
Borup: You've already said you'd have it in the second phase.
Pete O'Niell: Really, the only — I think the only issue that is there's a logical — the other
one was where the access to the east is whether it's what our proposal condition or
does it move further north, and we've beat that one to death. Really, the only debate is
the buffer deal and our suggestion to Steve which was — you could make a condition
that says prior to the final approval — the approval of the final development agreement
and City Council's approval of the PUD, they have to approve a specific landscape plan
including fence design. So it is subject to the public hearing and so on and so forth. I
think the problem — you have identified and you've experienced in the last four or five
hours the reason more developers don't do PUDs and the reason it creates so much
brain damage for everybody concerned because there is this — where does concept
leave off and where does detail begin, issue, and unfortunately I'm very empathetic to
the points that you bring up because they keep coming up. Everybody every time we
go through this. It's not that you don't get it. It's just a hard, difficult thing. There is, as
Keith said, there's at some point in time there is a leap of faith that we'll do what we say
Meridian Planning and wing Commission Meeting •
October 12, 1999
Page 135
we're going to do, and you can put in the conditions that they will be done before final
approval. That they become specific conditions, so if we turn around and sell the
property, they run with the property. It says right in the staff report and everything else.
These conditions run with the property, so if we submit a landscape plan that is
approved part of the development agreement, if we sold it, somebody's got to do that.
So these are not insurmountable issues. They appear to be the first time you go
through them, and to be fair, you've received an awful lot of stuff in the last few days.
The staff report on Friday. You might not have read it until Monday, then all of the stuff
from us. I'm not personally upset by the fact that you want to give yourself a chance to
digest this and a chance for us to, you know, maybe give you some better diagrams,
something to understand what it is we're talking about, and a chance to work with staff
to see if we can limit the number of issues that we have to deal with. But you do have
to give staff some direction.
Borup: It doesn't sound like —
Pete O'Niell: I think you just have.
Borup: I think at this point, the only additional information we don't have would be the
little more landscaping detail on the Locust Grove; is that correct?
Barbeiro: That and then the last paragraph of the letter, too. Back to that, Mr. O'Niell's
comment of rather than addressing each item individually at the hearing, which is
tonight, they work with staff and get things ironed out for the development agreement.
What are those other items and, you know, I welcome Mr. O'Niell and staff to get
together and work out whatever these items are and bring them back to us.
Borup: You see, we're never going to see the development agreement.
Barbeiro: I understand that. We're not going to see it, but if there is these issues out
there that, you know —
Pete O'Niell: We could give you a list of those issues. Five of those issues points that
you have to stripe and do something on roadways or parking lots, you have to contain
the stuff on parking lots on-site. You have to — all things to do with specific CUs for strip
shopping center or apartment project doesn't have anything to do with this project.
We're suggesting rather than bare staff, bringing it up in public meeting that we work
with them and say, you know, those really aren't appropriate for this project. They
should either be deleted or re -worded. That's why we worded it the way we did so we
didn't have to make the statement that we just made. There's a lot of things —
Brown: I appreciate the statement that you just made because otherwise it's loose end
that I have no clue what you're talking about or what you're asking.
Meridian Planning and aing Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 136
Pete O'Niell: All conditions of approval, it seems to me (inaudible) through this that
there's a certain amount of boiler -plat conditions and then there's specific conditions.
Sometimes they're at odds. Again, the reason we bring attorneys and — we do our
homework very professionally. We do our work very professionally. We take it very
seriously, and we like it when the City does the same thing. Sometimes it is an arduous
process, and the lawyers are challenged with things that most guys don't challenge
them with. Do you mean this or do you mean this? Let's work that out now or, you
know, early in the process so that when we get to a plat, we're not saying, oh. I thought
you couldn't have black roofs on houses. I thought it meant something else.
Brown: I certainly appreciate all the effort and time that's gone into the documents that
you've prepared. In my profession — it just makes life so much easier when you —
people do do that. But in the same aspect, it's also sometimes information overload,
and that's what, I think, we've all kind of have reached over the last 24 hours.
Borup: Did we —
Brown: Voted for continuation.
Borup: Did we have a second motion? The second motion was to continue? Do we
have a vote on that? Okay. Do you still want to vote on that or has anyone changed
their mind?
Barbeiro: Call for a vote.
Borup: At this point, can I get the staff to maybe work out some details and then see a
new — a little bit more landscaping detail on Locust Grove, and that's it? Is there — and
give us a chance to review these things a little more clearly?
Brown: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Steve, you look like you've got a question, comment.
Rutherford: Waiting for a motion.
Borup: Just falling asleep? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Does anyone here have any question on direction? Shari?.
Stiles: Yeah (inaudible).
Borup: Pardon?
Meridian Planning andaing Commission Meeting 10
October 12, 1999
Page 137
Stiles: What did you just do?
Borup: We continued — the applicant would like to get with you to maybe go over some
specific things on — that would be included in the development agreement.
Brown: You have to bring ice cream next time.
Borup: And then, I guess, look at a little more detail on the —
Will be first next time on the agenda instead of —
Borup: Yes, they will be. Well, we did put continue one other item earlier. Who was
that? It'll be towards the first. The continued items are always first on the agenda. I
forgot what I was just going to say.
Barbeiro: (inaudible).
Borup: Yes. We still have two more items. I thought I had a question for Mr. O'Niell.
Barbeiro: (inaudible) skip (inaudible).
Borup: I'm sorry. I lost it.
ITEM 15. PUBLIC HEARING: FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING AND
CONSIDERING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S
CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS TECHNICAL AND CLERICAL
TEXTUAL CHANGES TO THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCES AND WHICH WILL PROVIDE FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW FEE FOR COPIES OF THE ZONING AND
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $25.00:
Borup: Item — what did we just say — 15. Okay. This Item 15 was the item that Mr.
Gigray — you know, I'm fine until about 2:00, and we've passed that. I'm not fine
anymore. Steve —
*** End of tape 9 ***
I'm going to turn this over to you to see how you'd like us to proceed on this.
Rutherford: Well, you've — members of the Commission, you've heard from Bill Gigray
earlier tonight, specifically about the three items. I think that's when we're a little
fresher. But, to tell you the truth, Bill left out that the one that was noticed in addition
we're changing, and Will might be able to give us some insight on this, but we're
changing the amount. It's going to cost for a copy of the Code —
0
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: OCTOBER 12 1999
0
APPLICANT: WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC ITEM NUMBER: 14
REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES
FROM R -T TO R-4
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
COMMENTS
COMMENTS COMING
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
ry
V"
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SANITARY SERVICE:
OTHER: LETTER FROM GREENHILL ESTATE HOA
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: September 28, 1999
TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 13, 1999 HEARING DATE: October 12, , 1999
FILE NUMBER: CUP -99-037
REQUEST: 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES FROM R -T TO R-4
BY: WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC
iHUB OF TREASURE VALLEY •
OR PROJECT: SEE ATTACHED BOUNDARY
Mayor
ROBERT D. CORRIE
A Good Place to Live
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
KENT BROWN, P/Z
(208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501
City Council Members
CITY OF MERIDIAN
_RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
_KEITH BORUP, P/Z
PUBLIC WORKS
CHARLES ROUNTREE
33 EAST IDAHO
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
GLENN BENTLEY
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297
RON ANDERSON
(208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813
PLANNING AND ZONING
KEITH BIRD
City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218
DEPARTMENT
_SEWER DEPARTMENT
(208)884-5533 • Faz 887-1297
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: September 28, 1999
TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 13, 1999 HEARING DATE: October 12, , 1999
FILE NUMBER: CUP -99-037
REQUEST: 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES FROM R -T TO R-4
BY: WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC
LOCATION OF PROPERTY
OR PROJECT: SEE ATTACHED BOUNDARY
DESCRIPTION
TAMMY DE WEERD, P/Z
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
KENT BROWN, P/Z
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
_RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
_KEITH BORUP, P/Z
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
_ROBERT 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 R EC LAMATION (PRELIM & FINAL)
_SEWER DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
_SANITARY
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
_POLICE DEPARTMENT
ALS-- 90A[3s u0 LL w D
Sfree-f A1gm- 13 w s -7;, 4 /— Ce cc mac.,
_CITYATTORNEY
_CITY ENGINEER
i s ArO Pgreide,
_CITY PLANNER
?r ,v ; !•t rs E L4-- mo— S k17`k— Ci C" L -0e -„4c�
or
/U.R,ec() our F2c' 1405'e:5 /4 (ZOLI-C9
L -L, b k VL4 Sr a- r JQ- Co r i, A),R,e,. -/®
A C X S �a�'L 14 - /"L,
SGL1,SL) illIS/ONo Lq
CCENTRAL C
C1
DISTRICT
PRHEALTH
DEPARTMENT
DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Environmental Health Division
RECE'D'ED
SEP 2 1 1999
Rezone #
Conditional Use # P 3 7 CITY OF NIERIUTAIV
Preliminary / Final / Short Plat
Return to:
❑ Boise
❑ Eagle
❑ Garden City
Meridian
❑ Kuna
❑ ACZ
❑ 1. We have No Objections to this Proposal.
❑ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal.
❑ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal.
❑ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
❑ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of:
❑ high seasonal ground water ❑ waste flow characteristics
❑ or bedrock from original grade ❑ other
❑ 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or
surface waters.
❑ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and
�f water availability.
U(I 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
Central sewage Qf ommunity sewage system ❑ community water well
❑ interim sewage! central water
El individual sewage [� Individual water
A9. 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 11rcentral water
I'0. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
❑
11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
❑ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage
Regulations.
13. We will require plans be submitted or a plan review for any:
E] food establishment submitted
pools or spas ❑ child care center
❑ beverage establishment ❑ grocery store
❑ 14.f ��9f� S,Q'L .�T�. =c/�� Si o,�sNuJ�v T�2 Date: 17 /
y!?�7,✓ ES7s . � r✓a- �.E�s� c o ,,.• •I. • c�s/O�!-Y y o r+�s Reviewed By: 10e -
Review Sheet
(DHD 10/91 rcb, rev. 7/97
CT
CENTRAL
OIjTRICTTHH[A
pEPART, tENT
16
0
l.1.11N aF= C� ;Cl iV..��'<!.�<�GCMG ci �CIc�• ;Q dJ: C1::3:� • �.C3) _ _•�:I i . =;(?:?,?SCO
To prevent and treat disease and disability; to prunwte heaRity tifestyles; and to protect and prornute lire heu/th and quality u% our errvirnntrreta.
STORltiMATER Nf.kNAGENIENT REC01NEMENDATIONS
We recommend that stormwater be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to
discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water
quality. The engineers and architects involved with the design of this project
should obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and
design a stormwater management system that is preventing groundwater and
surface water degradation. Manuals that could be used for guidance are:
1) State Of Idaho Catalog Of Stormwater Best itilanagement Practices For
Idaho Cities And Counties. Prepared by the Idaho Division Of
Environmental Quality, July 1997.
2) Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidebook. Prepared by City Of
Boise Public Works Department, January 1997.
Scormwacer
3/93:dly
Servirt; valley, Elmore, Boise, and .oda Couttfies
ACC / 80iSe County offfee
ACC-W;C SWO1111e OfflCe
amore County Oftlee
vcuay County ctice
7CJ N. I V S-MeSr
707.`t. ArrycnC PI.
IcC6 RCCeri
5.0 Z. ern i:teer !.
Cld16a7
?.O.dcxlm3
?caa. r0 4.1 71,4
�-r:
3oise. rC d.r.
IlcunrCnl!c-s. ,--
McC:u: 10. 8�bJd
Ernt'.. N4ptn: 117v SCG
P.cnr:nt,: 327.7dCC
Ph. Jj1.]
;AX. JJ,t•J_::Z�
:"3Cttn::iii _Oi
Ph. 6JAL-; 14%
FAX: 6.'..-•2174
E �:rdy
rnr..unrtc:�crs: 121.7
w1c: .d 7-:�
.AC:
FA :dT•J521
y9r:Ct `Iurn:�cn: 12T•7,t327-744.0;AX
vnC 127.7x..1
/Ii.� i.1 .7•�J
Septeinber 20, 1999
Will Berg, City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
SEP 2 9 1999
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
Re: CUP49-037 Woodbridge Cornmunity, LLC
Dear Commissioners:
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's Fivemile Drain courses through the middle of the
project. The right -of --way of the Fivemile Drain is 60 feet, 30 feet from the center each way. See
Idaho Code 42-1208—RIGHTS OF WAY NOT SUBIECT TO ADVERSE POSSESSION. The
developer must contact Sohn 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. AS 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.
Sincerely,
B'Wn.-A aSuperintendent
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
BH:din
Cc: File – Shop
File – Office
Water Superintendent
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
POPP
i7 i i .
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
Phones: Area Code 208
24 September 1999 `., . "�
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
Woodbride Community, LLC
100 N. 91" Street, Suite 300
Boise, ID 83702
RE: Land Use Change Application - WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION
&6P- -037
Dear Woodbridge:
Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the
Irrigation District for its review on the above -referenced development. If this
development is under a "rush" to be finalized, I would recommend that you submit a
cashier's check, money order or cash as payment of the fees in order to speed the
process up. If you submit a company or personal check, it must clear the bank before
processing the application.
Should this development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be
owned, operated and maintained by the Irrigation District, I strongly urge you to
coordinate with John P. Anderson, Water Superintendent for the Irrigation District,
concerning the installation of the pressure system. Enclosed is a questionnaire that you
must fill out and return in order to initiate the process of contractual agreements between
the owner or developer 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,
)6446-A- � . .
Donna N. Moore,
Assistant Secretary/Treasurer
cc: File
Water Superintendent
James F. Griffin
City of Meridian
enc.
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS 40 000
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: September 28, 1999
TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 13. 1999 HEARING DATE: October 12, , 1999
FILE NUMBER: CUP -99-037
REQUEST: 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES FROM R -T TO R-4
BY: WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY- LLC
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SEE ATTACHED BOUNDARY
DESCRIPTION
TAMMY DE WEERD, P/Z
KENT BROWN, P/Z
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z
_RICHARD HATCHER, 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
SANITARY SERVICE
_BUILDING DEPARTMENT
_FIRE DEPARTMENT
_POLICE DEPARTMENT
_CITY ATTORNEY
_CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL)
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: 5ALLu/,-AW.5g2yia.1°., _
.dAs ,Oo eoMm&u -ares ,Pkoreer_
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 40
Mayor
ROBERT D. CORRIE
A Good Place to Live
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
City Council
CITY OF MERIDIAN
(208) 288-2499 - Fax 288-2501
Members
PUBLIC WORKS
CHARLES ROUNTREE
33 EAST IDAHO
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
GLENN BENTLEY
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 887-2211 - Fax 887-1297
RON ANDERSON
(208) 888-4433 - Fax (208) 887-4813
PLANNING AND ZONING
KEITH BIRD
City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218
DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533 - Faz 887-1297
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: September 28, 1999
TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 13. 1999 HEARING DATE: October 12, , 1999
FILE NUMBER: CUP -99-037
REQUEST: 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES FROM R -T TO R-4
BY: WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY- LLC
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SEE ATTACHED BOUNDARY
DESCRIPTION
TAMMY DE WEERD, P/Z
KENT BROWN, P/Z
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z
_RICHARD HATCHER, 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
SANITARY SERVICE
_BUILDING DEPARTMENT
_FIRE DEPARTMENT
_POLICE DEPARTMENT
_CITY ATTORNEY
_CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL)
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: 5ALLu/,-AW.5g2yia.1°., _
.dAs ,Oo eoMm&u -ares ,Pkoreer_
Mayor
'--ROBERT/BERT D. CORRIE
City Council Members
CHARLES ROUNTREE
GLENN BENTLEY
RON ANDERSON
KEITH BIRD
B OF TREASURE VALLEY
LEGA DEPARTMENT
A Good Place to Live
(208) 288-_499 - Fax 288-2501
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC WORKS
33 EAST IDAHO
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-2211 'Fax 887-1297
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 888-4433 - Fax (208) 887-4813
PLANNING AND ZONING
City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218
DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533 - Faz 887-1297
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations
to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: September 28, 1999
TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 13, 1999 HEARING DATE: October 12, , 1999
FILE NUMBER: CUP -99-037
REQUEST: 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES FROM R -T TO R-4
BY: WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY LLC
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SEE ATTACHED BOUNDARY
DESCRIPTION
TAMMY DE WEERD, P/Z
KENT BROWN, P/Z
THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z
_RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z
_KEITH BORUP, P2
_ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR
RON ANDERSON, C/C
_CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C
_KEITH BIRD, C/C
GLENN BENTLEY, C/C
WATER: DEPARTMENT
_SEWER DEPARTMENT
_SANITARY SERVICE
_BUILDING DEPARTMENT
_FIRE DEPARTMENT
_POLICE DEPARTMENT
_CITY ATTORNEY
_CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL)
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: /UO Fj&o"0 -/C-•S
SEP 2 8 1999
[?EFDEIVED
1v9eridiae Citg
nta �¢>9t
Water Sup