Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVillas at the Lakes Subdivision PPHUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Mayor A Good Place to Live ROBERT D. CORRIE coun~~l Members CITY OF MERIDIAN CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 RON ANDERSON Phone (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 KEITH BIRD LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208)884-4264 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (zo8>ss~-22tI PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208)884-5533 TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian City Council, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: TRANSMITTAL DATE: APRIL 20, 1998 HEARING DATE: APRIL 21, 1998 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY: STEINER CORPORATION LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO.1 JIM JOHNSON, P2 MALCOLM MACCOY, P2 MARK NELSON, P2 BYRON SMITH, P2 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 BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT _ CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER ~„_, CITY PLANNER _ PARKS DEPARTMENT CITY FILES MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8- FINAL PLAT) IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: JULY 14, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 16 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUB. NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 5/12/98 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian City Council May 5, 1998 Page 2 Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we accept the minutes as written. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Anderson, second by Mr. Bird tha# we accept the minutes as written of the joint city council rural fire district meeting held April the 14~". All those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Cowie: I'd like to welcome the scouts here tonight from troop 30 in Meridian. Welcome fellows, and hope we can give you some highlights on city council here. ITEM NO. 1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION -NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 BY STEINER CORPORATION. Cowie: Council, is there any discussion on this tabled item? Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I have declared a conflict of interest on this. I will step down. Bentley: Mr. Crookston, before you depart, I need to ask did you author these findings? Crookston: No, I did not. Bentley: Thank you. Rountree: Just to get some discussion going on this item and item number two, tabled preliminary plat for the same subdivision. We had met individually with the developer on this particular issue, have discussed some changes in the preliminary plat that would reflect, need some changes in the findings of facts. I understand by letters that I have received and phone calls and informa#ion that's been received by the city, that there are a number of individuals that would like to see what the changes are in this preliminary plat. Being that we had not taken action on the public hearing even though we did close the public hearing, I would suggest that we consider either moving #his back to P & Z for hearing or rehearing before the city council. Meridian City Council May 5, 1998 Page 3 Bird: I concur with Charlie. I think that some people would like to have a clearer deal of what the changes were. I feel comfortable with them, but I think that some of the other people aren't. Bentley: I would agree that it needs to go back. Anderson: I'd like to see it go back to P & Z and go through the process again. Corrie: Okay, if that's what the conclusion is of the council, I'll entertain a motion to that effect on items one and two. If that is the council's pleasure. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we move items one and two tabled April 21St related to findings of fact and conclusions of law for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for Villas at the Lakes Subdivision northwest of Cherry Lane be reheard before planning and zoning with the amended plat and that be scheduled at the earliest possible date for planning and zoning. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Bentley to refer back to planning and zoning for the earliest public meeting on the agenda of the planning and zoning. Any further discussion? Rountree: I believe the information that we have received from the public desiring information and expressing some concerns about this should made available to the applicant so they can take that into consideration in the next hearing. Corrie: Okay, we'll do that. Any further discussion? Berg: Since the attorney is not here on this issue, Charlie is your motion desire to go through the whole process of two public hearings? One before P & Z and one before City Council, or would you like the recommendation of the P & Z after the hearing is done? Why I say this is it should be pretty clear what they are going to do, just have one hearing or go through the whole process again. Rountree: I didn't know there was an option. I'm thinking it goes to planning and zoning and comes back to us with their recommendations. That was my intent. Corrie: They have to have another public hearing, yes. Inaudible. Rountree: Either that -- as far as discussion could we -we've closed the hearing. By motion can we remand it back to P & Z and request them to reopen Meridian City Council May 5, 1998 Page 4 their hearing, and then when they are done, come back to us and reopen our hearing. Corrie: We can do that if that's your desire, yes. It's going through the process again is what you're doing. Rountree: Well, I see some structure difference from just what the applicant has to do. Corrie: The way I understand it, you want to at least let the public have another crack at this. Rountree: Yes. Berg: Just a comment. You've heard the application. You've made some comments. He's willing to make some changes. You want the public to have more input on those changes, but you are not totally rejecting the project. Rountree: Correct. Berg: So that's not really going through the whole application process with him reapplying, but you are just going through the public hearing process to make sure the public get the input. Rountree: Correct. Berg: Okay, I think #hat's what the intent was. Corrie: Just for my clarification. They are changing some changes on the plat as well. So they are going to have to address that at planning and zoning as well. Rountree: My motion included both items one and two, which is the findings as well as the plat. Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: I'll make sure planning and zoning gets that same word. Rountree: That Mr. Campbell get that information. Corrie: I will see that he gets that too. ` ~ . BEFORE. THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL STEINER DEVELOPMENT ~il ~s c-f fil~z l~~e CONDITIONAL USE PERMI`~ FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing on March 3, 1998 at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., the Applicant, appearing through its representative, Steve Bradbury, the City Council of the City of Meridian having. duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A notice of a public hearing on the application for the conditional use permit and application for annexation and zoning was published-for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearing scheduled on January 13, 1998, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 13, 1998 hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. As required by law a second public hearing was held in front of the Meridian City FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUS-IONS OF LAW - Page 1 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4 ) d~Ef;CiV~~:% LIAR 1 6 19~~ ~~a~ ~~~ ~G;NEB e ~ Council on March 3, 1998. This second public hearing followed the same procedures for notice and hearing as set forth in the first public hearing. 2. The property is located within the City of Meridian at the Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No. 1. The property is described in the application for a conditional use permit, which description is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property. 3. Pursuant to the application, the property is presently zoned as R-4, Low Density Residential District. The proposed use of the property is to construct 37 single family, 3 duplexes, and 1 triplex. The Applicant presented a site plan depicting the location of the proposed use. Pursuant to the application, the Applicant agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, associated with the use, whether that use be residential, commercial or industrial. 4. That the R-4 District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-~-408 B. 3., as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Only single- family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R- 4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 5• That the planned residential development of 37 single- family dwellings, 3 duplexes and 1 triplex in a district of R-4 Low Density Residential, as proposed by the. Applicant, is an allowed conditional use in the R-4 District. 6• That the subject property is presently vacant. 7• That sewer and water is available to the property and is required. 8. Mr. Steve Bradbury testified as follows; that Steiner Development is requesting approval of a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a residential subdivision. The site is 8 '~ acres and located east of Black Cat between Ustick and Cherry Lane. The parcel was originally part of Ashford Greens Subdivision but the developer did not exercise its option on the property, so Steiner Development did. Mr. Bradbury further testified that the proposal calls for 37 single family detached units, 3 two-unit townhouses and one 3-unit townhouse for a total of 46 separate living units.-That works out to about 5 ~ units per acre over the 8-34 acres. The proposal also calls for a private street on a forty-two-foot-right-of-way with a five-foot sidewalk on one side. The sidewalk would be around the outside perimeter. The lots became smaller due to the 20-foot sewer easement to make a common lot. The lots are now about 3500 square feet. Before their testimony there was much discussion and figuring on the lot sizes to help solve the problem. At present the smallest lots are up to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) about 4,000 square feet, but could be up to 4500 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 5700 feet .across the subsivision. Minimum square footage of homes is 1304 square feet. Mr. Bradbury pointed out the seven different house plans; list of the various numbers of units, and the square footage. The square footage ranges from 1304 up to 1785, and the proposal is to have 14 of them. Mr. Bradbury pointed out most of the homes would be larger than the minimum sizes. Each unit will have a two-car garage and front driveways, which allows accommodation for two additional vehicles, for a total of four vehicles for off street parking per unit. All the units will be single story. The setbacks are in accordance with the code, except for the request that the front setback is reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet, and the street setbacks are reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet. This would be similar to the concept and design to the Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivision #6. This would not be restricted to just senior housing. Commissioner Johnson was pleased with the presentation and Commissioner Smith also acknowledged it was a good site plan and it deserved decent homes. Commissioner Smith also questioned if they were going for a variance on the minimum lot size, and the front yard setback, even though the blueprints states the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet, and the front building setbacks to be 20 feet. Mr. Bradbury responded what are seen on the blueprints are the required sizes for an R-4 zone, but it is not FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 4 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ! . what is proposed. Commissioner Smith clarified what the applicant is wanting, and that is, a 15-foot yard setback, and the smaller lot sizes T,ould be for the two unit townhouses. Commissioner Borup had a clarification on the conditional use, and whether the changes would be reflected on the plat before it is recorded. Mr. Bradbu ry confirmed that it would be part of the planned unit develo ment. P All the plat notes will be reflective of the true state of affairs not just a recitation of the standard ordinance requirements when it is recorded. 9. Vern Moore questioned if there was going to be a 20- foot sewer easement behind the property, and if it would be a walking path, golf lane, golf cart lane or ~ just what. He also wanted to know what lot the triplex would be built on. His last question was if there was a possibility of hooking into their pressurized irrigation system. 10. Gordon Margulieux gave the following testimony regarding his concerns. His first concern was the lot size due to the sewer right-of-way easement and how nothing could be built on it. Additionally, lot 2 would be for single families not the duplex, and it would be about 3100 square feet. Apparently, what was mentioned at the hearing is a revision, which he desired to see the revision. Presentl y it is 3100 square feet which is quite a bit different than the 8000 square feet which is R-4. Ashford Greens in their proposal was looking at apartments and units of apartments, about 8 units of apartments per acre, which FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW _ STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 5 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) would be 5 ~ per acre. These would be individual homes with over half of them on lots ranging from 4500 to 5100 square feet, with some being 840!, and 6700 square feet. He feels these lot sizes are consistent with the Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 1. He is looking forward to the completion of the subdivision. He continued with the comment that his house was the first in the subdivision on lot 3 adjacent in the Cherry Lane #1 Subdivision. Another consideration is the street; that the street will be ten and a half feet longer or farther out than the current house, and the street belongs to Ada Count Hi hwa District. ~' g y The plans also show the sidewalk will be moved. He also commented on what would happen to the small section, which belongs to the ACHD and how it would be handled for the corner homeowner. He inquired if there would be a .separate home owners association with just that section of houses, not part of Cherry Lane Subdivision Home Owners Association; that they will maintain the path. 11. Barbara Moore's testimony pertained to the 20-foot sewer easement and what was going to be done with it. She questioned if their property line was longer; if it goes out to the street or if their property went 10 feet back into the easement. She thought there was a discrepancy between the two maps. 12. Steve Bradbury addressed Mrs. Moore's questions by stating the intention was not to include the sewer easement as part of the pedestrian pathway; that it would be included as part FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 6 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) of the side yard and landscaped. Further comments from Steve Bradbury addressed where the three unit townhouse~~ will be located. Regarding the discrepancy in the length of the street, he felt Keith Jacobs, the engineer who prepared the plat, could better answer the question. They wouldn't plat something they didn't own or didn't match up. Taking out the 20 foot sewer easement. calculated the lot to be 4000 square feet. One way to accomplish that would be to move the small road a little further up. With some adjustments they feel the concern over the lot could be solved. 13. Gordon Margulieux's last two questions concerned whether or not the sewer line would be on a separate lot, and about the pressurized irrigation. Steve Bradbury responded the staff had suggested the sewer easement be made a separate common lot and the developers agreed to it. Regarding the pressurized irrigation and if the Margulieuxs could hook in to it, Mr. Bradbury commented that it has not been discussed with the developer, but- could more than likely be accomplished. The issue of water rights as to where they could be applied, and to obtain approval from the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District to include properties outside the platted subdivision was brought up. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District for a part of the costs of operation and maintenance, which the Margulieuxs would need to consider, would bill additional comment included whoever is hooked to the pressurized irrigation. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 7 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 14. Commissioner SmitYi had one final question regarding the reason why they are goir:g for smaller lot sizes and narrower streets as opposed to the standard R-4 requirements. Mr. Bradbury stated the developer is trying to provide a variety of housing types and uses for the area. The developer feels there is a market for this type of subdivision, and the surrounding Ashford Greens Subdivision has part of this type of area. Pertaining to the street, a private street would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and would not be used by the regular public. This street would be limited to a great extent and that is why the typical 50-foot right-of-way would be required. Commissioner Johnson's last comment was, "But it's the location and the fact that it's a unique market and that's why the developer thinks it will work. Right?" Mr. Bradbury responded affirmatively. 15. Steve Bradbury, representative for the Applicant, requested the previous testimony be incorporated into the hearing on the matter. 16. The City Council for the City of Meridian conducted a second public hearing on March 3, 1998. The testimony from that hearing is incorporated in these findings as if set forth in full. Mr. Bradbury, the representative from Steiner Development testified as follows; The site is an eight and a half acre parcel of property that's east of Black Cat Road between Ustick and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Cherry Lane. The piece of property near the current Cherry Lane golf course club house. The piece of property was originally brought to the Council by the developer of the .Ashford Greens Subdivision, Brighton Corporation and was part of the previousl approved Ashford Greens planned unit development. The Bri htony Corporation failed to exercise the option on the particular of ro ert piece P P y. Steiner Development picked up the option to the property to develop it. A copy of the findings of facts and conclusions of law that were adopted by the Council back in September 1994 are in included in the packet provided. Those findings dealt with the overall concept approval for the Ashford Greens Subdivision, and what they did or what the members of the Council at that time did, with respect. to that piece of property. Mr. Bradbury stated that the previous Council gave concept approval for what was described as medium density development, and that was further described as being for up to eight units per acre. The old Council required that the developer submit a more particular site plan for approval, and this application is that more particular site plan. The property is located on (81/2) eight and a half acres, the property is presently zoned R-4, but the application seeks approval for 46 total single family units. 37 of them would be single detached, three of them would be two unit attached structures. Mr. Bradbury stated "There is three two units or you might call them two unit townhouses that are described as duplexes but that's not reall Y FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 9 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) true because these will on separate ownership's and each unit will be on separate lots, of the " There is also one three-unit townhouse proposed for a total of 46 dwelling .units densit The overall y comes out to about 5.6 units per acre, which is substantially less than the eight units per acre, which wa conceptual) s Y. approved back in 1994. 17. The lot sizes ran e g from 3909 square feet up to 8413 square feet. Mr. Bradbury noted there is a change from what was submitted earlier because this is where the temporary sewer easement exists. It's a twenty-foot wide sewer easement, and when the application was originally submitted, the calculations included the land within the sewe lot The proposal now is to take that out of these 1 easement area. separate common lot which would be owned and m ots and make it a homeowners association. aintained by the He noted the numbers shown on the plans are not correct the numbers provided to Council for this hearing are the but numbers. correct The sizes of the homes are a minimum of 1304 square feet up to 1785 square feet. More than half.of the units proposed would be in the 1700 or above range, "actually it's 1699 s uare feet." There will be 25 of those that are between 1699 and square feet. 1785 The remainder of the units are equally distributed between the other sizes. The roadway system in the r proposed as a P o~ect is private road that would be gated at the entry. He noted it would be on 42 feet of right-of-way. 37 feet of that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 10 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) would be improved. It would include a five-foot wide one side, which is similar to what was ~ sidewalk on Lane No. 'PProved in Lake at Cherry 6• 1"Ir- Bradbury noted that there are 7 available and some of those would h different plans ave two elevation choices. The homes are all single story and have two car gara es. either two or three bedrooms and two baths. g Each have Each space would be provided by a rivate drivewa P Y• The driveway would have space for a least two cars, so each unit would have a tota availabilit of four cars. 1 Parking y There are four color choices being offered in either stucco or a siding, and the on some of the units, reps a_brick accent He stated that the proposal is to provide a gated secur' entrance in front of the subdivision in order to kee ity circulation down to a minimum. P the traffic The concept is to provide a pedestrian and cart path in through the subdivision over of the sewer easement. This would then o the top 9 on to the canal right of way and up all the way along the perimeter of the s and then it would come back out u ubdivision p at the golf course. That would give the people who want to walk to the golf co live in the nei hborhood or those urse who g people who own want to drive their olf carts u golf carts and g p the golf course. This is to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. He that the Plannin and Zonin noted g g commission recommended a the project as PProval of presented. The developer is asking for certain exceptions under the provisions of the planned•unit develo men P t FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW _ STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 11 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) portion of the zoning ordinance. One of the exceptions is to have some of the setbacks reduced. The typical front yard setback in a residential. subdivision is twenty feet. The plans call for a reduction of the setback to fifteen feet. Similarly the street side yard setbacks on the corner lots ,are typically a twenty-foot setback requirement, again the developer is asking for a reduction to fifteen feet. Mr. Bradbury noted that "That's just exactly like what the Council approved in the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 6." He also noted there is also a reduction being requested for lots one through four for a ten foot rear yard setback as opposed to the required fifteen feet. Mr. Bradbury noted that even though there will only be ten feet of lot setback, there will actually be thirty five .feet of separation from the lots. This is because there will be the ten foot of setback in the lot and the twenty feet of the sewer easement area which would be a common lot and have that path on it. He noted that in addition the lot sizes in the typical R-4 area are 8,000 square feet. They are asking for an exception down to the lot sizes that are shown on the plat. The minimum lot size is about 3900 square feet and the largest is over 8,000 square feet, but it comes out to an average of somewhere around 5700 square feet. The typical frontage requirement on an R-4 lot is 80 feet. That is frontage on the street. In this particular application the request is that number be reduced down to fifty feet because these are essentially fifty-foot `lots. Mr. Bradbury FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 12 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) noted that because the lot sizes vary on this plat, his request is to approve the lot sizes on the plat rather than Joing over every lot exception.' Mr. Bradbury stated that he is also looking for an exception in regards to the private street. Thi is for a 42 foot of ri ht-of-wa s exception g y with a five foot sidewalk on one side. He noted that the house sizes ran a from 1300 u g p to over 1700 square feet. He noted that the t ical R-4 re ~ quirement is 1400 square, and that for the ten or twelve on his plat that are less than that number he would need exceptions for them. Mr. Bradbury rioted that as an offset to all those exceptions the developer owns about a third of an acre, which is on the opposite side of the eight mile lateral from the subdivision. He noted that the developer is offering to donate a third of an acre to the city. He noted that they would convey it free of charge and the deed would be conveyed to the city at the time that the final plat was recorded. He noted that the intent of the project is to continue to try to provide a variety of housing types and housing choices in the vicinity. Mr. Bradbu ry stated this is much like what Steiner Development has started to do up at the Lakes at Cherry Lane. He noted there are a number of different sizes of lots, and sizes of homes and types of housing arrangements at that development site. There are the typical 8000 square foot R-4 lots. There are some 6500 square foot R-8 lots. Mr. Bradbury noted that it conceptually the same idea as what is going into the Lakes at FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF Lp,W _ STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 13 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Cherry Lane, with townhomes, and a variety of different lot sizes. Mr. Bradbury noted that it is the developers belief that this type of project is not only in line with what the City Council conceptually approved back in 1994 for Ashford Greens,. but it's also compatible with the overall scheme for this mile section. 18. Councilman Anderson inquired about the security gate and specifically how would emergency vehicles get through that security gate, "is it keyed, is it activated by siren?" Mr. Bradbury stated he did not know the answer but that Mr. Campbell from Steiner Corporation indicated it would be activated by a strobe. Councilman Anderson noted they would need to coordinate that with the police and fire, because not all those vehicles are equipped with strobes. Mr. Bradbury noted that the Steiner Development would be more than willing to work with the fire department and it would not be a problem with them to make it a condition of approval. 19. Commissioner Anderson inquired why Interlachen did not tie into another street. Mr. Bradbury stated that the reason the plans don't call for that is the concern for excessive traffic. Mr. Bradbury referred to a traffic impact report. He noted the Ada County Highway District looked into it and they thought the road should go through as well. He noted that the reason that they are not showing it that way is for concern over the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) potential for cut through traffic. Mr. Bradbury noted that there is going to be traffic trying to access the golf course, back and forth, and there .would be traffic coming from the Ashford Greens Subdivision. He noted that traffic would be heading down through the street in order to get to the Albertson's. Mr. Bradbury noted that the Ada County Highway District originally thought that it should go through as well, but the developer has submitted a request to them to reconsider their position. He noted that part of what was submitted to them was a traffic impact study and report that was done by Phil and Gary Funkhauser from Earth Tech. Mr. Bradbury submitted .copies of the report to the City Councilman. He noted that the last page is a chart and it shows what the existing traffic is, and what the projected traffic would be both with and without the connection. He noted that North of Cherry on Interlachen the existing traffic that was counted by Earth Tech was 771 vehicles per day, and the traffic that would be produced by this site at that location would be 285 trips per day. He noted that would bring the total traffic to over a thousand vehicles a day. He noted that if the streets were connected it would add about 300 trips per day for the golf course according to the experts. He noted that it would add about 400 trips per day for Ashford Greens. He noted that both of those would be cutting through and then add about 30 trips per day from Cherry Lane Village. He noted that what you end up with is over 700 additional trips per uay with the connection. Mr. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Bradbury noted that not only would the residents in the proposed subdivision be unhappy with t-ne 700 additional trips per day, but he feels the people that live on Interlachen would likely be unhappy with having those 700 additional trips per day. Mr. Bradbury noted that the reason for not connecting the street is to avoid the excess traffic and his initial contact with A.C.H.D. seems to indicate that they agree. They are not sure they want to have that connected there after all, because of the increased amount of traffic. 20. Councilman Anderson noted the residents already have the 297 trips of traffic because people are going to the clubhouse. Mr. Bradbury noted that A.C.H.D. tries to avoid what are called continuous connectors. He noted there would a continuous collector from Black Cat down to Cherry Lane, and that is something that the Highway District typically tries to avoid. Mr. Bradbury noted A.C.H.D, tries to avoid connectors because they tend to become a route for people to use and to cut through in order to avoid intersections. He noted that the present day thinking is to have collector streets that go into the mile section but don't connect directly on to other collector streets. Mr. Bradbury stated that he believes the Highway District will agree that the street should not be connected. 21. Councilman Anderson inquired about the width of the road. Mr. Bradbury noted that it is a 42-foot .wide right-of-way. with 37 feet improved. Councilman Anderson inquired about the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE.PERMIT - Page 16 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) turning radius at the cul-de-sac down at the end of Interlachen. Mr. Bradbury stated that he did not :now but that Mr. Campbell says that he thinks it's 80 feet. ~. 22. Mayor Corrie inquired about the frontage on the lots and whether they were fifty feet. Mr. Bradbury noted that they were fifty feet. Mayor Corrie requested further clarification by asking fifty feet by what? Mr. Bradbury noted that each of the lots is a little bit different in size. He noted that if you looked at lots 7,8,9 and l0. respectively; lot 7 has 59 feet of frontage, lot.8 is 57 feet, lot 9 is 55 feet, and lot 10 is 51 feet. He noted that lots 42 through 45 range from 60 feet to 65 feet and there are a number of other different numbers and different sizes. Mr. Bradbury noted there are also smaller lots. For example, he noted that the triplex, the three unit townhouse development are all smaller lots, but that it is going to be one building. He noted they are all going to take access off the same spot. Mr. Bradbury noted that if you took each one of those frontages separately, they are small, but add them up together and they are going to end up somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 or 35 feet of frontage on that one lot. Mr. Bradbury noted that with the varying sizes of lots it is difficult to pinpoint and say all lots are a certain size but that overall they will average about fifty feet of frontage. 23. Councilman Anderson inquired whether the parking would still work out for two cars on these smaller lots? Mr. Bradbury FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) noted that each one of them would have a minimum of 18 feet between the garage and the lot line. That they would be able to get two cars side b~ side up on to the driveway. 24.Mayor Corrie inquired whether Steiner Development has ever thought of doing anything with the entrance to Interlachen. Mr. Bradbury .noted that the subject has never come up but that he would raise the subject with the people at Steiner Development. 25. Councilman Bird wanted to know the difference between a triplex and a townhouse. Mr. Bradbury noted that his definition of the difference between a townhouse and a triplex is who owns it. He noted that a triplex or a duplex is on one lot noting one building on one lot. He noted that two units owned by the same person, and generally you live in one and rent one out. He noted that a townhouse, on the other hand is really like a zero lot line with a common wall. It's one building with three separately owned units with common walls on three separately owned lots. Councilman Bird noted that parking could be a problem in a townhouse or triplex. Mr. Bradbury noted that he has a concept drawing of how access might be handled. What they would do is create a common driveway at the entrance at the frontage of those lots. He noted that it would be included in the restrictive convenants. He also noted that in the deeds that would be supplied to these people there would be a provision for a cross access so that each owner would have a legal-right to the entirety of the common driveway as is enters those three lots. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE"PERMIT - Page 18 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) He noted that this has been-done a number of times, and they have had rFasonably good success with it. 26. Councilman Rountree noted that there are a list of amenities, but not a list of the potential disamenities that might be associated with this project. He noted the pedestrian way to the clubhouse, but that he saw no provision for vehicular uses. He noted that there was no discussion about the potential options for golf course out buildings that might be built in conjunction with the clubhouse and that might border these lots. He noted that in the list of exceptions there is no discussion about the tiling ditches. Councilman Rountree also noted that there is no discussion about the potential buffering of adjacent subdivisions. He noted the plan blocks out pedestrian access to the golf course from that part of the city. He noted that with a pedestrian gate on the pedestrian way, it restricts access to the golf course. Mr. Bradbury noted that the intention is to provide for ,access to the golf course. Councilman Rountree noted that there has to be access fir the rest of the community. Councilman Rountree noted that one of the requirements of approval of the PUD is that they have an open space requirement and he did not see any open space other than space that is going to be there by way of an easement that already exists. He noted that Steiner Development is asking the city to make exceptions for lot setbacks to accommodate an easement that is already there so they can build a house on it, but he didn't see anything in the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 19 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) subdivision that reflects the need for open space. Mr. Bradbury noted that the engineer calculated the area that would be included as open anzY common area in the area that the pedestrian pathway is included, and that is calculated out to be just over 8/l0 of an acre. He also noted that a third of an acre would be donated to the city, which is about 15000 square feet. He noted that if you take into account all of that space, it far exceeds the ten- percent requirement in the ordinance. Mr. Bradbury also noted that when the Ashford Greens concept plan was approved, the city acquired a fair amount of land from the owner of the property. Somebody different now owns the piece of property but when originally approved the city accepted the property. He noted that based on the findings that were made back in 1994, the donated land was intended to and does in fact serve as the city's requirement for open space as part of the trade off. The trade off is that you could provide the ten percent open space in a privately owned property which would be owned and maintained and used by the residents of the subdivision or you make it public property. He noted that. in this case, public property was provided to the city, and it is now public property and being used as such. Mr. Bradbury noted that if the council at this point in time is going to disregard what was previously required and previously provided, he thinks the city would be in essence reneging on an agreement already made. Councilman Rountree noted that he did not believe there was an agreement made with this FINDINGS OF FACT-AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 20 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) particular developer. Councilman Rountree also inquired as to whether these lots would be assessed a fee towards the pay off of the golf course improvement. Bradbury noted that rie did not know the answer to that question. 27. The city attorney swore Doug Campbell. Mr. Campbell noted that the project would be included in the $640 fee that's currently being charged on every lot out in that general area. 28.The City Attorney swore in Larry Astley. Mr. Astley noted that he has two concerns in regards to this project. He felt that the density and the layout of this development could effect the aesthetic value of the golf course. He~also felt in some ways it could affect property values. 29. The City Attorney swore Joe Stafford. Mr. Stafford noted that his concern is in regards to the ten-foot easement. He noted that the easement is on his property, property that he pays taxes on and that in essence ten feet that is being taken away from his back yard by developing this property. He noted that it is his property, so effectively he is losing ten feet of property. The other concern he had was that the lots are made to be conducive to the area, that it fits the area. He noted that nowhere in the immediate area of Golf View and Cherry Lane right next to this area are their small lots. He noted that there are duplex lots directly to the east of the property. He noted that those lots have much more than a ten-foot back yard. They have much-more setback than is required by this, so he has concerns FINDINGS OF FACT-AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 21 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) with that. The other thing he noted is that the neighborhood is pretty conducive to families, the golf course, using the golf course, and that type of area. He noted that if there is a 3909 square foot lot and you take a 1304 square foot home, and add a 400 square foot garage, you are at 1700 square foot on 3900 square foot lot. He noted that is a 44~ use not counting any side yard, sidewalk, and driveway. He felt that the use was not conducive to that area. He felt that one reason the developer applied under a PUD was to get a higher density in an area zoned for less density. He felt that a developer should not be able to apply for a PUD just to get a greater density of homes on a-piece of property. He noted that the 5.6 units per acre are not common in that area. He noted that his house is about 2700 square feet. The neighbors are 3300 square feet. His land use is 20~ of the property. His home is about 20~ of his property. That includes the garages. He thinks his neighbors are maybe 22~. He noted that is what is common in that area. Mr. Stafford noted that the developer is closing off the area that's presently an open area. They are asking for private streets.. All the subdivisions that border this property all have two sidewalks and curbing gutter. He noted all the homeowners in the area have 20-foot setbacks on the front. He noted that the developer is asking for 15-foot setbacks. He also noted that all the neighbors have to go by the city requirements for our setbacks on the side yards, the developer should also be required to abide by the rules. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 22 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) in the area are not 50 x 85 square foot lots as is proposed by Steiner Development. Mr. Crookston noted that he has at least a 1/4 to 1/3 of an acre lot. All of his neighbors have similarly sized lots and that the proposed lots do not even come close to the size of lots in the adjoining properties. Mr. Crookston noted that at the, time the City Council reviewed the application of Brighton Corporation there were specific requirements that needed to be addressed in order for the City Council to approve the project. He noted that in~order for approval of a medium density designation the developer needed to address the issues of roadways, parking and open space. Mr. Crookston then went on to note that the proposed parcels are not even close to the R-4 designation. Mr. Crookston noted that at the time the City Council considered the Brighton Corporation development for this site there was a statement which said Prior to any development of the medium density parcels, the developer shall submit a detailed application and site plan for review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council." Mr. Crookston also noted that the City Council said "The City Council reserves the right to place appropriate conditions on the medium density areas in accordance with ordinance requirements, including but not limited to streets, pedestrian walkways, planning and reserve strips public sites and open spaces, lineal open space corridors, pedestrian and bike paths." Mr. Crookston also noted that the statement also mentions piping of Page 24 FINDINGS OF-FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PI,ANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) I ditches, pressurized irrigation, access parking, landscaping and screening. Mr. Crookston noted that he did not see these items addressed in the application and do not think this application should be approved. 32. The City Attorney swore Gordon Margulieux. Mr. Margulieux wanted to congratulate or thank the developer because "he's very open". He noted that he testified at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Margulieux also noted that some of the things he had mentioned actually had been addressed. One of these issues was the sewer easement area behind the first through fourth lot, because at that time, it was still on those lots, and they have addressed that. He stated that he is still concerned about the size of the lots. He noted that his lot, which is in Cherry Lane Village 1, Lot 3 is twenty eight feet from where this proposed path is, and is an irregular lot of 13000 square feet. The adjoining lots around there are roughly running about 8000 square feet. He noted the proposed lots are smaller but it looks really good considering that it will be developed sooner or later. He noted that it doesn't look too terribly bad but he does like the fact that it is closed, and he does live on Interlachen, and would not be happy to have a through street with more traffic over there. He noted that he sort of likes their concept to that extent. He has other concerns about the easement and that it goes through what is going to be a pathway. He is not sure how to address that because it is a private section. Mr. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2~~ STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Margulieux noted that the area could cause potential problems with kids gathering there and would like to see.a light in the area for better illumination. He also noted that when they talked about medium size density and they talked about eight houses per acre with Ashford Greens, they were talking about multi family dwellings. And these are single family dwellings. He noted they are not talking about the same thing even though they have cut it back to 5 ~ houses per acre. 33. Mr. Bradbury testified what Mr. Steiner is attempting to do is to provide an opportunity for a variety of different living alternatives within the Cherry Lane development. Mr. Bradbury also took issue with Mr. Crookston's statement about all abutting lots should also be 8000 square feet. He noted that not all lots abutting this development are of that size. He also noted that it would be impossible to have all lots contiguous to this development be of that 8000 square feet size. He noted that pretty soon, all you would have is a mile. of 8000 square foot lots. He didn't think that is what the City envisioned. Mr. Bradbury noted that this development is something different and presents a little bit different living arrangement and lifestyle so you don't have this sea of 8000 square foot cookie cutter lots. He noted that he had been coming out to Meridian for five or six years, talking to the city about subdivision developments, and he has heard the city talk about not having every subdivision look the same. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 26 STEZNER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 34. Councilman Rountree noted that the issue is compatibility and it seem to him that there was. not a whole lot of consideration to•either to the type of home or~the design of the homes that are adjacent to the subdivision. He noted that this happened in Meridian Greens. He noted that the city had a subdivision with large lots, specific architectural types, and specific kinds of roofs. The people in that subdivision objected to a R-4 subdivision adjacent to them that had a lesser standard, smaller lots, and asphalt singled roofs,. those kinds of things. The remedy is the remedy that we have in our ordinance language and our comprehensive plan as a buffer. There was a portion of that subdivision that had to have cedar shake shingles. They had to meet a certain size lot, and they had to meet a certain square footage. The rest of the subdivision as it progressed out, became what the developers originally proposed. Councilman Rountree noted that he would like to see some consideration given to that concept in this development. He noted that he is not opposed to the medium density but wants specifics.to make sure that the neighborhood considerations and the existing features out there were considered. 35. Councilman Bentley noted that "it was one of my concerns when I viewed this project" and he agrees with Mr. Bradbury on the fact that we do not want all subdivisions to mirror each other and look the same, but the same token, we've got open ground butting up to these people's property. He also FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 27 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) noted that consideration has to be given to the surrounding area. The public hearing was then closed. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, have submitted comments, which respective comments are incorporated herein as set forth hereafter. 1. Sanitary sewer service shall be by extension from the existing main line in Interlachen Way. Approval will be contingent upon or ability to accept the additional sewage generated by the proposed development. The subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes to be provided. to keep sewer lines on the south and west sides of centerline. Profiles submitted for preliminary sewer design indicate a portion of the main line in Interlachen Lane will have less than the minimum three feet of cover from top of pipe to finish grade. This portion of the project site may have to be filled in order to achieve the required cover. 2. Water service to the site will be by extensions of the existing main installed in Interlachen Way. Applicant .. to construct the water mains to and through the proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 3. Identify the source for the pressurized irrigation and whether the system will be owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District or private. If the system is to be private, plans and a draft copy of the O & M Manual must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the City's water system would need to be reviewed due to the size of the area to be watered. The developer will be responsible for the payment of assessment fees for the common areas. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 28 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 4. Streetlights shall be two-hundred-fifty-watt and/or one-hundred watt, high-pressure sodium and to be at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Streetlights to be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 5. Submit for review and approval a .detailed landscape plan for the common areas and to include fencing, pathways and types of construction with the submittal of the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to signature on the final plat. 6. Along the Eight Mile and Safford Laterals a non- combustible fence needs to be installed prior to applying for building permits. Fencing needs to be set back from the top of .bank to alleviate inherent problems with eroding slopes. Construct six-foot-high, permanent, non-combustible perimeter fencing except where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in place prior to applying for building permits. Fencing shall be set at the existing easement line, unless the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District grants an encroachment agreement. 7. A total frontage of 24.84 feet for the triplex lots appears to be grossly deficient. Driveways are to be offset a minimum of five feet from property lines, leaving only 14.84 feet for a driveway. The duplex lots in the southeast portion of the property have a combined frontage of only 22.7 feet. 8. No parking will be allowed at any time along streets less than required by ACHD policy. The homeowners association will be responsible for enforcement of this no parking area. 9. A letter of approval from the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District for the roadways as shown or revise to comply with their requirements. 10. Proposals for Planned Unit Developments will include a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CON:LUSIONS OF LAW - Page 29 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) minimum of ten percent common area, which means land area exclusive of street rights-of-way, buildings, parking areas, structures, and appurtenances except those improvements which are accessible and available to all occupants of the private units within the PD. 11. The Homeowners Association shall own and maintain the sewer easement area, and it will be platted as a common lot. The two adjacent lots will be 3,500 square feet or less. Provide lot closures for all lots to verify square footage. 12. Storage areas will be provided, such as, one adequate space for every two living units. This may be reduced by City action if there is a .showing that the needs of a particular development are less. 13. One additional parking space beyond the required Zoning Ordinance should be required for every three dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. Parking areas may be no closer than four feet to any established street or alleyway. 14. A maintenance building or approved area will be provided for suitable services required for the repair and maintenance of all common areas. 15. Provide a master street drainage plan showing method of collection and disposal. 16. Provide detail of pedestrian walkway/golf cart access; also gates within the development. Interlachen must be continued through the development to provide access to the future golf course clubhouse. ACHD's initial comments were that Interlachen Way must be continued through the development as a public roadway, but the agency is rethinking that requirement. 17. If the private road is approved, a blanket easement for public utilities will be included. The proposed covenants for the subdivision will specifically address provisions for a sinking fund to provide maintenance of the roadway and replace the roadway within a 20 year period. FINDINGS OF FACT T-~t~TD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Pace 30 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 18. Provide a minimum ten percent open space. Donations have been made to the City golf course, but were not a part of the development. 19. Darken up the contour lines on the blueline prints with the revised plat map. 17. Kenny Bowers, Chief of the Meridian Fire Department, requests all codes need to be met. 18. The Central District Health Department, prior to their approval, requires written approval from the appropriate entities pertaining to the central sewage and water approval. The central sewage and central water plan must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. The storm water management plan, and an inventory form needs to be completed and submitted to the Central District Health Department. 19. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments, which respective comments pertain to the right-of-way of the Eight Mile Lateral of 50 feet; 25-feet from the center each way. The developer must contact John P. Anderson or Bill Henson for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. A Land Use Change/Site Development application is required prior to final platting. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If surface drainage leaves, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. The developer FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 31 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) must comply with Idaho. Code 31-3805. 20. There was no further testimony given at the hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. All the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the property. 2. The City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6512 and pursuant to 11-2- 418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. 3. The City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 4. The property is currently zoned (R-4) Low Density Residential District. The (R-4), Low Density Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 3.. as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Only single-family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by .prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 32 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 5. Conditional ,Use Permit is defined in the Zoning and Development Ordinance, City of Meridian, Idaho as "Permits allowing an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district." 6. The City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 67-6512, and pursuant to that section conditions minimizing the adverse impact on other development, controlling the. duration of development, assuring the development is maintained properly, and on-site or off-site facilities may be attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in existence. 7. Section 11-2-418 D. states as follows: In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the .Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council. may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Usp may be in existence. 8. This Application for a conditional use has been judged upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and th.e record submitted to it and the things of which it may take FIA?DINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 33 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) judicial notice. 9. Section 11-2-418 C of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian sets forth the .standards under which the Planning' and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits. Upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, assuming that the above conditions or similar ones thereto would be attached to the conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use would constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance; b. The use would not be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance; Meridians Comprehensive Plan section 1.13U of the housing section states: "Infilling of random vacant lots in substantially developed, single family areas should be considered at densities similar to surrounding development." Section 6.5U states that the policy of the city should be to establish land use designations, which reflect the existing character of the neighborhoods. Under community design the goal statement provides that All neighborhoods and special areas in Meridian should be encouraged to develop in a manner which expresses concerns and appreciation for the aesthetic qualities of the physical environment while maintaining the unique characteristics which allow each neighborhood and special area to be recognized as an individual entity." The Meridian Comprehensive Plan provides that the use should be harmonious in regards to the above sections. The use would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. c. The use would not be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3-t STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) that such use will change the essential character of the same area; d. The use would be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; the approval of a private road could have an.~ affect on the . ability of neighboring areas to have access to the golf course. This golf course is essentially the whole reason the area is developed as it is. e. The use will not be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services; The approval of a private gated access could have the potential for serious consequences in regards to fire, police and safety issues. f. The use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; g. The use will involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; h. The use will have vehicular approaches to the property which are so designed as to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; and i. The development of the property will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. It is recommended that the conditional use permit not be granted in this case. 10. It is recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the previous comments by the Planning and Zoning FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 35 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Administrator, Shari Stiles, and Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, be incorporated along with the following conditions if a conditional use permit is granted. 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with street development plans. 4. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for review by the Meridian City Attorney. 5. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606 B. 6. Submit a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 7. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Meridian Public Works Department. 11. However if the conditional use permit is granted, the above-conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet these conditions. 12. It is recommended that the request for the conditional use permit not be granted. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 36 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) APPROVAL ,OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian pity Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED COUNCILMAN BYRD VOTED COUNCILMAN ANDERSON VOTED MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION The Meridian City Council hereby denies the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the Application. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Page 37 r~ i CITY OF MERIDIAN FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT. CHECKLIST INCOMPLETE SUBMITTALS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED SUBDIVISION NAME: ~ V ' 9..,,,,~~`~o ~~, ENGINEER: ~L ~ '~~,,,e The final plat shall include and be in compliance with all items required under Title 50, Chapter 13 of the Idaho Code. The final plat submittal shall include at least the following: ITEM DESCRIPTION COMMENTS 1. Thirty (30) copies of written application for approval as stipulated by the Council 2. Proof of current ownership of the real property included in the proposed final plat and consent of recorded owners of the plat (warranty deed, signature sheet of final plat) 3. A statement of conformance with the approved preliminary plat and meeting all requirements or conditions thereof 4. A statement of conformance with all require- ments and provisions of this Ordinance 5. A statement of conformance with acceptable engineering, architectural and surveying practices and local standards 6. Street name approval letter from Ada County 7. Three (3) copies of the final engineering construction drawings for streets, water, sewers, sidewalks, irrigation and other public improvements 8. Thirty (30) prints of the final plat at a scale of one inch equals three hundred feet (1" = 300'). Include subdivision and street names, lot and block numbers only. V mow, a~lcovo~ \~~. ~ /= sues ~' N 3n-~i b~~ Q~~ on1•i ''.r•.'~er~p~n FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT CHECKLIST 9. Thirty (30) folded copies of the final plat containing the following requirements and three (3) copies of the signature page of the final plat. Plat shall include: a. Approved Plat Name b. Year of platting c. Sectional location ofplat -County d. North arrow e. Scale ofplat (not smaller than 1 "=100') f. Streets and alleys with widths and bearings g. Street names h. Consecutive numbering of all lots in each block, and each block lettered or numbered i. Each and all lengths of the boundaries of each lot including curve table j. Exterior boundaries shown by distance and bearing (heavier lines than streets and lots) including curve table k. Descriptions of survey monuments 1. Initial point and tie to at least two public land survey corners or, in lieu thereof, to two monuments recognized by the City Engineer or County Engineer or surveyor; and also, if required by the City or county governing bodies, give coordinates based on the Idaho coordinate system m. Easements n. Basis of bearings o. Pertinent notes for easements, restrictions, designations, etc. p. Land Surveyor -signed seal q. Land Surveyor business name -City location r. Legend of symbols s. Minimum residential house size t. Adjacent platted subdivision names 10. Fee Paid - ~~ Lots @ $10.00/Lot ~ `{~"O 11. Other Information as Requested by Administrator, City Engineer, Planning & Zoning Commission, or City Council Page 2 /"" ~- ~ ease~t ~s s1,o~, } !t FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT CHECKLIST Page 3 12. Substantial differences between the approved preliminary plat and the final plat, variances not yet applied for, non-conformance with comments of staff and/or agencies, etc., will be cause for rejection and/or possible resubmittal to Planning & Zoning Commission for approval. REVIEW BY: Shari Stiles Planning_& Zonin Administrator Gary D Smith, P E City Engineer ACCEPTANCE DATE: i MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: OCTOBER 6 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUMBER: 9 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM P & Z CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: 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. t ~ ~ ~ - ~~ '~~ ~~~s MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE l l ITEM NO. 7: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT (48 LOTS ON 8.53 ACRES) FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT-NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: MacCoy: We're open for public hearing, does anybody here have any comments to make on this subject on this point, can come forward. I didn't know if you were here yet. Rossman: Please state your name and spell your last name, we don't need to swear you in, unless you're going to give facts. Bradbury: Steve bradbury, I'm the attorney representing Steiner Development, my address is 877 Main Street in Boise. Where do you want to start. Rossman: It looks like there are some things that are perhaps, somewhat confusing. MacCoy: You have heard the comments haven't you, you were here. Do you want to start answering some of those right now. Bradbury: I'll try. Let me first say that I think some of the confusion and the difficulty is that in the findings that you folks have before you on the conditional use permit is listed a series of comments that were made in the original staff report that was prepared for the submittal that was made some nine months ago in January. Those same comments have been carried forward through the findings even though the plat was ordered revised by the City Council last spring and some of those comments just don't pertain anymore. It think that might be part of the reason we are struggling some. I'll try to go through them at least the ones that I can remember. Rossman: Mr. Bradbury, if you could identify for us specifically what comments are no longer applicable, that would help us. Bradbury: I can try. I'll go through and see which ones I can find. I know that number seven on page 27 doesn't apply because there's no three unit lot anymore, no triplex or three unit townhouse lot. Let me back up and say this, there was also some question about how many two unit duplex lots, there were originally three duplex lots, three two unit townhouses for a total of six and one three unit townhouse for a total of three, plus the six made the nine. When the City Council ordered the plat revised, the number of lots, the total number of lots in the plat was reduced by three. So there is no longer 48 building lots, but 45 and I may be getting my numbers fouled up here, but there was a total of reduction in number of lots by three. As a result of the City Council's requirement that the plat be revised. In the same revision, the number of duplex lots then was MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 12 increased to ten. We used to have a total of nine of these zero lot line lots and now there are a total of ten, although there is a net reduction of lots in the entire subdivision of three fewer lots and with one additional duplex lot. In any event, that might help to explain why the numbers might be somewhat different. Number seven on page 27 I don't think applies to this, because it's not the same project. De Weerd: Number nine I think was mentioned. The letter from the school district. Bradbury: I've never understood what letter we're looking for from the school district, I guess. The reason that it's been somewhat of a confusion to me is that we've had private roads proposed and they would be gated, so that I don't think the school district has any interest in any of these roads. I don't think the school district would anticipate taking school buses onto private roads. If that's what we're talking about-I'm trying to help you here, but I don't think that the school district is going to have any interest on commenting upon private roads. De Weerd: I don't believe that they only comment on roads, they comment on homes and how the children impact the schools. Bradbury: I'll read the comment. The letter of approval from the Meridian Fire Department... Borup: It was my understanding that the comment was because they were private roads, if the fire department could fee comfortable with their trucks in there and the only reason that I can see that the school district having a concern is like Mr. Bradbury mentioned on bussing. I believe that was the only reason- was that your understanding... (Inaudible) Borup: Did you have any comment on that? MacCoy: You are correct on part of that, but Commissioner De Weerd has also commented, if you remember some of the letters that we received from the school district comments on children... Borup: They always say the same thing. MacCoy: Give away their secret. De Weerd: They spend a lot of time on those letters. Bradbury: Number 14 talked about a maintenance building, as we explained a couple of meetings ago, the intention is to provide, is to contract for all of the MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 13 maintenance by a private contracting company. There would be no need for a maintenance building on site. None has ever been proposed for this project, ever. We are consistent on that. Somewhere I thought, there it is, the comment asking for interlock and being continued through as a public street to provide access to the club house. That was a matter that was taken up with the Highway District some time ago. You should've received back in June a copy of the ACRD findings which approve the private roads and eliminated the previous requirement for a connection through. Matter of fact, at the meeting in July, I handed that submittal to Mr. Berg. So number 16 doesn't, at least with respect to the portion of it, that talks about a connection through no longer applies. I think that's-those are the ones that I can put my finger on right now. There were probably others throughout the document and I didn't go through and mark all of them. When we were here before you, there were a number of things that you asked for. One was whether it was to provide a common lot for the pressure sewer main, which Mr. Freckleton points out is number 47 on this plat. When this thing was originally presented to the commission, back in January, the argument that we made about not making that into a common lot because that provides, it is essentially a useless landscape area, that has no value to homeowners association, because it's remote from anything that is useable. Our argument at the time was, why don't we just restrict the buildings from being on top of that portion of the lot, so it can be usable for somebody, someday. I say somebody, someday because this is a temporary sewer line easement here, eventually it's going to be routed some other direction. Apparently that got lost in the translation. When we were here in July, you folks asked for it to be a common lot, that's what you've got. You've got a common lot. If you don't think it makes sense, we'll take it back out, but if you want it, now you've got it. That one is up to you folks and we're just trying to get along. You also asked for a specific notation of which lots were what sizes. They are all there, listed, every single one of them. What all the set backs, the requested setbacks are. They're all there on the plat. You asked for a landscape plan and I understand that was delivered to you with the preliminary plat. You were concerned about the road alignment. Where the public road meets the proposed private road. The engineers as I understand, I'm not one as you know, the engineers in preparing the plat you have before you, have got it lined up so it all meets. If you have any questions about that, our project engineer Keith Jacobs is here in the room and he can ask, answer any questions you have. As it's been explained to me, it lines up with the existing right of way, now of course, so there is no confusion about it, there is also some additional land that is included in the subdivision which will be built into the roadway. I can see you are trying to find out where I'm pointing over here, down here at the entry. The existing road lines up with the proposed road, according to the engineers. I think that's everything, have I missed something? De Weerd: Fencing. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 14 Bradbury: That's right, the proposal is to provide some sort of wrought iron or similar fencing along the golf course side of the canal and standard-okay, I'm saying that wrong, I don't want to get you confused. At the rear of the lots adjacent to the canal which is between the subdivision and the golf course. The proposal is to use some sort of wrought iron or similar fencing there. On the balance of the subdivision would be a standard cedar fencing. De Weerd: Along your entry way? In this area. Kind of where you were showing that the road would be expanded from what the engineering shows. What you are going to do along these lots, to separate them from the roadside. Bradbury: Those lots all take access from that road. De Weerd: Okay, so they wouldn't go through the gated community park. These are outside of the gated community. Bradbury: That's correct. De Weerd: Those were my questions. MacCoy: Mr. Nelson, do you have any? Nelson: I have no questions. MacCoy: Mr. Borup, do you have anymore? Borup: Yes Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Freckleton, concerning the comment on the common lot. I guess first of all, is this a temporary sewer line that isn't going to be abandoned, Mr. Freckleton? Freckleton: Yes it is commissioner Borup. The lift station that pressure main comes from is in the Golf vew Estates Subdivision. When the sewer line, the trunk line is built in Black Cat Road, the sewer will gravity float to Black Cat therefore, the lift station'would be abandoned at that point in time. Until such time though, that is a pressure main, it would make a big mess if it got broke into. We feel that it is imperative that it be a common lot. With a common lot, I've talked to Mr. Cambell about this scenario before, is that-at such time that it is vacated, that common lot could be deeded to that adjacent property owner to be part of his lot. Bradbury: I think I remember this conversation now, the concern was if it's an easement through someone's lot, they are going to mentally claim it, if there is a problem going in there and doing the work. It's a lot more (Inaudible) if it's a common lot and there is no ones permission to ask. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 15 Freckleton: And our access is impeded, so we have to have access to that 24 hours a day. Borup: Yeah, I think that is the same thing. So does that make sense Mr. Brabury to deed it over at the time and... Bradbury: You can have it the way you like it. Borup: I think we've got to go by past experience when they've gone in and had problems with... Bradbury: That's completely understandable. Borup: That's all I had Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Is there any more questions for the applicant? This is still an open public hearing, is there anybody who would like to make a comment now. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if staff have any further comment on this conditional use-preliminary plat. Stiles: I still have a question about the preliminary plat that I received June 9~', it's dated the minimum house size was 1,304 and why it was changed to 1,250 that we received September 1St. I'm still not satisfied that they've designated the lots correctly on this plat. None of the house plans that were submitted with their conditional use application, they know that's part of the conditional use application. None of those house sizes showed the 1,250 square feet, so I don't know why that was revised and I still don't know that he's answered the question why the parking was taken out, unless that was a request of P & Z. MacCoy: Mr. Bradbury, would you come forth, staff has some questions. Bradbury: Sure, I've been (Inaudible) I meant to address that one, the only thing that is different, that area still exists for parking, it's just that the lines aren't shown on this plat. If you take the two plats and hold them together, you see that the space is still there, it's just that the lines aren't drawn in on the plat to show the stripping of the parking area. If you folks want to make the provision of the number of parking space, a condition of approval of the conditional use, that's perfectly acceptable to us. It's just that typically, I don't think we see parking - a stripping plan shown on a preliminary plat. We are trying to make this thing right to you, to the best of our ability. We seem to be missing. House sizes, I was trying to figure that one out too, because I think that the original proposal called for a minimum house size in the subdivision of 1,250 square feet, and we're talking about the two unit townhouse units that we've been talking about. For some reason, the 1,300 sq. ft. got printed on some document somewhere and don't think it ever intended to be there. There was also at one point in time a MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 16 drawing that was prepared for you folks and the City Council that showed the distribution, what we expected we would see, in terms of the distribution of various house sizes. Throughout those lots in the subdivision and of course since then, the plat has been revised as required by the City Council so that... (END OF TAPE) Bradbury: ...substantially larger, so I'm not sure what was originally shown as a conceptual distribution of house sizes holds true today. We haven't attempted to provide you with a distribution of house sizes because we all know that's going to change. We don't know exactly which house is going to be built and what size of house is going to be built on exactly what lot, these are after all individual lots that will be sold to people and they will probably want to select which house they want to build and what size of the house they want to build on each of their lots. tf you folks are concerned about having minimum house sizes of some size in some locations, that's fine, tell us what you want. If the developer can live with that, then it's a done deal. If not, then I guess we will try to figure some way to work it out with you folks. What we're trying to do is not get too terribly, not get you too terribly-we started out, because this thing has changed it's become very confusing about what-which lots are what size and which locations according to which plat and I guess you have to understand now that we've been before this body at least four times, perhaps five and the City Council once and twice between. As a result of recommendations made by staff and as a result of recommendations made by this body and as a result of recommendations that are directives that are made by City Council the plat has in fact changed. With the change of the plat, so too have the plans with respect to the conditional use permit. So that was probably a long explanation of trying to say, if you have some ideas about minimum house sizes, in particular locations, feel free. We will do what you folks would like to have done if at all possible. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I've only got three plats up here. The one that we just received, the one from June and the previous one that has a November 18tH 1997 date on it. The first two both said 1,304 sq. ft. on house sizes. If there was an earlier one that said something different, I don't have a copy of it. So the only one that has a 1,250 is just the one that arrived this week. Does any of the commissioners have anything different? De Weerd: I've only been here since June. MacCoy: I think our real question is what is our base number for house site. We don't expect you to tell us exactly what lot, because we understand that some developments goes on here. I would like to know the minimum size that we are going to hear about being (Inaudible). Rossman: Mr. Chairman, maybe the applicant may be looking for some direction? Is that... MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 17 Bradbury: While I'm looking for direction, I'm leafing through the booklet that was submitted with the application clear back in January. I'm looking at plan six and seven that are behind tab six and... I'm thinking that these plans for the duplex lots are for about 1,250 sq. ft. There may have been a number on the plat, which I think was maybe wrong. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, in the booklet, that was submitted February 1998, minimum square footage of structures is listed as 1,304 sq. ft. Page 3 of the findings also lists 1,304 sq. ft. MacCoy: That's what we want to know. Bradbury: He's right, just as he said it, I found it too. It does say 1,304 sq. ft. Perhaps I'm not remembering things correctly. Borup: Mr. Bradbury, does the booklet have some of the duplex or two unit structures listed in it. Bradbury: Yes. Borup: Was that under tab six, behind tab six? Bradbury: The reason I'm hesitating, I'm not sure you've got the same-we've got two different booklets, yeah, it's behind tab six. I was leafing through and trying to figure that out, because if you look at plan six and seven... Borup: Those are one half of a two unit? Bradbury: Right. I think they are about 1,250 sq. ft. which was what was originally proposed. Borup: Well and that's maybe where I was leading to Mr. Chairman. I think we need to keep the single family residences at the 1,304 as I think all the documents state. Maybe we could open for discussion on the size on the two unit structures. A 1,250 minimum there would be a 2,500 ft. building. Is that acceptable? Sounds like, I think maybe the planning administrator would like to comment on that. (Inaudible) Stiles: Commissioners, I wouldn't particularly have a problem with the duplex units being .reduced in size. Our ordinance does require that the minimum house size has to be designated on the plat. I don't think it's acceptable to put the minimum house size at 1,304 or whatever it is. They made representations repeatedly that the majority of these homes will be 1,600-1,700 sq. ft. I think they MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 18 need to indicate on the plat exactly how many of these are going to be 1,600- 1,700 sq. ft. whether it's exact designation of which lots, the ones particularly along Golf View Estates need to be designated that, then the majority of them, they could simply put a number. It'll be a record keeping process for us in the building department, but it's better than having a note on there that says 1,250 or 1,304 and they come in to get a building permit and nobody is monitoring it, all they see is that note and there is no record of any other requirement and I don't want to get into that. MacCoy: Good comment. Bradbury: That makes sense to me too. We could maybe do a percentage distribution, so many have to be so at such, such size. If that's what you would like to see. MacCoy: How's that Shari? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if the building department would agree with the record keeping part of that, I don't know. I'm trying to keep track of how many. What would be wrong with stating the minimum size on the duplex at 1,250 and specifically indicating-we're only looking at four or five lots along Golf View Frontage, and those are the large ones. The ones that I'm seeing are 80- 84 foot frontage. Those maybe appropriate for larger footage and those could be designated right on the plat, and then pefiaps the others could be based on the square footage of the lot. I think the very lot sizes are consistent with what the city has done in the past when the minimum has been less than the 1,350 across the board. I guess some comments from staff, but also Mr. Bradbury, would that make sense to maybe have a lot size based on the specific lots and that would be based on the square footage. Maybe those over the 8,000 feet would be the whatever size we are talking about here. Whether it's 1,600 or 1,500 or whatever. Bradbury: It certain makes sense to me that you might want to impose a specific minimum house size on the lots that are adjacent to Golf Vew because those are the lots that the City Council wanted to have enlarged. Perhaps the minimum house size on those that you folks are comfortable with, we could do. I guess the typical, or standard R-4 minimum I think is 1,400 or 1,401 something like that. Obviously that number is acceptable, if it's a larger number that you are looking for, that's okay too. Another area you might want to think about calling out specifically perhaps are these lots 2-9 that go along the golf course there. Those all were also, those lots were made larger as a result of the request of the City Council. So they would all, they would easily accommodate larger homes. I am a little reluctant to try and specifically call out a minimum house size for every lot along there, it just may turn out that somebody may really like a golf course house and really only want 1,500 sq. ft. or whatever the number is. Like I said, MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE t9 we're trying to do something that you folks will-I can finally get this thing out of your hair, if we can. Borup: How many lots do we have on the golf-is that 31-34? (Inaudible) Bradbury: Golf View, that's 31-34, correct. MacCoy: Bruce, do you have any comments on this? Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners. I still think that most of the lots need to be 1,600-1,700 sq. ft. that's what they have represented repeatedly. I would say most means more than 50%. The easiest way for-if you went with the 8,000 sq. ft. there is only five that are 8,000 sq. ft. The easiest way for us to track it would be a definite designation on those lots that we are going to require the 1,600, minimum 1,600 sq. ft. unit and those would preferably be the ones on the perimeter next to the golf course and next to Golf mew Estates. However many it takes to make the majority of the lots minimum 1,600 and then the rest of them could be the-1 don't know, I guess a 1,304, which is what they represented on their application as the minimum. If the commissioners want to approve a different size for the duplex units, that's fine. I interpret most as being 51 %. MacCoy: Very good, thank you. Commissioner Borup, any comments? Borup: I guess my interpretation is a little bit different. I know that most would be more than half, but I took that as part of testimony. All the written documentation had the 1,304. The packet that they submitted had the 1,300 the plat said that. Truthfully, I don't think Mr. Bradbury or anybody knows. The marketplace is going to determine that. It does make sense to me if we are going to do as Ms. Stiles mentioned, there are only five that are over 8,000. We designated the Golf View and the golf course lots, I already counted that once and now I've forgot the count. There is 12 of them there, in that total. I guess I would be reluctant to go beyond that from my part. It may well be that the percentage will be there. Some of it may have been by past experience and other phases I don't know, but that's to me seems fairly restrictive. I guess what I'm saying through a designation with the minimum size on those 12 lots. Perhaps a reduction on the two unit buildings and then leave the rest as submitted. MacCoy: Commissioner De Weerd, do you have any questions on that? De Weerd: I just wondered Mr. Bradbury what you thought the applicant would think about the 50% over 1,600 sq. ft. The duplex unit is a minimum of 1,250 and the remaining lots a minimum 1,304. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 20 Bradbury: Unfortunately I haven't talked to him specifically about that requirement, I can't really give you a, yeah that's fine, or no that's not fine. My gut instinct tells me that it will be disturbing to them because of the lack of flexibility, maybe it won't be a big deal, because I think these folks have the idea that they are going to try and get larger homes built in there. I don't know, I wish I could give you a better answer. Nelson: I have a question Mr. Bradbury. Can you respond to Shari's impression that more than 50% of the lots were going to be over 1,600? She must have gotten that impression from somewhere, so someone... Bradbury: The developers vision certainly was and is that the homes in this subdivision that most of them will be in the 1,600-1,700 sq. ft. range. Nelson: You don't want your vision in writing though? Bradbury: Well, it's in writing, you've got it in front of you. That's what was submitted with the application. The question really is that if you folks are inclined to make that vision a condition of approval. Which, I think you are entitled to do if that's your decision. I guess I'll leave it at that. MacCoy: Commissioners, any other comments, questions, requests. Nelson: I'd just like to comment that I could support either approach and I think the proximity to the golf course is going to push a lot of those house sizes up anyway. The very minimum are going to make it to the 1,600 anyway. So I'm comfortable in not making that an absolute. I'm supporting commissioner Borup, is what I'm trying to say. Rossman: Before we get to any more comments, I guess we should either ask further questions or wrap up the public hearing. MacCoy: That's what I'm going to do next but I'm waiting for them to finish this process right now. We're almost down to that point, I think. Rossman: Then we can open it up for discussion. MacCoy: Lets see if we can finish questioning him. Commissioner De Weerd? De Weerd: I have no questions. MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson? Nelson: I have no questions. MacCoy: Commissioner Borup? MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 21 Borup: I have none other than, I only found in one sentence the mention of the 1,600-1,700 feet. It may be other places, but... MacCoy: Do you have anymore questions? Borup: No, that's all I have. MacCoy: Okay, thanks Mr. Bradbury, you can sit down. Anybody else in the audience here have any comments to make. If not, I'm going to-staff do you have anything else that you want to add? I want to close the public hearing at this point and commissioners, what is your desires. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, just for a point of view, in this Mr. Bradbury did mention that most of the homes would be an excess of 1,600-1,700 sq. ft. That was during a public hearing. The people that came to testify, they did hear that same comment, so I would not feel comfortable changing something that wasn't during a public hearing. MacCoy: So what is your desire. De Weerd: I guess my desire would be to make the 50% of the minimum lot requirements over 1,600 sq. ft to include tots 31-34 and 2-9. The remaining lots would be a minimum of 1,304, with the exception of the duplex units as a minimum of 1,250. That's what I would be comfortable with. MacCoy: Is that a motion? De Weerd: What would it be a motion to? Just to change this preliminary plat? MacCoy: I've got to have an approval for a preliminary plat. De Weerd: Okay, sure, I'll try that. I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for the ~Ilas at the Lakes Subdivision to include the parking area, as was on the past plat that would include five spaces as well that it would show 50% of the lots would have a minimum of a 1,600 sq. ft. to include lots 31-34, lots 2-9 that the remaining lots be a minimum of 1,304 with the exception of the duplex units at a minimum of 1,250. MacCoy: Do I have a second on that? Without a second, things are going to fail. Alright, is there another motion. Borup: First maybe the information Mr. Chairman, unless it was mentioned elsewhere and it may have been, but the July 14th meeting I think was the one that made the comment on the size. Mr. Bradbury was responding to a question from commissioner Mac Coy. Commissioner MacCoy's question was about the MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 22 homeowners association and who going to take care of those and it is going to be costly for them. It's kind of a different subject. His reply was "I don't think this is going to be a cheap old subdivision, that's not the mark that these guys are after. These guys are after, these guys are after the market, the bulk of the homes in the subdivision and you don't have them (Inaudible). submitted here six months ago, the bulk of the homes are proposed to be in excess of 1,600-1,700 ft. So we are not talking about a number, just little boxes. I know these aren't mansions by any means, but they are reasonably sized homes. The market is to try and find people, said in the past meeting with you to try to find people who want and have nice homes and secured environment, but have a bunch of yard and maintenance duties," probably was stated not have a bunch. "You are right, they are going to have a fair amount of homeowners dues in order to maintain, (Inaudible) private road, with a pathway, etc." Perhaps it did come up in one of the earlier ones, and maybe that's where it was, but this comment was (Inaudible) the maintenance. MacCoy: Okay, do you have a motion to make then? Borup: I would move that... MacCoy: Shari, you have a comment. Stiles: Commissioners, I would also like to direct you to tab ten of the document that they submitted. It shows 33 of the units will be over 1,600 sq. ft. Now if we can't rely on the applications that they submit... Borup: Which tab? Stiles: Eight. Borup: Oh, eight. De Weerd: I could restate my motion. Stiles: It doesn't show anything less than 1,300 sq. ft. Borup: Can that tab, for the record it shows a product mix of the entire subdivision. MacCoy: Since it was submitted as a document then, unless it has been changed. We have nothing to show that it's been changed, document wise. Borup: Commissioner De Weerd, was your motion 50%? De Weerd: Yes it was. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 23 Borup: Do we know how many lots we're talking about? That's also changed. Are we around 43 lots, around 43? De Weerd: Yeah 43. Borup: So you are saying that half would be 22? The original documentation had (Inaudible) 34 over 1,600 feet in the original booklet. That's, I'm not sure if the total lot, well, the lot count was also reduced in that time too. Okay, Commissioner De Weerd, would you like to state your motion? De Weerd: Maybe I want to change it. Borup: One question for Mr. Freckleton. The common lot, the plat has numbered at 47, should that be 3$? Freckleton: It appears that it should be, yes. Borup: The common lot was number a lot number 47, right next to lot 37. I guess what they did was... De Weerd: It's out of sequence. Borup: What they did was numbered all the building lots and then left over common lots they started at the end of the building lot sequence. It's still confusing on the blocks. MacCoy: On your map, 38 is the private streets on this material. Borup: Okay, because of the private streets, we've only got one block on this and this. So Mr. Freckleton, does that still stay the same or does it make any difference since they are all one block. Freckleton: Shari just pointed out that there are 43 lots. When you do have a private street, that street has to be a lot number. It does make it hard to have consecutive numbering of lots. Borup: Okay, so we're fine on the numbering? Freckleton: Yeah. De Weerd: One clarification I'd like from Shari is on the new table that you pointed out, all of those lots, with the exception of the duplex and the triplex, we're going to be over 600 sq. ft. Is that what? Stiles: Commissioner De Weerd, it showed everything but the duplex lots and four other lots would be 1,600 or greater. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 24 De Weerd: So if we subtracted out the duplex lots and the four additional lots that they were requesting that would leave 29 lots, right? So I could amend it rather than 22 go to 29 on my motion? Is that correct? Rossman: You need to make a new motion. You need to make the motion, state the motion. MacCoy: We are waiting for a motion. De Weerd: Okay, well I will based on this table that I see, I will make a motion. would like to move to approve the preliminary plat for the Villas at the Lakes Subdivision, with the change of noting the parking area to include five parking spaces that 29 lots need to meet a minimum 1,600 sq. ft. per unit to include lots 31-34 and lots 2-9, that the duplex units need to be a minimum of 1,250 sq. ft. and the remaining lots a minimum of 1,304. MacCoy: Do I hear a second? Borup: Second. MacCoy: Any discussion? I think we've had a lot of discussion already. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: Two ayes, one nay, and one absent. Borup: Just a comment, Mr. Bradbury might want to pass along sometimes it is not necessarily good to put too much information in the packet. MacCoy: Alright, moving on back to item no.8. That which was tabled earlier this evening. ITEM NO. 8: TABLED BEFORE ITEM NO. 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (48 UNITS ON 8.53 ACRES) -THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT -NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LAND VILLAGE NO. 1: MacCoy: Commissioners? De Weerd: I assume that I could make a motion to approve the Findings of Fact with the amendments that were noted previousl~f? MacCoy: On item no. 7, which is the preliminary plat. De Weerd: Counsel, is that what I need to do? REcE~D AUG p 3.1998 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSI CIS OF MERIDIAN STEINER DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONTHEUVILLASMAT TORE LAKESNSUBDIVISIONVELOPMENT NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE N0. 1 MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearings on January 13, 1998, February 10, 1998, and July 14, 1998, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., the Applicant, appearing through its representative, Steve Bradbury, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1, A notice of a public hearing on the application for the conditional use permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks 13, 1998, prior to said public hearings scheduled on January February 10, 1998, and July 14, 1998, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearings; that the matter was duly considered at the January 13, 1998, February 10, 1998, and July 14, 1998, hearings; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. The property is located within the City of Meridian at Page 1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) the Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No. 1. The property is described in the application for a conditional use permit, which description is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property. 3. Pursuant to the application, the property is presently zoned as R-4, Low Density Residential District. The proposed use of the property is to construct 37 single family, 3 duplexes, 1 triplex. The Applicant presented a site plan depicting the location of the proposed use. Pursuant to the application, the Applicant agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, associated with the use, whether that use be residential, commercial or industrial. 4. That the R-4 District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3., as follows: ,~R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Only single- family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R- 4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those. areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. That the planned residential development of 37 single family dwellings, 3 duplexes and 1 triplex in a district of R-4 Low Density Residential, as proposed by the Applicant, is an allowed FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) z conditional use in the R-4 District. 6. That the subject property is presently vacant. 7. That sewer and water is available to the property and is required. 8. Mr. Steve Bradbury testified as follows; that Steiner Development is requesting approval of a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a residential subdivision. The site is 8 '~ acres and located east of Black Cat between Ustick and Cherry Lane. The parcel was originally part of Ashford Greens Subdivision but the developer did not exercise its option on the property, so Steiner Development did. Mr. Bradbury further testified that the proposal calls for 37 single family detached units, 3 two unit townhouses and one 3 unit townhouse for a total of 46 separate living units. That works out to about 5 '~ units per acre over the 8 '-~ acres. The proposal also calls for a private street on a forty- two-foot-right-of-way with a five foot sidewalk on one side. The sidewalk would be around the outside perimeter. The lots became smaller due to the 20 foot sewer easement to make a common lot. The lots are now about 3500 square feet. Before their testimony there was much discussion and figuring on the lot sizes to help solve the ,problem. At present the smallest lots are up to about 4,000 square feet, but could be up to 4500 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 5700 feet across the subdivision. Minimum square footage of homes is 1304 square feet. Mr. Bradbury pointed out the seven different house plans; list of the various FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) numbers of units, and the square footage. The square footage ranges from 1304 up to 1785, and the proposal is to have 14 of them. Mr. Bradbury pointed out most of the homes would be larger than the minimum sizes. Each unit will have a two car garage and front driveways, which allows accommodation for two additional vehicles, for a total of four vehicles for off street parking per unit. All the units will be single story. The setbacks are in accordance with the code, except for the request that the front setback be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet, and the street setbacks be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet. This would be similar to the concept and design to the Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivision #6. This would not be restricted to just senior housing. Commissioner Johnson was pleased with the presentation and Commissioner Smith also acknowledged it was a good site plan and it deserved decent homes. Commissioner Smith also questioned if they were going for a variance on the minimum lot size, and the front yard setback, even though the blueprints states the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet, and the front building setbacks to be 20 feet. Mr. Bradbury responded what is seen on the blueprints are the required sizes for an R-4 zone, but it is not what is proposed. Commissioner. Smith clarified what the applicant is wanting, and that is, a 15 foot yard setback, and the smaller lot sizes would be for the two unit townhouses. Commissioner Borup had a clarification on the conditional use, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) and whether the changes would be reflected on the plat before it is recorded. Mr. Bradbury confirmed that it would be part of the planned unit development. All the plat notes will be reflective of the true state of affairs not just a recitation of the standard ordinance requirements when it is recorded. 9. Vern Moore questioned if there was going to be a 20 foot sewer easement behind the property, and if it would be a walking path, golf lane, golf cart lane or just what? He also wanted to know what lot the triplex would be built on. His last question was if there was a possibility of hooking into their pressurized irrigation system. 10. Gordon Margulieux gave the following testimony regarding his concerns. His first concern was the lot size due to the sewer right-of-way easement and how nothing could be built on it. Additionally, lot 2 would be for single families not the duplex, and it would be about 3100 square feet. Apparently, what was mentioned at the hearing is a revision which he desired to see the revision. Presently it is 3100 square feet which is quite a bit different than the 8000 square feet which is R-4. Ashford Greens in their proposal was looking at apartments and units of apartments, about 8 units of apartments per acre, which would be 5 ~ per acre. These would be individual homes with over half of them on lots ranging from 4500 to 5100 square feet, with some being 8400 and 6700 square feet. He feels these lot sizes are consistent with the Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 1. He is looking forward to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) completion of the subdivision. He continued with the comment that his house was the first in the subdivision on lot 3 adjacent in the Cherry Lane #1 Subdivision. Another consideration is the street; that the street will be ten and a half feet longer or farther out than the current house, and the street belongs to Ada County Highway District. The plans also show the sidewalk will be moved. He also commented on what would happen to the small section which belongs to the ACHD and how it would be handled for the corner homeowner. He inquired if there would be a separate home owners association with just that section of houses, not part of Cherry Lane Subdivision Home Owners Association; that they will maintain the path. 11. Barbara Moore's testimony pertained to the 20 foot sewer easement and what was going to be done with it. She questioned if their property line was longer; if it goes out to the street or if their property went 10 feet back into the easement. She thought there was a discrepancy between the two maps. 12. Steve Bradbury addressed Mrs. Moore's questions by stating the intention was not to include the sewer easement as part of the pedestrian pathway; that it would be included as part of the side yard and landscaped. Further comments from Steve Bradbury addressed where the three unit townhouses will be located. Regarding the discrepancy in the length of the street, he felt Keith Jacobs, the engineer who prepared the plat, could better answer the question. They wouldn't FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) plat something they didn't own or didn't match up. Taking out the 20 foot sewer easement calculated the lot to be 4000 square feet. One way to accomplish that would be to move the small road a little further up. With some adjustments they feel the concern over the lot could be solved. 13. Gordon Margulieux's last two questions concerned whether or not the sewer line would be on a separate lot, and about the pressurized irrigation. Steve Bradbury responded the staff had suggested the sewer easement be made a separate common lot and the developers agreed to it. Regarding the pressurized irrigation and if the Margulieuxs could hook in to it, Mr. Bradbury commented that it has not been discussed with the developer, but could more than likely be accomplished. The issue of water rights as to where they could be applied, and to obtain approval from the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District to include properties outside the platted subdivision was brought up. Additional comment included whoever is hooked to the pressurized irrigation would be billed by Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District for a part of the costs of operation and maintenance, which the Margulieuxs would need to consider. 14. Commissioner Smith had one final question regarding the reason why they are going for smaller lot sizes and narrower streets as opposed to the standard R-4 requirements. Mr. Bradbury stated the developer is trying to provide a variety of housing types and uses for the area. The developer feels there is a market for this type of subdivision, and the surrounding Ashford Greens FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Subdivision has part of this type of area. Pertaining to the street, a private street would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and would not be used by the regular public. This street would be limited to a great extent and that is why the typical 50 foot right-of-way would be required. Commissioner Johnson' s last comment was, "But it' s the location and the fact that it's a unique market and that's why the developer thinks it will work. Right?" Mr. Bradbury responded affirmatively. 15. Steve Bradbury requested that the previous testimony be incorporated into the hearing on the matter. 16. At the February 10, 1998, Planning and Zoning meeting the Commission made a motion and voted to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 17. Steve Bradbury, representative for the Applicant, addressed the Commission with the following testimony at the July 14, 1998, public hearing. Steve Bradbury noted this item originally came to the Commission in January of this year, and that it was recommended for approval to the City Council. The project, at that time, was contemplating a total of 46 living units, 37 of them being single family detached 3 two unit townhouses for a total of six more units. As well, there would be a three unit townhouse for three more for a total of 36. When it reached City Council in March the testimony brought before the Council expressed opposition to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) project. Primarily residents of Golfview Subdivision and the Cherry Lane Village Subdivision responding to the lot sizes. City Council took that testimony under advisement and asked that the plat be revised to enlarge the lots in those areas and it was agreed by Steiner Development to prepare a revised plat. The plat has since been revised. The developer has eliminated a total of three living units so there are a total of 43 units . This change resulted in 33 single family detached dwellings and then two 10 townhouse units. The townhouse units would be moved to the southerly part of the project. The townhouses at Cherry Lane Village were taken out all together and replaced with single family detached lots. The townhouses next to Golfview were also eliminated except for two that are immediately adjacent to the entry way where there's a whole line of townhouses that come along Interlachen. The townhouses are now clustered on the westerly side of the project so they are away from the existing developments of Golfview and Cherry Lane Village. The third thing that was done was that the lot sizes were increased in two locations. Along Golfview there are now four lots with a minimum of not less than 8000 square feet in size, and this will be reflected on the final plat. The lots that are closest to Cherry Lane Village area were also increased in size, with lot sizes ranging from 6, 375 up to 9, 350. The issue that is still unresolved at the time Planning and Zoning reviewed this application was whether or not Interlachen would be required by the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Ada County Highway District to connect through to the road that is the collector road that serves Ashford Greens. At that time the ACHD's official position was that they wanted it connected. The ACHD has since agreed and have abandoned the notion that there should be connection through, so that matter should be behind them. The ACHD gave staff findings on or about June 3, 1998, and those findings indicated they liked the cul-de-sac idea. Commissioner Smith inquired of the ten townhouse lots. Mr. Bradbury clarified that the townhouses took up lots 20 and 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and also 36 and 37, to make a total of ten. The last revision of the map is July 10th and Mr. Bradbury is to get the Commission the new map dated July 10th. Clarification was also made that these are two ten unit townhouses and not duplexes or triplexes. Commissioner De Weerd questioned if there were any open spaces. Mr. Bradbury pointed out that one piece of property, which is remote from the building lots across the canal, and another piece of property over by the golf course side will be open space. The developer has proposed to donate this third of an acre to the City for use as part of its golf course, without charge. The path that goes along the southerly boundary works its way up along the canal which would be used to access pedestrians and golf carts to access the golf course. This would be next to the relocated clubhouse. The total open square footage space is about an acre including the donated ground. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Commissioner De Weerd brought up the comment of Councilman Anderson concerning the gate and how it would be responded to by emergency vehicles. Mr. Bradbury addressed the issue by saying, "The intention is to work it out with the Fire Department and whatever other emergency services are involved. Find out what they prefer and install that type of system." Commissioner De Weerd addressed the question as to the total number of lots per acre. Mr. Bradbury commented that it was 5. Because the Ashford Greens Subdivision did not exercise its option on a piece of property, Steiner Development picked it up and is presenting the plat, attempting to follow the conceptual approval that was granted to Ashford Greens. Mr. Bradbury thought Golfview was in existence prior to Ashford Greens. Commissioner De Weerd questioned the landscaping. Mr. Bradbury noted there would be landscape treatment at the entry, as well as the area over the cart path. Mr. Bradbury could not be precise as to how it would be landscaped but there would be a walkway, grass, bushes and trees. There has not been a landscape plan drawn up. He noted that he would prepare this for the final plat. Bruce Freckleton from the Public Works/Building Department addressed a couple of questions. The first pertained to the original comments from January of this year regarding a pressure sewer main that crosses portions of the property. His original comment from January was that those should not be easements but a common lot. If there should be a break on a forced main they need FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) to get in right now. Mr. Freckleton stated, "I don't know - it's looks like we've got one of them on this revised plat as a common lot but it looks like the other one is still within an easement and I'm just kind of wondering - okay you still show it on your plat as an easement though." Mr. Bradbury responded that the plat as drawn shows a common lot on the part Mr. Freckleton was talking about, and he thought this was a temporary easement that would be abandoned at some time. Mr. Freckleton acknowledged that it was true and it would be when Golfview develops out to Black Cat, then that lift station would be abandoned. Mr. Freckleton noted that his original comment was that it would be a common lot owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. "The written response from PLS, the applicant's engineer, was that the sewer easement area will be a common lot owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. The area landscape plan will be submitted to the city for review and approval." Mr. Freckleton noted he was a little confused as to why this project was not there now. Mr. Bradbury stated, `~It sounds like we need to make that a common lot, and if that needs to be a condition of approval, that's certainly appropriate." Commissioner De Weerd brought up the issues about the tiling of the ditches and the potential buffering to adjacent subdivisions. Mr. Bradbury responded that there were no plans to the either of the two ditches because they exceed the size limits the City generally requires for tiling. Also, the ditch between FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) the project and Golfview sits on a 50 foot easement. The ditch itself provides a fair amount of separation between the two subdivisions. His understanding is that the ditch between their project and Golfview is entirely within the Golfview lots. The ditch is not a centerline. The property line from Golfview actually goes all the way over. The other side between this project and the golf course have the lots and another 50 foot ditch easement, plus the fairway. Beyond the fairway is another couple hundred feet before you get to houses. Commissioner De Weerd inquired if the public would have access to the pathway, to which Mr. Bradbury responded with a yes. Commissioner Borup inquired about when the conceptual review was done for Ashford Greens if that was a public hearing. Mr. Bradbury thought it was because it was a PUD and preliminary plat. Mr. Bradbury testifed that they didn't have a design for this parcel at that time. The preliminary plat came about because one was done for the R-4 portions of Ashford Greens. Mr. Bradbury's recollection was that the City was taking an overall view and moving densities around and taking into account the fact that Ashford Greens property owners were donating property for the City golf course, kind of one big package. The City was getting a golf course and in exchange Ashford Greens was getting a little bit higher density in a couple of locations. Since Ashford Greens developers did not have a specific development proposal, for what they called medium density areas, the council gave it a conceptual approval for a density of up to 8 units per FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) acre. 18. Wayne Crookston was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. His lot is zoned R-4 and the golf course, by one fairway, is between his lot and this development. His greatest concern is over the compatibility with his lot. Mr. Crookston has close to 15,000 square feet, a little over a quarter of an acre. He thought the Comprehensive Plan stated things have to be compatible. He feels that the smaller lots are not compatible with the size of his lot or those of Golfview. The lots were somewhat enlarged along Golfview, and somewhat larger right across from his property. Going west, after his property, they gradually go down hill. He feels that is not a compatible situation, unless they put lots at least R-4 of 8000 square feet. He doesn't feel they are going to be compatible, and that they should be larger than 8000 square feet. The lots that abut them are larger than 8000 square feet . He also commented that when it was dealt with the property was under Ashford Greens, it was placed definitely in an R-8 situation, PUD, but not platted out. He apologized for not appearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, but he didn't find out about it until it went to City Council. He does appreciate what they have done. 19. Joe Stafford was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. He noted that he lives on Plum Rose which is in Golfview Subdivision. His lot is approximately 16 to 17,000 square feet in size. He appreciates the lot size increases, but there is nothing FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) that high a density on either side of Golfview and/or Cherry Lane in that immediate area. Another area of concern is about being conceptually approved. The key issue, he thinks, is that it was conceptually approved for Ashford Greens, and it had high. density property. Apparently they were giving quite a bit of property for the golf course, thus allowing them to cluster high density. This present project is not giving or adding more golf course. The talk is donating three quarters of an acre to that area. Another concern is as many times as the project has been presented before Planning and Zoning and City Council there is still not a correct map sent to the public. No landscaping to be able to review or discuss. Mr. Stafford also brought up concern over the setbacks, and that he understood they were requesting a variance for setbacks to the rear yards. He wondered if they were going to have a 20 foot setback from the rear yard. Commissioner Smith noted that it stated a 15 foot setback on the map and this is normal city ordinance. Bruce Freckleton commented on the discussion about setbacks that they looked standard, and that the townhouse lots would be a zero lot line. Additionally, noting 20 feet on the front, 15 in the rear and the side yard with a street is 20 feet. Mr. Freckleton did clarify that the side yard setback is five foot per story. Continued discussion by Mr. Stafford questioned the street widths and sidewalk issues. Bruce Freckleton addressed his concerns by stating they are private streets, and therefore are Page. 15 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) narrower. There will only be a sidewalk on one side of the street, and this is alright as long as the City Council does not require sidewalks on both sides. Mr. Stafford brought out the fact that there are 8000 square foot homes along Golfview, but when you go down 30 to 40 feet they drop down to 5000 to 4000 square feet. He noted that this does effect the immediate area. 20. Gordon Margulieux was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. He noted that his concern was over the lighting and safety of the path. Teenagers within the neighborhood with an unlit path could be a problem. The developer has expressed a willingness to maybe light it to a certain extent. The solution changes from lighting or locking it. Comments were also noted about landscaping and Mr. Margulieux has not seen anything on it. Earlier in the day they had talked about the 20 foot area would be paved and maintained by the homeowner's association. Maintenance is an issue if the homeowner's association chooses not to maintain that area. He additionally commented to the R-8 platting. Apparently Planning and Zoning were to go to them and talk about it which has not been done. He felt that wasn't conceptual approval. He noted he has been at all the meetings he received a notice on. He brought up that there were some requests for changes to the setback, and that the developer has been straight forward with them. Mr. Margulieux also brought up that at the original meeting that setbacks were discussed. The front was a change from 20 to 15 and the side to the street, whatever side is adjacent to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 16 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) street, and also a change from 20 to 15. The rear also was to change from 15 to 10 on some lots. Also, these changes did not pertain to all of the lots. In response to Commissioner Borup's questions, Mr. Margulieux's final comments were addressed to Commissioner Borup. They would like to see the clubhouse developed and get it over with. He has called 9-1-1 when he has seen people peering around the area, and sometimes when they've had parties at the clubhouse there have been problems, but this is usually once a year. From his point of view he feels the subdivision in general is not a bad subdivision, and he feels they have tried to do a lot of things to satisfy or try to satisfy the people in his subdivision. 21. Robert Patchin was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. He's at a disadvantage since the map he has is small and apparently different than the large one that's displayed. He feels the density is a little too much for the surrounding area and is not compatible. He's not sure what could be done if they reach their limit as far as the number of lots to their investment on no return. He thinks the traffic will increase, and if it's not restricted it will be a lower cost of housing, and more children. He thought originally it looked like a request for six variances. He brought up the fact he had sent a letter to the City addressing concerns on moving the townhouses away from the edge next to the larger lots in the other subdivisions. He'd also like more time to study the real map. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 22. Mr. Bradbury re-addressed the Commission by stating, "In this case there's a proposal to provide the city with some additional property for the golf course and provide some additional open space, and as a result the developer is asking for consideration as a PUD." This means there are no variances, and this term is used in the ordinance or in general rules of law. There have been a number of exceptions asked for under the PUD process. One is the project be served by a private street because it is a dead end cul-de-sac. The intention is to construct a security gate for the gated community. The streets are less than ACHD's standards, but the ACHD will not own and maintain them. They will be maintained and owned by the homeowner's association. Sidewalk will be placed on one side of the street only. A request for front yard setbacks to be reduced from 20 to 15 feet, and 18 for the garage units has been requested. Also the street side yard setbacks be reduced from the standard 20 to 15 feet. He noted the map is the same but the numbers have been modified for logical sequence. He sees compatibility as uses, such as residential next to residential and not a hog farm against residential. He doesn't feel that the lot square footage has to stay consistent, or else every lot in Meridian should be the same square footage. Mr. Bradbury also noted there is some distance between Golfview and Cherry Lane Village with the golf course and canal. In regards to the gated path, he stated, "The path is going to be open at both ends. It's gated so that people from outside of the subdivision FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 18 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) cannot come into the subdivision, but people from outside the subdivision can access the path and go all the way along the path without having to negotiate or open or close the gate, so it is open, and I'm not sure maybe we didn't - in our conversations with Gordon maybe we didn't make that very clear. But it's open. The proposal is not to pave 20 feet side to side. It would be a walkway with landscaping with I don't know ten feet of pavement and the balance being landscape treatment." Mr. Bradbury then addressed the density issue by stating from the motion by City Council in the Ashford Greens project, "The concept of `medium density' parcels is approved conceptually only." The lighted path will probably be included as part of the landscaping treatment, and would be addressed in the final plat. Commissioner Borup inquired on the percentage of open space, and Mr. Bradbury noted that there is a total of 8 1/2 acres, and there is about an acre of open space, so about 120. Bruce Freckelton brought up the setback issue again. He inquired of the June 9, 1998, packet if the revised plan was incorrect or not. Mr. Bradbury noted the only thing that is incorrect were the lot number sequences. Discussion over the setbacks between Commissioner Borup and Mr. Bradbury noted that the application did not have specific lots mentioned on the reduction. Commissioner Borup stated, "Or is it a blanket on all of them?" Mr. Bradbury responded by stating, "The way I was approaching it rather than trying to figure out which FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 19 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ones were going to need it and which ones were not, just simply make it a blanket." This would be fine. Commissioner De Weerd inquired if the setbacks were along any existing subdivisions that they are asking for the variance or the exception. Mr. Bradbury commented that there are no rear yard setbacks, and that the existing subdivisions abut the rear yards. They are not going to ask for reductions of rear yard setbacks. He also noted that maybe the front yard setbacks would be reduced. Commissioner Borup asked if the reduction was the same as what the original application was of last January, or if it was a blanket request at that time. Mr. Bradbury's added comments were that there was some confusion over the matter because the map showed some of the lots that would need setback reductions. Commissioner Borup noted that the map did not have the lot and blocks on it and were specified other than the map, to which Mr. Bradbury agreed. Commissioner Borup also noted that in the application there was a request for reduction of the setback. Mr. Bradbury agreed. Commissioner De Weerd questioned the pathway area again and who would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep on it. Again, Mr. Bradbury noted it would be the homeowner association's responsibility. Commissioner De Weerd then addressed a question about the landscaping issue to Bruce Freckleton. Mr. Freckleton noted that they typically are submitted to Shari for review, and he didn't think they come before Planning and Zoning unless it is requested. Commissioner MacCoy noted that Shari does most of them, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 20 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) and they see them once in a while. He's not sure if it is just because, they have requested some, and sometimes they get them without requesting them. Mr. Bradbury added comment that the submittal of the drawing that went before City Council was a real rough outline. Commissioner De Weerd then addressed the area of the circle if that was by the gate, and if the area was all asphalt. Mr. Bradbury noted that the public side of the gate would be the access. It would then work its way through, around, and up and then there would be a gate. Commissioner MacCoy wanted to clarify about the homeowners association taking care of the pathway, and additionally there are the private street and sidewalk that go along with it. He stated, "In other words it's going to be costly for them." Mr. Bradbury responded that it will not be a cheap subdivision, and that most of the homes are proposed to be in excess of 1600 to 1700 square feet. The object is to find people who want to have nice homes in a secure environment without having yard work and maintenance. He did agree that they would have a fair amount of homeowners dues in order to maintain not only the private road but the pathway system. Commissioner De Weerd addressed the issue if there were going to be specific designs marketed for uniformity or if there could be built whatever the person wanted. Mr. Bradbury responded that there were specific floor plans and elevations presented to the City originally and those are included in the book. He also noted this is part of the PUD and that they're proposing specific floor FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 21 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) plans and elevations that would be built in the project. He isn't saying that every single one is going to be exactly like that, and there may be someone wanting to build something a little different, but conceptually these are the floor plans they feel will work with the proposed project, including the materials expected to be used and the standards they will need to be met or exceed the standards. Commissioner De Weerd addressed the landscaping and if there would be minimums on them. Mr. Bradbury noted it was addressed in the restrictive covenants and that there will be a minimum requirement for the landscaping. The restrictive covenants will be created and recorded and the buyers will be given a copy of the them before a lot is sold. Also, as part of the final plat process he expects the City will review them. Commissioner Smith wanted clarification as to the lots which met or were in excess of 8000 square feet and those which did not meet the square footage. He noted there is no calculation on a number and they do not know which ones are going to require the variances on the setbacks. Mr. Bradbury noted he could tell them lot by lot what the sizes are, and that it could provide that information. He did not figure out on a lot to lot basis which lots were going to need a 15 foot setback, which ones deal with a 20 foot setback, nor what might need a 19 foot setback. In addressing the issue back to Mr. Bradbury, Commissioner Smith noted he thought it would be helpful to have the sizes of the lots. Commissioner De Weerd addressed her last question pertaining FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 22 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) to the security and about the police responding or patrolling the pathway. Mr. Bradbury's testimony in response was that it was not gated or locked; that an officer could stop his car and go down the pathway, or even drive down through the pathway, as it was not closed. Commissioner Smith responded that with the landscaping that will be done it wouldn't be wide enough, and from the sketch the gate is right on the property line. It would stick out down to the southeast a little, which would be off the property. Mr. Bradbury believed it would be in the ACRD right-of-way. 23. Joe Stafford re-addressed the Commission with testimony pertaining to the compatibility that every lot has to be 10,000 square feet in size, as well as all of Meridian. He noted that 200 of the lots that were raised to 8000 square feet meet the minimum standard. He noted there wasn't an 8000 square foot lot abutting the property. He also noted that 800 of the lots do not meet the minimum square footage for an R-4 zoning, of a PUD. He stated, "But that certainly is not compatibility." He feels that the 80% that do not meet the 8000 square foot requirement are not compatible with his 18,000 or some who have 12,000 square feet. 24. Gordon Margulieux approached the Commission again with his final testimony of the evening. He wanted to clarify about the locked gate. He noted that it is a gated community, there will be a gate on the street that crosses the street that people have to open in order to get through. In regards to security, there may be a gate across the path and at some point in time in the evening it FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 23 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) would be locked. He wanted clarification as to what will happen to the gate, open 24 hours a day but locked at certain times, and that the existing road does not line up with the proposed road that is there. Between the existing curb and the new curb there is ten and one half feet. Since the old road is owned and maintained by the ACRD he wondered if the ten and one half feet would be moved out now. He is just not sure how the area will get controlled. Also, maybe with the lot changes it could be brought back in to line. He also noted there were four houses along that section before and now there are only two. He just wanted to know what the plans were actually going to be. Mr. Bradbury addressed Mr. Margulieux's concerns making sure it was over the ten feet which the highway district owns. He noted they have had discussions with the ACRD and that they were going to buy it from them so that it all lines up. He stated, "I mean it's an engineering thing between Mr. PLS and the ACHD people and if there's extra right-of-way that's not going to be needed, the notion is that Steiner Development would buy it." 25. Commissioner De Weerd inquired if the subdivision would be fenced or open. Mr. Bradbury was not sure, but stated, "Mr. Campbell says that it's likely to be fenced everywhere but along the golf course." 26. Jackie Stafford addressed the Commission with her public testimony pertaining to the landscaping and that as many times as this has been presented there should be plans on landscaping by FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 24 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) now. 27. Commissioner Borup noted that they have more concerns and questions now than they did six months ago, and these were the items that came up at City Council. He didn't know if the Commission could address the changes to satisfy the City Council's concerns. Commissioner De Weerd added that was her question also. She noted the issue about compatibility was high on the list and it had not been met, but feels it has been improved upon. She also believes that multi-land use is a good idea, but she doesn't know what their definition of compatibility was for the perimeters that would be shared with existing subdivisions. Commissioner MacCoy noted that since they didn't get any guidelines on this because of the change from what he had reviewed, and what they received, they felt it should go back to Planning and Zoning and again opened up for public hearing. Planning and Zoning would then hear it again and make a new decision. Commissioner Borup noted that one of the criteria they use regarding compatibility between residential and commercial is buffering. On one side is a 50 foot canal as a buffer and the other side they have a golf course fairway, and the smallest buffer is the pathway. He doesn't have too much concern over the compatibility as some of the other concerns. The discrepancy on the plat is the numbering and the lot sizes and that they should all stay the same, with the exceptions of those that need to be changed. Commissioner Borup FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 25 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) also noted the lot that was 7900 square feet needed to be changed to 8000. Commissioner De Weerd commented to the fact that since it has gone to P & Z and City Council, and at this point in time there is still no clear idea as to what is going on, this is a little confusing. Commissioner Borup brought up that the corrections still need to be made, whether to Planning and Zoning or City Council. Findings would need to be done and then go from there, and they would eventually end up with the City Council. 28. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, have submitted comments, which respective comments are incorporated herein as set forth hereafter. 1. Sanitary sewer service shall be by extension from the existing main line in Interlachen Way. Approval will be contingent upon or ability to accept the additional sewage generated by the proposed development. The subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes to be provided to keep sewer lines on the south and west sides of centerline. Profiles submitted for preliminary sewer design indicate a portion of the main line in Interlachen Lane will have less than the minimum three feet of cover from top of pipe to finish grade. This portion of the project site may have to be filled in order to achieve the required cover. 2. Water service to the site will be by. extensions of the existing main installed in Interlachen Way. Applicant to construct the water mains to and through the proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 3. Identify the source for the pressurized irrigation and whether the system will be owned by Nampa-Meridian FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 26 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Irrigation District or private. If the system is to be private, plans and a draft copy of the 0 & M Manual must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the City's water system would need to be reviewed due to the size of the area to be watered. The developer will be responsible for the payment of assessment fees for the common areas . 4. Streetlights shall be two-hundred-fifty-watt and/or one- hundred watt, high pressure sodium and to be at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Streetlights to be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 5. Submit for review and approval a detailed landscape plan for the common areas and to include fencing, pathways and types of construction with the submittal of the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to signature on the final plat. 6. Along the Eight Mile and Safford Laterals a non- combustible fence needs to be installed prior to applying for building permits. Fencing needs to be set back from the top of bank to alleviate inherent problems with eroding slopes. Construct six-foot-high, permanent, non-combustible perimeter fencing except where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in place prior to applying for building permits. Fencing shall be set at the existing easement line, unless an encroachment agreement is granted by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. 7. A total frontage of 24.84 ~ appears to be grossly defi offset a minimum of five leaving only 14.84 feet for in the southeast portion of frontage of only 22.7 feet. feet for the triplex lots cient. Driveways are to be feet from property lines, a driveway. The duplex lots the property have a combined 8. No parking will be allowed at any time along streets FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 27 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) less than required association will be no parking area. by ACHD policy. The homeowners responsible for enforcement of this 9. A letter of approval from the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District for the roadways as shown or revise to comply with their requirements. 10. Proposals for Planned Unit Developments will include a minimum of ten percent common area, which means land area exclusive of street rights-of-way, buildings, parking areas, structures, and appurtenances except those improvements which are accessible and available to all occupants of the private units within the PD. 11. The Homeowners Association shall own and maintain the sewer easement area, and it will be platted as a common lot. The two adjacent lots will be 3,500 square feet or less. Provide lot closures for all lots to verify square footage. 12. Storage areas will be provided, such as, one adequate space foaction if there is au showing Tt at the beedsdofea by City particular development are less. 13. One additional parking space beyond the required Zoning Ordinance should be required for every three dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. Parking areas may be no closer than four feet to any established street or alleyway. 14. A maintenance for suitable maintenance of building or approved services required all common areas . area will be provided for the repair and 15. Provide a master street drainage plan showing method of collection and disposal. 16. Provide detail of pedestrian walkway/golf cart access; also gates within the development. Interlachen must be continued through the development to provide access to the future golf course clubhouse. ACHD's initial Page 28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) comments were that Interlachen Way must be continued through the development as a~public roadway, but the agency is rethinking that requirement. 17. If the private road is approved, a blanket easement for public utilities will- be included. The proposed covenants for the subdivision will specifically address provisions for a sinking fund to provide maintenance of the roadway and replace the roadway within a 20 year period. 18. Provide a minimum ten percent open space. Donations have been made to the City golf course, but were not a part of the development. 19. Darken up the contour lines on the blueline prints with the revised plat map. 29. Kenny Bowers, Chief of the Meridian Fire Department, requests all codes need to be met. 30. The Central District Health Department, prior to their approval, requires written approval from the appropriate entities pertaining to the central sewage and water approval. The central sewage and central water plan must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. The storm water management plan, and an inventory form needs to be completed and submitted to the Central District Health Department. 31. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments, which respective comments pertain to the right-of-way of the Eight Mile Lateral of 50 feet; 25 feet from the center each way. The developer must contact John P. Anderson or Bill Henson Page 29 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. A~Land Use Change/Site Development application is required prior to final platting. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If surface drainage leaves, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. 32. There was no further testimony given at the hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. All the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing. of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the property. 2. The City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6512 and pursuant to 11-2- 418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. 3. The City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 4. The property is currently zoned (R-4) Low Density Residential District. The (R-4), Low Density Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 3. as follows: R-4 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Only single-family Page 30 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. Conditional Use Permit is defined in the Zoning And Development Ordinance, City of Meridian, Idaho as "Permits allowing an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district." 6. The City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to Triahn Code, Section 67-6512, and pursuant to that section conditions minimizing the adverse impact on other development, controlling the duration of development, assuring the development is maintained properly, and on-site or off-site facilities may be attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in existence. 7. Section 11-2-418 D. states as follows: In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period Page 31 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) for which a Conditional Use may be in existence. 8. This Application for a conditional use has been judged upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it may take judicial notice. 9. Section 11-2-418 C of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits. Upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, assuming that the above conditions or similar ones thereto would be attached to the conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would constitute. a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance; b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance; c. The use would be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and that such use will change the essential character of the same area; d. The use would not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; e. The use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 32 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services; f. The use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; g. The use will involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; h. The use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; and i. The development of the property will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. It is recommended that the conditional use permit be granted in this case. 10. It is recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the previous comments by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, and Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, be incorporated along with the following conditions if a conditional use permit is granted. 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 33 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with street development plans. 4. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for review by the Meridian City Attorney. 5. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606 B. 6. Submit a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 7. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Meridian Public Works Department. 11. The above-conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet these conditions. 12. It is recommended that the request for the conditional use permit be granted. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 34 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 4 CONCLUSIONS p,PPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND is and anning and Zoning Commission hereby adop The Meridian Pl ves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. appro ROLL CALL VOTED COMMISSIONER BORUP VOTED COMMISSIONER De WEERD VOTED COMMISSIONER SMITH VOTED COMMISSIONER NELSON VOTED CHAIRMAN MAC COy(TIE BREAKER) ATION DECISION AND REC~~ hereby recommends Commission and Zoning rove the The Meridian Planning of Meridian that it app to the City Council of the City ro erty requested by the Applicant for the p P Permit satisfy the Conditional Use Applicant shall Application. The aw described in the e Findings of Fact and Conclusions °f he by t conditions set forth in t ustified and appropriate conditions as found j the water or similar uired to meet ro erty be req Council and that the p p Codes, Uniform City and Life Safety and sewer requirements, the Fire aving and landscaping and the P arking requirements, The Fire Code, P City of Meridian. of the the all Ordinances upon notice to requirements, and to review conditional use should be subject Applicant by the City. MOTION: DISAPPROVED: AppROVED: Page 35 08-04-98 - Final FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LA - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - STEINER DEVELOPMENT R-4) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ( ~ s MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING: September 8, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUMBER: 7 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT (48 LOTS ON 8.53 ACRES) FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUB AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED MINUTES 08/11/98 SEE ATTACHED PLAT 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 14 De Weerd: I believe that we did request a landscape plan for our next meeting. If we could please get that prior to the meeting, that would be helpful. You know, Mr. Bradbury, I don't believe -Shari do you want that specific as to what the plantings would be or do you want a conceptual design? Stiles: I would like it at least conceptual to the point that I can tell that there is in deed room for the pathway that they have proposed and what kind of landscaping is going to be there beyond just the ditch that's there now. De Weerd: Well perhaps I might suggest that you call Shari and work with her on the Findings and maybe pose any questions that you might have on what she needs, and if we could have that prior to the meeting, that would be excellent. MacCoy: Commissioner Smith do you have any conditions before you- Smith: No, my motion is still on the table. MacCoy: Do you want to put any conditions to it? Nelson: I'll second that. Smith: Beyond what Commissioner De Weerd stated, no. Incorporate all the other commissioners' requests. MacCoy: Okay we got a second on the table right? Okay. All in favor of that? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 5: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT - NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, could I move right now to continue the public hearing on the request for preliminary plat for the Villas at the Lakes Subdivision by Steiner Development? Prior: Is that a motion? De Weerd: Can I? It's amotion -until September Stn Smith: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 . Page 15 MacCoy: All agreed? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PUD FOR WILKINS RANCH A THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Smith: Mr. Chairman I have the same comments on this item as I did on the last one, same issues. That Steiner Development could get a copy of the meeting minutes and the Findings of Fact. I think they have all the information that they need to incorporate on to their preliminary plat so we can move this forward. So again I'll go ahead and make a motion that we table this item until our September 8th meeting. MacCoy: Is there a second? Borup: I'll second that. MacCoy: All in favor? Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, could I be heard on that as well? Prior: It's a little now. The item has been - Borup: Well 9 has. Eight is still coming up. MacCoy: Yeah, we did nine just now Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, I guess I just want to state for the record that I have no idea why it is that this matter is being tabled. When we were here a month ago, we spent a substantial amount of time discussing what needed to done and the only change that was asked of the applicant was to make a modification to reflect larger park space in that one area, and here it is. It's one thing that you ask to change - . Smith: But we didn't have that. Bradbury: It's here. f don't understand. All you need to do is open up the map and look at it and see if what the proposal is meets what you requested last time. Smith: It wasn't in my packet. Bradbury: It was a single request that you made. And I don't (End of Tape) MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING: September 8. 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUMBER: 8 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUB AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED MINUTES 08/11/98 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 6 MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TABLES AND CHAIRS FOR OUTSIDE SEATING BY WILD WEST BAKERY - 611 E. 1 sr: Smith: Mr. Chairman, just to make a matter of public record. I don't have any problem with this, but the chairs and tables already are out on the sidewalk. De Weerd: They were before we even heard this. Mr. Chairman, I would move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Nelson: Second. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup, aye. Smith, aye. De Weerd, aye. Nelson, aye. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit for outside seating with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian. Borup: Second. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM N0.4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: De Weerd: Mr. Bradbury are you up there? You're up. Prior: Actually Commissioner - De Weerd: Oh, we're doing Findings. Sorry. Prior: Sit down Steve. De Weerd: I'm trying to really rush to number five. Prior: Me too. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 7 Smith: Page 28 of the Findings, the staffs comments, requirements, did we have a page 28, item 9 did we get a letter from the school district? And then same question has to do with item 16, it says provide detail pedestrian walkway, golf cart access, my question is when is that suppose to be submitted prior to City Council action, after, now? And then item 14, a maintenance building or approved area will be provided for a suitable services required for the repair and maintenance of all common areas. And I don't recall that there was a maintenance building area proposed for this development. I guess item 14 - 14 is probably the most concerning to me. Stiles: Commissioners on item 14 that was a staff requirement that we requested. This project did come before you previously. It was recommended for approval to the City Council. It went to the City Council for a second public hearing and some of the neighbors were upset and wanted it to be reheard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. That's why it came back before you. They have made some modifications. There are some errors on some of the information that they have included on this plat. They haven't met all the requirements of our initial comments, but I don't know if you want to approve this or make any kind of recommendation for approval on this with the errors or I'm not even sure if this is the most recent one that I have. The one I have is dated June 8th, '98; is that what you have? Is that what you're looking at? Smith: I didn't get anything since the last meeting. Stiles: You wouldn't have had anything new. Smith: But I guess that leads into my terse comments at the start of the meeting regarding why this is even on the agenda if we haven't got a corrected plat. But we're not on the plat. I realize that. We're on the Findings, but I don't want to throw a wrench in the works here. I don't want this thing coming back from City Council for starters, and I don't want to approve Findings if we are going to have them - if that's going to cause us problems getting the plat moved through. But I know the plat hasn't - we haven't seen anything that's responded to the comments. I think there was a couple of questions on common lots and the plat didn't reflect that, and it should have been resubmitted before we push it on to City Council, so I don't -and then these things that are in the Findings, I don't remember ever discussing a maintenance building. I didn't see a letter from the school district. Well the fire department, we get the comments, but the school district I didn't see aletter - I don't recall seeing a letter of approval. I'm not saying I didn't get it. I just don't recall it. Then I want to know when specifically so we can make it matter of public record, when they are suppose to provide a detail of the pedestrian walkway, golf cart access. I guess this is a question for the attorney or the chairman. Should we -what should we do on item four so it doesn't adversely affect what we do on item five? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 8 MacCoy: I think you can make as you have had statements which I think are apropos. Staff can give us some guidance as to when we're going to see material, and I still don't like to move anything - in fact we will not move things forward to the council until we actually see the facts. We could go ahead and make the approval of this with no - Smith: Would this move the conditional use permit to the City Council prior to us approving the preliminary plat though? Stiles: Commissioners if you approve this conditional use permit we will be required to go ahead and notice it for presentation to the city council without the plat if you don't approve the plat at the same time. MacCoy: Okay then if we table it we have it in our hands, right? That's the only condition we have. Stiles: Yes. Smith: Then I'm mind set to table because I'm not going to forward on the plat. Prior: Mr. Chairman, we've heard one commissioner's views on this, and I think it's important that you hear what the other commissioners have to say. MacCoy: You heard what we just finished saying here about the fact that table versus moving it, and we don't want the thing in the council's hands without having all the I's dotted, so do you have any comment the fact we table this? Prior: That's entirely up to you. If you want to table consideration of the Findings until a later time, my preference is you table until a date certain to allow the applicant to provide the information that you request. I think it's important thought that Mr. Bradbury and the applicant are back there. I think it's important that you state to them exactly the reason why you are tabling it and what information specifically you want for the applicant to provide. I'm a little uncertain as to what exactly they want, and I see Mr. Bradbury in agreement. Commissioner, if you would express exactly what you want him to do, I think that would be helpful. Smith: Okay, item 14, the maintenance building, it either needs to come off the Findings or it needs to be incorporated on to the plat. I'd like a date certain when the detail of the pedestrian walkway golf cart access is suppose to be provided, and staff asked for it for a reason. I'm sure they don't want it after it's already built. So clarification on that. The school district's letters are pretty standard, and I'm not so uptight about that, but if it's in the Findings as needing to be provided, then as we've been told over the last month and it's not a -this is not directed at Steiner Development and Mr. Bradbury at all, but past applicants haven't incorporated the information we've Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 9 asked them to provide on their submittals before or after they've gone to city council, and they've fallen through the cracks and not been done. So specifically because I don't want -personally and I'm not speaking for the whole commission, personally I don't want to the Findings on without the plat to the city. And the reason I'm not in a position to send the plat on to the city is because of these conflicts with the Findings and with -there was a couple of items and I don't have the minutes in front of me, but there was a couple of items that needed to be corrected on the plat and we have not received that. We don't have that as part of our packet and so it hasn't been done. I can't forward that on either. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess it raises the issue if we have complete information packets and the items that we asked for the time before if they were also provided and what we have prior to this meeting, we wouldn't be in this situation. We would have that information even though the plat follows this discussion, we would already have had a chance to view it and be able to make some logical choices here. My concern is number 14 was not discussed at all at our last meeting. It wasn't raised as an issue by staff. I didn't even see it in the minutes that I read of prior meetings of this building being an issue. So that building came out of the blue. MacCoy: It was discussed and I see it's written because that's off a tape on all the past documents, so I agree with Commissioner Smith that since it's in the documentation as we see it presently it better be ready to go forward all the documents present to this council. Otherwise we should not be releasing that, but that's your decision. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would support Commissioner Smith's option to table this. In the essence of not avoiding other -wasting people's time here. Borup: I think we already -we've been given pretty good guidance from city council. It's already come back once. If at the very least if staff would have received the plat and had a chance to review it, I'd feel more comfortable in this case staff has not received it. And we certainly haven't. I don't know how we can do anything else. Again city council has been pretty clear on what they want. MacCoy: We are asking to approve the Findings of Fact number one. Borup: Right, but I think they go hand in hand enough, and I don't know what it accomplishes to forward the Findings without the plat. MacCoy: All right. Smith: Mr. Chairman, then at this time I would make a motion that we table this item until our September 8th meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 10 Bradbury: My name is Steve Bradbury. I'm representing Steiner Development. I understand your frustration and believe me we're just as frustrated. We've never seen your Findings. We don't know what's in front of you. So, I'm at a complete loss to be able to respond to the questions that are contained in a document that we don't have. In listening to your conversation, you are struggling with respect to a maintenance building. My understanding is the initial staff report suggested under the typical PUD requirements that provisions should be made for a maintenance building. We explained to you in the original public hearing some months ago and in the most recent public hearing that there is no maintenance building. There is no provision for a maintenance building because all the maintenance will be contracted by a third party provider. So it seems to me that if the maintenance building is an issue as a condition to leave it from the Findings because we don't propose one and I don't think you folks ever required one. I think it's just a hold over from a previous staff report. With respect to the pedestrian access and golf course detail, when we met a month ago, the discussion was to my recollection that that would be a matter that would be provided before the council approved the final plat. It would be handled as a staff review detail. And so if what we're looking for is a date certain, let's put it on at the point of the final plat. With respect to the corrections needed for the preliminary plat, I guess perhaps we dropped the ball there, but I got to tell you I don't know where. And part of what we were hoping to have happen is that the Findings would be adopted so that we could prepare you a preliminary plat that complies with the conditions of approval that you impose on the conditional use permit. Otherwise we're guessing, and I know you guys are tired of hearing us guess and believe me we're tired of guessing, and that's kind of the chicken and egg problem that I think we maybe getting ourselves into. If you tell us what you want, believe me, we'll get it to you, and we haven't been yet told what you want. I think the process that the city attorney is suggesting is that the conditional use permit Findings is the process by which you tell us what you want. MacCoy: Hold it right there. Let me ask the question of the staff. Everything that we've talked about, do you have any comments right now? Stiles: Commissioners staff was at a loss to know how to react to this going back to the Planning and Zoning Commission because the changes were really negotiated at City Council level, then sent back because of the opposition from the neighbors and they wanted the opportunity to review the revised plat and speak to those concerns at a public hearing. Probably what needs to happen on this plat because there are some obvious errors on the plat, I'm not sure that the public would know what they're looking at if they did see this plat. It refers to six duplex lots that are two of them are immediately adjacent to the people that were having problems with the duplexes and it also refers to three triplex lots one of which I don't even see on the plat. My concern is approving something that's not correct. It maybe that we need to revise our comments, and if this is the latest version, -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 11 MacCoy: What's your date? Stiles: I have June Stn '98 Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, when we were here last month, we provided you with a revised plat dated July 10, '98. That's the one I've got. Stiles: Staff does not have any copies of the revised plat. Bradbury: Ms. Stiles was not here, and I remember handing one to Mr. Freckleton that night as well as all of you. Stiles: It's almost impossible to comment on something that's handed to you the night of the meeting. De Weerd: I might share a couple of things here. This commission is fairly new. We're evolving, and we're finding out that if what we forward to city council is not complete we're getting it back. That doesn't do you any good and it certainly is overcrowding our agenda. So we need to be conscience what we send forward is going to be complete, and this is all a learning process as the newest member for me especially. What my notes have of last meeting is that we needed resolution on the pressure sewer main, on the common lots. One was made common. The other one had it as an easement. We requested that that have a common lot as well. We wanted specific notation on setback variances, and where they were required, how many would be required. We would like to see a landscape plan on the pathway. We wanted to know how many lots met the R- 4requirements and how many didn't. We wanted to know about the fencing in the front and also about the existing road and how it's not in line with the proposed road. And I believe those were the issues that I noted that we thought we would see at this meeting before this meeting, and if that's of any assistance there you go. MacCoy: Does the applicant ever receive the Findings of Fact prior to this meeting? They are available to him? Okay, by what type of -here's meeting on Tuesday night, do they (inaudible). Berg: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, we prepare the packets on Friday. At that time we call each applicant, and if we can't get a hold of them Friday, we call them Monday saying the packets are prepared. If we get the Findings in at a later time from that Friday, we call them and say we now have the Findings or what other documents that we may have, but we call the applicants and let them know that they are on the agenda and their packets are ready. Sometimes we fax it to them. Sometimes they come pick them up. MacCoy: Anymore comments from staff? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 12 De Weerd: Do you have a letter from the school district? Bradbury: No. As a matter of course a letter from the school district comes out. I don't recall - I mean I don't recall if there has been something more than what is typically sent, their form letter is generally not very helpful. Could I inquire Ms. De Weerd? I'm recalling several of these issues that you've raised except the pressure sewer main. I don't remember what the issue with respect to that was. De Weerd: I'm sure Bruce can help you with that. Freckleton: Commissioner De Weerd, members of the commission, the issue with the pressure sewer main was that the easement that you have shown along the southeast I believe needed to be a common lot over that pressure sewer main instead of an easement. Bradbury: Okay, all right, and you are looking for a landscape plan now as opposed to at final plat? Smith: No, I just wanted to know when staff was asking for that. Bradbury: Well that's what I'm trying to figure out if between now and the next time we come if in fact this thing going to be postponed, if you wanted to see a landscape plan - De Weerd: I would love too, but I won't require it. I would love to though. Bradbury: The discussion at the time, my recollection was at final plat, but if that's not what you want, you just need to tell us what it is and we're going to do our best to provide - De Weerd: If I could ask for it, I would. Smith: I'm not concerned about it. I'm just - if it's in the Findings and staff was vague as far as when they wanted, I just want clarification to be entered in by Shari when she wants it so we can incorporate that into the Findings. Borup: Mr. Chairman, in an effort to move this along it appears to me that all the questions really are concerning items tha# would be on the plat. Is that -the other commissioners agree with that? So far what I've heard are all things that pertain to the plat. You don't agree? Smith: Well if you could get a date certain into these Findings, but yes I agree with you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 . . Page 13 Borup: Well then in light of that I would be in favor of approving the Findings and tabling the plat approval especially in light of what Mr. Bradbury said. That would give them the information that they need and we can move on. Smith: But that information is available to them whether it's approve or not. De Weerd: Mr. Berg, our city clerk, raised an important issue, and that's if we pass the Findings tonight, that will go before city council without the preliminary plat and they really should go hand in hand, should they not? MacCoy: We think so, but that's raising a good point. Smith: I made a motion to table it. De Weerd: Did you make that official? Smith: I did. Borup: Oh, that motion on the table? Mr. Bradbury, if we approve the Findings and held the plat, the end result isn't going to be any different for you, is it? Bradbury: I agree and that's what I was just speaking to Mr. Campbell about, and I think if we're going to get hung up on the plat, let's just table the whole thing and - Borup: Do them both at the same time, and the time frame stays the same. Bradbury: We're going to be back next month anyway. I apologize for that. I wish it didn't happen, but that's where we're going to be. Smith: And by that time staff can - we can either remove item number 14, have a date certain on item 16 and find out whether or not we do have a letter from the school district. MacCoy: Any comments from the staff? Stiles: Commissioners the reason I asked for the detail landscape plan is because they are calling this a PUD. They are required to have ten percent common area. They are showing the edge of the ditch in some areas where they are proposing a pathway at less than three feet from the people's backyard. I think as part of the conditional use permit, those details need to be reviewed and approved and know that that is what you are approving as part of the conditional use permit. Not something after the fact that staff is simply going to review and have to try to negotiate some kind of common ground when what they are proposing at least to me is difficult to tell that that can happen even. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 14 De Weerd: I believe that we did request a landscape plan for our next meeting. If we could please get that prior to the meeting, that would be helpful. You know, Mr. Bradbury, I don't believe -Shari do you want that specific as to what the plantings would be or do you want a conceptual design? Stiles: I would like it at least conceptual to the point that I can tell that there is in deed room for the pathway that they have proposed and what kind of landscaping is going to be there beyond just the ditch that's there now. De Weerd: Well perhaps I might suggest that you call Shari and work with her on the Findings and maybe pose any questions that you might have on what she needs, and if we could have that prior to the meeting, that would be excellent. MacCoy: Commissioner Smith do you have any conditions before you- Smith: No, my motion is still on the table. MacCoy: Do you want to put any conditions to it? Nelson: I'll second that. Smith: Beyond what Commissioner De Weerd stated, no. Incorporate all the other commissioners' requests. MacCoy: Okay we got a second on the table right? Okay. All in favor of that? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 5: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT - NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, could I move right now to continue the public hearing on the request for preliminary plat for the Villas at the Lakes Subdivision by Steiner Development? Prior: Is that a motion? De Weerd: Can I? It's amotion -until September Stn Smith: Second. ~~ t MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: MAY 5 1998 APPLICANT: S7'EINER CORPORATION ITEM NUMBER: 1 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PUD -THE VILLAS AT THE LAK S SUBDMSION AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 4/21/98 SEE ATTACHED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCII, APRII:, 21, 1998 PAGE 2 because Bob didn't mention that but the stations that were done by the various cities we had the best station and we were notified of that by the Boise people, to me it was even more of interest we were told that in a formal meeting with the German (inaudible) Government so I thought that was really good that we shone for our city. . Smith: Malcolm was really correct in that the award is for the volunteers, there were just an untold number of volunteers that made that partnership successful. MacCoy: We couldn't have done it without them. Corrie: Thank you very much. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD APRIL 7, 1998: Cowie: Council you have the minutes of the previous meeting held April 7, 1998, are there any corrections or alterations to those minutes? Bird, Bentley, Rountree: None. Bird: I'll make a motion we accept the minutes of the April 7"' meeting. Rountree: Second. Cowie: Motion made~by Mr. Bird, second by Mr. Rountree that we accept the minutes of the April 7 meeting. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM #1: TABLED MARCH 17, 1998: FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 BY STEiNER CORPORATION: Corrie: I believe that Council we had a -supposed to meet with these people. Bentley: Mr. Mayor for the record we need to point out that City Attorney Crookston has stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Come: Do we have the other attorney here tonight? Bentley: No we do not. Corrie: Okay, I don't think we'll need him MERIDIAN CITY COUNCII, ` APRIL 21, 1998 PAGE 3 Rountree: Mr. Mayor, a meeting was scheduled for our last Council meeting with Steiner Development, we sat with them and explained some of the language in the conditional use permit, some of the desires that we were Looking for in terms of access to certain lots, reduction to the number of lots in the area that bordered Golfview Estates, also some design details that will be included with the CC&R's for adjacent properties to abutting neighborhoods. Since that meeting within the last couple of days I have received and I believe the other councilmen have received a proposed re-plat showing some of the changes that they've come up with since our meeting. In talking to City Engineer Smith prior to our meeting he apparently has not seen this plat so given that if there isn't any further discussion or questions I would move that we table items #1 and #2 till our next regularly scheduled meeting in May which would be May 5"' for the Finding and Facts and the preliminary plat for the ~Ilas at the Lakes Subdivision. Bird: I'll second that. Corrie: Okay, the motion has been made by Mr. Rountree and seconded by Mr. Bird that we table items #1 and #2 till the May 5~' meeting, are there any further discussions on those two items? Bentley: The question t have is if it's going to appear that we're going to have substantial changes to this to where it would possibly need to go back to P & Z, do we need to wait to make that decision until we hear from staff or is time not a problem on this one? Come: Gary, are they -Shari are the changes substantial or are they just minor or just re-drawing of the plat or does it require a second hearing for the planning and zoning? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I think what some of the things staff had requested would have required substantial changes, however after the meetings that were held and the changes that have been made I wouldn't consider those to be substantial. Come: Gary do you have any comment? Smith: No, I don't have any comment Mayor. Bentley: That answered my question, thank you. Come: Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. t , BEFORE. THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL STEINER DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing on March 3, 1998 at the hour of 7:.00 o'clock p.m., the Applicant, appearing through its representative, Steve Bradbury, the City Council of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1• A notice of a public hearing on the application for the conditional use permit and. application for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearing scheduled on January 13, 1998, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 13, 1998 hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. As required by law a second public hearing was held in front of the Meridian City r~INDINGS OF FACT-AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Council on March 3, 1998. This second public hearing followed the same procedures for notice and hearing as set forth in the first public hearing. 2. The property is located within the City of Meridian at the Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No. 1. The property is described in the application for a conditional use permit, which description is incorporated herein as if .set forth in full. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property. 3. Pursuant to the application, the property is presently zoned as R-4, Low Density Residential District. The proposed use of the property is to construct 37 single family, 3 duplexes, and 1 triplex. The Applicant presented a site plan depicting the location of the proposed use. Pursuant to the application, the Applicant agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, associated with the use, whether that use be residential, commercial or industrial. 4. That the R-4 District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3., as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Only sirigle- family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R- 4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACT T-~I~TD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - P~9e 2 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 1 ~ 5. That the planned residential development. of 37 single- family dwellings, 3 duplexes and 1 triplex in a district of R-4 Low Density Residential, as proposed by the Applicant, is an allowed conditional use in the R-4 District. 6. That the subject property is presently vacant. 7. That sewer and water is available to the property and is required. 8. Mr. Steve Bradbury testified as follows; that Steiner Development is requesting approval of a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a residential subdivision. The site is 8 ~ acres and located east of Black Cat between Ustick and Cherry Lane. The parcel was originally part of Ashford Greens Subdivision but the developer did not exercise its option on the property, so Steiner Development did. Mr. Bradbury further testified that the proposal calls for 37 single family detached units, 3 two-unit townhouses and one 3-unit townhouse for a total of 46 separate living units. That works out to about 5 ~ units per acre over the 8-~ acres. The proposal also calls for a private street on a forty-two-foot-right-of-way with a five-foot sidewalk on one side. The sidewalk would be around the outside perimeter. The .lots became smaller due to the 20-foot sewer easement to make a common lot. The lots are now about 3500 square feet. Before their testimony there was much discussion and figuring on the lot sizes to help solve the problem. At present the smallest lots are up to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) about 4,000 square feet, but could be up to 4500 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 5700 feet across the subdivision. Minimum square footage of homes is 1304 square feet. Mr. Bradbury pointed out the seven different house plans; list of the various numbers of units, and the square footage. The square footage ranges from 1304 up to 1785, and the proposal is to have 14 of them. Mr. Bradbury pointed out most of the homes would be larger than the minimum sizes. Each unit will have a two-car garage and front driveways, which allows accommodation for two additional vehicles, for a total of four vehicles for off street parking per unit. All the units will be single story. The setbacks are in accordance with the code, except for the request that the front setback is reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet, and the street setbacks are reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet.. This would be similar to the concept and design to the Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivision #6. This would not be restricted to just senior housing. Commissioner Johnson was pleased with the presentation and Commissioner Smith also acknowledged it was a good site plan and it deserved decent homes. Commissioner Smith also questioned if they were going for a variance on the minimum lot size, and. the front yard setback, even though the blueprints states the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet, and the front building setbacks to be 20 feet. Mr. Bradbury responded what are seen on the blueprints are the required sizes for an R-4 zone, but it is not FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUS2c~NS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 4 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ( ~ what is proposed. Commissioner Smith clarified what the applicant is wanting, and that is, a 15-foot yard setback, and the smaller lot sizes would be for the two unit townhouses. Commissioner Borup had a clarification on the conditional use, and whether the changes would be reflected on the plat before it is recorded. Mr. Bradbury confirmed that it would be part of the planned unit development. All. the plat notes will be reflective of the true state of affairs not just a recitation of the standard ordinance requirements when it is recorded. 9. Vern Moore questioned if there was going to be a 20- foot sewer easement behind the property, and if it would be a walking path, golf lane, golf cart lane or just what? He also wanted to know what lot the triplex would be built on. His last question was if there was a possibility of hooking into their pressurized irrigation system. 10. Gordon Margulieux gave the following testimony regarding his concerns. His first concern was the lot size due to the sewer right-of-way easement and how nothing could be built on it. Additionally, lot 2 would be for single families .not the duplex, and it would be about 3100 square feet. Apparently, what was mentioned at the hearing is a revision, which he desired to see the revision. Presently it is 3100 square feet which is quite a bit different than the 8000 square feet which is R-4. Ashford Greens in their proposal was looking at apartments and units of apartments, about 8 units of apartments per acre, which FINDINGS OF FACT' AND CON~'LUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 5 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 1 ~ would be 5 ;~ per acre.. These would be individual homes with over half of them on lots ranging from 4500 to 5100 square feet, with some being 8400 and 6700 square feet. He feels these lot sizes are consistent with the Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 1. He is looking forward to the completion of the subdivision. He continued with the comment that his house was the first in the subdivision on lot 3 adjacent in the Cherry Lane #1 Subdivision. Another consideration is the street; that the street will be ten and a half feet longer or farther. out than the current house, and the street belongs to Ada County Highway District. The plans also show the sidewalk will be moved. He also commented on what would happen to the small section, which belongs to the ACHD and how it would be handled for the corner homeowner. He inquired if there would be a separate home owners association with just that section of houses, not part of Cherry Lane Subdivision Home Owners Association; that they will maintain the path. 11. Barbara Moore's testimony pertained to the 20-foot sewer easement and what was going to be done with it. She questioned if their property line was longer; if it goes out to the street or if their property went 10 feet back into the easement. She thought there was a discrepancy between the two maps. 12. Steve Bradbury addressed Mrs. Moore's questions by stating the intention was not to include the sewer easement as part of the pedestrian pathway; that it would be included as part FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 6 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ti ~ of the side yard and landscaped. Further comments from Steve Bradbury addressed where the three unit townhouses will be located. Regarding the discrepancy in the length of the street, he felt Keith Jacobs, the engineer who prepared the plat, could better answer the question. They wouldn't plat something they didn't own or didn't match up. Taking out the 20 foot sewer easement calculated the lot to be 4000 square feet. One way to accomplish that would be to move the small road a little further. up. With some adjustments they feel the concern over the lot could be solved. 13. Gordon Margulieux's last two questions concerned whether or not the sewer line would be on a separate lot, and about the pressurized irrigation. Steve Bradbury responded the staff had suggested the sewer easement be made a separate common lot and the developers agreed to it. Regarding the .pressurized irrigation and if the Margulieuxs could hook in to it, Mr. Bradbury commented that it has not been discussed with the developer, but could more than likely be accomplished. The issue of water rights as to where they cou~d be applied, and to obtain approval from the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District to include properties outside the platted subdivision was brought up. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District for a part of the costs of operation and maintenance, which the Margulieuxs would need to consider, would bill additional comment included whoever is hooked to the pressurized irrigation. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS CAF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 7 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) k ~ 14. Commissioner .Smith had one final question regarding the reason why they are going for smaller lot sizes and narrower streets as opposed to the standard R-4 re quirements. Mr. Bradbury stated the developer is trying to provide a variety of housing types and uses for the area. The developer feels there is a market for this type of subdivision, and the surrounding Ashford Greens Subdivision has part of this type of area. Pertaining to the street, a private street would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and would not be used by the regular public. This street would be limited to a great extent and that is why the typical 50-foot right-of-way would be required. Commissioner Johnson's last comment was, "But it's the location and the fact that it's a unique market and that's why the developer thinks it will work. Right?" Mr. Bradbury responded affirmatively. 15. Steve Bradbury, representative for the Applicant, requested the previous testimony be incorporated into the hearing on the matter. 16. The City Council for the City of Meridian conducted a second public hearing on March 3, 1998. The testimony from that hearing is incorporated in these findings as if set forth in full. Mr. Bradbury, the representative from Steiner Development testified as follows; The site is an eight and a half acre parcel of property that's east of Black Cat Road between Ustick and FINDINGS OF ~~ACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 8 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Cherry Lane. The piece of property near the current Cherry Lane golf course club house. The piece of property was originally brought to the Council by the developer of the Ashford Greens Subdivision, Brighton Corporation and was part of the previously approved Ashford Greens planned unit development. The Brighton Corporation failed to exercise the option on the particular piece of property. Steiner Development picked up the option to the property to develop it. A copy of the findings of facts and conclusions of law that were adopted by the Council back in September 1994 are in included in the packet provided. Those findings dealt with the overall concept approval for the Ashford Greens Subdivision, and what they did or what the members of the Council at that time did, with respect to that piece of property. Mr. Bradbury stated that the previous Council gave concept approval for what was described as medium density development, and that was further described as being for up to eight units per acre. The old Council required that the developer submit a more particular site plan for approval, and this application is that more particular site plan. The property is located on (81/2) eight and a half acres, the property is presently zoned R-4, but the application seeks approval for 46 total single family units. 37 of them would be single detached, three of them would be two unit attached structures. Mr. Bradbury stated "There is three two units or you might call them two unit townhouses that are described as duplexes but that's not really FINDINGS OF FACT' AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~ ~ true because these will on separate ownership's and each of the unit will be on separate lots." There is also one .three-unit townhouse proposed for a total of 46 dwelling units. The overall density comes out to about 5.6 units per acre, which is substantially less than the eight units per acre, which was conceptually, approved back in 1994. 17. The lot sizes range from 3909 square feet up to-8413 square feet. Mr. Bradbury noted-there is a change from what was submitted earlier because this is where the temporary sewer easement exists. It's a twenty-foot wide sewer easement, and when the application was originally submitted, the lot calculations included the land within the sewer easement area. The proposal now is to take that out of these lots and make it a separate common lot which would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. He noted the numbers shown on the plans are not correct but the numbers provided to Council for this hearing are the correct numbers. The sizes of the homes are a minimum of 1304 square feet up to 1785 square feet. Mare than half of the units proposed would be in the 1700 or above range, "actually it's 1699 square feet." There will be 25 of those that are between 1699 and 1785 square feet. The remainder of the units are equally distributed between the other sizes. The roadway system in the project is proposed as a private road that would be gated at the entry. He noted it would be on 42 feet of right-of-way. 37 feet of that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page lrj PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) t would be improved. It would include a five-foot wide sidewalk on one side, which is similar to what was approved in Lake at Cherry Lane No. 6. Mr. Bradbur y noted that there are 7 different plans available and some of those would have two elevation choices. The homes are all single story and have two car garages. Each have either two or three bedrooms and two baths. Each space would be provided by a private driveway. The driveway would have space for a least two cars, so each unit would have a total parking availability of four cars. .There are four color choices being offered in either stucco or~a siding, and there's a brick accent on some of the units. He stated that the proposal is to provide a gated security entrance in front of the subdivision in order to keep the traffic circulation down to a minimum. The concept is to provide a pedestrian and cart path in through the subdivision over the top of the sewer easement. This would then go on to the canal right of way and up all the way along the perimeter of the subdivision and then it would come back out up at the golf course. That would give the people who want to walk to the golf course who live in the neighborhood or those people who own golf carts and want to drive their golf carts up the golf course. This is to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. He noted that the Planning and Zoning commission recommended approval of the project as presented. The developer is asking for certain exceptions under the provisions of the planned unit development FINDINGS OF FAC1-AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 11 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~ i portion of the zoning ordinance. One of the exceptions is to have some of the setbacks reduced. The typical front yard setback in a residential subdivision is twenty feet. The plans call for a reduction of the setback to fifteen feet. Similarly the street side yard setbacks on the corner lots are typically a twenty-foot setback requirement, again the developer is asking for a reduction to fifteen feet. Mr. Bradbury noted that "That's just exactly like what the Council approved in the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 6." He also noted there. is also a reduction being requested for lots one through four for a ten foot rear yard setback as opposed to the required fifteen feet. Mr. Bradbury noted that even though there will only be ten feet of lot setback, there will actually be thirty five feet of separation from the lots. This is because there will be the ten foot of setback in the lot and the twenty feet of the sewer easement area which would be a common lot and have that path on it. He noted that in addition the lot sizes in the typical R-4 area are 8,000 square feet. They are asking for an exception down to the lot sizes that are shown on the plat. The minimum lot size is about 3900 square feet and the largest is over 8,000 square feet, but it comes out to an average of somewhere around 5700 square feet. The typical frontage requirement on an R-4 lot is 80 feet. That is frontage on the street. In this particular application the request is that number be reduced down to fifty feet because these are essentially fifty-foot lots. Mr. Bradbury FINDINGS OF FACT-AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 12 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) noted that because the lot sizes vary on this plat, his request is to approve the lot sizes on the plat rather than going over every lot exception. Mr. Bradbury stated that he is also looking for an exception in regards to the private street. This exception is for a 42 foot of right-of-way with a five foot sidewalk on one side. He noted that the house sizes ran e from 1300 u g p to over 1700 square feet. He noted that the typical R-4 requirement is 1400 square, and that for the ten or twelve on his plat that are less than that number he would need exceptions for them. Mr. Bradbury noted that as an offset to all those exceptions the developer owns about a third of an acre, which is on the opposite side of the eight mile lateral from the subdivision. He noted that the developer is offering to donate a third of an acre to the city. He noted that they would convey it free of charge and the deed would be conveyed to the city at the time that the final plat was recorded. He noted that the intent of the project is to continue to try to provide a variety of housing types and housing choices in the vicinity. Mr. Bradbury Mated this is much like what Steiner Development has started to do up at the Lakes at Cherry Lane. He noted there are a number of different sizes of lots, and sizes of homes and types of housing arrangements at that development site. There are the typical 8000 square foot R-4 lots. There are some 6500 square foot R-8 lots. Mr. Bradbury noted that it conceptually the same idea as what is going into the Lakes at FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 13 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Cherry Lane, with townhomes, and a variety of different lot sizes. Mr. Bradbury noted that. it is the developers belief that this type of project is not only in line with what the City Council conceptually approved back in 1994 for Ashford Greens, but it's also compatible with the overall scheme for this mile section. 18. Councilman Anderson inquired about the security gate and specifically how would emergency vehicles get through that security gate, "is it keyed; is it activated by siren?" Mr. Bradbury stated he did not know the answer but that Mr. Campbell from Steiner Corporation indicated it would be activated by a strobe. Councilman Anderson noted they would need to coordinate that with the police and fire, because not all those vehicles are equipped with strobes. Mr. Bradbury noted that the Steiner Development would be more than willing to work with the fire department and it would not be a problem with them to make it a condition of approval. 19. Commissioner Anderson inquired why ~nterlachen did not tie into another street. Mr. Bradbury stated that the reason the plans don't call for that is the concern for excessive traffic. Mr. Bradbury referred to a traffic impact report. He noted the Ada County Highway District looked into it and they thought the road should go through as well. He noted that the reason that they are not showing it that way is for concern over the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) potential for cut through traffic. Mr. Bradbury noted that there is going to be traffic trying to access the golf course, back and forth, and there would be traffic coming from the Ashford Greens Subdivision. He noted that traffic would be heading down through the street in order to get to the Albertson's. Mr. Bradbury noted that the Ada County Highway District originally thought that it should go through as well, but the developer has submitted a request to them to reconsider their position. He noted that part of what was submitted to them was a traffic impact study and report that was done by Phil and Gary Funkhauser from Earth Tech. Mr. Bradbury submitted copies of the report to the City Councilman. He noted that the last page is a chart and it shows what the existing traffic is, and what the projected traffic would be both with and without the connection. He noted that North of Cherry on Interlachen the existing traffic that was counted by Earth Tech was 771 vehicles per day, and the traffic that would be produced by this site at that location would be 285 trips per day. He noted that would bring the total traffic to over a thousand vehicles a day. He noted that if the streets were connected it would add about 300 trips per day for the golf course according to the experts. He noted that it would add about 400 trips per day for Ashford Greens. He noted that both of those would be cutting through and then add about 30 trips per day from Cherry Lane Village. He noted that what you end up with is over 700 additional trips per day with the connection. Mr. FINDINGS OF FACT-AND CONCLUSIONS OF I,AW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 15 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Bradbury noted that not only would the residents in the proposed subdivision be unhappy with the 700 additional trips per day, but he feels the people that live on Interlachen would likely be unhappy with having those 700 additional trips per day. Mr. Bradbury noted that the reason for not connecting the street is to avoid the excess traffic and his initial contact with A.C.H.D. seems to indicate that they agree. They are not sure they want to have that connected-there after all, because of the increased amount of traffic. 20. Councilman Anderson noted the residents already have the 297 trips of traffic because people are going to the clubhouse. Mr. Bradbury noted that A.C.H.D, tries to avoid what are called continuous connectors. He noted there would a continuous collector from Black Cat down to Cherry Lane, and that is something that the Highway District typically tries to avoid. Mr. Bradbury noted A.C.H.D. tries to avoid connectors because they tend to become a route for people to use and to cut through in order to avoid intersections. He noted that the present day thinking is to have collector streets that go into the mile section but don't connect directly on to other collector streets. Mr. Bradbury stated that he believes the Highway District will agree that the street should not be connected. 21. Councilman Anderson inquired about the width of the road. Mr. Bradbury noted that it is a 42-foot wide right-of-way with 37 feet improved. Councilman Anderson inquired about the FINDINGS OF FACT-AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 16 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) turning radius at the cul-de-sac down at the end of Interlachen. Mr. Bradbury stated that he did not know but that Mr. Campbell says that he thinks it's 80 feet. 22. Mayor Corrie inquired about the frontage on the lots and whether they were fifty feet. Mr. Bradbury noted that they were fifty feet. Mayor Corrie requested further clarification by asking fifty feet by what? Mr. Bradbury noted that each of the lots is a little bit different in size. He noted that if you looked at lots 7,8,9 and l0 respectively, lot 7 has 59 feet of frontage, lot 8 is 57 feet, lot 9 is 55 feet, and lot 10 is 51 feet. He noted that lots 42 through 45 range from 60 feet to 65 feet and there are a number of other different numbers and different sizes. Mr. Bradbury noted there are also smaller lots. For example, he noted that the triplex, the three unit townhouse development are all smaller lots, but that it is going to be one building. He noted they are all going to take access off the same spot. Mr. Bradbury noted that if you took each one of those frontages separately, they are small, but add them up together and they are going to end up somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 or 35 feet of frontage on that one lot. Mr. Bradbury noted that with the varying sizes of lots it is difficult to pinpoint and say all lots are a certain size but that overall they will average about fifty feet of frontage. 23. Councilman Anderson inquired whether the parking would still work out for two cars on these smaller lots? Mr. Bradbury FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) noted that each one of them would have a minimum of 18 feet between the garage and the lot line. That they would be able to get two cars side by side up on to the driveway. 24.Mayor Corrie inquired whether Steiner Development has ever thought of doing anything with the entrance to Interlachen. Mr. Bradbury noted that the subject has never come up but that he would raise the subject with the people at Steiner Development. 25. Councilman Bird wanted to know-the difference between a triplex and a townhouse. Mr. Bradbury noted that his definition of the difference between a townhouse and a triplex is who owns it. He noted that a triplex or a duplex is on one lot noting one building on one lot. He noted that two units owned by the same person, and generally you live in one and rent one out. He noted that a townhouse, on the other hand is really like a zero lot line with a common wall. It's one building with three separately owned units with common walls on three separately owned lots. Councilman Bird noted that parking could be a problem in a townhouse or triplex. Mr. Bradbury noted that he has a concept drawing of how access might be handled. What they would do is create a common driveway at the entrance at the frontage of those lots. He noted that it would be included in convenants. He also noted that in the deeds supplied to these people there would be a pr. access so that each owner would have a legal entirety of the common driveway as it enters FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) the restrictive that would be vision for across right to the those three lots. Page 18 He noted that this has been done a number of times, and they have had reasonably good success with it. 26. Councilman Rountree noted that there are a list of amenities, but not a list of the potential disamenities that might be associated with this project. He noted the pedestrian way to the clubhouse, but that he saw no provision for vehicular uses. He noted that there-was no discussion ,about the potential options for golf course out buildings that might be built in conjunction with the clubhouse and that might border these lots. He noted that in the list of exceptions there is no discussion about the tiling ditches. Councilman Rountree also noted that there is no discussion about the .potential buffering of adjacent subdivisions. He noted the plan blocks out pedestrian access to the golf course from that part of the city. He noted that with a pedestrian gate on the pedestrian way, it restricts access to the golf course. Mr. Bradbury noted that the intention is to provide for access to the golf course. Councilman Rountree noted that there has to be access for the rest of the community. Councilman Rountree noted that one of the requirements of approval of the PUD is that they have an open space requirement and he did not see any open space other than space that is going to be there by way of an easement that already exists. He noted that Steiner Development is asking the city to make exceptions for lot setbacks to accommodate an easement that is already there so they can build a house on it, but he didn't see anything in the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 19 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) subdivision that reflects the need for open space. Mr. Bradbury noted that the engineer calculated the area that would be included as open and common area in the area that ,the pedestrian pathway is included, and that is calculated out to be just over 8/10 of an acre. He also noted that a third of an acre would be donated to the city, which is about 15000 square feet. He noted that if you take into account all of that space, it far exceeds the ten- percent requirement in the ordinance. Mr. Bradbury also noted that when .the Ashford Greens concept plan was approved, the city acquired a fair amount of land from the owner of the property. Somebody different now owns the piece of property but when originally approved the city accepted the property. He noted that based on the findings that were made back in 1994, the donated land was intended to and does in fact serve as the city's requirement for open space as part of the trade off. The trade off is that you could provide the ten percent open space in a privately owned property which would be owned and maintained and used by the residents of the subdivision or you make it public property. He noted that in this case, public property was provided to the city, and it is now public property and being used as such. Mr. Bradbury noted that if the council at this point in time is going to disregard what was previously required and previously provided, he thinks the city would be in essence reneging on an agreement already made. Councilman Rountree noted that he did not believe there was an agreement made with this FINDINGS OF FACT AnTD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Pale 20 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) particular developer. Councilman Rountree also inquired as to whether these lots would be assessed a fee towards the pay off of the golf course improvement. Bradbury noted that he did not know the answer to .that question. 27. The city attorney swore Doug Campbell. Mr. Campbell noted that the project would be included in the $640 fee that's currently being charged on .every lot out in that general area. 28.The City Attorney swore in Larry Astley. Mr. Astley noted that he has two concerns in regards to this project. He felt that the density and the layout of this development could effect the aesthetic value of the golf course. He also felt in some ways it could affect property values. 29. The City Attorney swore Joe Stafford. Mr. Stafford noted that his concern is in regards to the ten-foot easement. He noted that the. easement is on his property, property that he pays taxes on and that in essence ten feet that is being taken away from his back yard by developing this property. He noted that it is his property, so effectively he is losing ten feet of property. The other concern he had was that the lots are made to be conducive to the area, that it fits the area. He noted that nowhere in the immediate area of Golf View and Cherry Lane right next to this area are their small lots. He noted that there are duplex lots directly to the east of the property. He noted that those lots have much more than a ten-foot back yard. They have much more setback than is required by this, so he has concerns FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF L.~W - Page 21 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) with that. The other thing he noted is that the neighborhood is pretty conducive to families, the golf course, .using the golf course, and that type of area. He noted that if there is a 3909 square foot lot and you take a 1304 square foot home, and add a 400 square foot garage, you are at 1700 square foot on 3900 square foot lot. He noted that is a 44% use not counting any side yard, sidewalk, and driveway. He felt that the use was not conducive to that area. He felt that one reason the developer applied under a PUD was to get a higher density in an area zoned for less density. He felt that a developer should not be able to apply for a PUD just to get a greater density of homes on a piece of property. He noted"that the 5.6 units per acre are not common in that area. He noted that his house is about 2700 square feet. The neighbors are 3300 square feet. His land use is 20% of the property. His home is about 20% of his property. That includes the garages. He thinks his neighbors are maybe 22%. He noted that is what is common in that area. Mr. Stafford noted that the developer is closing off the area that's presently an open area. They are asking for private streets. All the subdivisions that border this property all have two sidewalks and curbing gutter. He noted all the homeowners in the area have 20-foot setbacks on the front. He noted that the developer is asking for 15-foot setbacks. He also noted that all the neighbors have to go by the city requirements for our setbacks on the side yards, the developer should also be required to abide by the rules. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 22 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 30. The city attorney swore Jackie Stafford. Her biggest concern is the density of what they are going to be putting over on that property. Their family has four children, and trying to keep four children in a big huge yard is hard enough. They even have the common area where the kids go play and bike down on the path and stuff. Her concern with cutting down, chipping away their yards the way .they want to, where are the kids going to be. She is concerned about apartments or anything like that having tennis courts or basketball courts or something for them to go and just kind of release some of their energy. The other concern that she has is the traffic flow on Interlachen. Not only does Cherry Lane use that, but Interlachen and Golf View do too. She noted A lot of her neighbors go up from the side, and go out Cherry Lane instead of going to Summer Tree where they are probably suppose to, but it's a short cut. 31. The City Attorney swore Wayne Crookston. Mr. Crookston noted that he lives right off the number one fairway. He lives within 300 feet of the proposed Steiner Development site. Mr. Crookston noted that when Brighton Corporation had rights to the property it was designated as medium density. Under Meridian's Comprehensive Plan section 1.13U of the housing section, the infilling of vacant lots in substantially developed single family areas should be considered at densities similar to surrounding development. Mr. Crookston noted that all the other adjacent lots FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 23 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) in the area are not 50 x 85 square foot lots as is proposed by Steiner Development. Mr. Crookston noted that he has at least a 1/4 to 1/3 of an acre lot. All of his neighbors have similarly sized lots and that the proposed lots do not even come close to the size of lots in the adjoining properties. Mr. Crookston noted that at the time the City Council reviewed the application of Brighton Corporation there were specific requirements that needed to be addressed in order for the City Council to approve the project. He noted that in order for approval of a medium density designation the developer needed to address the issues of roadways, parking and open space. Mr. Crookston then went on to note that the proposed parcels are not even close to the R-4 designation. Mr. Crookston noted that at the time the City Council considered the Brighton Corporation development for this site there was a statement which said Prior to any development of the medium density parcels, the developer shall submit a detailed application and site plan for review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council." Mr. Crookston also noted that the City Council said "The City Council reserves the right to place appropriate conditions on the medium density areas in accordance with ordinance requirements, including but not limited to streets, pedestrian walkways, planning and reserve strips public sites and open spaces, lineal open space corridors, pedestrian and bike paths." Mr. Crookston also noted that the statement also mentions piping of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 24 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ditches, pressurized irrigation, access parking, landscaping and screening. Mr. Crookston noted that he did not see .these items addressed in the application and do not think this application should be approved. 32. The City Attorney swore Gordon Margulieux. Mr. Margulieux wanted to congratulate or thank the developer because "he's very open". He noted that he testified at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Margulieux also noted that some of the things he had mentioned actually had been addressed. One of these issues was the sewer easement area behind the first through fourth lot, because at that time, it was still on those lots, and they have addressed that. He stated that he is still concerned about the size of the lots. He noted that his lot, which is in Cherry Lane Village 1, Lot 3 is twenty eight feet from where this proposed path is, and is an irregular lot of 13000 square feet. The adjoining lots around there are roughly running about 8000 square feet. He noted the proposed lots are smaller but it looks really good considering that it will be developed sooner or later. He noted that it doesn't look too terribly bad but he does like the fact that it is closed, and he does live on Interlachen, and would not be happy to have a through street with more traffic over there. He noted that he sort of likes their concept to that extent. He has other concerns about the easement and that it goes through what is going to be a pathway. He is not sure how to address that because it is a private section. Mr. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 25 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Margulieux noted that the area could cause potential problems with kids gathering there and would like to see a light in the area for better illumination. He also noted that when they talked about medium size density and they talked about eight houses per acre with Ashford Greens, they were talking about multi family dwellings. And these are single family dwellings. He noted they are not talking about the same thing even though they have cut it back to 5 ~ houses per acre. 33. Mr. Bradbury testified what Mr. Steiner is attempting to do is to provide an opportunity for a variety of different living alternatives within the Cherry Lane development. Mr. Bradbury also took issue with Mr. Crookston's statement about all abutting lots should also be 8000 square feet. He noted that not all lots abutting this development are of that size. He also noted that it would be impossible to have all lots contiguous to this development be of that 8000 square feet size. He noted that pretty soon, all you would have is a mile of 8000 square foot lots. He didn't think that is what the City envisioned. Mr. Bradbury noted that this development is something different and presents a little bit different living arrangement and lifestyle so you don't have this sea of 8000 square foot cookie cutter lots. He noted that he had been coming out to Meridian for five or six years, talking to the city about subdivision developments, and he has heard the city talk about not having every subdivision look.the same. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 26 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) noted that consideration has to be given to the surrounding area. The public hearing was then closed. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, Planning .and Zoning Administrator, have submitted- comments, which respective comments are incorporated herein as set forth hereafter. 1. Sanitary sewer service shall be by extension from the existing main line in Interlachen Way. Approval will be contingent upon or ability to accept the additional sewage generated- by the proposed development. The subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes to be provided to keep sewer lines on the south and west sides of centerline. Profiles submitted for preliminary sewer design indicate a portion of the main line in Interlachen Lane will have less than the minimum three feet of cover from top of pipe to finish grade. This portion of the project site may have to be filled in order to achieve the required cover. 2. Water service to the site will be by extensions of the existing main installed in Interlachen Way. Applicant to construct the water mains to and through the proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 3. Identify the source for the pressurized irrigation and whether the system will be owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District or private. If the system is to be private, plans and a draft copy of the O & M Manual must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the City's water system would need to be reviewed due to the size of the area to be watered. The developer will be responsible for the payment of assessment fees for the common areas. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 28 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 4. Streetlights shall be two-hundred-fifty-watt and/or one-hundred watt,. high-pressure sodium and to be at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Streetlights to be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations. are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 5. Submit for review and approval a detailed landscape plan for the common areas and to include fencing, pathways and types of construction with the submittal of the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to signature on the final plat. 6. Along the Eight- Mile and Safford Laterals a non- combustible fence needs to be installed prior to applying for building permits. Fencing needs to be set back from the top of bank to alleviate inherent problems with eroding slopes. Construct six-foot-high, permanent, non-combustible perimeter fencing except where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in place prior to applying for building permits. Fencing shall be set at the existing easement line, unless the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District grants an encroachment agreement. 7. A total frontage of 24.84 feet for the triplex lots appears to be grossly deficient. Driveways are to be offset a minimum of five feet from property lines, leaving only 14.84 feet for a driveway. The duplex lots in the southeast portion of the property have a combined frontage of only 22.7 feet. 8. No parking will be allowed at any time along streets less than required by ACHD policy. The homeowners association will be responsible for enforcement of this no parking area. 9. A letter of approval from the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District for the roadways as shown or revise to comply with their requirements. 10. Proposals for Planned Unit Developments will include a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 29 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) minimum of ten percent common area, which means land area exclusive of street rights-of-way, buildings, parking areas, structures, and appurtenances except those improvements which are accessible and available to all occupants of the private units within the PD. 11. The Homeowners Association shall own and maintain the sewer easement area, and it will be platted as a common lot. The two adjacent lots will be 3,500 square feet or less. Provide lot closures for all lots to verify square footage. 12. Storage areas will be provided, such as, one adequate space for every two living units. This may be reduced by City action if .there is a showing that the needs of a particular development are less. 13. One additional parking space beyond the required Zoning Ordinance should be required for every three dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. Parking areas may be no c-loser than four feet to any established street or alleyway. 14. A maintenance building or approved area will be provided for suitable services required for the repair and maintenance of all common areas. 15. Provide a master street drainage plan showing method of collection and disposal. 16. Provide detail of pedestrian walkway/golf cart access; also gates within the development. Interlachen must be continued through the development to provide access to the future golf course clubhouse. ACHD's initial comments were that Interlachen Way must be continued through the development as a public roadway, but the agency is rethinking that requirement. 17. If the private road is approved, a blanket easement for public utilities will be included. The proposed covenants for the subdivision will specifically address provisions for a sinking fund to provide maintenance of the roadway and replace the roadway within a 20 year period. FINDINGS OF FACT-AND CONCLUSIONS OF I,AW - Page 30 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) . , must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805.. 20. There was no further testimony given at the hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. All the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the property. 2. The City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6512 and pursuant to 11-2- 418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. 3. The City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 4. The property is currently zoned (R-4) Low Density Residential District. The (R-4), Low Density Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 3. as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Orly single-family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by .prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 32 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 5• Conditional Use Permit is defined in the Zoning and Development Ordinance, City of Meridian, Idaho as "Permits allowing an exception to the. uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district.° 6. The. City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 67-6512, and pursuant to that section conditions minimizing the adverse impact on other development, controlling the duration of. development, assuring the development is maintained properly, and on-site or off-site facilities may be attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in existence. 7• Section 11-2-418 D. states as follows: In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence. 8. This Application for a conditional use has been judged upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it may take FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 33 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~ c~ ~ judicial notice. 9. Section 11-2-418 C of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian sets forth .the .standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits. Upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, assuming that the above conditions or similar ones thereto would be attached to the conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a• The use would constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance; b• The use would not be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance; Meridians Comprehensive Plan section 1.13U of the housing section states: "Infilling of random vacant lots in substantially developed, single family areas should be considered at densities similar to surrounding development." Section 6.5U states that the policy of the city should be to establish land use designations, which reflect the existing character of the neighborhoods. Under community design the goal statement provides that All neighborhoods and special areas in Meridian should be encouraged to develop in a manner which expresses concerns and appreciation for the aesthetic qualities of the physical environment while maintaining the unique characteristics which allow each neighborhood and special area to be recognized as an individual entity." The Meridian Comprehensive Plan provides that the use should be harmonious in regards to the above sections. The use would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. c• The use would not be designed, constructed, • operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and FINDINGS OF FACT-AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 34 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) l ~~ ~ that such use will change the essential character of the same area; d• The use would be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; the approval of a private road could have an~affect on the ability of neighboring areas to have access to the golf course. This golf course is essentially the whole reason the area is developed as it is. e. The use will not be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services; The approval of a private gated access could have the potential for serious consequences in regards to fire, police and safety issues. f. The use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; g. The use will involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; h. The use will have vehicular approaches to the property which are so designed as to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; and i• The development of the property will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. It is recommended that the conditional use permit not be granted in this case. 10. It is recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the previous comments by the Planning and Zoning FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 35 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) r_ .• ~ Administrator, Shari Stiles, and Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, be incorporated along with the following conditions if a conditional use permit is granted. 1• Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association,, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public works Department. 2• Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with street development plans. 4. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for review by the Meridian City Attorney. 5. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606 B. 6. Submit a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 7- Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Meridian Public Works Department. 11. However if the conditional use permit is granted, the above-conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet these, conditions. 12. It is recommended that the request for the conditional use permit not be granted. FINDINGS OF FACT-AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Page 3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~ .~ ,, APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. T/1T r .r -.. . COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED COUNCILMAN BYRD VOTED COUNCILMAN ANDERSON VOTED MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION The Meridian City Council hereby denies the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the Application. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT-AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 37 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: January 13 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 1 1 REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING• REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: "REVIEWED" CITY FIRE DEPT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGAT}ON: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OT`1ER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney MEMORANDUM: TO: Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor and City Council FROM: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Enginee Shari Stiles, P&Z Administrator January 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Request for Preliminary Plat with a Conditional Use Permit for The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision - 48 Lots on 8.53 Acres by Steiner Development We have reviewed this submittal and o`er the following comments, as conditions of the application. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: This property was originally included in the overall development plan for Ashford Greens Subdivision. Since the original concept was approved, the original applicant chose not to exercise its option on the property, and the previous owner of the property sold it to Steiner Development. The overall development plan included this parcel as a "medium density development" which would be subject to future conditional use procedures as a planned development. Having not experienced a scenario such as this, staff was unable to determine the legal consequences of the process to date. As is common in a planned development, exceptions can be made by Council to district regulations when they are desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD. "9-607 E MODIFICATION OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in this Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the district or districts in which said PD is located. The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, rovided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section.' HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY COUNCIL MEMB RG A Good Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President CITY OF M RONALD R. TOLSMA ERIDIAN EE C GLENN R. BENTLEY 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 P & Z COM Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 MI ION Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 an JI • Legal Department (208) 884-4252 MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP ROBERT D. CORRIE MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH Mayor ~~,t~t.~~.~t,P Mayor, Council and P&Z January 9, 1998 Page 2 Variances/exceptions that would need to be approved to grant this CUP in this R-4 zone as presented would be: 1 • Minimum lot sizes 2. Frontages 3. Minimum roadway widths/private drives 4. Provision of 5' sidewalks on each side of roadway in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 5. Front and street side yard setbacks 6. Minimum house size GENERAL COMMENTS 1 ~ ~Y existing ungahon/dramage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate imgadon/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3 • Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with street development plans. 4. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for review by the Meridian City Attorney. 5. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. fi. Submit a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 7• Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Meridian Public Works Department. 8. Respond, in writing, to each of the comments contained in this memorandum prior to the January 13, 1998 hearing of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Submit ten copies of the Preliminary Plat Map with any required revisions to the City Clerk's Office a minimum of one week prior to the hearing by the Meridian City Council. vu~Lere,.cvr Mayor, Council and P&Z January 9, 1998 Page 3 SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1 • Sanitary sewer service to this site shall be via an extension from the existing main line in Interlachen Way. Approval of this application needs to be contingent upon our ability to accept the additional sanitary sewage generated by this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of centerline. The profiles submitted for the preliminary sewer design indicate that a portion of the main in Interlachen Lane will have less than the minimum three feet of cover from top of pipe to finish grade. This portion of the project site may have to be filled in order to achieve the required cover. 2• Water service to this site shall be via extensions of the existing main installed in Interlachen Way. Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 3. Identify the source for the pressurized irrigation system and a statement of whether the system will be owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District or private. If the system is to be private, plans and a draft copy of the O&M Manual must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the City's waver system will need to be reviewed closely due to the size of the area to be watered. The developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessment fees for the common areas. 4. Two-hundred-fifty-watt and/or one-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 5. A detailed landscape plan for the common areas, including fencing locations, pathways and types of construction, shall be submitted for review and approval with the submittal of the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to signature on the final plat. 6. Non-combustible fencing is to be installed along the Eight Mile and Safford Laterals prior to applying for building permits. Fencing needs to be set back from the top of bank to ~~a.~ P&Z Commission/Mayor & Council January 9, 1998 Page 4 alleviate inherent problems with eroding slopes. Construct six-foot-high, permanent, non- combustible perimeter fencing except where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in place prior to applying for building permits. Fencing shall be set at the existing easement line, unless an encroachment agreement is granted by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. 7. A total frontage of 24.84 feet for the triplex lots appears to be grossly deficient. Driveways are to be offset a minimum of five feet from property lines, leaving only 14.84 feet for a driveway. Similarly, the duplex lots in the southeast portion of the property have a combined frontage of only 22.7 feet. 8. No parking will be allowed at any time along streets less than required by ACHD policy. The homeowners association will be responsible for enforcement of this no parking area. 9. Provide a letter of approval from the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District for the roadways as shown or revise to comply with their requirements. 10. Proposals for Planned Unit Developments must include a minimum of ten percent common area. Common open space shall mean land area exclusive of street rights-of--way, buildings, parking areas, structures, and appurtenances except those improvements which are accessible and available to all occupants of the private units within the PD. 11. The sewer easement area shall be platted as a common lot to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. This will result in square footages for at least two adjacent lots of 3,500 square feet or less. Provide lot closures for all lots to verify square footage. 12. Storage areas shall be provided for the anticipated needs of boats, campers and trailers. For typical residential development, one (1) adequate space shall be provided every two (2) living units. This may be reduced by City action if there is a showing that the needs of a particular development are less. 13. One (1) additional parking space beyond that which is required by the Zoning Ordinance may be required for every three (3) dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. Parking areas may be no closer than four feet (4') to any established street or alleyway. 14. A maintenance building or approved area sha:~ be provided that is suitable for the services required for the repair and maintenance of all common areas. 15. Provide a master street drainage plan showing method of collection and disposal. vu~-.a~.c~rn P&Z Commission/Mayor & Council January 9, 1998 Page 5 16. Provide detail of pedestrian walkway/golf cart access as well as gates proposed within the development. A condition of the previous proposal was that Interlachen must be continued through the development to provide access to the future golf course clubhouse. ACHD's initial comments were that Interlachen Way must be continued through the development as a public roadway, but the agency is rethinking that requirement at this time. 17. If the private road is approved for this development, a blanket easement for public utilities needs to be included. The proposed covenants for this subdivision need to specifically address provisions for a sinking fund to provide maintenance of the roadway and replace the roadway within a 20-year period 18. Planned unit developments are required to contain a minimum ten percent open space. Although donations have been made to the City golf course, they were not a part of this development. 19. The contour lines on the blueline prints received are faint and difficult to read. Please darken up the contour lines with the revised plat map. As an infon~national note for the Commission and Council, four lots in Golf View Estates Subdivision abut this proposed development. The four lots have an average square footage of 19,491 square feet (including area to the center of the Safford Lateral) and are valued for tax purposes at an average of $215,300. The house sizes on these lots range from 2,130 square feet to 3,532 square feet. The applicant is proposing a minimum house size of 1,304 square feet for this subdivision. Three lots in Amended Cherry Lane `tillage No. 1 have an average square footage of 6,171 square feet with an average valuation of $94,800. Two additional lots in Cherry Lane Village No. 1 Subdivision that abut this site are 12,720 and 9,540 square feet, with valuations of $131,300 and $119, 700, respectively. v;~i,,~,.cup HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY WILLIAIiA G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY 0. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS. Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Department(208) 887-2211 l.egai Department (208) 8844252 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor GOUNGIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning 8< Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: January 6, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 12/17 /97 HEARING DATE: 1/13 /98 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat for The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision _BY: Steiner Develoament LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No. 1 JIM JOHNSON, P2 MALCOLM MACCOY, P2 MARK NELSON, P2 BYRON SMITH, P2 KEITH BORUP, P2 ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C CHAF:LIE ROUNTREE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT ,-CITY ATTORNEY -CITY ENGINEER -CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: 1 ~ - ~ ~ - ~ r' YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: ,~ r~¢ uZ ~ /I, f.}Vvr, +~ $~ r r k / tl J J7 ~ h ~~ ~ - ~- fly ~' ~ C (~ ``~'/ ~r SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Bob L. Haley December 19, 1997 City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision Dear Councilmen: ~' L ~ 2 4 1S°7 ~~ ~~~~~~ I have reviewed the plat for The Villas at the Lakes Subdivison and find that it includes approximately 45 homes assuming a median value of $100,000. We also find that this development is located in census tract 103.10 and in the attendance zone for Chaparral Elementary School, Meridian Middle School and Eagle High School. Using the above information we can predict that these homes, when completed, will house 11 elementary aged children, 13 middle school aged children, and 13 senior high aged students. The cost per student for newly constructed schools, excluding site purchase price and offsite improvements, exceeds $5,000 per elementary student and $10,000 per middle or high school student. The Meridian School District will grant approval of this development, however this subdivision will cause increased overcrowding in all three schools. There is little opportunity to shift attendance boundaries since the surrounding schools are also well over capacity. We are in a difficult position and need your help in dealing with the impact of growth on schools. Sincerely, Jim Carberry, Administrator a' Support Programs BOARD OF TRUSTEES Rex Harrison • Wally Hedrick • Holly Houfburg • Jim Keller • Steve Mann ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Planning and Development. Division Development Application Report Preliminary Plat -The Villas at The Lake Subdivision n/o Cherry Ln. e/o Black Cat Rd. The Villas at The Lake is a-~48-lot residential subdivision on 8.53-acres. The site is located approximately '/a mile north of Cherry Lane and '/z mile east of .Black Cat Road. This development is estimated to generate 480 additional vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual: Roads impacted by this development: Interlachen Way ACHD Commission Date.- January 21, 1998 - 12:00 p.m. T m a a F- °' a J a u $ } 6 Z Z ~ ~ A : ~ ~ W ~ 4 a ~ ~ ~~ .1 R T ttl 1-+ 1~ FF I ~ !S ~~-. O j ~ ~~ t r ~[[~ c ~[ u ESp ~•~ k •~ ~~ • i ~ ; ~p a 3 F 4 ~ t ; r ; ..J ~ ~~ ~' a ri ~ ml ' WA"1 o 1Vn i ~I. N ~~ o p^ w NpO~ <1 yaSh ~ ~W~< !s ~j77 ~ ~'~9 1 xo~ ~ 1 i Nm ~ ~ a I+m O ~ ~ ~~ 5 YY S ~° ~ dmn ~~ao vldmw 6644. CY~~ [ i qi ~~ 3 [ P i [ ji ~ 't' [ j 3 B ~°!' a~'q i i ~~ f~ f~ t; j! 1 ~rp'} 3 fS~ ~;1r[[ p pi3p[[~~~P ~~ F 7 ~ ~ ~ i ~[ ~e i P ~fj ~; p ~ ~t i ~It~:l;!9~~Ep;~irr~:Lr:r}•-ppQ~~@.e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p aap rri; t~ p~ 1[:! 7 #[~ ~ j i 33i55P656~3~s~5F6~_Y5P[55535~5 9 B ! ! [ ! f~ '~ ~[ t+ ~ ~ i ~~~ ~ [ l~ i f [ II: I::i:, ilil~t 1~ t.>..r.-1,.- ~. t 7[ ,i a! ~ • • .. f s 7 '•~ .•~~r. ~~ ~~ >~ ~' 1 ~~,~!' A~ r /~ ~ _ ' ` V Facts and Findings: A. General Information Owner -Louis J. Steiner Applicant -Same R-4 -Existing zoning 8.53 -Acres 48 -Proposed building lots 710 -Total lineal feet of proposed public atreets 940 -Total lineal feet of proposed private roads 260 -Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada -Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities -Impact Fee Assessment District Interlachen Wav Local collector street with no pathway designation No traffic count available 60-feet of frontage 0-feet existing right-of--way 60-feet required right-of--way Interlachen Way is improved with a 41-foot street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk. B. The site is currently undeveloped. The applicant is proposing to construct private roads within the proposed subdivision from Interlachen Way with no connection to Ashford Greens Boulevard. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to construct Interlachen Way as a 37-foot public street with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk within 50-feet of right-of--.way with a stub to connect to Ashford Greens Boulevard to the west and provide a temporary turnaround within a temporary easement (see the attached map). The applicant is proposing two private roads off of Interlachen Way. One private road is proposed to be located on the west side of Interlachen Way at the site's southern property line where this site and the Cherry Lane Village Subdivision No. 1 meet. The other private road is proposed on the east side of Interlachen Way located approximately 90-feet north of the site's southern property line. District policy requires 125-feet of offset between proposed roads (measured centerline to centerline). The locations of the private roads are offset 65-feet (measured centerline to centerline), this does not meet District policy. Therefore, the applicant should be required to relocate the private roads in order to meet District policy. C. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the Distric~. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. VILLA@CL.COM Paje 2 6. Pave the private roadways their full width (24-feet minimum) at least 30-feet beyond the ed e of pavement of Interlachen Way and install pavement tapers with 15=f©ot radii abutting the g existing roadway edge. The applicant should provide a plan showing how the private roads grade meets the public road. District Policy requires... a_,design approach speed of 20 MPH and a maximum intersection approach grade of 2 % for at least 40-feet. Street name and stop signs are required for the private road. The signs may be ordered through the District at the cost of $115 each intersection. Verification of the correct a~Aroved names of the roads i required 7. ACRD does not make any assurances that the private roads which are a part of this application will be accepted as a public road if such a request is made in the future. Substantial redesign and reconstruction costs may be necessary in order to qualify these roads for public ownership and maintenance. Standard Requirements:.. 1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACRD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall specifically identify each ren,,;raT„P„t r„ ~o ..e,.,.....:a..__~ __~ ~ _, Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification,. variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACRD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within two weeks of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the C i i n at the time of its ri final decisi n. The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. 3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #188, a?~o known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. VILLA@CL.COM Page 4 _ he written request shall be submitted to the District no later than 9 00 a m on the day scheduled for ACHD ommis ion action Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Ada Planning Association 413 W. Idaho, Suite 100 Boise, ID 83702 (208) 345-5274 Fax (208) 345-5279 APA Serving Governments in Ada County Since 1977 MEMORANDUM ~~~ TO: Will Berg, City Clerk, City of Meridian /? FROM: David Abo, AICP, Technical Analyst ~fr `~'~ r~ - ~ ~~`'~ ~~ ~~ DATE: December 31, 1997 RE: Steiner Development L.L.C. APA staff reviewed the proposed conditional use permit to construct a residential development consisting of a subdivision with 37 single family lots, 6 duplex lots and 3 triplex lots. Traffic impacts generated by this davelop~nent wiii be reviewed by Ada County Highway District: At this time, we are only commenting on pedestrian improvements to the site. Both the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian and Destination 2015 have policies to encourage more pedestrian-friendly developments. Sidewalks or pathways are consistent with Meridian's transportation policies to create a balanced transportation system for the safe movement of people within residential developments. Recommendations -Residential Development The submitted site plan shows a sidewalk on one side of the typical private streets within the subdivision. It is recommended that the sidewalk system be constructed on the side of the street abutting the lots designated for the duplexes and triplexes. The site plan shows a narrower street stub off of Interlachen Lane/Way. This street will serve two duplex lots (Lots 3 and 4 of Block 1). No detail of the narrower street was provided but it recommended that a sidewalk be constructed abutting the duplex lots and connected to the sidewalk on Interlachen Lane/VVay. FACTS AND FINDINGS The Functional Street Classification System Map shows the connection of a proposed urban collector street to Tumbeny Way in this vicinity. The location of the connection of the proposed urban collector should be considered with the approval of this project. If you have any questions, please contact m~. DA:JL DA\DEVREV\FY97\MERIDIAN\PLANNING\STEINER.CU pc: Larry Sale, ACRD Louis J. Steiner File 540.09 City of Meridian Ada County Highway llistricl, Ada County, Cities of Koine, Eagle, Garden City. Kuna, and Meridian Koine Auditorium District, Boise Independent School District. Meridian Joint School District, and Boise State University Equal Opportwiitc::1ffirmati~~c~ Action F;mph~r~~r Printed on Recycled Paper CENTRAL •• DISTRICT ~THEALTH DEPARTMENT CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT Environmental Health Division ,F~CIE1\JE~eturn to: OEC 2 9 1997 Rezone #~ n Itl Use ## ~~ Prelimina Final /Short Plat ~~ ~/~c s ,¢~ 7f c ~ /mss ~~,~'~ Jas 1a,~ ^ Boise ^ Eagle ^ Garden City Meridian ^ Kuna ^ ACZ ^ I • We have No Objections to this Proposal. ^ 2• We recommend Denial of this Proposal. ^ 3• Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ^ 4• We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ^ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ^ high seasonal ground water ^ 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 water availability. 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: $ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ communi water well ^ interim sewage central water ry ^ individual sewage ^ individual water 9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: -'central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water ^ sewage dry lines ~ central water .~ 10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ^ I I. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ^ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ^ 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ^ food establishment ^ swimming pools or spas ^ child care center ^ beverage establishment ^ grocery store 14. ~c .~i~,ll~fw~r~ ~j~,¢t;-Tjy.~~7- ~~„/ U.//~1 ~~" Date: °~ /Z.~ / ~7 / ~ ~~ ~ Reviewed By: CDN~ 10/91 rcb, ro. 1/97 Review Sheet '~'FcESvE[1 JAN 0 2 1998 =~ :~- 1iE~ror~o~ ' ~ •, • ~~~~ 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 2~b~J8R8f'1~(~dXX 208-463-0183 23 December 1997 Will Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, ~ 83542 RE: Preliminary Plat for The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision Dear Commissioners: Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 xevt~xxxx~cogexx SHOP: Nampo 466-0663 xerdc~xxxx~ra~~cx The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's Eightmile Lateral courses along the west boundary of the project. The right-of-way of the Eightmile Lateral is SO feet; 25 feet from the center each way. See Idaho Code 42-1208- RIGHTS-OF-WAYNOT SUBJECT TO ADVERSE POSSESSION. The developer must contact John P. Anderson or Bill Henson at 466-0663 for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires a Land Use Change/Site Development application be filed for review prior to final platting. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. Contact Donna Moore at 466-7861 for further information. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the 1:'ampa 8 Meridian Irrigation District. Sincerely Bil~~on ater Su penntendent NAMPA c& MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT BH.•dln cc: File -Shop File - O„(~Fce Water Superintendent APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 ~~~~~~ 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # ~~d6~d~i4tkX 208-463-0092 29 December 1997 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Keith Jacobs, Jr. ~~~ Pacific Land Surveyors SHOP:XUN~am~XpXX$X9C~X 1295 S. Eagle Flight Way Boise, ID 83709 RE: Land Use Change Application for The Villas at the Lakes Sub Dear Keith: Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation District for its review on the above- referenced development. If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call on me at the District's office or John Anderson, the District's Water Superintendent at the District's shop. Sincerely, ~~L,/L.IZ_ ~ C , ~" - /~, Donna N. Moore, Assistant Secretary/Treasurer ~~p~ dnm cc: File - Water Superintendent Steiner Development City of Meridian enc. APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 Mayor ROBERT D. CORRIE o.n itM m r CHARLESROUNTREE GLENN BENTLEY RON ANDERSON KEITH BIRD HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208)884-4264 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208)887-2211 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208)884-5533 TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: July 7, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 24, 1998 HEARING DATE:_ July 14, 1998 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY: STEINER DEVELOPMENT LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION - NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 TAMMY DE WEERD, P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR _ RON ANDERSON, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C KEITH BIRD, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/G WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER CITY FILES MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: AUGUST 11, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 5 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUB. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 7/14/98 CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. r MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 109 Margulieux: Okay. MacCoy: Okay, anyone else? JOE STAFFORD 4192 W. PLUM ROSE STREET WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Stafford: I'd like to incorporate the comments I made earlier on the public hearing number 15 on the agenda tonight into this one and also bring out that on the plat map, again, I think there's substantial easements questions and 48 lots not 43 as they have changed, and we don't have lot sizes so I would recommend that it not be approved preliminary plat tonight. Thanks. MacCoy: Anyone else? De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question. We're asked to vote on a preliminary plat that is not complete. I would make a motion to continue the public hearing until our August 11~' meeting. Smith: Second. MacCoy: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Borup: Is there any chance of us having a correct plat before that time? Or in a month from now are we going to be voting on this same preliminary plat? Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, I'm certain that we can get you a plat that has all the right numbering scheme on it before your meeting of August 11~', which is really the only change. And that's maybe not quite right. Because I guess we've got that easement issue that's got to be untangled. (Inaudible) MacCoy: Anything else you want before we let him go? Borup: I'm not sure if all that was proper, but I was speaking out loud when I said that. I mean I was thinking out loud not particularly professional. Berg: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I think you need to gives these applicants as much direction and demand as much as you can so this doesn't get tabled and continued on, and if it's a plat that isn't drawn to your satisfaction, that should be condition for the next public hearing so you can review it or else it will get continued or tabled. Ju'l -09-98 11 : 55A //`/ /~ /~ / -! -~ ~i ~~ Jl~da CoWitY Highxay District 318 B. 37th Street boiao, ID 83714 Fax Cover Sheet 8laase Deliver~o~~ pave ~P~~L ~v T3tiaoQvti~ tax #: 884-2086 Company: From: sTEVB ARPtOLD Fax ~s (2081 387-6391 Phone: (208) 387-6].78 Pages: 6 Meeeage: Ju 1 -09-98 11 : 55A ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Plaiuiing and Dcvclopm~en? Divisirni Development Application Report Preliminary Plat -The Villas at The Lake Subdivision n~o C.herry Lt. c!o T31aek Cat Rd. The Villas at The Lakt is a 4R-lot rtsidttrtia] subdivision un 8.53-acres. The sift is l~xated approximately'-~ mile north of Chary l.,ane and ! i mile east ofl3lack Cat Road. This dc..•clopment is estimated to generate 48U additional vehicle trips per day ":; ~ en trc Ins°iitute of Transportation ingineers 'T'rip Generation maaual_ C+n January 21, 1998, the Commission remanded this applioation at the applicant's request to allow additional time to reevaluate tra#fic issues rtlating to lntcrlaehen VVay Roads impacted by this developmcnt_ Interiachcn Way Cherry Lane AC'HD Commission Date -June 3, 1998 - 12:A0 p.m P.02 Jul-09-98 11:55A Facts and Findings: A. C,enerallntbrmation Owner -Louis J. Steiner Applicant -Same K-4 - Existing coning 8.53 -Acres 48 - Proposed building lots 1,600 -Total lineal feet of proposed private roads 260 -1'ratLc Analysis Lone; (TAL) West Ada -1mpa~K Fee benefit Zane Western Cities -Impact Fee ~'lsscssmc~nt District Inter h~ Way Collector street with a bile lane designation Traffic wwtt of 871 VTD on iU-28-97 60-feet of frontage 0-feet existing right-of-w•ay 60-feet required right-of--way lnt~Ylachen Way is improved south ofthis site with a 41-foot street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk. H. The site is currently undeveloped, The applicant is proposing to construct. private roads within the proposed subdivision from Int~erlachen W'ay vr1th no connection to Ashford Greens Boulevard to the northwest of the site. Interlaohen Way is built io a collector street section and has 19 houses that front-on Intcrlacheu Way. In the original staffreport date January 21, 19913, stail'reeommcnded the applicant be regairtd to: Staff recommends that the applicant be required tc constru~'t a public street connection to Ashford Greens 1oulevard. Construct a stub street oo~~nccKion between this proposed subdivision and A.4hford Grcars Subdivision to the west and provide a paved temporary turnarow~d within a tcntporary eaRCCnettt. P.03 The applicant e~cpressed concerns to District sta$ about the passibility of traffic cutting through the site W reach the golf courxe and/or other destinations (i.r. Albertsons: store at the southwest vorner of (sherry Lang and 'i"cn Mile Road). The applicant requested that the Commission defer :u~tion on the application until such time that the above mention traffic issues could be reevaluated. C. A traffic analysis has been submitted. The following is based an stalls evaluation of the traffic aualy~is: Pale Jul-09-98 11:55A _ P.04 The ~'itla at thr Lake subdivision will add over 350 tidily trips to interhachen Way'. The cumnt count is 871 ditty vehicle trips north of Cherry Lanc on nctober 28, 1997. • The A.gford Greens Subdi~rision and golf course will add nearly 1,000 daily trips to Interhachen Way if a conn~~lion is made from tlis subdit~igiotl to Ashford Crreens Boulevard. • lnttrla~:hen Way is zxpected to reach 1,7$0 daily vehicle trips af3er beuld-out. This does not Cxueed the planning threshold of the collector road, but wilt exceed the Distri~Yt'S desired goal of 1,W0 ~"f'U on a. local strcct with front-on housing. • There is sufficient connectivity to tlx: west and north via existing stn~ctx to the north and west Uf th1S site. Staff have evaluated the need for a connection and n:cotnmends that the applicant not tk' squired to extend Irtterlachcn Way to Ashford Greens Bouhevard brLe3 on'.1=e aEwve mentioned rtason5. 'Ihc applicant should be a{lowed to construct a private road to serve the site. p. '1'h,e applicant shauld be required to locate arty proposed gates a minimum of 50-feet from the public right-of--way of Interlachen Way. g, The applicant should be required to provide an ACHl) approved turnaround at the trrminus of irterlachert Vt'ay. Coocdinatr the design of the turnaround with District staff. F. 'The: applicant ins proposing to construct a private road into the site at the terminus of tnterlachen Way. The applicant should be required to pave the roadway its full width (24-fret tnirimiun) to at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavc~merlt of Inter}ashen Way curd install pavement tapers with 15- foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. The applicart should provide a plan showing how the private road Bade meets the public road. District Policy requires a design approach spred of 20 MPH and a ma~-imum intersection approach grade of 2? o for at least 40-feet. Strom Warne and stop signs are required tor' the private road The signs may he ordered through the District at the cost of $11 S. V -4 G, AC:HU does nit make any assurazices that the private road which is a part of tlvs application will be accepted as a public road if such a requts~t is roads in t!^~ future. ~~zbstantial redesign and e~econstruction cxx4ts may bc: necessary in order to qa~!'~~' ;'is road for public ownership and mauttenancc. H. tltitity strcct cuts in new pavement teas than five yearn old are not alhowed unless approved in writing by the District. Cortta4K Constructions Services at 387-6280 (with hle ziumbers) for details- The foDo~vinC Site Spert~c Requirttrnnts And Stsndaa d 3R.+~q~.Ls'em~ts mcest be met vt' provfded toy prior to submitting the lfnal plat for approval by the District: Site 5pecifec requirements: 1. l,.ocatc any proposed gates a minimtun of 50-feet from the public right-ot=way of lntcrlachtrt Way. VII,T.Aiii,c: ,.MOD Fage b Jul-09-98 11:66A ~y Cl• 1o JYV Vri ~rrv -~ ..~.. --~. .. . 2. Provide an AC'HL) approved turnaraustd at the terminus otlnterlachcn Way. Coordinate the design of the turnaround with District staff. 3. Ccmgtruet a private road ittto the site at the terminus of Interlachc~n Way. I'avc the roadway its full width (24-feet minimum) to at least 30-feet. beyond the edge of pavement of Interlachen Wsy and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii abutting the e:usting roadway edge. The applicant alwuld provide a plan showing how the private road grade meets the public road Di:~trict Poliuy royuires a desigts approach xpeed of 20 MPH and a maximum intcrxection approach grade of 2°o far at least 40-feet. Street name and stop signs arc required for the private road. 'Elie signs maybe ordered through the District at the cost of Sl 1 S_ Verification of the correct_ Qi~mved ~e of he roa¢ «r~uL~d" 4. ACHD does trot make any assurances that the private rand which is a pant of this application will be acctpted as a public road if suoh a reyucst is made in the future. Substantial redesign and reconstruction costs may be~necc;ssary in order to quality this road for public; ownership and maintcnatrce. P.05 S. Utility straet cuts in ntw pavement less thatr five years cl-~~ are not allowed unler~ approved in writing by the nistrict. C'ontac't Construcrion Services at :387-6230 (with Este numbcrz) for detail+;. Standard Rcquirem~nis: A request firs rnodif~c;ation, varianc,~c yr waiver of any requiremcrtt or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the: ACHD planning and llcvctopment Supervisor, q1;~c -quest 11 sr~c,;ifrc 1 v lc~~gt fy, ea9h ff~llirt tt~ be i44Q i ~ d ~ ~1 i+±ch_r~e ~ 'tten a lotion of wjty r~ '~ch sent Id resuh ' ayu~atantisl ~g1t.~p or inc ~~y. The w~g~reauest shA11 be s~~rnittcd to the District no later than 9:OQ a.m. on _the day scheduled fur ACHD Commiscicm aLiion. Those items shall be rese:heduled for discussion with the Commission on the ne~rt available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the Distri4~t aRer 9;UU a.m. on the a :y snc~d'aled for Gottrmission action do not providr sufficient time for District stall'to remove thr item from the consent agenda and report W the Commission regarding the requested moditiuation, variance or waiver. These items will be acted on by the Cotnuussion unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. Auer ACHU Commission action, any request far rec~onsidc~ration of the; Commif:sion's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and llevGlopment Super isor a~;#hin two weeks of the action and shall irulude a minimum fee ot'$110.00. The reauast ;~~: resSmsiberation shall ~peeiRcal y idcntit'v each requrrem~to rc~;~nsi e~,~ and inrlu~,~ --;M - ~:^r__~mcnt.~tton f R~ that was not ay ' ~Ie~t ,~ Commssion at th~ime of ita original decisiost The request for reconsideration will he heard by the District Commission at the next ngutar meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to recoti_sider the action, the applicant will be notiticd of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. VILLA~i{?l'L.MOD Page .i Jul-09-98 11:56A lb•17 JV1~ q~/ a»cr +v- r.an. vw.... .,,.. ~~- 3. Payment at' applicable road impae.~t fees arc required pries to building construction in a~~;ordance with t?rdinancc #188, also known as Ada County Higbway llistrict Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with ~r:e ,4da County iIighway Distri.K Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplerrer.`~,, ~";;_; ~^~~ii;;r. Services prcx~edures and all applicable ACHD Ckdinances unless specifieaUy waived herein. S. The applicant shall submit revised plans for sta#i' approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or othc-r required pcrrrrits~ which inc:orporatcs any required dc.~ign changes. fi. Con.~struction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all appiieahle requiretncnts of the Ada County Highway llistric't prior to llistri4't approval fur occupanvy. 7. No change in the tcrm4 and conditions of thin approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applieatrt's authorized repncscntstivc and an authorized representative of the Ada County highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confurnation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 8. Any change by the applicant in the planned use aftl;e r crcriy which is the subject ofthia application, sihhall require the applicant to comply with alt rules, regulations, ordinances, plaro~, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its sucocsxors in interest advises the Highway District of itk intent to change the Alarmed use of the sub}ect property unless a waiver,'variancc o#'said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in ctl'c~K at tlu: time the change in use i4 souglYt. Conclusion of Law: AC:HD requiremer~Rs am intended to assure that the proposed use/dcvclopmerrt will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vi::inity impacted by the proposed dcvelapment Should you bare any questions or commetZts, plc ,sc ;;er.'.~,:t the Planning and llcvelopment Dititision at 387-610. June _j, 1998 P.06 vIU.A1fi?L'Z.MUD Page 5 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: JULY 14 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 15 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUB. NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 5/12/98 US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian City Council May 5, 1998 Page 2 Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we accept the minutes as written. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Anderson, second by Mr. Bird that we accept the minutes as written of the joint city council rural fire district meeting held April the 14~'. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: I'd like to welcome the scouts here tonight from troop 30 in Meridian. Welcome fiellows, and hope we can give you some highlights on city council here. ITEM NO. 1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION -NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 BY STEINER CORPORATION. Corrie: Council, is there any discussion on this tabled item? Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I have declared a conflict of interest on this. I will step down. Bentley: Mr. Crookston, before you depart, I need to ask did you author these findings? Crookston: No, I did not. Bentley; Thank you. Rountree: Just to get some discussion going on this item and item number two, tabled preliminary plat for the same subdivision. We had met individually with the developer on this particular issue, have discussed some changes in the preliminary plat that would reflect, need some changes in the findings of facts. understand by letters that I have received and phone calls and information that's been received by the city, that there are a number of individuals that would like to see what the changes are in this preliminary plat. Being that we had not taken action on the public hearing even though we did close the public hearing, I would suggest that we consider either moving this back to P & Z for hearing or rehearing before the city council. Meridian City Council May 5, 1998 Page 3 Bird: I concur with Charlie. I think that some people would like to have a clearer deal of what the changes were. I feel comfortable with them, but I think that some of the other people aren't. Bentley: I would agree that it needs to go back. Anderson: I'd like to see it go back to P & Z and go through the process again. Corrie: Okay, if that's what the conclusion is of the council, I'll entertain a motion to that effect on items one and two. If that is the council's pleasure. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we move items one and two tabled April 21St related to findings of fact and conclusions of law for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for Villas at the Lakes Subdivision northwest of Cherry Lane be reheard before planning and zoning with the amended plat and that be scheduled at the earliest possible date for planning and zoning. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Bentley to refer back to planning and zoning for the earliest public meeting on the agenda of the planning and zoning. Any further discussion? Rountree: I believe the information that we have received from the public desiring information and expressing some concerns about this should made available to the applicant so they can take that into consideration in the next hearing. Come: Okay, we'll do that. Any further discussion? Berg: Since the attorney is not hereon this issue, Charlie is your motion desire to go through the whole process of two public hearings? One before P & Z and one before City Council, or would you like the recommendation of the P & Z after the hearing is done? Why I say this is it should be pretty clear what they are going to do, just have one hearing or go through the whole process again. Rountree: I didn't know there was an option. I'm thinking it goes to planning and zoning and comes back to us with their recommendations. That was my intent. Cowie: They have to have another public hearing, yes. Inaudible. Rountree: Either that - as far as discussion could we -we've closed the hearing. By motion can we remand it back to P & Z and request them to reopen Meridian City Council May 5, 1998 Page 4 their hearing, and then when they are done, come back to us and reopen our hearing. Corrie: We can do that if that's your desire, yes. It's going through the process again is what you're doing. Rountree: Well, I see some structure difference from just what the applicant has to do. Corrie: The way I understand it, you want to at least let the public have another crack at this. Rountree: Yes. Berg: Just a comment. You've heard the application. You've made some comments. He's willing to make some changes. You want the public to have more input on those changes, but you are not totally rejecting the project. Rountree: Correct. Berg: So that's not really going through the-whole application process with him reapplying, but you are just going through the public hearing process to make sure the public get the input. Rountree: Correct. Berg: Okay, I think that's what the intent was. Corrie: Just for my clarification. They are changing some changes on the plat as well. So they are going to have to address that at planning and zoning as well. Rountree: My motion included both items one and two, which is the findings as well as the plat. Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: i'll make sure planning and zoning gets that same word. Rountree: That Mr. Campbell get that information. Corrie: I will see that he gets that too. a„ JUN 02 '98 14.16 FR CITY OF MERIDIAN Meridian City Council May S, 1998 Page 2 208 887 4813 TO 8871297 Post-~"° Fax Note 7671 I Fax # Si0 / , F2x # Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we acc®pi me mmures as uvnlten. Bird: Second. P.01i03 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Anderson, second by Mr. Bird that we accept the minutes as written of the joint city council rural fire disfid meeting held April the 14"'. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: I'd like to welcome the scouts here tonight from troop 30 in Meridian. Welcome fellows, and hope we can give you some highlights on city council here. ITEM NO. 1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION - NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 BY STEINER CORPORATION. Corrie: Council, is there any dtscussion on this tabled item? Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I hav® declared a conflict of interest on this. I will step down. Bentley: Mr. Crookston, before you depart, I need to ask did you author these findings? Crookston: No, I did not. Bentley: Thank you. Rountree: Just to get some discussion going on this item and item number two, tabled preliminary plat for the same subdivision. We had met individually with the developer on this particular issue, have discussed some changes in the preliminary plat that would reflect, need some changes in the findings of facts. I understand by letters that I have received and phone calls and information that's been received by the city, that there are a number of individuals that would like to see what the changes are in this preliminary plat. Being that we had not taken action on the public hearing even though we did close the public hearing, I would suggest that we consider either moving this back to P 8~ 2 for hearing or rehearing before the city council. JUN 02 '98 14 17 FR CITY OF MERIDIAN 208 887 4813 TO 8871297 ~~ P.02i03 Meridian City Council May 5, 1998 Page 3 Bird: I concur with Charlie. I think that some people would tike to have a clearer deal of what the changes were. I feel comfortable with them, but I think that some of the other people aren't. Bentley: I would agree that it needs to go back. Anderson: I'd like to see it go back to P & Z and go through the prooess again. Cowie; Okay, if that's what the conclusion is of the council, I'll entertain a motion to that effect on items one and two. If that is the council's pleasure. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we move it®ms one and two tabled Apri121~ related to findings of fact and conclusions of law for a conditional us® permit for a planned unit development for Villas at the lakes Subdivision northwest of Cherry Lane be reheard before planning and zoning with the amended plat and that b® scheduled at the earliest possible date for planning and zoning. Bentley: Second. Cowie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Bentley to refer back to planning and zoning for the earliest public meeting on the agenda of th® planning and zoning. Any further discussion? Rountree; I believe the information that we have received from the public desiring information and expressing some concerns about this should made available to the applicant so they can take that into consideration in the next hearing. Cowie: Okay, we'll do that. Any further discussion? Berg: Since the attorney is not here on this issue, Charlie is your motion desire to go through the whole process of two public hearings? One before P ~ Z and one before City Council, or would you like the recommendation of the P 8 Z after the hearing is done? Why I say this is it should be pretty clear what they are going to do, jus# have one hearing or go through th® whole process again. Rountree: 1 didn't know there was an option. f'm thinking it goes to planning and zoning and comes back to us with their recommendations. That was my intent. Cowie: They have to have another public hearing, yes. Inaudible. Rountree: Either that - as far as discussion could we -we've closed the hearing. By motion can we remand it back to P ~ Z and request them to reopen JUN 02 '98 14.17 FR CITY OF MERIDIAN 208 887 4813 TO 8871297 P.03i03 1Vleridian City Council May 5, 1998 Page 4 their hearing, and then when they are done, come back to us and reopen our hearing. Cowie: We can do that if that's your desire, yes. It's going through the process again is what you're doing. Rountree: Well, I see some structure difference from just what the applicant has to do. Cowie: The way I understand it, you want to at least let the public have another crack at this. Rountree: Yes. Berg: Just a comment. You've heard the application. You've made some comments. He's willing to make some changes. You want the public to have more input on those changes, but you are not totally rejecting the project. Rountree: Correct. Berg: So that's not really going through the whole application process with him reapplying, but you are just going through the public hearing process to make sure the public get the input. Rountree: Correct. Berg: Okay, I think that's what the intent was. Corrie: Just for my clarification. They are changing some changes on the plat as well. So they are going to have to address that at planning and zoning as well. Rountree: My motion included both items one and two, which is the findings as well as the plat. Corrie; Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: I'll make sure planning and zoning gets that same word. Rountree: That Mr. Campbell get that information. Corrie: I will see that he gets that too. ** TOTAL PRGE.03 ** MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: MAY 5, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER CORPORATION ITEM NUMBER: 2 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDMSION- NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE N0.1 AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY -FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 4/21/98 OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~~ExmiAty crrY couxca, APRII.21, 1998 PAGE 4 ITEM #2: TABLED MARCH 17, 1998: PRELIMINARY PLAT, 48 LOTS FO RTHE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER CORPORATION: ITEM #3: TABLED APRIL 7, 1998: INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC- SYSTEM FOR A WAREHOUSE BUILDING BY MCCALL PROPERTIES: Cowie: I guess this is one I was going to talk to Council about earlier. Council the -Brad Miller who is the project with Van Auker has talked to Paul Clayton, Paul Clayton has talked to Mr. Saum, Mr. Saum is really pretty sick right now and that was one of his higher priorities. I would like to - is there anyone here from McCall Properties? Okay, I hate to ask for a continuance or table this till next May 5~' but I think we need to discuss this one in a little more context because I don't think we're going to get too far with Mr. Suam on this. Is there any discussion or any questions you might want to ask? Bird: Do we have to table this or can we just take it off the agenda until they bring it back to us? Come: I would like to table it, I think we need to discuss this between now and May 5~' because there's some things that we need to do and make a decision on what we're going to do here: Bird: Yeah, I talked to Brad and Ron today. Come: Okay. There was a formal request by the McCall properties so I would - Rountree: Have we made contact with McCall Properties and indicated a point and time where they have to have an answer? Cowie: They told me that they didn't have to have one right now, they're still about a month and a half, two months away with what they want to do so I think if we act in two to four weeks that will be plenty of time for them. Bird: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we table the McCall Properties septic system until May 5"'. Rountree: Second. Come: Motion made by Mr. Bird seconded by Mr. Rountree to table till May 5"' meeting, any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED:. All ayes. ITEM #4: TABLED APRIL 7, 1998: FINAL PLAT FOR STERLING CREEK (ELVIRA) SUBDIVISION (49 LOTS) 13Y RON CROW -EAST OF EAST 5T" City of Meridian - Hub of the Treasure Valley - U.Ilus ~.~ t~~ G~,~e 33 E. IDAHO AVE. Phone (ZOB) 888-4433 MERIDIAN, ID 83642 FAX (ZOB) 888-4813 RE: STEINER DEVELPMENT, PRIMARY PLAT TO: ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAYOR Mr. Gordon Margulieux called this morning requesting a message be given to the Council members and Mayor before tonight's meeting. He feels that due to changes by the developer on the primary plat for Steiner Development, more consideration and public input should be weighed before any decision is made. If you have further questions, please call him at (208) 888-6883 ~/ ~~, ~-e__. s/s js ~- ~ ~~ -~~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" CORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 . Legal Department (208) 884-4252 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor COUNCIL M~pi WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: _ January 6. 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 12/17 /97 HEARING DATE: 1/13 /98 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat for The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision _BY: Steiner Development LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No 1 JIM JOHNSON, P2 MALCOLM MACCOY, P2 MARK NELSON, P2 ._BYRON SMITH, P2 -KEITH BORUP, P2 -ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR -RONALD TOLSMA, C/C .-CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C -WALT MORROW, C/C -GLENN BENTLEY, C/C -WATER DEPARTMENT -,SEWER DEPARTMENT -BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT -CITY ATTORNEY -CITY ENGINEER -CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS R M ~ FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF REC I ,(PRELIM & FINAL P T) CITY FILES OTHER: ~ YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: z ~'~l~.rv.s ': ;~r.9 s~; ~ . 2 3 iwr ~# ~~ f ~ ~~ d ~ ~ (~ t ~ r ! ' d ~ ~ ~~~ K a W w_ ~ a } a ~. ~ ~ ~ ~~4-~ ~~4~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o w s R _f ~~dm~ ~d$~ ~3Mr A d' a r r- • . ~i~$se~s~r~~~~ 1~~~$ rrrief~~ $ $ $ $ ~ f ~f ~ ~~ ~ ... r ~ ~ t }~ ..,. .. .. ~re~ ••, .,~~~~ aor rw ~n ~• $ ~ ~~ j ~ ~ ~ ~= $ := a,~.a~., 'i o`f ~ -~ _ .: '~ ' ~• z :• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ : ;: i + ~ ;: ~ ~ ~ ~:: ,~ f~ ~ ,. ~ ~ ;~ ~t~' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ • 1 • ~ ~ '. ~ ~ 'i - -- ' -- - MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: APRIL21,1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUMBER: 1 REQUEST: F F ~ C L FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE N0.1 AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: COMMENTS SEE MINUTES FROM 3/17!98 CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: FINDINGS IN 3/17/98 PACKET All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian City Council Mazch 17, 1998 Page 7 MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM #4: NEW FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY STEINER CORPORATION: Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I have declared a conflict of interest on that, John Prior is here to answer any questions if the Council has any. Corrie: Council this is one that was brought to my attention and I brought it to the attention of the Council. Any discussion on this Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law? Anything that you want to say before we do this? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I don't necessarily see that a threat of direction or action is shown in the findings to the applicant and that's probably a weakness on our part for not providing that specific information to counsel in the preparation of the findings. My thoughts and direction of this particular action at the time of the hearing was that the difficulty I had with it was a lack of being harmonious with the surrounding R-4 neighborhood and the larger lots and larger homes that it abutted and that if you'll recall I gave the example of the kinds of things that we had done in Meridian Greens and another subdivision that escapes me with providing larger lots and establishing a particular architectural style in a new requested subdivision that would reflect the architectural and lot size in those adjacent lots and then transition into the proposed use be it smaller lots or in this case a P.U.D., planned unit development, I've indicated to Mr. Campbell that I'm willing to sit down and discuss those issues with them, having said that that the way the findings are set up it's set up as a denial to the original application by way of discussion I'm not opposed to tabling this until we have an opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Campbell and maybe make further modifications to make the direction clear to them and that we don't have double actions on this, that approach would also require the delay in tabling of the next item on our agenda as well which is a subdivision plat. Those are my comments. Come: Any further comments? Mr. Rountree do you want to make that into motion and we'll see where it goes? Rountree: Mr. Mayor I would move that we table action on this finding as well as the next item on our agenda until we have an opportunity to sit down with the applicant and provide specific direction to them with this particular application. Bird: I'll second that. Corrie~ Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bird ±o table item #3 and #4 witn the time to sit down and discuss the Findings car Facts and the ways that the Council would like for them to go. Any further discussion? Meridian City Council March 17, 1998 Page 8 Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I think we're going to have to come up with a date though I don't think you can just throw out an indefinite table on it. Rountree: I would amend that to add a date certain -has it been seconded? Cowie: Yes, withdraw your second. Bird: I withdraw the second. Rountree: I'd amend by motion to propose a date certain - Corrie: My suggestion would be four weeks. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, again I would modify my previous motion to include a date certain that we would decide on our regularly scheduled meeting April 21St. Bird: I'll second that. Cowie: Motion made by Mr: Rountree second by Mr. Bird to table the motion of item #3 and item #4 until the 21St of April. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, on that subject I would request that Shari work with the developer and get a date established that we could sit down with them, preferably an evening. Come: Shari? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, once we do sit down with them and explain some of the things that we would like to see in the proposal is do you have an idea of when that would go back to public hearing or are you suggesting it go back to Planning and Zoning Commission for a public hearing or to the City Council? Rountree: 1 don't know what the resolve is going to be, it may very well have #o go back through Planning & Zoning and I suspect thaYs what's going to have to happen. Stills: Okay. Cowie: So if you'll set up a time. and notify Will so we can -put a notice at the City Stiles: Is that the entire Council that wants to meet with them or is that just - Meridian City Council March 17, 1998 Page 9 Cowie: - Do you want to have two at a time? Rountree: That probably would be easier to discuss two at a time. Stiles: Okay, thanks. ITEM #5: TABLED MARCH 3, 1998: PRELIMINARY PLAT, 48 LOTS FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER CORPORATION: ITEM #6: ORDINANCE #789 - THURGOOD REZONE: Cowie: Item #6 is Ordinance #789, this is a rezone ordinance. Ordinance #789 is an ordinance of the City of Meridian amending and changing the zoning of certain real property in the City of Meridian which is generally described as a portion of the south-east comer of section 1, township 3 north, range 1 west and also known as 236 W. Cherry Lane, Boise, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and providing for effective date. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance #789 read in its entirety? Bentley: Mr. Mayor, just for verification this is #789 is that correct, because there's no number on our ordinance. Cowie: Right it's #789. This is rezoned from R-4 to a residential L-O, limited office. Any discussion on Ordinance #789? If none I'll entertain a motion for Ordinance #789. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that City Council approve. Ordinance #789, authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest. Bird: Second. Cowie: Ordinance #789 with suspension of rules, all in favor say aye. Opposed no. - Oh I'm sorry that is a roll call vote. Back-up on a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Bird -Yea, Mr. Bentley -yea, Mr. Rountree -yea, Mr. Anderson -yea. MOTION CARRIED: All yeas. ITEM #7: APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR LIQUOR AND BEER LICENSE FOR BILL MARTELL - BILL'N LYNN'S PLACE: Cowie: Chief, is everything in order on this one? MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: APRIL21.1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUMBER: 2 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT (48 LOTS) FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDMSION AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: COMMENTS SEE MINUTES FROM 3/17/98 CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY.FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: PREVIOUS INFO. IN 3/17/98 PACKET All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian City Council March 17, 1998 Page 7 MOTION CARRIED: All ayes ITEM #4: NEW FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY STEINER CORPORATION: Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I have declared a conflict of interest on that, John Prior is here to answer any questions if the Council has any. . Corrie: Council this is one that was brought to my attention and I brought it to the attention of the Council. Any discussion on this Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law? Anything that you want to say before we do this? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I don't necessarily see that a threat of direction or action is shown in the findings to the applicant and that's probably a weakness on our part for not providing that specific information to counsel in the preparation of the findings. My thoughts and direction of this particular action at the time of the hearing was that the difficulty I had with it was a lack of being harmonious with the surrounding R-4 neighborttood and the larger lots and larger homes that it abutted and that if you'll recall I gave the example of the kinds of things that we had done in Meridian Greens and another subdivision that escapes me with providing larger lots and establishing a particular architectural style in a new reques#ed subdivision that would reflect the architectural and lot size in those adjacent lots and then transition into the proposed use be it smaller lots or in this case a P.U.D., planned unit development, I've indicated to Mr. Campbell that I'm willing to sit down and discuss those issues with them, having said that that the way the findings are set up it's set up as a denial to the original application by way of discussion I'm not opposed to tabling this until. we have an opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Campbell and maybe make further modifications to make the direction clear to them and that we don't have double actions on this, that approach would also require the delay in tabling of the next item on our agenda as well which is a subdivision plat. Those are my comments. Corrie: Any further comments? Mr. Rountree do you want to make that into motion and we'll see where it goes? Rountree: Mr. Mayor I would move that we table action on this finding as well as the next item on our agenda until we have an opportunity to sit down with the applicant and provide specific direction to them with this particular application. Bird: I'll second that. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bird to table item #3 and #4 w~.h the time to sit down and discuss the Findings of Facts and.the ways that the Council would like for them to go. Any further discussion? Meridian City Council March 17, 1998 Page 8 Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I think we're going to have to come up with a date though 1 don't think you can just throw out an indefinite table on it. Rountree: I would amend that to add a date certain -has it been seconded? Corrie: Yes, withdraw your second. Bird: I withdraw the second. Rountree: I'd amend by motion to propose a date certain - Corrie: My suggestion would be four weeks. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, again I would modify my previous motion to include a date certain that we would decide on our regularly scheduled meeting April 21St. Bird: I'll second that. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bird to table the motion. of item #3 and item #4 until the 21St of April. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, on that subject I would request that Shari work with the developer and get a date established that we could sit down with them, preferably an evening. Corrie: Shari? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, once we do sit down with them and explain some of the things that we would like to see in the proposal is do you have an idea of when that would go back to public hearing or are you suggesting it go back to Planning and Zoning Commission for a public hearing or to the City Council? Rountree: I don't know what the resolve is going to be, it may very well have to go back through Planning & Zoning and I suspect that's what's going to have to happen. Stills: Okay. Corrie: So if you'll set up a time.and notify Will so we can-put a notice at the City Stiles: Is that the entire Council that wants to meet with them or is that just - Meridian City Council March 17, 1998 Page 9 Corrie: - Do you want to have two at a time? Rountree: That probably would be easier to discuss two at a time. Stiles: Okay, thanks. ~~ ITEM #5: TABLED MARCH 3, 1998: PRELIMINARY PLAT, 48 LOTS FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER CORPORATION: ITEM #6: ORDINANCE #789 - THURGOOD REZONE: Corrie: Item #6 is Ordinance #789, this is a rezone ordinance. Ordinance #789 is an ordinance of the City of Meridian amending and changing the zoning of certain real property in the City of Meridian which is generally described as a portion of the south-east corner of section 1; township 3 north, range 1 west and also known as 236 W. Cherry Lane, Boise, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and providing for effective date. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance #789 read in its entirety? Bentley: Mr. Mayor, just for verification this is #789 is that correct, because there's no number on our ordinance. Corrie: Right it's #789. This is rezoned from R-4 to a residential L-O, limited office. Any discussion on Ordinance #789? If none I'll entertain a motion for Ordinance #789. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that City Council approve. Ordinance #789, authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest. Bird: Second. Corrie: Ordinance #789 with suspension of rules, all in favor say aye. Opposed no. - Oh I'm sorry that is a roll call vote. Back-up on a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Bird -Yea, Mr. Bentley -yea, Mr. Rountree -yea, Mr. Anderson -yea MOTION CARRIED: All yeas. ITEM #7: APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR LIQUOR AND BEER LICENSE FOR BILL MARTELL - BILL'N LYNN'S PLACE: Corrie: Chief, is everything in order can this one? MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING:_ MARCH 17.1998 APPLICANT: STEINER CORPORATION ITEM NUMBER: 5 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT 48 LOTS FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DiSTRiCT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 3/3/98 OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 49 Come: Anyone else would like to issue testimony on this request for preliminary plat at this time? Hearing none, I'll ask the Council do you have any questions of the -you didn't so I'll close the public hearing. Council? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I v~uld make a motion that we table item fourteen, request for preliminary plat for 48 lots for Villas at the Lakes Subdivision until we get resolved the conditional use application. Bird: Second. Cowie: Motion stated by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bird to this until the resolution is taken care of. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 15: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF MERIDIAN TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE COMMITTEE MINUTES HELD JANUARY 7, 1998: Cowie: Council you have those minutes in front of you. I don't know how we can approve those minutes, we weren't there. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, questions for Gary. Anything additional on these that we need to know about, Gary? Smith: No, sir. Cowie: Back to my original question. How can we approve the minutes if we weren't there. Was anybody here, there? Bentley: No. Rountree: Gary was. Cowie: Gary Smith do you find these minutes to be correct? Smith: I certainly hope so sir. I wrote them. Cowie: I was hoping you would say that. Smith: I submitted these after I wrote them from my notes. I submitted them to the chairman, Walt Morrow, and he reviewed them and sent back comments saying that everything was fine as presented to hirn. Come: All right. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: MARCH 17,1998 APPLICANT: STEINER CORPORATION ITEM NUMBER: 4 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT l~il~~-s ~f ~ l~,~L AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 3/3/98 SEE ATTACHED FINDINGS MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 30 ITEM NO. 13: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - NW CHERRY LANCE VILLAGE NO. 1 BY: STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Cowie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite Mr. Bradbury. STEVE BRADBURY 877 MAIN STREET, BOISE WAS SWORN BY CITY ATTORNEY. Bradbury: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, my name is Steve Bradbury. I've been asked to present the application on behalf of Steiner Development. What you have before you is an application for planned unit development and preliminary plat , you should all have a book that looks like this. And what I'll do in my presentation is kind of leaf through it and tell you what's back there and then we'll get an opportunity to talk about each of the difference parts of the book. The site is an eight and a half acre parcel of property that's east of Black Cat Road between Ustick and Cheny Lane, and if you want to get a feel for the location, if you look behind tab four, three, four pages in you'll find a location map here. Like that. And the piece we are talking about is this irregular shaped piece which is on the southerly end of that map. Maybe I can show you a bigger board that will help as well. We got the Lake at Cheny Lane 5, 6 & 7 over here. Ashford Greens, and then we've got Golf vew over here, and the piece we are talking about is right here. As a matter of fact, it's the piece where the golf course club house is. The current one. This piece of property was originally brought to the Council by the developer of the Ashford Greens Subdivision, Brighton Corporation and was part of the previously approved Ashford Greens planned unit development.. The Brighton Corporation however failed to exercise their option on this particular piece of property, and my client, Steiner Development, picked it up. In the book, in case you are interested, behind tab five is a copy of the findings of facts and conclusions of law that were adopted by the Council back in September 1994 that dealt with the overall concept approval for the Asfiford Greens Subdivision, and what they did or what the members of the Council at that time did, was with respect to this piece of property, gave it concept approval for what was described as medium density development, and that was further described as being for up to eight units per acre. Steiner Development having acquired the property is submitting this application for that purpose in order to -let me back up. The Council required that a more particular site plan be submitted for approval by the City, and this application is that more particular site plan. Back to the book for a second. Behind tab one, you will find a summary letter of the application. So if you hadn't had an opportunity to read that, you can read through that at your leisure. Behind tab two, you will find some general project information, just sort of outlines in summary form what the project is all about, and I will go through that a little bit. I already told you that it's on eight and a half acres. The property is presently zoned R-4, but the application seeks approval for 46 total single family units. Now 37 of them would be single detached. Three of them would be twri unit attached structures so there's three two units or you might call them two unit townhouses. They are described as duplexes but that's not rR:ally true because these will on separate ownerships and each of the unit will be on separate lots. And then there's one three unit townhouse Meridian City Council ' March 3, 1998 Page 31 proposed for a total of 46 dwelling units. Now that comes up to a overall density of about 5.6 units per acre which is substantially less than the eighf units per acre which was conceptually approved back in 1994. The lot sizes, now you need take your pencil or pen out and fix an error because it's not right, and I will tell you how that happened. The lot sizes range from 3909 square feet up to 8413 square feet. And the reason for that change and one of the reason is that some adjustments were made down in this part of the plat. This is where the temporary sewer easement exists here. It's a twenty foot wide sewer easement, and when the application was originally submitted, the lot calculations included the land within the sewer easement area. The proposal now is to take that out of these lots and make it a separate common lot which would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association to be formed. The other thing that happened is this street here got moved up a little bit. We've kind of rearranged this area in here so that we could make this -take this twenty feet out of those lots and still have reasonable size lots. So those numbers that are shown there are not right. The ones I've given you are what the engineer calculated earlier this week. The size of the homes are a minimum of 1304 square feet up to 1785 square feet and actually behind tab eight, is a list of the numbers of units for each of those sizes. In other words a .size distribution list. And what you will see is that more than half of the units proposed would be in the 1700 or above range, actually it's 1699 square feet. We probably should find another foot so we can call it 1700, but 1699 and 1785, there'd be 25 of those, so something more than half. And the remainder of them as you see are pretty equally distributed between the other sizes. The roadway system in the project is proposed as a private road which would be gated at the entry. It would be on 42 feet of right-of-way. 37 feet of that would be improved. It would indude a five foot wide sidewalk on one side, which is similar to what was approved in Lake at Cheny Lane No. 6. Back to the homes, be 7 different plans made available in there, and some of those would have two elevation choices and if you are interested in looking at the. plans and the elevations, you can find those behind tab six. They are all single story. They are all two car garage. They each have either two or three bedrooms and two baths. Each space would be provided by, of course, a private driveway. The driveway would have space for a least two cars, so each unit would have a total parking availability of four cars. There are four color choices being offered in either stucco or a siding, and there's a brick accent on some of the units. If you are interested in looking at those, you can find the materials and color charts behind tab eight as well. Some of the amenities of the project you can find a list on the second page behind tab two. This is what my physics instructor used to call a spaz test to find out whether or not you can follow all the tabs and you are not a spaz, I guess. That was bade in high school, and I've always remembered that for some reason. I don't why, maybe it was because I was a spaz. Maybe I still am, I don't know. Well now that Councilman Morrow isn't here, he doesn't beat up on me over my college allegiance. At least Ihave a - Bentley: Another Idaho joke. Bradbury: That's right. We g:~t somebody's who is going to pick up the baton here. Anyway, behind tab two I talked about the gated security entrance, and you can find a Meridian City Council ' March 3, 1998 Page 32 detail of that behind tab four. Third page in, behind-tab 4, and it looks similar to this drawing here. The proposal here is to provide a gated security entrance in front of the subdivision and so the - in order to keep the traffic circulation down to a minimum. The other nice feature about this is the concept is to provide a pedestrian and cart path in through the subdivision over the top of the sewer easement and out on to the canal right of way and up all the way along the perimeter of the subdivision and then if would come back out up at the golf course. And that would give the people who want to walk to the golf course who live in the neighborhood or even theoretically those people who own golf carts and wanted to drive their golf carts up the golf course, vuould have a route to get up there. And as you can see, you can see the detail of how all that works there. This by the way as I said, this sewer easement would be a common area lot as would the lot where the golf cart path would go. All to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association to be formed. Behind tab three are application materials if you are interested in those. Behind tab four is a copy of the layout of the subdivision. You've probably got a blue line there 'rn front of you so it will be a little bit easier to read than that one. It gives you an eight and a half by eleven of it. And then the details for the cart path and the details for the gated area, and then the location map. Also behind tab five behind the green sheet is a copy of the findings of facts and conclusions of law which the planning and zoning commission adopted when they looked at this project about a month ago. And I assume you know, but in case you don't, the planning and zoning commission recommended approval of the project as presented. Now because this is a planned unit development, the developer is asking for certain exceptions under the provisions of the planned unit development portion of your zoning ordinance, and I'll go through each one of those exceptions so that we can talk about them. One of the exceptions is to have the setbacks reduced. Or some of the setbacks reduced. The typical front yard setback in a residential subdivision would be twenty feet. They are asking for reduction of the setback to fifteen feet. Similarly .the street side yard setbacks, that would be on the corner lots like here. That's typically a twenty foot setback required, and again the developer is asking for a reduction to .fifteen feet. And that's just exactly like what the Council approved in the-Lake at Cheny Lane No. 6. Now there's also a reduction being requested for these lots, lots one through four for a ten foot rear yard setback as opposed to the required fifteen i believe it is. And what you need to understand however even though there will only be ten of lot, there will actually be thirty five feet of separation from the lots, which are to the south because you will have the ten foot of setback in the lot and you will have twenty feet of that sewer easement area which would be a common lot and have that path on it. In addition the lots sizes are the typical R-4 lot sizes, 8,000 square feet, and they are asking for an exception down to the lot sizes that are shown on the plat. As I said the minimum size about 3900 square feet. The largest is over 8,000 square feet, but it comes out to an average of somewhere around 5700 square feet, and I don't have the exact number for the average, but it is in that 5700 square foot range. Also the typical frontage requirement on an R-4 lot is 80 feet. That is frontage on the street. 80 feet. In this particular application the reque4t is that number be reduced down to fifty feet because these are essentially fifty foot lots. I say that and then I'm going to say yeah, but there's also some of the flag lots and the corner lots which.are something less than that. So Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 33 probably he simplest way unless you-want me to read a list all the frontages is to simply say a request to reduce the frontages are shown on the plat. I guess I talked about the private street, but technically that would also be a requested exception from the typical ordinance requirements. This one as t said 42 foot of right-of--way with a frve foot sidewalk on one side. The house sizes in here, I told you about the range from 1300 up to over 1700 square feet. The typical R-4 requirement is 1400 square, so for those ten or twelve that would be less than that number would need exceptions for that. I think that's all the exceptions that we are asking for under the planned unit development provisions. Now as an off set to that, I guess, if you want to look at it that way is that the developer owns about a third of an acre which is on the opposite side of the eight mile lateral from this subdivision which is over on the golf course side. And the developer is offering to donate that third of an acre to the city. In other words, convey it free of charge and the deed would be conveyed to the city at the time that the final pat is recorded. And that would be used, of course, for the city's golf course property. I can show you where that piece is. It's right here. There's a piece that's -well, it's relatively triangular in shape right here and so a lot would be - a separate lot would be created on the -let's get my bearings here - on the east side of the canal. And that would be. conveyed to the city. This piece. The intent of the project, of course, is to continue to try to provide a variety of housing types and housing choices in the vicinity. Like what Steiner Development has started to do up at the Lake at Chevy Lane. As you probably recall up there, there are a number of different sizes of lots, and sizes of homes and types of housing arrangements. There's the typical 8000 square foot R-4 lots. There's some 6500 square foot R-8 lots. There's some - I can't remember the lot sizes, but other lot sizes that are in number six which -and there's a mix of houses in there, but that's a seniors living area, and then in number seven, are a series of townhouse developments duplex type - I say duplex and that is really not right because they are all separate lots with separate ownerships, but townhouse type developments on smaller lots there as well. Our feeling is that this type of project is not only in line with what the City Council conceptually approved back in 1994 for Ashford Greens, but it's also compatible with the overall scheme for this mile section, and we tried to put together a view and unfortunately w+e don't have those on there, but I give you an idea of the different sizes and different types of lots and housing that is Ixovided in the area. You've got, like I said, this is the Lake at Cherry Lane area up here, and then you got the Cherry Lane Village area down in here, the Golf mew and Ashford Greens, and as you can see, we have marked and some of these reds are areas where there are existing townhouse and .duplex type living.- That would also be true in this location here. And you don't have it yet, but an application is just about to be filed for the piece of property up here, the Wilkens' property, and the same basic kind of concept will be pursued for this property as was pursued for the Lake at Cherry Lane, and that is having a variety of housing types and a variety of lot sizes. The whole mile section is I think conceptualized as being a pl2ce where there can be a variety of sizes and different housing opportunities, and we think it's consistent E:rith what's been proven in the past, and consistent with what is likely to be submitted to you folks in the not too distance Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 34 future. That's all of the prepared presentation that I have, and I'd be pleased to respond to any questions that you might have. Corrie: Council, questions,? Anderson: On the security gate, would that be something, how would the emergency get through that security gate, is it keyed, is it activated by siren? Bradbury: I don't. know the detail on that. I know that the security gate systems that have been used around the valley have had -there's been a system. for emergency access. I don't know. Do you know how that vwrks? Is it strobe he says. Doug Campbell representative of Steiner Development says that he envisions it being activated by a strobe. Unfortunately I'm just lawyer. I don't know the technicalities of those things. Anderson: That would be something that would probably need to be coordinated with the police and fire, not all those vehicles are equipped with strobes. And it would be up to them to figure which system would work best. Bradbury: Sure, we are more than willing to work with the fire department. I've had really good success with those folks in the past and making sure that they are comfortable with what's been approved or have been applied for. If you wanted to make it a conditional of approval, that certainly wouldn't be a problem for us. Anderson: And then the road, is it Interlachen that goes through there? Bradbury: I call it Interlachen. Anderson: Is there a reason why that doesn't go on through and tie into the other street? . Bradbury: Well, yeah, as a matter of fact there is. 1 brought with me a traffic impact report that I will pass out to you if you'd like. The Ada County Highway District, when they looked at this thing, they thought that the road ought to go through as well, and the reason that we're not showing it that way is we are concerned that it's going to create too much cut through traffic. I mean there is going to be traffic trying to access to the golf course, back and forth, and there would be traffic coming from the Ashford Greens Subdivision. They'd be heading down through this -down this street in order to get to the Albertsons down there on the corner. And so - like I said, the Highway District originally thought that it ought to go through as well, and I think that you may even have a transmittal from them saying that that's what they'd to see.. We submitted a request for the Highway District Commission to take another look at this thing and go before them next week, and part of what was submitted to them was a traffic impact study and report that vas done by Phil and Gary Funkhauser from Earth Teci ~. -and let me pass out copies of that.. And we can go through the report and talk about how he got there. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 35 But what I'd suggest you just do is go to the last page, and there is a chart: And it shows what the existing traffic is, and what the projected traffic would be both with and without the connection. And what you have is on Interiachen, and you can pick any one. Let's just go to the bgttom line because that's the one where the most traffic is. North of Cheny on Interiachen the existing traffic that was counted by Earth Tech. Is 771 vehicles per day, and the traffic which would be produced by this site at that location is 285 trips per day. Now that gets you up to -well, we-are over a thousand vehicles right about there. If you added, if you connected the street through, what you do is you add about 300 trips per day for the golf course according to the experts and you add about 400 trips per day for Ashford Greens. Both of these would be cutting through and then about 30 trips per day from Cherry Lane Village. So what you end up with, is you end up with over 700 additional trips per day with the connection that you wouldn't have without it. Now our feeling is that not only would the residents in this proposed subdivision be unhappy with those 700 additional trips per day, but we also felt like the people that live on Interlachen now would likely be unhappy with having those 700 additional trips per day. So the proposal that we've made is not to put it through in order to keep that cut through traffic from taking that route. According to the preliminary contact we've had with the Highway District staff, they tend to agree. That goes to the commission as I said next week, but staff indicated to Mr. Funkhauser earlier today who passed it on to me that they tend to agree. They are not sure they want to have that connected there after all because of the increased amount of traffic. Anderson: And they would already have the 297 trips now that people are going to the club house now, so those people are already experiencing part of that,. and they are going to get relief when the club house is moved to the new location. Bradbury: Yeah, I guess that would be true. That's correct. I guess that's how people get there today. You are going to find out that I don't golf. Inaudible Bradbury: I'm song? (Inaudible) That's right. Now one of the things that Mr. Funkhauser pointed out is that by connecting it through, what you end up with is what the traffic people call a continuous collector. There would a continuous collector from Black Cat down to Cherry Lane, and that's something that the Highway District typically tries to avoid. Because of the fact that it then becomes a route for people to use to cut through in order to avoid intersections and having to go around and so the -apparently the present day thinking is to have collector streets that go into the mile section but don't connect directly on to other collector street going on through and they want to have these discontinuous collectors. Mr. Funkhauser says that if you were to connect it in, it would function as a continuous collector, but it isn't designed to actually properly act as such. You know if you are asking for a prediction, I think the Highway District is going to agree that it shouldn't be connected. Anderson: Is it a 47 foot wide road? Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 36 Bradbury: It's a 42 foot wide right-of-way with 37 feet improved Anderson: What's your turning radius in that cul-de-sac down there ~at the end of Interlachen then? Bradbury: I don't know, but Mr. Campbell says that he thinks it's 80 feet. Yeah, I wonder if it doesn't show that on the blue line. I don't have that. Inaudible Anderson: Is that back at the sidewalk or the curb? Bradbury: Let's see. I think that's going to be the right-of--way all the way back, so that's going to be back to the back of sidewalk. That actually, yeah, it's going to take it right to the property line. Cowie: Anybody else have comments? I have three. Did you say the frontage on the lots were fifty feet? Bradbury: Fifty, right. Cowie: Fifty feet by what? Bradbury: Well, there's a whole bunch of numbers, and that's kind of the problem. Each one of these lots is a little bit different size. For example, if you looked at lot -let's just take the string 7,8,9 and 10. Because they are square and they are easy to work with. Lot 7 is 59 foot of frontage. Lot 8 is 57. Lot 9 is 55. Lot 10 is 51. And you go over to - if you want to het into these numbers over here, you've got on 42.through 45, they range from 60 feet, 65 feet, 65 feet and another 60. There's a whole bunch of different numbers and different sizes. Now there are also smaller ones. For example, let's look at this triplex, I say triplex, I'm using the wrong terminology too. This three unit -the three unit townhouse development there, those are all smaller lots, but it's going to be one building, and they are all going to take access off that same spot. If you added up the numbers on the frontage for - if you took each one of those frontages separately, they are small, but add them up together and you are going to end up somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 or 35 feet of frontage on that one. So it makes it really hard for me to say that we are asking for a fifty foot frontage. I guess on average that's about what we are ending up with. But each one of the lots is going to have a slightly different amount of frontage. And that's why when I talk about asking for the exception, I'm talking about the exception to allow frontages essentially as shown on the plat, and of course as you go from preliminary to final, you find that there is little adjustments here and there, but essentially that's what we are talking about. Anderson: Does the parking still work out two cars. on these smaller lots? Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 37 Bradbury: Yeah, each one of them would have a minimum of 18,~feet between the garage and the lot line. So that you would be able to get a car up twA cars side by side up on to the driveway. Corrie: The other one is who is James G. Marshall? I got a letter to the Meridian City Manager. Dear James G. Marshall. Bradbury: Beats me. Did I write that letter? Corrie: No, it was from Louis Steiner, but 1 was just curious if we've gone to the city manager form of government and Mr. Marshall is here. I didn't Bradbury: I don't know. I don't remember having seen the letter. Who wrote that? Corrie: Mr. Louis Steiner. Bradbury: We will be sure to give him a call. Corrie: I think he was talking about Boise, but they don't have a city manager either. Bradbury: They don't have a city manager either. Corrie: My other question is has Steiner ever since Interlachen is the only way in to that, have they thought about the entrance of Interlachen to do anything in the entrance at all? Bradbury: Down at Cherry Lane? The topic of conversation hasn't come up in front of me, but I'd be more than happy to raise it with them. Corrie: That's alf that I have at this time. Bird: I have one. What the difference between a triplex and townhouses? Bradbury: Well, the difference is - my definition. Bird: I have a definition too, that's why I want you to - Bradbury: Yeah, because I'm the one who's been yammering about it. My definition is the difference between a townhouse and a triplex is who owns it. A triplex or a duplex, it's on one lot. One building on one lot. Two units owned by the same person, and generally you live in one and rent one out. In a townhouse, on the other hand, it's really like a zero lot line with a common wall. !t's one building with three separately owned units with common walls on three separately owned lots. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 38 Bird: That's what I'm saying and in your five, six and seven the three people that own it are nice, if they are not, you have a fight. There is no way you are going to get a car in any one of those. Bradbury: Yeah, I understand the problem. Let me show you something that maybe will help you. Bird: Then your lot sizes are going way down too on that. Bradbury: We brought - in case this issue came up, let me pass this out. What's coming down towards you there is a kind of a concept drawing of how access on to that particular lot you are talking about might be handled. And what we would do is we would create a common driveway at the entrance at the frontage of those lots, and the way we'd handle that is we would include in the restrictive convenants and in the deeds that would be supplied to these people a provision for across access so that it would be -each owner would have a legal right the entirety of the common driveway as it enters those three lots. And we've done a number of times, and have had reasonably good success with it. Bird: In putting those three parking spaces that we got back here, right? Bradbury: Right. That's right. Bird: (Inaudible) Bradbury: Did I have the same definition as you? Bird: Yes. Bradbury: That worked out then. Corrie: Any more questions? Mr. Rountree? Rountree: List of amenities, you don't list the potential disamenities that might be associated with this. You talk about pedestrian ways to the club house, but I see no provisions for vehicular bridge across the lateral or drain so that's really not an amenity. You don't discuss the potential options for golf course out buildings that might be built in conjunction with the club house that might border these lots. That's not an amenity. In your list of exceptions, you don't talk about tiling ditches, variances would be in order. You don't talk about the potential buffering of adjacent subdivisions, ei. Probably Golf View and to a lesser degree and probably not at all Cherry Lane Sub. 2. You block out pedestrian access to the golf course from that part of the city. You have a pedestrian gate on the pedestrian way, so folks that now access the golf course that live in the front ~f that subdivision would have to go through the subdivision almost to your Lakes - Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 39 Subdivision that's being developed now back across to the golf course or out to Black Cat and around. I don't see any provisions for those folks. Campbell: Are you talking about driving or are you talking about walking? Rountree: You can't even walk according to your plan. You have a pedestrian gate. Prior: If he's going to testify, he is going to have to be sworn in. Campbell: What gate are you looking at? Rountree: I have the page 3 after tab 4, the one you referred to as the gate that shows a five foot pedestrian gate on the five foot sidewalk. I guess that's just one side where you are going to drop the sidewalk. The cart path it does show, but it's - I don't know what you are going to do. Are you going to gate that like the other side? Bradbury: No, I mean the intention is to provide an access - if there's a problem with the detail, maybe I'm not reading it right, but the way I understand it is this is the path that takes you up to the golf course. Rountree: Well, you actually show a gate on the other side. Bradbury: Agate over here. Rountree: My question is why a gate there and not on the other side when we see this in final form, you are going to say well we want to gate the entire community and we are going to gate people out on the cart path and pedestrian way. Bradbury: No, the intention -and if the drawings are cxeating a problem, then we will fix those. The intention is to provide a route through -along the subdivision so that people who live iF~ the area can access the golf course. And if the gating scheme concerns you, let us know. Rountree: It has to be accessible to the rest of the community. Bradbury: Sure. We don't have a problem. The theory here is not cut it off. The theory here is to provide it. And if the - like I say, if the drawings are a problem or if there is a - if you've got a gating scheme that you like better than this one, by all means just say so. Rountree: My last question or comment is that one of the requirements of approval of the PUD is that they have an open space requirement and I don't see any open space other than space that's going to be there by way of an easement that exists anyway. You're asking the city to make exceptions for lot setbacks t~ accommodate an Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 40 easement that's already there so you can build a house on, but I don't see .anything in the subdivision that reflects that need for open space. Bradbury: Actually the engineer calculated, and maybe ifi I'm -the area that would be included as open and common area is the area that this pedestrian pathway is included, and that's calculated out to be just over 8/10 of an acre. In addition, and the reason I told you about the provision of the third of an acre that would be donated to the city, I mean that includes another 15000 square feet or there about. If you take into account all of that space, it far exceeds the ten percent requirement in the ordinance. Now, in addition to that, when the Ashford Greens concept plan was approved, the city acquired a fair amount of land from the owner of the property. I guess it was the Fullers. Is that right? Fullers for the golf course, and at that time, I believe that the city had included in the generalized open space requirement the land that was provided to the city for purposes of expansion of the golf course. Now, this piece of property is now owned by somebody different. But when originally approved and when the city accepted the property and as set forth in the findings that were made back in 1994, that donated land was intended to and does in fact serve as the city's requirement for open space as part of the trade off. The trade off is -you can provide theoretically I suppose you could provide the ten percent open space in a privately owned property which would be owned and maintained and used by the residents of the subdivision or you make it public property, and in this case, public property was provided the city, and it's now public property and being used as such. It seems to me that if the council at this point in time is going to disregard what was previously required and previously provided, I think that the city would be in essence reneging on an agreement already made. Rountree: I don't believe there was an agreement made with this particular developer, but that's okay. My last question, is this particular development as I believe the original development, and maybe Gary you can correct me if I'm wrong, but were these lot numbers calculated in the lots that would be assessed a fee towards the pay off of the golf course improvement and maybe you can't, Steve, answer that, but Gary might be able to. Bradbury: I don't know that answer to that one. DOUG CAMPBELL 2638 N. TURNBERRY WAY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Campbell: This particular project will be included in the $640 fee that's currently being charged on every lot out in that general area. (End of Tape) Come: Any further questions of Mr. Bradbury? Rountree: Not at this time. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 41 Bradbury: Thank you very much. Corrie: Someone else frorri the public-would like to enter testimony in this request? LARRY ASTLEY 2129 TURNBERRY CIRCLE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Astley: I live in Cherry Lane Golf Course. I live adjacent the number one hole, fairway. My concerns in this matter are basically two fold. Looking at the proposed development in my opinion affects what I feel is - or in my opinion, the density and the layout of this development affects in my opinion the aesthetic value of the golf course. And also you know in some ways could affect property values. I guess that's all 1 have to say. Come: Okay, thank you. Anyone else from the .public would like to testify. JOE STAFFORD 4192 W. PLUMROSE STREET WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Joe Stafford: I'm here tonight to talk about some of the problems that I see with the project. I've kind of listened to what the developer's requesting and the variances that he is requesting including the density issue through the PUD. Presently I'm understand the property is zoned Rte. Where I live is in Golf View Subdivision directly south of this project. Our property is 18,000 square feet is our lot, and it is contiguous and touches this property to the north. Some of the concerns 1 have in just listening and you know talking about the ten foot back yard to the houses and to the property to the south, but it's really not a ten foot back yard because there's an easement there. A ditch which presently is there. That ditch belongs -the property on that ditch belongs to us. We pay taxes on it. It's assessed in our lot. It was purchased with our lot.. There is a ditch easement there -they have a right to use that, but that is our property. Our property we touch that and so effectively we're getting a ten foot away from our- property line. A ten foot back yard for someone to use. The other concern I have is in this area part of the statements were made that this is conducive to the area, that it fits the area. And in nowhere in this immediate area of Golf View, Cherry Lane right next to this area are there the small lots. There are duplex lots directly to the east of this property. 1've been over there, know people there. They have much more than a ten foot back yard. They have much more setback than is required by this, so I have some concerns with that. The other thing, the neighbofiood is pretty conducive to families, the golf course, using the golf course, and that type of area. He brings out that there's a 3909 square foot lot. If you take a 1304 square foot home, and add a 400 square foot garage, you are at 1700 square foot on 3900 square foot lot. That's a 44% use not counting any side yard, sidewalk, driveway. Not counting any of those things. 44% land use on that. That is not conducive to that area, absolutely not. And one reason I think he applied under a PUD which is common to get a higher density in an area zoned for less density. And so I'm kind of objecting to that. The 5.6 units per acre is not common in that area. Our Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 42 house is about 2700 square feet. The neighbors is 3300 square feet. Our land use is 20% of our property. Our home is about 20% of our property. That includes the garages. I think the neighbors is maybe 22%. That's kind of what's.common in that area. The other thing I wahted to bring out if they are doing - if this is so conducive and this is a family area, the golf course where all our kids play golf and that what not. I mean we have a trampoline in the back yard. We have six bicycles. We have all these things that we use as a family. On lots that are taking 44% land use or building use, I'm objecting to that saying they don't have room to use any of that area. 1 think the other thing I want to bring out real quick and I know my time's limited is the lot width. All the lot widths are very small. It's not conducive to good community flow. They are closing off the area, that's presently an open area. They are asking for private streets. All the subdivisions that border this property all have two sidewalks, curbing gutter. They are asking for one side. We all have 20 foot setbacks on the front. They are asking for 15. And we all have to go by the city requirements for our setbacks on the side yards. So I think that is all I have. Is there any questions? Corrie: Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to testify? JACKIE STAFFORD 4192 W. PLUMROSE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Jackie Stafford: I'm pretty much - my husband just talked just a second ago. My biggest concern is the density of what they are going to be putting over there. We have four children, and trying to keep four children in a big huge yard is hard enough. I mean we even have the commonary where the kids go play, bike, you know down on the path and stuff. My concern with cutting down, chipping away their yards the way they want to, where are the kids going to be. Usually when you have apartments or anything like that a lot of times they will have tennis courts or basketball courts or something for them to go and just kind of release some of their energy. The other concern that I have is the traffic flow on Interl~chen. Not only does Cherry Lane use that Interlachen, but Golf View does too. A lot of our neighbors - we come up from the side, and go out Cherry Lane instead of going Summer Tree where we are probably suppose to. But it's a short cut. So I think they are disregarding that traffic flow besides the one that's in Cherry Lane. So that's pretty much it. Corrie: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Anyone else would like to testify? Prior. I've been advised not to swear this particular person in. WAYNE CROOKSTON 2125 TURNBERRY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Crookston: I might. As many of you know I live on the golf course. I live right off of number one fairway, what is now the number one. I don't know how they are designating it now. Eventually it will be the number eighteen fairway. And I li~~e within 300 feet of this proposal. I did not get nriice when this was initially done by Brighton Corporation, so i can't say that I did actually know about it. I can't actually say that I did Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 43 not know about it, because I was presiding as the City Attorney when that was presented. However, at that time, this area of the property was not being presented to be developed at the time. It was part of what they .called the medium density portion of the property. The City Council at the time did allow the single family dwelling units that Council presented some things that had to go about that. I would refer to as far as my concem, I would refer to the Comprehensive Plan that says that .these lots are suppose to be compatible in section 1.13U of the housing section of the Comprehensive Plan it says ir~filling of random vacant lots in substantially developed single family areas should be considered at densities similar to surrounding development. Well, surrounding development is where I live, where Mr. Astley lives, and the people that live over in Golf View. Those are not on average 50 X 85 square foot lots. I have approximately at least a quarter to a third of an acre. Mr. Astley has a larger lot than I have. Mr. Stafford, he testified that he has approximately I think he said 16000 square feet. So the lots around this are substantially larger than they are proposing. The concem that I have is that on that size of lot, you cannot build a house that is of the same property value as the ones that I'm referencing. The City Council at the time did consider the medium density parcels of ground, but they did state that Mr. Wardle presented Brighton's application at the time in the findings of facts it says Mr. Wardle further stated that they were aware that the PDR approval for the medium density parcels must be conditioned on a future submittal of specific design plans which v+rould address access roadways, parking, open space, landscaping, and other matters. In September 13, 1994 public hearing Mr. Wardle stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission can require the medium density to come back before it. I think that when you present the medium density and the planned unit development type idea, you have to consider also what the comprehensive plan says. You are suppose to have compatible surroundings to what is there, and what is compatible to me is not a 85 x 50 foot lot. The other thing that 1 have is that there is the concept about Interlachen connecting to. Dawson. And I well understand the reason why people may not want that to be connected. People that live along Interlachen may not want that. That, however, is something that the previous City Council said had to be done. I have no objection to Interlachen not being connected to Dawson, but what was done previously the City Council wanted it connected. So that's something that you have to consider. As I said in my mind, the lots are too small. They are not R-4 lots. They are not even close to R-4 lots, and they are not close to the size of lot that I have or Mr. Astley has, and the people in Golf mew have. Some of the things that were addressed by the City Counal at the time this was being developed by Brighton Corporation, there was a statement that said, "Prior to any development of the medium density parcels, the developer shall submit a detailed application and site plan for review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council.° Certainly this is a proposal that does that. But this is the first time that 1've ever seen this application for the development of that property. Then the City Council also said, The City reserves the. right to place appropriate conditions on the medium density areas in accordance with ordinance requirements, including but not limited to streets, pedestrian walkways, planning and resen~e strips, public sites and open spaces, lineal open space corridors, pedestrian and b~ce paths." It mentions piping of ditches, pressurized irrigation. It says access parking, landscaping and screening. I don't see .Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 44 that that's been addressed in this application, so I have a problem with that also. So that's basically my position is that I don't think that these lots are compatible to the surrounding area, and I don't think that this proposal should be approved. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Cowie: Question Council? Crookston: Beg your pardon? I guess I can talk to you later about that. 1 can tell you the story about my hand. But - Cowie: We're not interested in that. Crookston: It probably should be stated that this is a public hearing. Thank you. Cowie: Anyone else from the public tf~at would Like to issue testimony in this request? GORDON MARGULIEUX 2420 INTERLACHEN WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Margulieux: I need to congratulate or thank the developer because he's very open. I testified at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Some of the things I had mentioned, they actually had addressed. Particularly the sewer easement area behind the first through fourth lot, because at that time, it was still on those lots, and they have addressed that. I appreciate that. I am still concerned about the size of the lots. My lot, which I'm in Cherry Lane ~Ilage 1, Lot 3 which is twenty eight feet from where this proposed path is, and my lot which is an irregular is actually 13000 square feet, but the adjoining lots around there are roughly running about 8000 square feet. Sothis is smaller, and I am not saying that their aiming at different people, different - in a gated area. and what they are proposing, and it looks really good considering that it will be developed sooner or later. This doesn't look too terribly bad. t do like the fact that it is closed, and as Steve pointed out, I do live on Interlachen, and I would not be happy to have a through street with more traffic over there. I've sort of like their concept to that extent. Other concerns I have is this easement that goes through that's going to be a pathway. I'm not sure how to address it because it's a private section. It's would be taken care of by the homeowners association, which hasn't been defined yet, but it will be. But it's wider than this room. And there is no parks very close. And there is going to be a nice smooth pathway through there where kids on skateboards are going to be skateboarding, and things are going to be going on over there, and it's not lit. There's a street light down at the - if I can borrow this -there will be a street light right here which will light some of this path, but nothing down here. We have some problems with kids in our neighborhood that like to drink and smoke, and they like dark areas to do it in. And there was some question as to whether or not because at the time when I mentioned it, they said well maybe this will be gated. B~~t timed so that at night it would close and peop'~ couldn't get in. But this wouldn't be gated on the othar side. One of the families that we constantly .see smoking and drinking are right on this comer this house, and Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 45 they have a two and a half foot fence. Very easy to hop over and just sit there. If possible some of the things that could be done, is maybe put a street light somewhere at the end of that. Right now they don't go back there because Wally has a big post with a big light on it, and the police patrol that, and I'm not sure how they are going to patrol it if they can't tum around. There is going to be a path down there. I'm not sure how they are going to tum around. So they might not patrol it. So my concem is that we go going to have a park back there that you are going to see a lot more activity because there is no open area for kids to play over there. Medium size density it was mentioned. Again, a lot is important. When they talked about medium size density and they talked about eight houses per acre with Ashford Greens, they were talking about multi family dwellings. And these are single family dwellings. So we are not talking about the same thing even though we've cut it back to 5'/ houses per acre, it's not quite the same thing. The other one is - well I guess that's about it. I went through them real fast. Any questions? Thank you. Corrie: Anyone else from the public would like to speak? Okay. Steve do you want to answer any questions that have come up? Bradbury: I was asking the gentleman who testified and I'm song, I missed his name, Stafford, and I was asking him which lot he was living in. He pointed to this lot right here. Just so there's no confusion, the lots that would be immediately adjacent to his lot and the others in Golf View would have the standard R-15 rear yard, excuse me standard R-4 rear yard setback. The reduction that we are asking for in the rear yard setbacks are the ones over here next to this gentleman's lot, which has also then has the twenty foot sewer easement next to it, so they actually have that separation, so we are not talking about a reduced setback next these folks, and of course those folks in Golf View are separated from this project by the canal, which according to the map, and I am going to assume it's correct, is shown on there property, and so there is a fairly good sized separation, and a matter of fact you call it I guess maybe a manmade feature, but there is a geographical feature that separates these two parcels of property in addition to the distance. So I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't any confusion about that, because we are not asking for a reduction in the setback in that location. I guess maybe the thing that I wanted to address primarily was this concept of compatibility and how it is that smaller lots are incompatible with larger lots, and maybe I just don't understand it, so that I can't express it particularly well. But I don't understand it. Because it seems to me that when you are talking about compatibility, you know land use in the land use context, you are talking about compatibility of uses. That is the reason we have zoning is to keep industrial uses, you know where they are going to be banging out car parts separate from residential uses, as opposed to residential uses separate from residential uses. So in terms of the use compatibility we are talking residential in a residential. Now when you talk about the lots, what you are really talking about is how much space somebody is going to have between them and somebody else, bottom line I guess just how much dirt is out there. The reality is and I thinK bou all know this, not everybody wants a third of an acr-~, or a quarter of an acre, or even 8000 square feet. Some people don't want to have all that ground to take care ,Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 46 of. And they'd like to have something a little bit less. And so what Mr. Steiner is attempting to do is he is attempting to provide that opportunity and that variety in this vicinity as is being provided in other areas in well, heck right here. Right down the street where there are smaller lots. Right immediately adjacent to the same piece of property. I you take the logic that Mr. Crookston wants you to follow, if you start out with one 8000 square foot lot in a mile section, you have and in order to be compatible according to Mr. Crookston, everything that touches that 8000 square foot lot has to be 8000 square feet. And so you go the first lot and everything around that has to be 8000 square feet, let's assume it's square so now you've got five, all 8000 square feet. And everything that touches those five has to be 8000 square feet. Pretty soon, all you have got is a mile of 8000 square foot lots. And I don't think that's what the City envisions. I don't think that's what the City wants, and I don't think you should want it. I think what you should want to do is you should want to provide for a variety of uses, the variety of sizes, something that presents a little bit of interest in the community. Something that presents a little bit different living arrangement and lifestyle so you don't have this sea of 8000 square foot cookie cutter lots. I don't think - I have been coming out here for five or six years, talking to you folks about subdivision developments, and I've heard you talk about at one time or another about not having every subdivision look like every other subdivision. And it seems to me that you shouldn't expect every piece of property to be made up of 8000 square foot lots or larger. I think you need to provide different types of opportunities for people who have different types of lifestyles and like to -some who like to mow lawns and some who don't. And of course Mr. Crookston and first gentleman who testified they are a little more remote from this. I just I kind imagine it is going to effect how they live, and their lifestyle or their property values.. I think the suggestion is nothing but a suggestion, and I don't think you have been given any real evidence to support that proposition. What else did I miss that you folks would be interested in hearing about? Corrie: If you should get the approval, where is the present club house going to go? Bradbury: It's my understanding that you've got a site selected. Corrie: What if he doesn't put it up yet? Bradbury: Well- Corrie: I know it's a one ended - I probably shouldn't ask you that Bradbury: I have had the idea that you folks have -have those plans made, and if that's not the case, then if we need to make some arrangements and work something out, I think w+e ought to sit down and do it. Because I know, I've worked with Mr. Steiner long enough, I know he's not interested in making things any- harder than they need to be. And I know that he is going to want to work with you folks to see to it that things work to the best to everyoF ie's best interests. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 47 Corrie: The reason I made the statement is I suggest you bring the chairs. Bradbury: Okay, how many do you want? Corrie: Probably a lot of them. Any questions? Bradbury: Thank you very much. Corrie: Council, any further discussion. Rountree: I guess my point on the application and what I see and the issue of compatibility if that's the appropriate word, is that it seems like there wasn't a whole lot of consideration to either the type of home or the design of the homes that are adjacent to this and I'll cite a specific example where we have had this happen in the past and what the remedy was. It's something very similar to this happen in Meridian Greens. Only it was an R~ against an R-4. We had a subdivision with large lots, specific architectural types, specific kinds of roofs. The people in that subdivision objected to a R~L subdivision adjacent to them that had a lesser standard, smaller lots, asphalt singled roofs, those kinds of things. The remedy is the remedy that we have in our some of our ordinance language and our comp. Plan as a buffer. There was a portion of that subdivision that had to have cedar shake shingles. They had to meet a certain size lot, and they had to meet a certain square footage. The rest of the subdivision as it progressed out, became what the developers originally proposed. I would like to see some consideration given to that concept in this development. I'm not opposed to the medium density. I was on Planning and Zoning when it came through Planning and Zoning. But we did want specifics and we did want to make sure that the neighborhood considerations and the existing features out there were considered. That's why we wanted specific plans brought for consideration of medium density. I guess that is the point I would make: in discussion. Anybody else can talk about that or you can close the hearing and we can go forth. Come: Anybody else want to call anybody? At this time I will close the public hearing, and ask any further discussion. Bentley: I agree with Charlie. That was one of my concerns when I viewed this project, and I agree with Mr. Bradbury on the fact, and we do not want all subdivisions to mirror each other and look the same, but the same token, we've got open ground butting up to these people's property, and I think we need to have some transition housing that are similar in statute and size to what is there, and then as the project proceeds, you can go in with the smaller homes, because there is people that don't want a lot of yard. They want the ability to just run around with a mower and go play golf. And some day I'll probably be right there with them. I don't know how good the golf will be, and that is the basic problem I have too. I think we got to give some consideration to the surrounding area. Thank you. 'Me'ridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 48 Come: Further discussion? Comments? I guess Mr. Attorney is there sufficient evidence and testimony to change the complexion of the Planning and Zoning's findings of facts? Prior: Well, Mr. Mayor, as previously - as before with regards to the day care center, there are two avenues that you can take. You can vote on the present findings of facts and conclusions or you can the Assistant City Attomey to prepare new findings of facts and conclusions of law. That's entirely up to the City Council to decide. Corrie: Council, pleasure? Rountree: Well, I personally would like to see new findings. We do have new information from ACRD, and apparently they are still in a position where they haven't decided what it is that they want for the road. Though I .agree with Mr. Bradbury they probably will come back and say we don't want to dig it through. I feel we need that. That needs to be factored in. There's some other information I think heard tonight that wasn't (inaudible). Corrie: Do I hear a motion one way or the other? Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would move we instruct the City Attorney to prepare new findings. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley to have the Assistant City Attomey to prepare new Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, second by Mr. Rountree. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 14: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT, 48 LOTS FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Corrie: At this time, I will open the public hearing and have the representative from Steiner Development, Steve. Bradbury: Thank you. Steve Bradbury 877 Main Street, Boise. STEVE BRADBURY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Bradbury: Thank you. Mayor and members of the Council, I don't have anything in addition to add, with respect to the preliminary plat. All the information that l share with you with respect to the conditional use permit is equally applicable to the plat, and I'd simply ask that my testimony be incorporated into the record for this hearing, unless there are any other questions or separate issues. Thank you. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: MARCH 3.1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUMBER: 14 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT. 48 LOTS FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDMSION AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST 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: COMMENTS OTHER: PRELIMINARY PLAT FROM STEINER DEVELOPMENT All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. . _ ~cErvED ___._. ___ _.-_ ~_P _ _ _ ---. _ _- __.... _ ~EG t1tf~G~ _ - . ~ ~ _ ~7'lca ~ ~ i~vr~ ~u ~lr ~.~5 ~?/~~c° _. _ ___ __- _ .. _ _ _ __ - _- -- __ _ -- - ff - ~ ----- -- __ - - - -_ __-- _~.?_~>/~ ~FS ~ __ /D-~-- /`t . _~ll.t j~~Q'OS~~. G~(J `2 ~`y°F ~D S /h'1~ ~'~~2v2t~J1 ~~ ~ c' x%s~L~~~ C/~-y~ ~r~jr~~x%7` 7l« _. - -- - - - - "~ C ~ SGT ~v ~~l?>.~,~f---- ~------ _ - _ _ ,; 7 - --- _~~,~~~ "f~i'S ~ ~~~ ~- '~ ___~~ P ~Cy'~ - ~ _.~r F __ ~~1/~~/mil l ~_ ~ ____ _ . _ _ __ __ _ __ ____ ..__.- _. ~ _/°. _. ,, ~',~'i_ ~ s~l.~ l/cGic~ - ~5n _ S~~'~--h~J _ 71,E -- i.~_ -~~,r,~,~ c~ z/ _ __ _. _-.`r..~_-__._.____ ~... ._____ .. ..._ -__. - __-_.__ ___~__ .._.__ ._-_... _-..-... _...~--,.--- _.__ - _.____~__~_._~__-.._-_ ~,~~ ~~~?i'~c~ir/s o _- - ------_ _ _- - --- -- -_---- - -- - ERT J. PATCHIN ___ _.__ _--_-.-- __._. ___ ___-_ _-.____.___.__ LDISJ. PATCHIN - -_ _ _. _.. X199 EV PL L~IIROSE ST _ _ _ --- --- - -_.------------- -- -------- - _-~-------- 1liERIDIAIV, ID 836-~Z __ r. 1295 S. Eagle Tlight Way kioise,lll R3709 (208) 378-6337 Tax (2U8) 37%-W25 January 13, 1998 RECEI'~~ Mayor and City Council Planning and Zoning Commission • City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Avenue Merldiaq Idaho 83642 JAN 1 3 X998 t~1'Y Ut~ 1~1£~, Subject: The Villas at the Lakca Subdivision Preliminary Plat with a Conditional Usc Permit by Steiner Development Dear Mayor and City CounciVPlanning and Zoning Commssion: This letter is in response to the comments by your staff on the prelimiaary plat of The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision. GENERAL OMMENTS 1. All existiag irrigation ditches crossing the property will be piped in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-605.M with the development of The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision. However, the Eight Mile and Safford laterals are not proposed to be piped due to the size of the ditches. The laterals will be fenced outside of the subdivision. llitch pipiag plans for other ditches will be submitted to Nampa 8t Meridian irrigation District for review and approval. Where user ditches are piped, the user wilt be consulted and will review the plans prior to construction. 2. The property being developed as The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision does not have any wells or septic tanks on it. The existing Cherry Lane golf clubhouse is served with city sewer and water. The clubhouse will be relocated and the sewer and water services will be abandoned in accordance with the City's requirements. 3. The seasonal high groundwater elevation and profile of the subsurface soil conditions report prepared by a soil scientist will be subntted with the street development plans. 4, A copy of the proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions will be submitted to the Meridian City Attorney for rc-view. S. A five-fcwt-wide sidewalk will be constructed along the lot street frontages of Lots 1, 5 through 15, Lot 22 on the Couples Lane frontage, and Lots 23 through 4U. It is proposed that all other lots arc to have a 4-foot wide grc:c,~n space between the back of curb and the property line except where paved driveways provide access to the respective lots. PISBOI 58.019 P:K:ific Lmul Surveyris, a division of POWf l: lin};inem, bu:., un 1Jaho Cor~x+ralio~~ ., JAN 13 '98 16 21 208 378 0025 PAGE. 02 L V y V V. 3 V L V. /~ y, y City of Meridian January 5, 1998 Page 2 6. A copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's final approval letter will be submitted to the Meridian Publia Works Department when the final plat mylar is submitted for the City Engineer's signature. The final plat will be revised to conform to the Ada County Street Name Committee's final approval le[ICr. ~. Fire hydrant locations will be coordinated with the Meridian Public Works Departrnent in the development plan approval process. 8. The purpose of this letter is to address the items contained in the memorandum by Mr. Bruce Freckleton and Ms. Shari Stiles dated January 9, 1998, Ten revised preliminary plat copies will be submitted to the Ciry Clerk's office one week prior to the Meridian City Council hearing. S1TE SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. Since this development approval is contingent upoq the Ciry's ability to accept additional sanitary sewage from The Villas at the Lakes, I respectfully request a letter from the City stating that the City has the capacity to accept the additional sewage from The Villas at the Lakes. Sanitary sewer services to this project will be provided by existing sanitary sewer mains in Interlachen Way. The developer will be responsible to construct the sanitary sewer mains throughout the development. PLS will coordinate the sewer main size and location with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes will be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of the street centerline. A portion of the site may Hood to be filled to provide the minimum threerfoot cover over the sewer main. 2. Since this development approval is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis of the water system, T respectfully rexlucst a latter from the City stating that the City has the capacity to provide potable water to The Villas at the Lakes. Water service to the project will be an extension of the existing system in Iritcrlachen Way. The developer will be responsible to construct the water mains throughout the development. PIS will coordinate the water main size and location with the Public Works Department. 3. Pressure irrigation will be provided by a system owned and maintained by Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. T1x; water source is the Eight Mile Lateral. Obtaining supplemental water from the City's water system will be coordinated with the City. The developer and/or the homeowners association will be responsible for payment of assessment fees for the common areas. 4. Two-hundred-fifty-watt and/or one;-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be installed at the locations designated by Meridian Public Works Department. The streetlights will be installed at the developer's expense. S. A detailed landscape plan for the common an.as, including fencing locations, pathways and types of construction, will be submitted for review and approval with [he submittal of the final plat. P45-Lt01 58-019 JAN 13 '98 16 22 208 3?8 0025 PAGE.03 City of Meridian January S, 1998 Page 3 A letter of credit or cash surety will be posted with the City for the improvements prior to signature on the.final plat. 6. A temporary non-combustiblo fence will be installed along the Fagh[ Milc Lateral frontage set back from the top of bank. A six-foot-high, permanent, non-canbustible perimeter fence will be installed along the westerly boundaries of Lots I5, 17, 27 through 32 and slang the Safford Lateral. Existing fencing is located along the boundary conunon to The Amended Plat of Cherry Lane Village No. I Subdivision and Cherry Lane Village No. 1 Subdivision. The temporary fence along the Eight Mile Lateral and the permanent fence along the Safford Lateral will be placed at the property linc%ascment lipe. 'fhe fences will not encroach into the Narnpa & Meridian Irrigation District's casement without an encroachment agreement with Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. 7. Sketches showing the driveways and housing proposed for [hc 3-ilnit Townhouse and the 2-Unit Townhouse lots will be submitted to the City for review. R. No parking signs will be installed along the interior. private street. The homeowners association will enforce the no parking restrictions. 9. The d~wcloper will prgvidc an approval letter for the roadways from the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District as shown on the preliminary plat. 10. This R.52-acre planned dcvi;lopmcnt proposes 0.81 acres of corrunon area and 0.24 acres of golf course. The 0.24-acre golf course ground wi1J be dedicated to the City of Meridian with the recording of the final plat. Thus, the common arcs provided by Steiner Development is more than 10% of the proposed subdivision by including the golf course area. 11. The sewer casement area will be a common lot owned by the homeowners associstion. The area landscape plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval. 12. The restrictive covenants will state that storage of boats, campers, trailers and momrized recreational vehicles is prohibited in this subdivision. Ofd=site storage will be the responsibility of the owner. 13. Each lot is proposed to have a 15-foot setback for thu house and sn I A-foot setback for the riuo-car garage. Thus, each lot will have four parking spaces, two in the garage and two in front of the gazage. 14. The maintenance of the common areas will be contracted to a service company. Therefore, a maintenance building will not be required. PI,S-Hill SB-Q19 JAN 13 '98 16 23 208 3?8 0025 PAGE. 04 City of Meridian January 5, 1998 Page 4 1S. Tho groundwater will be monitored this year to establish the high groundwater. The storm drainage system will be designed from those results. The development plans will show the storm drainage system submitted for the City's review and approval. 16. Detailed pedestrian walkwaylgolf ca]t access as well as gate§ will be provided to the City for review. ACHD. is considerins not requiring Intcrlachen Way be extended through the project. The interconnection will increase the vehicular traffic along the lot frontages in Cherry Lane Village, 17. A blanket casement for public utilities will be provided over the private roadway. The easement will be noted on the final plat. The CCR's witl have a provision for the future maintenance of the private road and a method to fund the re-construction and repair of the roadway. 18. As previously stated in Item ! 0, Site Specific Comments, this 8.52-acre planned development proposes 0.81 acres of common area and 0.24 acres of golf course. The 0.24-acre golf course ground will be dodicatcd to the Ciry of Meridian with the recording of the final plat. Thus, Steiner Development is providing more than the required 10% of the subdivision for common area by including the golf course area. This portiun of the golf course was nut deeded to the City under the Cherry Lane Village development. 19. Three blueline maps will be provided to the City with legible contour lines. Thank you for your time and cansidcration. icw ec: Doug Campbell, Steiner Devclop~~u:nt Steve Bradbury YI.yIIQI 58-0]9 Sincerely, Pacific Land Surveyors, a division of POWER Engincx;ring, I , Keith L. Jacobs, Jr., P. E. JAN 13 '98 16 24 208 378 0025 PAGE. 05 Jur 1 iV VV + U' 1L~ 111 TO: FAX NO.. ~g7 " ~~/ ~ DATE: PAGE 1 OF _1 TIME SENT :3% ~ V Ilul\ U rUl\J UV 1 JL PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS 1295 SOUTH EAGLE FLIGHT WAY BOISE, IDAHO 83709 TELEPHONE (208) 378-6387 FAX (208) 378-0025 FROM: JOB NO.: ~XD/ ' SUBJECT: - ~~ ~ Pacific Lund Survnyurn, a diviainn of POWER T~:npinrera, Tnt., an lda}w Gurpurxtiun JAN 13 '98 16 20 208 378 0025 PAGE.01 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: MARCH 3 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUMBER: 13 REQUEST• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OTHER: PRESENTATION BOOK FROM STEINER DEVELOPMENT All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 5D STEINER DEVELOPMENT, INC. February 23, 1998 ~~~~~ ~~~~ City Of Meridian FEB z 6 1998 City Manager 33 E Idaho Ave A~~IT~FNGffly~ Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Steiner Development, LLC ar James"G Marshall, ~? As manager of Steiner Development, LLC, I would like to thank you for doing business with Steiner Development, LLC. I hope you think the relationship has been, and will continue to be, mutually beneficial . To this end, I would like to confirm that I am the only party authorized to sign and execute contracts on behalf of Steiner Development, LLC. I make note of this since in some agreements it appears that Doug Campbell has mistakenly been described in various capacities, including the capacity to sign agreements. Future agreements should be made in the name of Steiner Development, LLC, with me signing as manager. Doug Campbell will continue to be our liaison in Boise for day to day activities. However, Doug has never had the actual or apparent authority to contract on behalf on Steiner Development, LLC. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in the matter. Please advise should you have any comments or questions. Best regards, sue-. Louis J Steiner Manager 554 EAST BELLEVUE ROAD, SUITE B • ATWATER, CALIFORNIA 95301 • (209) 357-8761 FAX (209) 357-0553 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STEINER DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing on January 13, 1998, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., the Applicant, appearing through its representative, Steve Bradbury, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A notice of a public hearing on the application for the conditional use permit and application for annexation and zoning was published _f or two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearing scheduled on January 13, 1998, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior. to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 13, 1998 hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. The property is located within the City of Meridian at FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) the Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No. 1. The property is described in the application for a conditional use permit, which description is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property. 3. Pursuant to the application, the property is presently zoned as R-4, Low Density Residential District. The proposed use of the property is to construct 37 single family, 3 duplexes, 1 triplex. The Applicant presented a site plan depicting the location of the proposed use. Pursuant to the application, the Applicant agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, associated with the use, whether that use be residential, commercial or industrial. 4. That the R-4 District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3., as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT• Only single- family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R- 4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development. has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. That the planned residential development of 37 single family dwellings, 3 duplexes and 1 triplex in a district of R-4 Low Density Residential, as proposed by the Appli-cant, is an FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF ;SAW - Page 2 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) allowed conditional use. in the R-4 District. 6. That the subject property is presently vacant. 7. That sewer and water is available to the property and is required. 8. Mr. Steve Bradbury testified as follows; that Steiner Development is requesting approval of a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a residential subdivision. The site is 8 ~ acres and located east of Black Cat between Ustick and Cherry Lane. The parcel was originally part of Ashford Greens Subdivision but the developer did not exercise its option on the property, so Steiner Development did. Mr. Bradbury further testified that the proposal calls for 37 single family detached units, 3 two unit townhouses and one 3 unit townhouse for a total of 46 separate living units. That works out to about 5 ',~ units per acre over the 8 ~ acres. The proposal also calls for a private street on a forty-two-foot-right-of-way with a five foot sidewalk on one side. The sidewalk would be around the outside perimeter. The lots became smaller due to the 20 foot sewer easement to make a common lot. The lots are now about 3500 square feet. Before their testimony there was much discussion and figuring on the lot sizes to help solve the problem. At present the smallest lots are up to about 4,000 square feet, but could be up to 4500 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 5700 feet across the subdivision. Minimum square footage of homes is 1304 square feet. Mr. Bradbury pointed out the seven different house plans; list of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CON~~'LUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) the various numbers of .units, and the square footage. The square footage ranges from 1304 up to 1785, and the proposal is to have 14 of them. Mr. Bradbury pointed out most of the homes would be larger than the minimum sizes. Each unit will have a two car garage and front driveways, which allows accommodation for two additional vehicles, for a total of four vehicles for off street parking per unit. All the units will be single story. The setbacks are in accordance with the code, except for the request that the front setback be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet, and the street setbacks be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet. This would be similar to the concept and design to the Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivision #6. This would not be restricted to just senior housing. Commissioner Johnson was pleased with the presentation and Commissioner Smith also acknowledged it was a good site plan and it deserved decent homes. Commissioner Smith also questioned if they were going for a variance on the minimum lot size, and the front yard setback, even though the blueprints states the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet, and the front building setbacks to be 20 feet. Mr. Bradbury responded what is seen on the blueprints are the required sizes for an R-4 zone, but it is not what is proposed. Commissioner Smith clarified what the applicant is wanting, and that is, a 15 foot yard setback, and the smaller lot sizes would be for the two unit townhouses. Commissioner. Borup had a clarification on the conditional FINDINGS `JF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) use, and whether the changes would be reflected on the plat before it is recorded. Mr. Bradbury confirmed that it would be part of the planned unit development. All the plat notes will be reflective of the true state of affairs not just a recitation of the standard ordinance requirements when it is recorded. 9. Vern Moore questioned if there was going to be a 20 foot sewer easement behind the property, and if it would be a walking path, golf lane, golf cart lane or just what? He also wanted to know what lot the triplex would be built on. His last question was if there was a possibility of hooking into their pressurized irrigation system. 10. Gordon Margulieux gave the following testimony regarding his concerns. His first concern was the lot size due to the sewer right-of-way easement and how nothing could be built on it. Additionally, lot 2 would be for single families not the duplex, and it would be about 3100 square feet. Apparently, what was mentioned at the hearing is a revision which he desired to see the revision. _ Presently it is 3100 square feet which is quite a bit. different than the 8000 square feet which is R-4. Ashford Greens in their proposal was looking at apartments and units of apartments, about 8 units of apartments per acre, which would be 5 ~ per acre. These would be individual homes with over half of them on lots ranging from 4500 to 5100 square feet, with some being 8400 and 6700 square feet. He feels these lot sizes are consistent with the Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 1. He is looking FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) forward to the completion of the subdivision. He continued with the comment that his house was the first in the subdivision on lot 3 adjacent in the Cherry Lane #1 Subdivision. Another consideration is the street; that the street will be ten and a half feet longer or farther out than the current house, and the street belongs to Ada County Highway District. The plans also show the sidewalk will be moved. He also commented on what would happen to the small section which belongs to the ACHD and how it would be handled for the corner homeowner. He inquired if there would be a separate home owners association with just that section of houses, not part of Cherry Lane Subdivision Home Owners Association; that they will maintain the path. 11. Barbara Moore's testimony pertained to the 20 foot sewer easement and what was going to be done with it. She questioned if their property line was longer; if it goes out to the street or if their property went 10 feet back into the easement. She thought there was a discrepancy between the two maps. 12. Steve Bradbury addressed Mrs. Moore's questions by stating the intention was not to include the sewer easement as part of the pedestrian pathway; that it would be included as part of the side yard and landscaped. Further comments from Steve Bradbury addressed where the three unit townhouses will be located. Regarding the discrepancy in the length of .the street, he felt Keith Jacobs, the engineer FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) who prepared the plat,. could better answer the question. They wouldn't plat something they didn't own or didn't match up. Taking out the 20 foot sewer easement calculated the lot to be 4000 square feet. One way to accomplish that would be to move the small road a little further up. With some adjustments they feel the concern over the lot could be solved. 13. Gordon Margulieux's last .two questions concerned whether or not the sewer line would be on a separate lot, and about the pressurized irrigation. Steve Bradbury responded the staff had suggested the sewer easement be made a separate common lot and the developers agreed to it. Regarding the pressurized irrigation and if the Margulieuxs could hook in to it, Mr. Bradbury commented that it has not been discussed with the developer, but could more than likely be accomplished. The issue of water rights as to where they could be applied, and to obtain approval from the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District to include properties outside the platted subdivision was brought up. Additional comment included whoever is hooked to the pressurized irrigation would be billed by Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District for a part of the costs of operation and maintenance, which the Margulieuxs would need to consider. 14. Commissioner Smith had one final question regarding the reason why they are going for smaller lot sizes and narrower streets as opposed to the standard R-4 requirements. Mr. Bradbury stated the developer is trying to provide a variety of housing FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) types and uses for the area. The developer feels there is a market for this type of subdivision, and the surrounding Ashford Greens Subdivision has part of this type of area. Pertaining to the street, a private street would be owned and maintained by the home owners association and would not be used by the regular public. This street would be limited to a great extent and that is why the typical 50 ,foot right-of-way would be required. Commissioner Johnson's last comment was, "But it's the location and the fact that it's a unique market and that's why the developer thinks it will work. Right?" Mr. Bradbury responded affirmatively. 15. Steve Bradbury, representative for the Applicant, requested the previous testimony be incorporated into the hearing on the matter. 16. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, have submitted comments, which respective comments are incorporated herein as set forth hereafter. 1. Sanitary sewer service shall be by extension from the existing main line in Interlachen Way. Approval will be contingent upon or ability to accept the additional sewage generated by the proposed development. The subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes to be provided to keep sewer lines on the south and west sides of centerline. Profiles submitted for preliminary sewer design indicate a portion of the main line in Interlachen Lane will have less than the minimum. three feet of cover from top of pipe to finish grade. This portion of the project site may have to be FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAS' - Page 8 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) filled in order to achieve the required cover. 2. Water service to the site will be by extensions of the existing main installed in Interlachen Way. Applicant to construct the water mains to and through the proposed ~ development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 3. Identify the source for the pressurized irrigation and whether the system will be owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District or private. If the system is to be private, plans and a draft copy of the O & M Manual must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the City's water system would need to be reviewed due to the size of the area to be watered. The developer will be responsible for the payment of assessment fees for the common areas. 4. Streetlights shall be two-hundred-fifty-watt and/or one-hundred watt, high pressure sodium and to be at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Streetlights to be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 5. Submit for review and approval a detailed landscape plan for the common areas and to include fencing, pathways and types of construction with -the submittal of the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to signature on the final plat. 6. Along the Eight Mile and Safford Laterals a non- combustible fence needs to be installed prior to applying for building permits. Fencing needs to be set back from the top of bank to alleviate inherent problems with eroding slopes. Construct six-foot-high, permanent, non-combustible perimeter fencing except where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) place prior to applying for building permits. Fencing shall be set at the existing easement line, unless an encroachment agreement is granted by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. 7. A total frontage of 24.84 feet for the triplex lots appears to be grossly deficient. Driveways are to be offset a minimum of five feet from property lines, leaving only 14.84 feet for a driveway. The duplex lots in the southeast portion of the property have a combined frontage of only 22.7 feet. 8. No parking will be allowed at any time along streets less than required by ACHD policy. The homeowners association will be responsible for enforcement of this no parking area. 9. A letter of approval from the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District for the roadways as shown or revise to comply with their requirements. 10. Proposals for Planned Unit Developments will include a minimum of ten percent common area, which means land area exclusive- of street rights-of-way, buildings, parking areas, structures, and appurtenances except those improvements which are accessible and available to all occupants of the private units within the PD. 11. The Homeowners Association shall own and maintain the sewer easement area, and it will be platted as a common lot. The two adjacent lots will be 3,500 square feet or less. Provide lot closures for all lots to verify square footage. 12. Storage areas will be provided, such as, one adequate space for every two living units. This may be reduced by City action if there is a showing that the needs of a particular development are less. 13. One additional parking space beyond the required Zoning Ordinance should be required for every three dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. Parking areas may be no closer than four feet to any established street or alleyway. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LATa - Page 10 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 14. A maintenance building or approved area will be provided for suitable services required for .the repair and maintenance of all common areas. 15. Provide a master street drainage plan showing method of collection and disposal. 16. Provide detail of pedestrian walkway/golf cart access; also gates within the development. Interlachen must be continued through the development to provide access to the future golf course clubhouse. ACHD's initial comments were that Interlachen Way must be continued through the development as a public roadway, but the agency. is rethinking that requirement. 17. If the private road is approved, a blanket easement for public utilities will be included. The proposed covenants for the. subdivision will specifically address provisions for a sinking fund to provide maintenance of the roadway and replace the roadway within a 20 year period. 18. Provide a minimum ten percent open space. Donations have been made to the City golf course, but were not a part of the development. 19. Darken up the contour lines on the blueline prints with the revised plat map. 17. Kenny Bowers, Chief of the Meridian Fire Department, requests all codes need to be met. 18. The Central District Health Department, prior to their approval, requires written approval from the appropriate entities pertaining to the central sewage and water approval. The central sewage and central water plan must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Run-off is not to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1J. STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) create a mosquito breeding problem. The storm water management plan, and an inventory form needs to be completed and submitted to the Central District Health Department. 19. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments, which respective comments pertain to the right-of-way of the Eight Mile Lateral of 50 feet; 25 feet from the center each way. The developer must contact John P. Anderson or Bill Henson for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. A Land Use Change/Site Development application is required prior to final platting. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If surface drainage leaves, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. 20. There was no further testimony given at the hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. All .the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the property. 2. The City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6512 and pursuant to 11-2- 418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 3. The City has. the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 4. The property is currently zoned (R-4) Low Density Residential District. The (R-4), Low Density Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 3. as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT• Only single-family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development .and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. Conditional Use Permit is defined in the Zoning And Development Ordinance, City of Meridian, Idaho as "Permits allowing an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district." 6. The 'City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 67-6512, and pursuant to that section conditions minimizing the adverse impact on other development, controlling the duration of development, assuring the development is maintained properly, and on-site or off-site facilities may be attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF J,AW - Page 13 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) existence. 7. Section 11-2-418 D. states as follows: In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence. 8. This Application for a conditional use has been judged upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it may take judicial notice. 9. Section 11-2-418 C of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits. Upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, assuming that the above conditions or similar ones thereto would be attached to the conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance; b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance FINDINGS OF FACT AND COD'CLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance; c. The use would be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and 'that' such use will change the essential character of the same area; d. The use would not be hazardous. or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; e. The use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall, be able to provide adequately any such services; f. The use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; g. The use will involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; h. The use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; and i. The development of the property will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. It is recommended that the conditional use permit be granted in this case. 10. It is recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the previous comments by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, and Assistant City Engineer, Bruce FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Freckleton, be incorporated along with the following conditions if a conditional use permit is granted. 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape. irrigation. 3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist -with street development plans. 4. Submit copy of. proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for review by the Meridian City Attorney. 5. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606 B. 6. Submit a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 7. ~ Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Meridian Public Works Department. 11. The above-conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet these conditions. 12. It is recommended that the request for the conditional use permit be granted. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF L~~~W - Page 16 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) i APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER BORUP COMMISSIONER MACCOY VOTED VOTED ~"~ C~- COMMISSIONER SMITH CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION (~ ~~ yt The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that it approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the Application. The Applicant shall satisfy the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the VOTED COMMISSIONER NELSON VOTED water and sewer requirements, the Fire and Life Safety Codes, Uniform Fire Code, parking requirements, and the paving and landscaping requirements, and all Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the Applicant by the City. MOTION : .L ~v /B ~/' APPROVED (` l LO DISAPPROVED: 2-05-98 - Ch ge a Draft FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1" STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: February 10. 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7 REQUEST: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - NW CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: ~r^~- CITY ATTORNEY: r"~ ;~,~ $ ~ I~C~ L>!.r~~ C~~,CI ~; S~L,~IS ~ ~l~ CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: Ail Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 1998 Page 68 MOTION CARRIED: All yea. ITEM NUMBER 12: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY'STEINER DEVELOPMENT - NW CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant's representative to address the commission. Bradbury: 1 vuould simply like to ask that the commission incorporate the testimony given in the previous matter into the hearing on this matter. I have nothing further to add. I think I covered everything. Johnson: Does anyone else want to do the same or we would just automatically incorporate your testimony anyway so everybody gets a shot you know. Anybody else have anything additional then. All right, I will close the public hearing at this time. This require Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we direct the City Attorney to draw up Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this item. Borup: Second. Johnson: Motion is seconded to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. All in favor? Opposed. MOTION CARRIED: All yea. Johnson: Any further motions for this evening? Mr. Berg would like to make a comment. Berg: Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. Just another reminder of this thing. I'll get you some notices out that this is the Planning and Zoning Seminar at Boise State on January 24~'. I do want to say that I've response from our - I guess three active members of the commission, and they are all attending. If you would like to attend. Johnson: Isn't the City Council going to this? Berg: So far, no. They have some conflicts, chili cook-off. And John if you would tike to, that would be great. And if Gary or Shari would too. I just need to get this into the people running the workshop. Prior: Sign me up. What day is that a Saturday? Berg: Saturday, the 24~', and it's kind of an all day thing. Y BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STEINER DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVEL~Dnrt~rrm NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 ~~~~ MERIDIAN, IDAHO F_ - ~ '=~~ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing on January 13, 1998, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., the Applicant, appearing through its representative, Steve Bradbury, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT __ 1. A notice of a public hearing' on tie application for the conditional use permit and application for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearing scheduled on January 13, 1998, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 13, 1998 hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. The property is located within the City of Meridian at FINDINGS OF FACT i~TD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - P«ge 1 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) the Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No. 1. The property is described in the application for a conditional use permit, which description is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property. 3. Pursuant to the application, the property is presently zoned as R-4, Low Density Residential District. The proposed use of the property is to construct 37 single family, 3 duplexes, 1 triplex. The Applicant presented a site plan depicting the location of the proposed use. Pursuant to the application, the Applicant agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, associated with the use, whether that use be residential, commercial or industrial. 4. That the R-4 District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3., as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Only single- family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R- 4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. That the planned residential development of 37 single family dwellings, 3 duplexes and 1 triplex in a district of R-4 Low Density Residential, as proposed by the Applicant, is an FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) allowed conditional use in the R-4 District. 6. That the subject property is presently vacant. 7. That sewer and water is available to the property and is required. 8. Mr. Steve Bradbury testified as follows; that Steiner Development is requesting approval of a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a residential subdivision. The site is 8 ;~ acres and located east of Black Cat between Ustick and Cherry Lane. The parcel was originally part of Ashford Greens Subdivision but the developer did not exercise its option on the property, so Steiner Development did. Mr. Bradbury further testified that the proposal calls for 37 single family detached units, 3 two unit townhouses and one 3 unit townhouse for a total of 46 separate living units. That works out to about 5 i~ units per acre over the 8 ~ acres. The proposal also calls for a private - street--on a forty-two-foot-right-of-way with a five foot sidewalk on one side. The sidewalk would be around the outside perimeter. The lots became smaller due to the 20 foot sewer easement to make a common lot. The lots are now about 3500 square feet. Before their testimony there was much discussion and figuring on the lot sizes to help solve the problem. At present the smallest lots are up to about 4,000 square feet, but could be up to 4500 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 5700 feet across the subdivision. Minimum square footage of homes is 1304 square feet. Mr. Bradbury pointed out the seven different house plans; list of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) the various numbers of .units, and the square footage. The square footage ranges from 1304 up to 1785, and the proposal is to have 14 of them. Mr. Bradbury pointed out most of the homes would be larger than the minimum sizes. Each unit will have a two car garage and front driveways, which allows accommodation for two additional vehicles, for a total of four vehicles for off street parking per unit. All the units will be single story. The setbacks are in accordance with the code, except for the request that the front setback be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet, and the street setbacks be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet. This would be similar to the concept and design to the Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivision #6. This would not be restricted to just senior housing. Commissioner Johnson was pleased with the presentation and Commissioner Smith also acknowledged it was a good site plan and it deserved decent homes. Commissioner Smith also questioned if they were going for a variance on the minimum lot size, and the front yard setback, even though the blueprints states the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet, and the front building setbacks to be 20 feet. Mr. Bradbury responded what is seen on the blueprints are the required sizes for an R-4 zone, but it is not what is proposed. Commissioner Smith clarified what the applicant is wanting, and that is, a 15 foot yard setback, and the smaller lot sizes would be for the two unit townhouses. Commissioner Borup had a clarification on the conditional FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF' LAW - Page 4 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) use, and whether the changes would be reflected on the plat before it is recorded. Mr. Bradbury confirmed that it would be part of the planned unit development. All the plat notes will be reflective of the true state of affairs not just a recitation of the standard ordinance requirements when it is recorded. 9. Vern Moore questioned if there was going to be a 20 foot sewer easement behind the property, and if it would be a walking path, golf lane, golf cart lane or just what? He also wanted to know what lot the triplex would be built on. His last question was if there was a possibility of hooking into their pressurized irrigation system. 10. Gordon Margulieux gave the following testimony regarding his concerns. His first concern was the lot size due to the sewer right-of-way easement and how nothing could be built on it. Additionally, lot 2 would be for single families not the duplex, and it would be about 3100 square feet. Apparently, what was mentioned at the hearing is a revision which he desired to see the revision. Presently it is 3100 square feet which is quite a bit different than the 8000 square feet which is R-4. Ashford Greens in their proposal was looking at apartments and units of apartments, about 8 units of apartments per acre, which would be 5 per acre. These would be individual homes with over half of them on lots ranging from 4500 to 5100 square feet, with some being 8400 and 6700 square feet. He feels these lot sizes are consistent with the Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 1. He is looking FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) forward to the completion of the subdivision. He continued with the comment that his house was the first in the subdivision on lot 3 adjacent in the Cherry Lane #1 Subdivision. Another consideration is the street; that the street will be ten and a half feet longer or farther out than the current house, and the street belongs to Ada County Highway District. The plans also show the sidewalk will be moved. He also commented on what would happen to the small section which belongs to the ACHD and how it would be handled for the corner homeowner. He inquired if there would be a separate home owners association with just that section of houses, not part of Cherry Lane Subdivision Home Owners Association; that they will maintain the path. 11. Barbara Moore's testimony pertained to the 20 foot sewer easement and what was going to be done with it. She questioned if their property line was longer; if it goes out to the street- or if .their property went 10 feet. back into the easement. She thought there was a discrepancy between the two maps. 12. Steve Bradbury addressed Mrs. Moore's questions by stating the intention was not to include the sewer easement as part of the pedestrian pathway; that it would be included as part of the side yard and landscaped. Further comments from Steve Bradbury addressed where the three unit townhouses will be located. Regarding the discrepancy in the length of. the street, he felt Keith Jacobs, the engineer FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLTJSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) who prepared the plat, could better answer the question. They wouldn't plat something they didn't own or didn't match up. Taking out the 20 foot sewer easement calculated the lot to be 4000 square feet. One way to accomplish that would be to move the small road a little further up. With some adjustments they feel the concern over the lot could be solved. 13. Gordon Margulieux's last two questions concerned whether or not the sewer line would be on a separate lot, and about the pressurized irrigation. Steve Bradbury responded the staff had suggested the sewer easement be made a separate common lot and the developers agreed to it. Regarding the pressurized irrigation and if the Margulieuxs could hook in to it, Mr. Bradbury commented that it has not been discussed with the developer, but could more than likely be accomplished. The issue of water rights as to where they could be applied, and to obtain approval from the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District to include properties outside the platted subdivision was brought up. Additional comment included whoever is hooked to the pressurized irrigation would be billed by Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District for a part of the costs of operation and maintenance, which the Margulieuxs would need to consider. 14. Commissioner Smith had one final question regarding the reason why they are going for smaller lot sizes and narrower streets as opposed to the standard R-4 requirements. Mr. Bradbury stated the developer is trying to provide a variety of housing FINDINGS OF FACT ANTS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) types and uses for the area. The developer feels there is a market for this type of subdivision, -and the surrounding Ashford Greens Subdivision has part of this type of area. Pertaining to the street, a private street would be owned and maintained by the home owners association and would not be used by the regular public. This street would be limited to a great extent and that is why the typical 50 foot right-of-way would be required. Commissioner Johnson's last comment was, "But it's the location and the fact that it's a unique market and that's why the developer thinks it will work. Right?" Mr. Bradbury responded affirmatively. 15. Steve Bradbury, representative for the Applicant, requested the previous testimony be incorporated into the hearing on the matter. 16. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, have submitted comments, which respective comments are incorporated herein as -set forth hereafter. 1. Sanitary sewer service shall be by extension from the existing main line in Interlachen Way. Approval will be contingent upon or ability to accept the additional sewage generated by the proposed development. The subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes to be provided to keep sewer lines on the south and west sides of centerline. Profiles submitted for preliminary sewer design indicate a portion of the main line in Interlachen Lane will have less than the minimum three feet of cover from top of pipe to finish grade. This portion of the project site may have to be FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) filled in order to achieve the required cover. 2. Water service to the site will be by extensions of the existing main installed in Interlachen Way. Applicant to construct the water mains to and through the proposed ~ development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 3. Identify the source for the pressurized irrigation and whether the system will be owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District or private. If the system is to be private, plans and a draft copy of the O & M Manual must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the City's water system would need to be reviewed due to the size of the area to be watered. The developer will be responsible for the payment of assessment fees for the common areas. 4. Streetlights shall be two-hundred-fifty-watt and/or one-hundred watt, high pressure sodium and to be at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Streetlights to be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street int-ersections and/or fire hydrants. 5. Submit for review and approval a detailed landscape plan for the common areas and to include fencing, pathways and types of construction with the submittal of the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to signature on the final plat. 6. Along the Eight Mile and Safford Laterals a non- combustible fence needs to be installed prior to applying for building permits. Fencing needs to be set back from the top of bank to alleviate inherent problems with eroding slopes. Construct six-foot-high, permanent, non-combustible perimeter fencing except where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) place prior to applying for building permits. Fencing shall be set at the existing easement line, unless an encroachment agreement is granted by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. 7. A total frontage of 24.84 feet for the triplex lots appears to be grossly deficient. Driveways are to be offset a minimum of five feet from property. lines, leaving only 14.84 feet for a driveway. The duplex lots in the southeast portion of the property have a combined frontage of only 22.7 feet. 8. No parking will be allowed at any time along streets less than required by ACRD policy. The homeowners association will be responsible for enforcement of this no parking area. 9. A letter of approval from the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District for the roadways as shown or revise to comply with their requirements. 10. Proposals for Planned Unit Developments will include a minimum of ten percent common area, .which means land area exclusive of street rights-of-way, buildings, parking areas, structures, and appurtenances except those improvements which are accessible and available to all occupants of the private units within the PD. 11. The Homeowners Association shall own and maintain the sewer easement area, and it will be platted as a common lot. The two adjacent lots will be 3,500 square feet or less. Provide lot closures for all lots to verify square footage. 12. Storage areas will be provided, such as, one adequate space for every two living units. This may be reduced by City action if there is a showing that the needs of a particular development are less. 13. One additional parking space beyond the required Zoning Ordinance should be required for every three dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. Parking areas may be no closer than four feet to any established street or alleyway. FINDINGS OF FACT ANI~ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 14. A maintenance building or approved area will be provided for suitable services required for the repair and maintenance of all common areas. 15. Provide a master street drainage plan showing method of collection and disposal. 16. Provide detail of pedestrian walkway/golf cart access; also gates within the development. Interlachen must be continued through the development to provide access to the future golf course clubhouse. ACHD's initial comments were that Interlachen Way must be continued through the development as a public roadway, but the agency is rethinking that requirement. 17. If the private road is approved, a blanket easement for public utilities will be included. The proposed covenants for the subdivision will specifically address provisions for a sinking fund to provide maintenance of the roadway and replace the roadway within a 20 year period. 18. Provide a minimum ten percent open space. Donations have been made to the City golf course, but were not a part of the development. 19. Darken up the contour lines on the blueline prints with the revised plat map. 17. Kenny Bowers, Chief of the Meridian Fire Department, requests all codes need to be met. 18. The Central District Health Department, prior to their approval, requires written approval from the appropriate entities pertaining to the central sewage and water approval. The central sewage and central water plan must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Run-off is not to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) create a mosquito breeding problem. The storm water management plan, and an inventory form needs to be completed and submitted to the Central District Health Department.. 19. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments, which respective comments pertain to the right-of-way of the Eight Mile Lateral of 50 feet; 25 feet from the center each way. The developer must contact John P. Anderson or Bill Henson for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. A Land Use Change/Site Development application is required prior to final platting. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If surface drainage leaves, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. 20. There was no further testimony given at the hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. All the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the property. 2. The City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6512 and pursuant to 11-2- 418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 3. The City has. the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 4. The property is currently zoned (R-4) Low Density Residential District. The (R-4), Low Density Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 3. as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT• Only single-family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. Conditional Use Permit is defined in the Zoning And Development Ordinance, City of Meridian, Idaho as "Permits allowing an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district." 6. The City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 67-6512, and pursuant to that section conditions minimizing the adverse impact on other development, controlling the duration of development, assuring the development is maintained properly, and on-site or off-site facilities may be attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) existence. 7. Section 11-2-418 D. states as follows: In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence. 8. This Application for a conditional use has been judged upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it may take judicial notice., 9. Section 11-2-418 C -of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits. Upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, assuming that the above conditions or similar ones thereto would be attached to the conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance; b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance; c. The use would be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and -that such use will change the essential character of the same area; d. The use would not be hazardous. or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; e. The use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services; f. The use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; g. The use will involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; h. The use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; and i. The development of the property will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. It is recommended that the conditional use permit be granted in this case. 10. It is recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the previous comments by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, and Assistant City Engineer, Bruce FINr~INGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Freckleton, be incorporated along with the following conditions if a conditional use permit is granted. 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape. irrigation. 3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with street development plans. 4. Submit copy of. proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for review by the Meridian City Attorney. 5. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606 B. 6. Submit a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 7. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Meridian Public Works Department. 11. The above-conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet these conditions. 12. It is recommended that the request for the conditional use permit be granted. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCL~JSIONS OF LAW - Page 16 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER BORUP VOTED COMMISSIONER MACCOY VOTED COMMISSIONER SMITH VOTED COMMISSIONER NELSON VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECONIlKENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that it approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the Application. The Applicant shall satisfy the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the Fire and Life Safety Codes, Uniform Fire Code, parking requirements, and the paving and landscaping requirements, and all Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the Applicant by the City. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: 2-05-98 - Changes and Draft FINDINGS OF FACT A:JD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Pale 17 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: February 10, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8 REQUEST: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT 48 LOTS FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 1998 Page 59 Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to reply. Seeing no one - we have had a request for a deferral on this item, and that is why the people aren't here, so we'll continue public hearing. We will not close it, and defer to the date certain of February 10, 1998. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we defer this item to February 10tH Borup: Second. Johnson: Moved and seconded. We defer item number 13 and continue the public hearing until February 10, 1998. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All yea. Johnson: Item 14 is related. Same thing. I will now open this public hearing. This is a REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MACDONALD'S W/DRIVE UP WINDOW AND IDAHO POWER COMPANY CREDIT UNION W/DRIVE UP BANKING BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC - NW CORNER OF EAGLE AND MAGIC VIEW DRIVE: Is there anyone here that would like to testify on item number 14, and again, we have a request for a deferral on this item. Seeing no one then, I will continue this public hearing with a motion, if that's your pleasure. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we defer this public hearing and continue this public hearing until February 10tH Borup: Second. Johnson: Motion and second to defer this item number 14 until February 10, 1998. All in favor. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea. Johnson: Item number 11 we will move into now is a public hearing REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT, 48 LOTS FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT - NW OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: I will open this public hearing and invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to address the commission. STEVE BRADBURY was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 1998 Page 60 Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Steve Bradbury. I am representing the applicant, Steiner Development. What we have before you actually is a request for preliminary plat and conditional use permit, for planning and development for a residential subdivision. The site is 8 and a half acres, and it is located east of Black Cat between Ustick and Cherry Lane. And if you wanted to see a close up view of the location, - I should ask -did you folks all have the books that made for -great. You can look behind tab four on the second page, it shows a location map. It's this parcel right here. This map might be a little easier to work with. The parcel that we are talking about is located right here. We have the Lakes at Cherry Lane Subdivision over here. We've got the Ashford Greens over here. Cherry Village, I think is what they call that. And then Golf View Estate over here. So this piece that we are talking about is right in here. The green that you see on the map is the, of course, the golf course. By way of background, I suppose, I should tell you little bit about this parcel. This piece was originally part of the conceptual plan for the Ashford Green Subdivision, and it was approved conceptually sometime back for a, what was called, medium density development, and the concept was that it would be a 8 unit to acre project of some not well defined sort. And as a part of that concept approval, the City required the developer of the Ashford Green Subdivisions to come back before you folks and submit a more precise site plan. Well, the Ashford Greens developer did not exercise the option on this piece of property, so Steiner Development did. And Steiner Development is now before you with a proposal for the residential subdivision. If you would open your books to behind tab two, you can see a basic project amenity or project characteristic sheet. I will just go through that a little bit. Property zone R-4 now. The proposal is for 37 single family detached units, three two unit townhouses. I know it says duplex there, but that denotes that we are talking about a single ownership which would be a rental and that's not what would be proposed. They will be -each of the units-They are actually zero lot line units. Each of the units will be on its own lot. And would be sold separately. And then there's one 3 unit townhouse building as well for a total of 46 living units. That comes out to a units per acre of about 5 and ahalf - a little over 5 and a half -units per acre over the 8 and a half acres. The proposal. is to construct a private street on a forty- two foot right- of- way with a five foot sidewalk on one side. The sidewalk would be along -probably the best way to describe it - it would be around the outside perimeter of the street system there. The lot sizes on your sheet are not correct. It says, "4500 up to 8400 square feeY'. Because of the change that was suggested by staff, which is to take the 20 foot sewer easement out of the lot to make it into a common lot. That, of course, made those lots a little smaller along the south easterly border. What it ended up being as drawn today is about 3500 square feet. While we had time to put out heads together out in the hallway for the last several hours, we kind of did a little bit of sketching and thinking about how maybe we can move some lot lines around and get that size up, and we think we can get that lot - even the smallest of the lots - up above 4,000 square feet -probably close to that 4500 square feet after all. Average lot size is approximately 5700 feet across the whole subdivision. The size of the homes is a minimum square footage of 1304 square feet. Actually if you look behind tab number eight In your book, you will see a list of the seven Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 1998 Page 61 different plans, and there's a list of the various- numbers of units and the square footages for them. You see it ranges from 1304 up to the biggest one is 1785 square feet, and the proposal is to have 14 of those. So most of the home that would be built in the subdivision would be larger than that minimum. Each of the units would have atwo- car garage, and of course driveways in front of that garage which would accommodate two additional vehicles, so we have a total of four - in essence four off street parking spaces for each unit. The setbacks -all of the units by the way are single story units. The setbacks are in accordance with the code except for a request that the front setback be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20, and the street sites setback also be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20. Just to kind of give you a feel for something you can compare this to. This is really quite similar in concept and design to the Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivision #7, and I will show you where that is. On the map here, it's - I said 7, I meant Lake at Cherry Lane #6. It's more like the design for Lake at Cherry Lane #6. The primary difference is that in #6, it is -that was a proposal for asenior - housing for older person, senior living. This one would not be so restricted. Let's see, what else should we talk about. Well, maybe you can look behind tab four, and find the preliminary plat. You can see the general layout that is being proposed. Among the things that we are trying to accomplish is to provide a pedestrian access way around the perimeter of the subdivision in order to get to the club house -the new proposed Gub house which would be northerly of this. You can see it's marked on the map as well. The idea would be to put a pedestrian pathway along the sewer easement and then up the canal right-of-way so the people can then access the golf course and the club house. There is also - and I say pedestrian - I expect it would be used for golf carts as well. There is also a piece of property which is located here on easterly side of the property, a little triangular piece. That piece of property is actually on the opposite side of the canal from where the building lots would be and is right now a part of and used by the golf course, and the proposal would be to dedicate that piece of ground to the City free of charge. When originally proposed, we had thought that piece of property was about a third of an acre. The engineers have surveyed it now - I .don't want to say surveyed because that is probably not accurate - did a tittle more careful calculations. It turns out it's about a quarter of an acre. In any event the idea is to give to the City for uses a part of its golf course, the portion of this site which is on the opposite side of the canal. Behind tab six in your book, is a series of floor plans and elevations. Seven different floor plans, each with two elevations each, - I guess that makes 14 different potential elevations. Each of the units would be two or three bedrooms, two bath, and as I said two car garage. The proposed buildings materials for the units is found behind tab number eight in your book. And of course I can go through any of those if you have any questions about them. Keith Jacobs from PLS Engineers submitted the responses to the staff comments. It is my understanding that the City has received those. I don't know if you have them in front of you. If you don't 1 have extra copies. I didn't intend to go through any of that unless you had any specific questions. I just wanted to make sure you in fact had them. I just briefly had an opportunity to inquire to Shari as to whether or not she was satisfied with those, and I got the idea that she at least in general was. Of course Shari can point out any errors if there any. The exceptions, - as you know -this is also a for a planned unit development, and under the planned unit Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 1998 Page 62 development ordinances the applicant may request certain exceptions from the typical ordinance requirements. Shari has, I think, correctly identified the exceptions that would be required and are being requested for this project. In the staff comments on the second page. There's a lift of them, except the minimum lot sizes; the frontages, the private road, the front street setback and the minimum house sizes. Those are the exceptions, and they are properly identified. Rather than me talking about a bunch of things that maybe you don't want to hear about, I'll stop now and respond to any questions that you may have. Johnson: Thank you. It's always a pleasure to see your presentations. This is very nice and we wish we had presentations like this even like 50% of the scale. It would improve our ability to respond and cut down the questions. At this point I will pass it on through Commissioners Smith and Borup and see if they have any specific questions. Smith: No, I don't. It looks just real similar to say number 6, I believe. Maybe if anything a little more expensive on the home prices. Bradbury: I would expect probably so. Smith: If this is - is this accurate, your application says 130 and up? Bradbury: Well, I would have to rely on Mr. Campbell to answer that question. Borup: $100 a square foot. But I have no comment. Smith: This is a good site, and I think it deserves some decent homes. I don't know if it is getting late, or I am just stupid. But - it is my understanding that you are going for a variance on the minimum lot size, and the front yard setback, but the blueprints still says minimum lot size 8,000 square feet, building setbacks front 20 feet. . Bradbury: Yeah - Smith: Is it just not correct? Bradbury: Well, we had this discussion before, not you and f, but I have had this discussion with the members of the commission before. What you see on the blueprint are the typicals, the required sizes for an R-4 zone. Right. And I know that gets confusing. It's not what's proposed. Smith: It clear you've stated that you wanted a 15 foot front yard setback, and you went through the beginning of your narrative some of the minimum lots sizes, and I'm assuming that the small lot sizes are the ones that are for the triplexes and the duplexes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 1998 Page 63 Bradbury: The smaller lots are in the duplex - I'm not suppose to say duplex. I'm suppose to say two unit townhouses. Correct. Borup: I have a clarifidation question just for my information along with what Commissioner Smith said. So the conditional use is granted is a flat change -that information is changed on the plat before it's recorded; is that correct? Bradbury: Correct. It would be part of the planned unit development, it would among the conditions, and all the plat notes would be reflective of the true state of affairs as opposed to just a recitation of the standard ordinance requirements. Thank you very much. Johnson: Thank you. This is a public hearing. Would someone else like to come forward. VERN MOORE was sworn in by City Attomey. V. Moore: I just have a couple of questions here that weren't quite on the Notice of Hearing that we got. If I can point out just -yes, this is our property right here, on 1991 Interlachen. And the question we had, is there is going to be 20 foot sewer easement apparently right behind that property. Nowwill that be a walking path or golf lane or golf cart lane or anything? Do you know that? If I can ask this gentleman? Johnson: Is that your only question, or do you have others? V. Moore: No, I have another - Johnson: Why don't you present all of your questions, and we'll have the developer respond. V. Moore: Okay, I would like to know what lot is the triplex is going to built on and what was your other question Barbara? Do you have any others? I think that's it. Thank you. Johnson: Okay, she'll have an opportunity later if she forgot. Anyone else before the developer responds because we might as well get all of the questions upfront here. V. Moore: I know what it was now. I noticed that you are going to have pressurized irrigation and since we are adjacent to that, is there any possibility of hooking into that? Johnson: I saw a hand back there, did you -you need to be sworn it first. GORDON MARGULIEUX was sworn in by the City Attomey. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 1998 Page 64 Margulieux: I live at 2040 Interlachen Way. 1 first of all, what 1 think the developer and the architect, I've talked to them both, and they have been very helpful and open in talking to me about the development. I just have a couple of concerns, but one of the concerns is the lot size because of the sewer right-of-way they have there. I understand that they can't build on the sewer spot. And at the current one, lot 2, which is for single families not the duplex -it's not aduplex -would be about 3100 square feet. Now what they mentioned just now is that they are thinking about revising that, and I would interested in seeing how they revise that. Right now when you take that away, you are about 3100 square feet which is quite a bit different that 8000 which again is R-4. Again, Ashford Greens when they made a proposal a couple of years ago, they were - during the meeting they were talking about possible apartments and units. of apartments and they were looking for 8 units -family dwellings -per acre. And I understand this is about 5 and a half per acre. We're not talking about apartments adjacent. What we're talking about is individual homes and over half those home would be on lots that range from 4500 to 5100 square feet. There are some - I think there is one lot that's about 8400 and a couple that are around 6700, but the majority of the homes are between 4500 and 5100. So my concern, is one the lot size. I think it's not consistent with the Cherry Subdivision 1 which this is -you go through that subdivision and this is the end - and I am looking forward to a completion of the subdivision. Right now it sort of goes off into the clubhouse parking lot. So I am looking forward to the end of it. And this is - looking at the plat -they did a very good job, and I really enjoy talking to them on it. But again you're going off and the area that you are going through a little over 8000 square feet areas. Our lot is 13000. So we have the largest lot. Ours was the very first house even though we didn't live in it all that time. Ours was the very first house that they put into the subdivision, it was on lot 3 adjacent - in the Cherry Lane #1 Subdivision. So, the size of it. The other one that I haven't quite gotten - I'm not quite sure how they are going to do this, but if you look at the point at the corner of lot 3, where it meets - where the corner of the subdivisions meet, if you move all the way to there out to the street, this puts their street ten and a half feet longer or farther out than the current house, and I'm not quite sure because the street belongs to the Ada County Highway District. And they show on their plans correctly that it's going to move the sidewalk. But we're not quite sure what is going to happen to that little section that belongs to the highway department and how they are going to handle that for the comer home owner. Because is going to add to something to it, or he going to have a big rectangle over there. The last one is, -again this thing about the sewer easement, I was wondering if - right now it shows it as part of the individual owners' lot, and I was wondering if it's possible -one of my understanding with talking to them that there will be a home owners association associated with just this section of houses, not part of the Cherry Subdivision Home Owners Association. But it's going to be a separate home owners association, and that they are going to maintain the path -that 20 foot path -that is expected to be paved over. It's going to be going out to the golf course. I was wondering if it makes more sense that of having it as part of the individual lots that they make that a separate lot that -like the street -make it separate lot that they can go ahead and then have that somehow attached to the home owners association so it has more legal binding that way. I was just wondering.. The reason why I brought that up is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 1998 Page 65 because of all of the headaches they were talking about with Meridian Greens. But those are the concerns I have. Again I want to say that I am really pleased with talking to the architect and talking with the developer. They have been very helpful, and I am looking forward to closure do this thing. Johnson: Thank you. Any questions? Anyone else like to comment? BARBARA MOORE was sworn in by the City Attorney. B. Moore: I'm Barbara Moore. I live at McCalt, but we own property at 1991 Interlachen. My only question is, again, is that on this map we came in and got a blow up and on lot 40 its says there is a 20 foot sewer easement. They list right below that south 61.37 - whatever how you read that -west 149.16. On our plat map it lists it 187.78 foot. Is our property line longer than theirs, it goes out in the street; or does our property line go ten foot back into this easement. There's a discrepancy between these two maps. Then again I am still not clear -what are they going to do with that sewer easement because right now it's just weeds and kids go in there and smoke. It's a real fire hazard. I wonder what is the plan. Are they going to make that a paved path and take care of it. Johnson: Anyone else like to testify? Okay, Mr. Bradbury, I hope you heard all of those questions. Bradbury: I'It try. I may need a little bit of -may be need to be reminded just a little bit. With respect to the sewer easement adjacent to these folks' property .the intention is to not to include that as part of the pedestrian pathway. That would be simply included as part of the side yard for that lot, and would be a landscaped area - as a part of that lot. That's right; that's correct. Johnson: You have to keep your conversation with us. . Bradbury: Sorry. They asked the questions. The triplex - oops I said it again. It's not a triplex; it's a three unit townhouse - is in this location which is remote from where they live here or property, it would be up here. I'm going to turn around and show you, is here. What was the third question? The question is there a discrepancy in the length of one of the calls in the legal description on the plat. Keith Jacobs, the engineer who prepared the plat is here, and he may be able to help that. I don't know the answer. Obviously we're not going to plat something that we don't own or doesn't match up. And maybe that' s a detail that gets worked out between now and the time of the final plat unless Keith can answer the question. The other gentleman was talking about how to deal with these particular lots, and we have been kind of playing around with that just a little bit over the last little bit here tonight and yesterday -today, I've lost track, it's so fate. The gentleman was talking about this lot. I asked him as he walked by which one was the one he thought was smaller. Now we have recalculated that lot -the square footage on that lot -taking out the 20 foot sewer easement. Here, this one, and our calculations right now show that to be 4000 square feet. Now, one of the ways that. we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 1998 Page 66 would accomplish that is by moving this road -this little road here - a little bit further up. So we would actually get more distance in there. We can still make more adjustments, and that's what we were talking about out in the hall by moving some of these lot lines around. We think we can -get even a better square footage calculation on these lots by spreading it out. As you can see, we have one here that is 8400 square feet. This, by the way, is a two unit townhouse combination on these lots, and this one would be a single family, but we think we can make some adjustments and do a little fine tuning and probably solve the gentleman's concerns. What else? Johnson: Mr. Margulieux, did we miss some of your questions? Okay, we have addressed all of your questions? Margulieux: One question that I had was whether or not the sewer line would be on a separate lot. Johnson: Okay. The question was, "Whether - I'm doing this for the record - (end of tape) Bradbury: Staff has suggested that that sewer easement be made a separate commonary lot and that's what the developers agreed to do. And I think I got everything. Anything? Margulieux: There is one question that you missed about the pressurized irrigation. Bradbury: The question was whether or not their property might be included in and hooked in to the pressurized irrigation. It's not something that we have discussed at all with the developer. It certainly seems like it's something that we ought to be able to accomplish. It's complicated somewhat by the fact that we need to deal with the issue of water rights, and where they can be applied and get approval from the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to include additional properties outside of this platted subdivision. But I don't' see any reason why it's not something that we couldn't address to the irrigation district and see whether or not it would work. The other side of that coin, of course, is that whoever is hooked up in to the pressurized irrigation systems gets billed by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District for a part of the costs of operation and maintenance of that system, and I would expect that these folks, if they chose to be included and if the Irrigation District would do it, they would be required to pay a portion of the costs. And unless you have any further questions of me, I will sit down and let you get on with this. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Bradbury? Smith: Actually, I do have one, and I think that you talked about this last month, but my - to reiterate again -what's the reason why you are going for the smaller lot sizes and narrower streets as opposed to the standard R-4 requirements? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 1998 Page 67 Bradbury: What the developer is trying to accomplish is to provide a variety of housing types and housing uses in this area. And that's part of the reason why we brought this blow up over here that shows all of the subdivisions and the. proposed subdivisions in the area. We think there is a market. The developer thinks that there is a market for nicer homes on a just a little bit smaller lots, and primarily in this mile section is R-4 lots with the standard 8000 square foot plus or minus, and what we are trying to accomplish is to provide a variety of housing choices for people who like different things. You can kind of get an idea of some of the areas where there are some smaller lots also being proposed up in the upper right hand corner in those two R-15 areas. Those are smaller lot sizes proposed there. There is a section which would be immediately -I'll walk over there - There's a part of the Ashford Greens project this area here is composed of about 5000 square foot lots as well. Most everything else is more standard R-4, and what we are trying to accomplish as I said is just to provide a variety of housing types and lots sizes for people who like different types of living arrangements. The other half of your question, I think, was with respect to the street. It would be -the proposal is to provide a private street which would be owned and maintained by the home owners association and would not then be used by the regular travelling public, and so the use of that street would be limited to a great extent and for that reason I just didn't think that the typical 50 foot right-of--way would be required. Johnson: But it's the location and the fact that it's a unique market and that why the developer thinks it will work. Right? Bradbury: That's the bottom line. That's right. Johnson: Any other questions? Anyone else like to speak with us this evening? I get tired of seeing the same thing all the time. There are no comments from staff. I will close the public hearing at this time. This was a request for a preliminary plat. And we probably want to handle this the way we normally do when we have two items like this which would be to table this item and to open a public hearing and incorporate the prior testimony on the next item, if that's your pleasure. It's just a suggestion. Borup: Okay. Smith: That means or else? Johnson: That just mean it says 11:15. Borup: Chairman, I move we table this item to the February 10~' meeting. Smith: Second. Johnson: Moved and second. We table this item until date certain of February 10, 1998. All in favor? Opposed? MERIDIAN PLANNING S~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: January 13, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 12 REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - ~,. ~ AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: "REVIEWED" CITY FIRE DEPT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US W EST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JAkICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Rre Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney MEMORANDUM: A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public Works/Buiiding Department (208) 887-2.11 Legal DepaRtent (208) 884-4252 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor TO: Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor and City Council FROM: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Enginee Shari Stiles, P&Z Administrator COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW. President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH January 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Request for Preliminary Plat with a Conditional Use Permit for The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision - 48 Lots on 8.53 Acres by Steiner Development We have reviewed this submittal and o,,~`er the following comments, as conditions of the application. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: This property was originally included in the overall development plan for Ashford Greens Subdivision. Since the original concept was approved, the original applicant chose not to exercise its option on the property, and the previous owner of the property sold it to Steiner Development. The overall development plan included this parcel as a "medium density development" which would be subject to future conditional use procedures as a planned development. Having not experienced a scenario such as this, staff was unable to determine the legal consequences of the process to date. As is common in a planned development, exceptions can be made by Council to district regulations when they are desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD. "9-607 E MODIFICATION OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in this Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the district or districts in which said PD is located. The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section." va»t.~es.ctrr Mayor, Council and P&Z January 9, 1998 Page 2 Variances/exceptions that would need to be approved to grant this CUP in this R-4 zone as presented would be: i . Minimum lot sizes 2. Frontages 3. Minimum roadway widths/private drives 4. Provision of 5' sidewalks on each side of roadway in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.8. 5. Front and street side yard setbacks 6. Minimum house size GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with street development plans. 4. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for review by the Meridian City Attorney. 5. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.8. b. Submit a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 7. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Meridian Public Works Department. 8. Respond, in writing, to each of the comments contained in this memorandum prior to the January 13, 1998 hearing of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Submit ten copies of the Preliminary Plat Map with any required- revisions to the City Clerk's Office a minimum of one week prior to the hearing by the Meridian City Council. vu~~.cvr Mayor, Council and P&Z January 9, 1998 Page 3 SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS Sanitary sewer service to this site shall be via an extension from the existing main line in Interlachen Way. Approval of this application needs to be contingent upon our ability to accept the additional sanitary sewage generated by this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of centerline. The profiles submitted for the preliminary sewer design indicate that a portion of the main in Interlachen Lane will have less than the minimum three feet of cover from top of pipe to finish grade. This portion of the project site may have to be filled in order to achieve the required cover. 2. Water service to this site shall be via extensions of the existing main installed in Interlachen Way. Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 3. Identify the source for the pressurized irrigation system and a statement of whether the system will be owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District or private. If the system is to be private, plans and a draft copy of the O&M Manual must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the City's water system will need to be reviewed closely due to the size of the area to be watered. The developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessment fees for the common areas. 4. Two-hundred-fifty-watt and/or one-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 5. A detailed landscape plan for the common areas, including fencing locations, pathways and types of construction, shall be submitted for review and approval with the submittal of the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to signature on the fmal plat. 6. Non-combustible fencing is to be installed along the Eight Mile and Safford Laterals prior to applying for building permits. Fencing needs to be set back from the top of bank to v+n~t~ces.cvr P&Z Commission/Mayor & Council January 9, 1998 Page 4 alleviate inherent problems with eroding slopes. Construct six-foot-high, permanent, non- combustible perimeter fencing except where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in place prior to applying for building permits. Fencing shall be set at the existing easement line, unless an encroachment agreement is granted by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. 7. A total frontage of 24.84 feet for the triplex lots appears to be grossly deficient. Driveways are to be offset a minimum of five feet from property lines, leaving only 14.84 feet for a driveway. Similarly, the duplex lots in the southeast portion of the propert; have a combined frontage of only 22.7 feet. 8. No parking will be allowed at any time along streets less than required by ACHD policy. The homeowners association will be responsible for enforcement of this no parking area. 9. Provide a letter of approval from the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District for the roadways as shown or revise to comply with their requirements. 10. Proposals for Planned Unit Developments must include a minimum of ten percent common area. Common open space shall mean land area exclusive of street rights-of--way, buildings, parking areas, structures, and appurtenances except those improvements which are accessible and available to all occupants of the private units within the PD. 11. The sewer easement area shall be platted as a common lot to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. This will result in square footages for at least two adjacent lots of 3,500 square feet or less. Provide lot closures for all lots to verify square footage. 12. Storage areas shall be provided for the anticipated needs of boats, campers and trailers. For typical residential development, one (1) adequate space shall be provided every two (2) living units. This may be reduced by City action if there is a showing that the needs of a particular development are less. 13. One (1) additional parking space beyond that which is required by the Zoning Ordinance may be required for every three (3) dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. Parking areas may be no closer than four feet (4') to any established street or alleyway. 14. A maintenance building or approved area shall be provided that is suitable for the services required for the repair and maintenance of all common areas. 15. Provide a master street drainage plan showing method of collection and disposal. v~~.~ P&Z CommissionlMayor & Council January 9, 1998 Page 5 16. Provide detail of pedestrian walkway/golf cart access as well as gates proposed within the development. A condition of the previous proposal was that Interlachen must be continued through the development to provide access to the future golf course clubhouse. ACHD's initial comments were that Interlachen Way must be continued through the development as a public roadway, but the agency is rethinking that requirement at this time. 17. If the private road is approved for this development, a blanket easement for public utilities needs to be included. The proposed covenants for this subdivision need to specifically address provisions for a sinking fund to provide maintenance of the roadway and replace the roadway within a 20-year period 18. Planned unit developments are required to contain a minimum ten percent open space. Although donations have been made to the City golf course, they were not a part of this development. 19. The contour lines on the blueline prints received are faint and difficult to read. Please darken up the contour lines with the revised plat map. As an informational note for the Commission and Council, four lots in Golf View Estates Subdivision abut this proposed development. The four lots have an average square footage of 19,491 square feet (including area to the center of the Safford Lateral) and are valued for tax purposes at an average of $215,300. The house sizes on these lots range from 2,130 square feet to 3,532 squaze feet. The applicant is proposing a minimum house size of 1,304 square feet for this subdivision. Three lots in Amended Cherry Lane Village No. 1 have an average squaze footage of 6,171 square feet with an average valuation of $94,800. Two additional lots in Cherry Lane Village No. 1 Subdivision that abut this site aze 12,720 and 9,540 squaze feet, with valuations of $131,300 and $119,700, respectively. ~~.~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., Clty Clerk JANICE L SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS. Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Flre Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 ' Legal Department (208) 884-4252 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor GOUN •I MEMB RS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M.ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning 8< Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: January 6, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 12/17 /9T HEARING DATE: 1/13 /98 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for 37 single family, 3 duplexes 1 triplex _BY: Steiner Development LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No 1 JIM JOHNSON, P2 MALCOLM MACCOY, P2 MARK NELSON, P2 BYRON SMITH, P2 KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR -RONALD TOLSMA, C/C -CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C -WALT MORROW, C/C -GLENN BENTLEY, C/C -WATER DEPARTMENT -SEWER DEPARTMENT -BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT -CITY ATTORNEY -CITY ENGINEER -CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT. IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN G S( ELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF R C ON(PRELIM 1 LAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE RE ~ .~. j `2 . Y , ~ .y ~~,y„e~.,,,~ rie.~ tiYi R..su.~: ~`LC 2 3 ;~.;~ ~alt~ ±~~ a~~~ ;;~~ ~~'i~~~ x,~ ~LIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANiCE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS. Perks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 ~8~ Department (208) 884-4252 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor GOUNGIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW. President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z GOMMISG~ON JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH 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 Bz Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: .January 6. 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 12/17 /97 HEARING DATE: 1/13 /98 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for 37 sin le famil 3 du lexes 1 tri lex _BY: Steiner Develoament LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT:- Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No 1 JIM JOHNSON, P2 MALCOLM MACCOY P2 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT , MARK NELSON, P2 MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT _BYRON SMITH, P/Z KEITH BORUP P2 ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION - , -ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT -RONALD TOLSMA, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT - , .-WALT MORROW, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) .-GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) .- SEWER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT) - BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DE CITY FILES OTHER: l a- - l ~ ~ ~ ~~ PARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: POLICE DEPARTMENT -CITY ATTORNEY .-,-CITY ENGINEER _ L L ~?. .r? s c... t i~ ~ , ., ..~, "' ~ 6^ -CITY PLANNER ~ V ibr~" r.y~~ .raii/. '.8 ,a7ff tf~~ ~_.- ~~~M ~Y 1, y' ~ '~ n7 '4 .. ~~ ~L `-r V"~ '"--- CENTRAL • ~~ DISTRICTTH ~1'rHEAL DEPARTMENT CENI~RAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT Environmental Health Division ~~'~~~~~~ Return to: DEG ~ 9 1997 Rezone # Conditional Use # 7 s"~; Preliminary /Final /Short Plat s, Boise Eagle Garden City Meridian ^ Kuna ^ Acz I. We have No Objections to this Proposal. 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ^ high seasonal ground water ^ 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 water availability. 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: ,~ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water well ^ interim sewage ,~ central water ^ individual sewage ^ individual water ,~ 9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water ^ sewage dry lines central water 10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. I I . This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ^ food establishment ^ swimming pools or spas ^ child care center ^ beverage establishment ^ grocery store / `.~L L a.i ~ft ~l ~~ ~~ Date: ~.~/ ~ / ~ 7 i ~-~~~-~ ~ - '~j/,s J c~ . 4/ Reviewed B 6 Review Sheet fDND 10/91 r~, m. 7/91 ~Ec~~uE[~ JAN 0 2 1998 :i"T'~ c~~ ~iERiOiA~ ~. & n~~ ~~g D~ 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 2Q~4~~(~XX 208-463-0183 Phones: Area Code 208 23 December 1997 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 X6(;IC~EXXX,~C11~d>~X Will Berg, City Clerk SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 City of Meridian xe~xxxx~a6~xx 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Conditional -Use Permit for 37 single family. 3 duplexes and 1 triple Steiner Development Dear Commissioners: The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's Eightmile Lateral courses along the west boundary of the project. The right-of-way of the Eightmile Lateral is SO feet; 25 feet from the center each way. See Idaho Code 42-1208--RIGHTS-OF-WAYNOT SUBJECT TO ADVERSE POSSESSION. The developer must contact John P. Anderson or Bill Henson at 466-0663 for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires a Land Use Change/Site Development application be filed for review prior to final platting. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. Contact Donna Moore at 466-7861 for further information. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa « Ivieridiari Irrigation District. ~~.- ~~~ Bill Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT BH: dln cc: File -Shop File - O„~ce Water Superintendent APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 SUBDIVISION EVALUATION SHEET Proposed Development Name THE VILLAS at the LAKES CityMeridian Date Reviewed 01108/98 Preliminary Stage XXX Final Engineer/Developer Pacific Land / Steiner Development The Street name comments listed below are made by the members of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE (under direction of the Ada County Engineer) regarding this development in accordance with the Boise City Street Name Ordinance. The following existing street name is approved and shall appear on the plat "N. INTERLACHEN WAY" "N. INTERLACHEN LANE " is approved and shall appear on the slat. "W. COUPLES LANE" is a duplication and cannot be used.Choose a new name. "W. DALY LANE" is approved and shall appear on theplat. The above street name comments have been read and approved by the following agency representatives of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE. ALL of the signatures must be secured by the representative or his designee in order for the street names to be officially approved. _~ ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE„A'~ENCY ri~~~ESENTATIVES OR DESIGNEES Ada County Engineer Ada Planning Assoc. Ann Hurley City of Meridian Fire District Meridian John Priester Representative Representative Date ~-y ~<~ Date ~ ~ ~ `~- Date ~ ' ~~9~Q' Date ~ 9` ~U NOTE: A copy of this evaluation sheet must be presented to the Ada County Engineer at the time of signing the "final plat", otherwise the plat will not be signed !!!! Sub Index Street Index 3N 1 W 3 Section NUMBERING OF LOTS AND BLOCKS-P~//__/ TR\SUBS\SM_CITY.FRM ~ I( ~ ~/ ~ 7"~~1~ ~ ~/~/~' (1.5~ (~ C2YI:~eGI~`~ yt? ~~ .dOSs i ~l ~G CITY OF MERIDIAN PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT CHECKLIST SUBDIVISION NAME: -~ \~ i l I a~ ~ a~ ~L~.e. Lc~. o S ~v b . SUBDIVISION ENGINEER: ~ L5 REVIEW DATE: REVIEW BY: GARY D. SMITfL P.E._ f'TTV i~NnTiVFFTt The following shall be shown on the preliminary plat or shall be submitted separately: ITEM 2. 3. 4. 5. Subdivision name & general location. Name, address & telephone of plat preparer. Name & address of person (s) to receive correspondence and/or City billings. Legal description of subdivision. Statement of intended use of subd. 6. Drawing showing total area intended for development if this plat is only a portion thereof. I~ V .~ 7. Vicinity map extending a minimum 1/2 mile each way from proposed plat area. 8. Land use and existing zoning of the proposed subdivision and adjacent land. 9. Streets, street names, right of way and roadway widths, including adjacent streets and roadways. 10. Culdesac lengths comply with Ordinance. 11. Lot lines and blocks showing scaled dimensions and numbers of each. 12. Contour lines @ 2-foot intervals where slope is equal to or less than 10%. 13. Proposed or existing utilities; e.g., storm & sanitary sewers, irrigation laterals, ditches, drainages, bridges, culverts, water mains, fire hydrants and street lights. 14. Proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions. 15. Any dedications to the public and/or easements, together with a statement of location, dimensions and purpose of such. 16. A statement for any request of variance from the existing City Ordinance with reasons therefore. 17. A statement of development features. 18. Master street drainage plan including method of disposal & approval from the affected drainage district. 19. Flood Plain Boundary or measures to reduce this boundary. 20. Stub streets for traffic access to adjacent roadways & intersections. 21. Traffic impact on existing adjacent roadways & intersections. 22. Establishment of highest seasonal groundwater elevation. ~~ c ._ ~~~ OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANEE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Depaztment (208) 887-2211 Legal Department (208) 884-4252 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH 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 St Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: January 6, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 12/17 /97 HEARING DATE: 1/13 /98 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for 37 single family, 3 duplexes, 1 triplex BY: Steiner Development _ LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No. 1 JIM JOHNSON, P2 MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P2 BYRON SMITH, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C;C WALT MORROW, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: CITY OF MERIDIAN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NAME: Steiner Development L.L.C. . PHONE: 884-2076 ADDRESS: P.O. Box 190472, Boise, ID 83719 GENERAL LOCATION: 8 acre site northwest of Cherry lane .village No. 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE:~~_ _ _ g y 3 du lexe sin le famil p s triplex1 private street lot and 1 common area lot. ZONING CLASSIFICATION: R-4 PLAN: A plan of the proposed site for the conditional use showing the location of all buildings, parking and loading areas, traffic access and traffic circulation, open spaces, landscaping, refuse and service areas, utilities, sign~nd ya>~ (submit .:0 copies). Applicant LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to established procedure, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Meridian Planning and 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 for the property generally described as located at SUBDIVISION, BLOCK ,LOT TO APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. Name, address and prone number of applicant. Steiner Development, L. L. C. P. O. Box 190472 Boise, Idaho 83719 (208) 884-2076 2. Name, address and phone number of owner of subject property. Louis J. Steiner P. O. Box 190472 Boise, Idaho 83719 (208) 884-2076 3. Legal description of property. See Attachment A. 4. Proof of ownership of subject property (warranty deed) and notarized consent of property owner. See Attachment B. 5. Description of existing use. 8-acre farmland 6. Present use of subject property. Farmland 7. Proposed use of subject property. Single family detached - 46 units 8. The District (present zoning) that pertains to the subject property. R-4 . n, 9. Thirty (30) copies of a vilri>l~ity-map of a scale of one inch equals three hundred feet (1" = 300'). See Attachment C. 10. Characteristics of subject property which make a conditional use desirable. Infill site next to existing city annexed land. Property is for single family living located adjacent to a city owned golf course. 11. A listing of the mailing addresses of all property owners (from authentic taz records of Ada County) who are within three hundred feet (300') of the ezternal boundaries of the land being considered, and a list of all owners within the area being considered for a conditional use. See Attachment D. 12. A fee as established by the Council: $275.00 + $1.42 each for certified mailings. for each property owner listed within the 300 feet =Total Fee. The base fee is $275.00 plus $1.42 times 41 people 58.22 for a total of $333.22 13. A statement that the applicant or user of the property agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, if any, associated with the use, whether that use be residential, commercial or industrial. Applicant agrees with Statement No. 13. 14. The application shall be verified by the applicant which shall state that he has read the contents thereof and verifies that the information contained therein is true and correct. See Attachment E. 15. The property will be posted one week before the hearing stating they have applied for a Conditional Use Permit or Zoning. There must be a signed affidavit that this will be done as part of the application. See Attachment F. J:/winword/pls/fulapcup.doc . ~~ WARRANTY DEED J. t~hrl:~ ,.r.~-~~. ~iflls~ f~ FlR.ST' AME'AICAN r1'L E O0. '97 AP~t 1~ Piti ~ yy For Value Reoei+ed ~_ ~ t ~_ .. Jaat~c W. flt}ier asd Lois ]. P1tDrr, huibaod and uetJ: ~ .. ~ n c .~u:~E~7 aF heremaiter rcfczrcd to as Grantor. does berebf l~aut. bargain. sdl, and cae~y unto I.ouit ~. Strmcr, a aaarricd aaaa as ~ sok and aegarate property lteteiaatter rtlerred co u Grantee, whose rnrr~t address is SS4 Last Bellsvua itwd. Suits B Atttatss, CA 95301 the follo+~aR descn-bed premises. to-w~it SE£ F,3QiI$I? "A' ATTACHHD 11EaET0 A11D 1411D$ A PAH? HEREOF . Te HAVF• ANt? TA HO11) the said premises, nrlth their spplfttenane~s roan the c,~id f'~rr.~~, hia F,rfi arui a~signa forever. And rke said C.raoter dc~ hereby aweasat !o anal Frith thr. said t'rrarstee, that t`,rantt-r i~ the cya-tur is fee simple of nid ptaasises; that syd pstannex are frex frrxr+ s0 e:scr:zrsMarecr_s rirrTt nrrTrnt years taxes, itvies, and swCxsmests, and e~ocept t1 C. Pater+t rrseevatioaS ttettiUee~ere, ease. srerc of rernrd, xsee! essem~ts via7rie ulx+n the prerni~, and that t.tantex w-t71 w-arraet and detenA the same lrnrn all da;mc whatsoc+RS. Dated: ApvriJ 24, 1947. ~, . , ,, .Tw W, F1~t1•x 1 ~~i ~_ ~~~ Loi: J . fltllcr 4 p •, '2=f~i~Tar~r ~~% 0 3 STATE OF IDAH J ) COUNTY OF Ada ) kpU~L~G ~~ ,,: ~ >, .; O • 'sa .gT •~...•` ~~~•.•' Oa Tins ~ dsy of ~, is the year 1947, before mc, a Notary Public is and for ~~ aam tss~~ appeared James w Fi,l!cr and I.o~s !. Ftiller, itao~va ar idtarifitd io me to be the person( } strbsazbcd to t3~c eMithsr tstttrtsmcat. and sclmonuledged to me t • cs..cuud the ~ I;,~"~ tt*..r~rv t'ubiit of t~lahu ERxI8,~3' "A•• p~tCEL A A parcel of land situated fn the Northwest quarter of Section 3, Township 3 North, Range 1 west, Soise-Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, zdaho, and more particularly described as Yollows: ~ommencinq at the>, corner common co Section 3 ana 4 corner as shown on ~&r' instrument i~io. 182140, Pilo ~:ounty icecords, from wiiiCii cii2 SeCtiuii ~:Efii~2 ~:iJBuTiG71 to ~cC:tifi~iS ~i, y, iv 2t7~'a 3 +~+~aiS Sviiiia V~JO'la'' i:~S~ •,~~• •A a r, ~..~..~~ LOJi.i7 a8c~,, taaGia~.c *~~+a1. Ae~nlwnr t. i qn~~ ~n C..wi 1 LL r.~~~iw.~ L~VL 1.1a V JO i t a..a.^7~V, iVl.,. V3 100V QiVray Wa0 f•Cr~bCi ly liala Vf W~8 *TAr`L1.I. r+1. . w~.} Ar A O \ .7 ^. //~~ /.},: I\M /~ .1~ a~va vaawa.~~. ~Ma~ `G~ ~/• S~jM •~G~-rjy~~ ., `~/ qa. ~~rV~ N• w M~~ w w•.a •.va w•..c.a..oa+1 vvi ova' v~ vaFi~~~,,'-~r.+..l .i.~ww+L~~aw ~i T.''~wa~.°~iv'~~ M~ ~..ir r S yA.MM VV Va ~~N.*.vu CV~~AI•A~~I~N ~MI'1 i I'./'~YA AID Y~ I::st_~'.~~•~':t ~v GRA~GQaA ~nri '1'^,~1f~~L~ ~~ i:ff1'~~`:~~ ±^ rnrrent T nesC=;p*i_n rbc^~rin,i `s r„gt,•,,,~nn1r• u.. 95n75294 Adz rflL3lty oe~ rrla • f'hfaitf_•o- g--~---. cAl3t~~ $9°23' Od" East; 785, 01 feet 31~ans~ th9 Nol"thQrly ling of said parcel to the Northeasterly corner thereof: and the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing South 89°23'04" East, 257.01 feet to the centerline of Eight Mfle Lateral; thence along the centerline of said lateral through the following courses: South 56°28'32" East, 248.22 feet to a tangent curve; thence Southeasterly, along a curve to the right having a radius of 580.0 feet, an arc length of 132.85 feet, a central angle of 13°07'25", a chord bearing and distance of South 49'54'49" East, 132.56 feet to a point of tangency; thence South 43°21'07'• East, 398.04 feet; thence South 37°32.35" East, 273.07 feet to the Northerly line of the Southeast quarter of Lhe Northwest quarter of said section 3; thence :teaving said centerline of Eight I'ii.ie iatera3, along said Norther3y line, Souiii es3'les' SFs:a East, 531 . b i ieet to a line parallel ~viti'i 8f3d Edstetij- of i.~xe westerly line c~i the East Yia.'ti of the SCiiturast c~liaYtct of ~2 i3Gittiw23t t~uaitrr of sai~'i Section; ihen~:e slung' saii'i F7diaiZ2i 11712, w ~..a.. wnww.•,.o e7~~a .~...~ i.. t~~a aL~ 1~~..at ..-a ..~~_~ 3tJY `a1 V ' ~ Y ' 14 " Y+f C5 b , L V 7 . IV f 1 GC 4. t V LaaC 1Y IJl LlaC0.9 LCY. 1~ 4Nl aaQi V L uia ~ jai C¢i uc3GY'iicu yZ n._. s...~ r~_ _.a a.., a.r n: a.. e Sd41 M41a1JY a/GGL~ 1....I ..,~•2 ya `~ y< V.._: A: .i Tw..iw.w...wi •7.. ACA1 GppQ'f 'q .i •! /r,~. Mme.. raC;;4;41a fij1VL iCVyL 3e3 YJ J~li Vi •Y1~Cal.. •1 ~/. J~V iV{YJ4, l1VY VV ~...~ ~vVVi. b~.J ~ V•~~.nv~ Y~ily~~+I ~~'1 h},...i.l. ISM •• 7 4 MA I~~ l+1 ~.8 M•~Mwpl ~ .~ rr••~ J. V• ...•~~ 1s J~..~ Vv .d.•~•w ~,Yr vr.r y. r ~.~ .~ y v....~ . ~T~~ ~h O~ Omani 1 ~Qp Lie~t, 1 7~ ~ ZA I~e.a~ . fi~ar~~e Nn~ ~FF: ~ /t e I - ~ efl l ~N G7oct t ~d ZQ fAnt • thnn~n uo,+t, 79°02' 1g~~ wect, R1 , I6 fAPt; thence North 89°1$'49" West; 398.40 feet: thence South it°00'42" East, 399.24 feet: thence South 61°49'13" West. 165.3? feet; thence North 42°43'29" West, 283.07 feet; thence North 13 °56' 20" ;,lest, 266.06 feet; thence North 8°25'07'• West, 125.42 feet; thence North 5°49'Ob" West, 249.89 feet; thence North 35°28'22" West. 7?.OS feet; thence North 42°31'18" West, 70.53 feet; thence North 53°15'09" West, 86.07 feet; thence North 55°28'32" West; 79.07 feet; thence North 63°13'16" West, 65.34 feet; thence North 78°05'29" West, 71.13 feet; thence North o 89°23'04" West, ! said Warrant 80. g4 feet to a corner on the Easterly Line Deed t B i y said Northerly l o r ghton Corporation; thence leaving ine, along said Easterly line through the following courses: NOrth O°36'5~i" East, 115.OU teat; thence Norco 5~3r~'22" Ease, 50.1y feet; thence ivorca G°"so ° 56^ ~:21$L, iiu. uu feet to the i~'Vi3~'P Dg FsEGirir7livts. a,'~&CWL 8: ~i Gt tali Si•. ~..ou Iii .c ~~vL~i1WCO~ aiuni•.2iv~. SeC•,.~ui. .-, ToMriia~lik, ~ iti8r'~,~a, Raaya 1 *a12sv., L'aix-•~caidlaTs, ^.ity of :~t2ridian ~a ..., ~•. /!. • X , .L4aa~V, {ialV W~~ 2 j./~L •.L~rY14~i~ dGr~`.yl jLel~i 3o f V~1VA3 . C^_mreTcing »t rte 'l. corner cv~cn *v coY*i v.^. 3 and 4 cQrr_~ as shorn oR CP&~' Tnstr+rRPrt NO. ?$3145, ?~da ~otlrty Records, groin which the sPetion corner comts~orr to .Sectione 4; 9, 10 and 3 bears Soutk~ 0°38'11" West; Z6S1.1.9 feet; thence North 0°3A'27p Bast, 22.64 feet alone the Westerly sine of the Northwest quarter of said Section 3 to a 5~8" iron pin marking the extended Southerly line of the Northsast quarter of said Section 3; thence South 88°55'29" East, 19?7.T6 feet to a point on the Westerly line of the East half of the Southeast quarter of the 1~orthwest quarter of said Section 3; thence North 0°30'18" East, 277.67 feet along said Westerly line to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing North 0°30'18" East, 91.97 feet along said line to the Northerly corner of that parcel described in Correction Quitclaim Deed to the City of_Meridian, recorded as Instrument No. 95016892, Ada county Records; thence along the Northerly line of said parcel through the following courses: Southwesterly, along a non-tangent curve to the lair having a radius of 375.0 feet, an arc length of 265.77 iQQt, a c~trai arigie of 41 ° i3 ° vy .e , i olYOrd b~s~trng dl~ei distat~ca of Souui 3i=ii'slQ° vast, Zv'3.93 feat; thence, tange,-~t f%OTu Saiu ~~e ~ w Cw. • ~. • L ~• w L L. L ~ a~u .ad .a-t•~Ci jnAe~., oti.1~ 1~ss~. w a ~.ail~sa'1~ C1ii"vas; t21~aiCc JvY W 20$ 1.CL lY ~iV~~ Sai•A bKi V G b~ W/G iGl ~. i•p v iJ~~ a J. rav.L ~aa Cr i v . ~ ~8~t, oa• n~C ~~.i~u v~ 3Cr.+3 sit, .Z C~ii.~i3i wTiy1,C,`. rf 35°+3' S3° 3 Ch^"'~ ~AaM~ MP. ~...3 A: a~F~•1..,a C~r , VL V r..i 1.•y .... .~.~.~ ~•{a. 4.~ Qii~~F. 1 7 O ~ A i ~ C q L`~5 ~ 77 .~..~. f.°.C} ~.~ i w ~r~. ~ •.n.w~~.~w,vswt ! •W~ 4 .......... ~.. _ .. .... .... .. ...... rc cr ~ti'O'i :° le«Y~ rN gai.i 2JO~'tti:er1 ~ 1 i •,o -i . 3 Q..~ ~ O.. 7:~*°.r~t r~.~r.so 1+4 ~h°- lgft ~!0.v? nR a rari i »c ~f 5$ @ , ~ f ggt f an ~re1 lgr~nt,,h q~ 177 , 03 ~F±Pl~, ~ C41'1t'r8i 1 a»gle of 14°54'SB", a ah.ord baaxi,ng and d.stanca of Ncsth. 63°],1'31" West; 176.53 feet to a point of nee-tangency; thence North 19.7057" East, 195.81 feet to the Southerly line of said Correction ouitclaim Deed; thence along said southerly line through the follow~.ng courses: South 66"28'40" East, 157.70 feet to a non-tangent curve; thence Northeasterly along said curve to the right having a radius of 425.0 feet, an arc length of 288.85 feet, a central angle of 38°56'31x, a chord bearing and distance of North 63°04'llx East, 283.33 feet to a point of non-tangency; thence North 0°30'15x East, 154.10 feet; thence North 11°45' 15x East,. 185.'77 feet; thence North 78 ° 33' 49'' East, 182. '71 zees; thence SOUtA. ~9°29'45" $dSt, $O.UO Ieec to Llle Corner of said Corrected c~ui.zciaim Deed to the City or" Meridian; thence leaving said Southerly line 5c~lith t3 = 30 ' 28 •• We3t, 534 . ~5 f CCL aitri'iy a .~1I'j2 EaBtL~Y .ty Cif 3~5iu pairaiie.I. wi'Lt`I t`16 'i+iFsStreTlj~ iirilc Of tta6c Ea~i iaaif Of tae SOUthGos~ ~uaitci Gi tiic iriGru~lSiAc`sti"j'uaitGi Gf Scli~ .~ae~2Gi~; ta'Ze-~C2 •j....A4 A A ° 19 ~ 9 / x t~1...+a• '~ s ~ g " f ^t~'' ~ t::2.'I 2 SCL't:: BICO~~'?lx W~~~., Et .'T~ !`~~t; the.*:ca ?~o~t~ g? e 7 9 ~ 3 ~ x Wept ~ 1 4 . $ ~ ~e±gt ~ tt):nhns *tor*~ 89 °? fl' SR" Wes+, , 5.17 fsAt tQ the PQIrr!' aF BEG2NATINC.. ~~c~~ ~ ; A parcel of land situated in the North half of the South half of Section 3, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise-Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and being more particularly described as fal~.ows; Commencing at the '~. corner common to Sections 3 and 4 corner as shown on CP&F Instrument No. 782146 Ada County Records, from which the section corner common to Sections 4, 9, 10 and 3 bears South 0°38'11" West, 2651.19 feet; thence North 0°38'Z7" East, 22.64 feet along the Westerly line of the Northwest quarter of saki Section 3 to a 5 / 8 ^ iron pin mar3cinq the ~ctended southerly line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 3 ; t'.11enCe South 8$"SS'29" East, 1977.7b feat to a point on the Westerly line of the East half of the Souuie$sz quarter of the Noruawesz quartet of saia Section 3 ; ithence South u ~ 3u' lt's x west, 5 . Sb iraet along acid w~,streriy ii33a tG a mint Ycaricir-i~ t37a ir'arthwcst cvrnaz of t.`~a ciortheasi. ~aarter of t„Ia ciucthaast quarter of MLLC SuuiiaW~a~ tj7iar`e~i ~+~' aoi~ Se3CtlOsa ~ y~ }~l1 •.^ 1 • 1, T.?.. ..} / I,'7 A9 0... ...} 1 i1. .. t7 }..~1.~ 1j ~. v. .~i~ -~ S.+vth V .I V 1i AGCi •., 7 / . JJ 4CG1. fit V~~43 wa0 . ~rJ V~rii j LYi .~.i~r *~....i~. J. ...• M}i'1M R }i~.~ *;i.v+l•.~9 G•F ~+•3~r~~~ ~,~ +..~+o Cn~~4~7•f~seSt a.v~. ~ci~u.. y~3a ~.~.i O.. ....~ • ... r..r.rr.. ..jam ~. uv vv .r. •.. M•.J Mi•AM AQ ~~Z~ vw^vt.~^.:: .~. ~.^. .}..y:~ ~.°.^ r-~.~~ ~; i:+ CJf ~~;h~ ~i~lo Y~Y.Y~ rr.r V r Ti..°.t~~31 , ~~1::' tl~e Df~TjJT fJF ~~'rTNUTTiijC~ t1~u~;~n $~~t4;)~n?~tnrl cf 31 nYits t~±o Gt3rt'arl i ng of 83?.t~ 1 a}gra 1 thrAtat~t}~ tY1e foil nt,,ti »c3 r~»r~g~ x South 58°54'11" Fastj 276.46 feet to a tangent curve; thence Snuthpasterly ~14nq a G~trvQ to the r~.aht having a rad~.us of 100.a 'feat, an arc length of 59.46 feet, a central arivle of 34°04'10", a chord bearing and distance of " South 51°52'06" East, 58.59 feet to a point of tangency; thence South 34°50'01" Eastr 292.99 feet; thence South 8948'41" East, 24'7.34 feet; thence leaving said centerline of Bfght Mile Lateral South 35°00~00* East, 176.30 feet; thence South 22°15'00" West, 60.05 feet to a paint on the Northerly boundary °f CORY I+ANE VILI+AGE Nq. 1 SUBDIVISION, as shave on the official plat thereof recorded in Book 44 of Plats at Pages 3537 through 3539, Acsa County Recores; thence HoZ'th 43°58'iou West, 75.57 feet along the Northerly boundary of sale succivision to a poinr mar3cinq the lvortiaeriy corner of Lat 2 of 3 iocit 3 ; thence Saute 50 =vG ° GGR west, 3x5.46 feat along sail :3ort3~arl~- ta'~e southwesterly ri5h4-.af--~:a r bound~~y to _. , y Iine of Y,`~t@i laChe:a •~-a tu6iaCa C."STa~•ualyiaa~ n.iGry Svid ijur+a.ri2a 1 ~••••••• ~ ~~ Y ~va+I'iun~. Y , aiaar $Gu tiawea a~.ea". i" right-cf--c~ai, line cf Irtarla:.uzr; Way = 8 of P?oc?t ?~ ~ ~t~e -.40 :eMM tc the *Jrr'..he: I.y .^~rrer of *.ot o_ nwrw*?DE.n pT.~m ng Cs?~v~v T-.a*IE VILL•aGE N4. ~ SEJ3D-TT~ISIDAT, 3~ Qhown Or tie Offi ~i a1 p1 of t2zArop~ TR7L+~T[~Af~ ~a nook n5 of pZ?ts at pages 354? ai!d 3548, Ac~a. County Ne~lcds; thence Sonth 61°~7~33N West, 149.16 feet along the Northerly boundary oP said Amended Subdivision to the extended Northerly right-of- way of the Safford Sub Lateral; thence North 66°05'30" Aest, 396.5? feet along said extended right-of- t,~ay to the Westerly Iine of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section North30° pP11M Eastg ?453?efeetltolthe pplN'P OF SEGINNIN G. ~nRe~ n. A parcel or iancl 25 feet in wiath, situated in the NortrivesL Quarter of Section 3, rownsnip 3 North, y~ge 1 west, Boise- tK®ridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and lying Within the night-of-way of ~iorra islac3c Cat Egad, being more particularly described as follows: Comme»c:ing at the ; corner- c:o~7floi~ to section 3 a$d •: corner as 3iio'~Yi Ci3l ~~&r ins~„Zu,~ant i3o. ?oai46, Atis ~OiL']tj~ R@a;,ords, fiGTD WZ'aiCii ~"i+c 52GtiGit ~.G~Za~ ~.va'iL~1~7ia ~O S2Ct;ivI13 'ai'awTa Svuwil ^v°r3""in cr....~. wee. 7.. „-,~ '~i 3, lv nia: a*vrw• O 4 f ~ +ntsa~, OaJ.iy..a~ ;asvs~~ ~• a.usiZ~o O ~V v'a1 ~~Jt, '~a~V •(,i9 i~i4v , ~. ~. 47.. l~ ~? 1• ~}{~ a~:.rg t r a i~v~- 4~iw P..~r ~ ~• Yf ~M.C r.~.r ~. ~~ ~Zne ~~ i..}:ti `+ .ate ~f Ca..1-i - ~-~- - -......_c:z 3 tc ~~s Ncrt ss±erl• c tti~~ r~~"=~1 ties== i 1~eLi ~n ~~~e;tlnn A~~ i i~.-1 ~~ f .r_^.er Q~ r'o=„=,rat_7r rA.-n o ~------~ Deod 1tp Pr2~ht~J*! !"t~_d ag TZ±g1ti^~t~~ol!t Nn, QSD1689? , _1iC'~~l CO»I11;v P_a3GG~'d8, ?31d the PQTNT OF t~FC;TNNiNG .• ~Z3c41'-C4 CD1'~t1T1t17.na Ncr'~h 0038 ~ 27~~ East; 12'70.40 feQt ala~ag ~aa.a ~testerly line+to the southwesterly corner of that parcel dQSCribed in Warranty Deed to $~-xghtnn Corporation: recazded as instrument No. 95016890 as madif led by Affidavit to Correct Legal Description recorded as Instrument No. 9675294; thence along the Southerly line of said Warranty Deed South 89°23'04" East,. 25.00 feet to the Easterly right-of-way line of North Hlaclc Cat Road; thence South 0°38'27" West, 1270.41 reef along the said Easterly line to the Nort'r-eriy line of said Correction Quitclaim Ueed; thence ivortii d9~2i'33:: west, 25.GG z"eet along said ivortneriy line ~c uye ruiN t uF~ .isEt=3Nriirii,. EXHIBIT "B" ~~. 4 } trop Pin ~ -------- INSiR. /850161)90 PARCEL 'D' ~ 0.73 acres 3 °c 3 ~ ~~ s/s- iron Pi w i/4 N 0 c 3 ., 9 10 i ~' ,+.. TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGV!1EERING CO. _•,C~NeERS SURVEYQRS P;~-Nn.?RS 9777 C}iINOEN 80UlEVARO 8015E. IDAHO 837td-~~G~ ~..n.,r. ^,na tuft _~~oa CsY• 7nA~~7'S-?tC~+ • $~ ~ ~.~ PARCEL 'A' 15.20 acres iNS~. ~ 9501Q89$ PARCEL 'B' 4.68 acres ~~ C-E-w 1/tia S line NE 1/4 Mr51R. / 85016tl92 PARCEL 'C' f-- 8.52 acres Total Rer~a~n~ng Acres = 29,13 f Q ~ _ is : - : x c "J { N.F' ~ i a ~ k~h ~ ~ 6~1+ .l~i E~ bi ~~ ~: 4~ ° a N ~ EI " A II ` ~ ~r ~ i~C ~ n r~ iir~ ~ rr rll ll~ rC ~iY ~r ~ 1~ C~ Ili . ~~ r~ ~G f~~ : ~~ir~ . . " r~ ~r N ' ri ~l~ " ~ ~~ C~ ~r i~ rr r~ rr ' Y a ~ir 6a iirr ~y r'r r~M r~ g Y ~~i ~G r t, ~r ~I ~u K ~~ ~~ ~.~ ~r ~~G ~H rr q~q P ~ .~ ~Yl~~ [, fiii t~ r ~G ~~ rara Fa, ww ' riG Q~ ~ a y~ r N~ ~ r ~ ` ~ e Gc - ''n. r r ~~ rr .~ i t .ee",e,er g m . 4 ! ~ e3 ._ 4 ~ i ~ ~~~~ m°4c~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~$ m~m~ ~_Oa X ! 1 ~ i r4i `e p PVO ~ ~ ~~ i a a I a ~ ~ ~~~ r ~tp ., 9 ~ ~ 1~ ~s R '.- ~ • . t =~ j ! 4 ~t l~ j 1(' t~~~~t~~~~#~~}~~E t ~ e i i ~ ?~ ~ ~ ~~ ~i :~~ i~ ~_ ~~ #3i~~ ~ s~l~a =,~ I ~ t ~~ t i~ ~~ ~r ~_ 8 2~ ~ t~ ~~#}~~ ~~ t ,:~~~rr , ~~'I°.~ I:;I. ~i`} ~ ~ f E i I! l3lRaigigig~~S~iB~iS~§~Iii~Ri~$$ ~q ~ ~ A 7~~pR aA~9;1~t ~~~~~~~~ ~. ~~~ t j~ a aaa ~e ~ ! 9 ~ ~ ~~ ~~~'~ ~~~1~~ ~~~a~~~i~l i 6 ~ d ~ b~~~ :~~~ ~ $ i 9~~° f ~~ ~ ~ ~ Nm9.' gsoF~ N a , a ~ - - L 3 _ • i K y l. ~ ~ D N ooiO ^~ t w I yy a a'mvm n ~is[ ~ N D ~ b ~~ i ~ -t ~n s ~ ar v ~ ~ ~ ~~ : g Z ~ ~ ~~ D a ~ ~ ~ x 8 ~ ~ D ~ x ca. a i- ` ~ m :. ~ ~ ~ N ~ !C! it ~. N 0o O O ~4 I ~. Of W X '((• ~E 1v` -4~ ' ~ ~ jj v _~ ~, ~ ` f r. r~ ~ J ~ ~, ~m j~ ~j. ~ ~ ~ r `~~ -N ~ -~ w - o m" ~ ~N _: ~ ~ U W N m A ~ w DALY LANE ^~ ~ - v / ~' 1 w p ~ m m Q 9 ~ N EGA ~ N / ~ . V ~ ~ ~ ~ N (D fA r Q W~ s- N ~~a~ Y/ n W ~ N _ W O~ ~ A ~'~ ~~.~ ~ ~ ~ .~~~ O~ ~~~ ~ f~~//rr''~~ -`ti ~~~~ ~ a~ ~ w m qty ~ ~ ~" -~- ~ m ~ N N o/~1~ a %~ '~' m S s W ~ ~ _ W _ J ~ ~ _ N ~ * ~ ~ U m ~ ~ ~ ~~ S /' ~Z, _% _ u ~~~~\\ \~ / ~ ~ tea,'\J~... ~ N OD \ 'I ` v (f1 U I ~~/ ~ /`. ,. 1 ~, s - - ~ ~' ~ ~1 ; , ''~ ~`. ; ~ i s ~' 7 .q,. m y m u A W ro ~ ~ r ~ ,~ ~ --- 1 !'I ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I -~'`~ ` '" ~ ~ - 1 ~ ~' I ~ ~^' 'J.M 1~2i2i39N2if11 'N a L~ ~ ~~ ; ~ ~ ~' "._-' ' ~ ~` \` ~ a ~ e~N. ROBIE AVE 1_. - /~ ~ _ i ~~ ~, . • ,__ . . __ ~ _ ~ ~ . ~, ~ ~ ~ O ~, m ~ o ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ** DATE TIME TO/FROM 30 01/12 15 17 208 378 0025 33 E Idaho Meridian, Id. 83642 Phcne; 888~a33 Fax 887-4873 FaX AS OF JAN 12 '98 15 19 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS EC--S 01'55" 006 245 OK City of M erid ian Planni ng 8~ Z oni ng To: I'td r Q. ~ P L i~one Shari stiles Fax: ~ I-1Z 98 PhO"°~ 3 ~ R- 00 L 5 P,~ss- 5 Re: CC: 0 Vet ^ For Review ^ Please Comment ^ Please RelNy ^ Please Recycle •Commente: i ~ ~. .1tt._.. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: December 9.1997 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 6 REQUEST: PRESENTATION OF CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presen±ed at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 4 ~ STEINER pEVELOPMENT. lLC 4 December 1997 Via Fax: 887-4813 City of Meridian Planning $ Zoning Commission 33 E. Idaho Meridian Ip 83842 Attn: Shari Stiles RE; Conceptual Plan "The Villas at The Lakes" Dear Shari: Steiner Development respectfully requests being placed on the PAZ calendar meeting of December 9~' for a review of .the subject matter. The proposed development is located east of Black Cat Road between Ustick and Cherry Lane, comprises 8.53 acres and contemplates 48 building lots. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, Sincerely, /~ tx: CoRespondence File I'c.~, BO,~c I ~ 0~11~> BOISE, ID 8~/ 19 ~Z08i 88~-')p~G FnX: (20Fi1 HH'I-1086 DEC 04 '97 12 16 - PAGE. 02 S'T'EINER DEVELOPMENT. LlC 4 December 1997 Via Fax: 887-4813 City of Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission 33 E. Idaho Meridian ID 83842 Attn: Shari Stiles RE; Conceptual Plan "The Villas at The Lakes" Dear Shari: Steiner Development respectfully requests being placed on the P8Z calendar meeting of December 9'" for a review of the subject matter. The proposed development is located east of Black Cat Road between Ustick and Cherry Lane, comprises 8.53 acres and contemplates 48 building lots. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, ./~ cc: CoRespondence File DEC 04 '97 12 16 PAGE.02 r w t m m ti l ,~~ I m ~ ^ ~' Q ` li Y 1n Y h ._ N M) ~ Y N .r r 3 ,r 3ieoa 'N ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ N M '~ N N I N 1 N I -, ~~ L~ °-1, ~l ~~ '-~1.. ~~ ~ of it ! ti M^ ~ l/ L ~ ^~ ~- ~ fs ` 1 ,.1 ~. '''~ a ~~ ~ `, N y ~ i , _ ,p 'r .. t , 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ r7 c ,c ~ \ d ~.~~ i~ ~ • ~ 1 `, ~ ~ /\/ ~ l _ / s n ` /: ', .=~, m s~ I 1 O N ~ W. m 1i' r' Y ~~, e~ ~, N ~ ~ ~ ~ A N ~ ~ y ~~ N N I N ~' • 4 W ~ N GJ ~ N •~ N N 3NY1 A'IYa ~ ~. m N • m ~./~ N / V` y Nr N N ~ C! ~ _~~ .J N 1~ W' .~ ~ j ; :;1, ' _~ .. ~ ~~t n ~~ a N . ~~ `1 i1~~. "t n :; WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" CORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 Legal Department (208) 884-4252 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERH)IAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: January 6, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 12/17 /97 HEARING DATE: 1/13 /98 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat for The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision _BY: Steiner Development LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest of Chem Lane Village No. 1 JIM JOHNSON, P2 MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P2 BYRON SMITH, P2 KEITH BORUP, P2 ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT -BUILDING DEPARTMENT -FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT -CITY ATTORNEY -CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: kEOUEST r~Jk SiJBDIVISION APFnOVAL PRELIMIrIAkY PLAT ANDiOfi FINAL PLAT PLANN?:1v Al{D ZONING COMMISSION TIME TABLE FOR SUBMIE.~ IC`! A request far pre!,rninar• lat y p app. ova_ roust be in ttie City Cierks pos~e~sicn ~a later than three days iollawing the re_Iular meFting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning ar~d Zar,ing Commission will hear the request a~ the monthly meeT_nct following the month the request was made. Alter a proposal enters the p-rncess it may be acted upon at subsequent mor,tt,iy meetings provided tt,e necessary procedures and dccumentatZOn are received before 5:+00 P. M., Thursday following the Plar,r,ing and Zoning Commission action. GENEkAL INF~fiMA LION 1. Name of Anne:•:ation and Subdivision. mhP y; 1 1 a. at the Lakes Sub 2. General Location, Nc,rthwest of Cherry Lane Village No 1 3. Owne_^s of record, ~; s J Steiner Add-rees~ P.O. Box 190472 Zip 83719'elephone 884-2076 ~- Applicant, Steiner Development Address. P.O Box 190472 L.L.C. Boise, Idaho 83719 ~• Engineer, Keith Jacobs P.E. Firm Pacific Land Surveyors Addr•ess1295 S. Eagle Flight Wa~Zip 38 709 Telephone 378-6304 6. Name and address to receive City billings:. Name Doug Campbell StP~ nPT- nP~~P1 onmA=itiress P.O. Box 190472 Telephone 884-2076 Boise, Ida o 8 PRELIMINAP.Y PLAT CHECALIST• Subdivision Features 1. Acres 8.53 1. Number of lots 48 3. Lots per acre 5.63 4. Den~a.ty per ac: e ~ .18 5. mooning Class~ficat~onts~ R-4 N ~ W m 10~ I o I u j'~E av\ :~ - c r ~_"' ~ ti 1 z ~oio_ 1"' / -~ +v ~ ~ lam`: w ~ o m m W N ~t7"~y /~'~ ~ ~ DALY CANS 7 ~. • P 1 \ D ~ A N OGA fNii m + m ~ `~ W r p A ~~ w ~ m G ~ +' 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ m m m ~~ 1 r h 3 I' N N ~ ~ CT (O W N O N r N .~ r I rn m\~ ~ c \ \~ ~^ °' w ! ~ ~.^ . a ~ ~,w ~ ~ ~ ` N O ~~ - /~_ i ~ ~ \. ao %~ T' _~~ ~~ ~ ~ / \ ; ~ / '~ ~,~ ~ /~.., a;. _ ~-- \ _, ~ ~ -c w ~ `A /, ~~, ~ '\ _. ~ \` 1 _ ~, --~ ! ~ .r ~ Icy ~ ~ ~ / 1V r_ ~ n ~ \ ^ 1/ ~ A • ~ N ~~ ` to . ~ P "_ / f N 1 _ ~. ~' .1 fir-.'. ~,~1- , ~ - `" - ~ ~ --._ ~~1~_ ••, ~,, ~,_ °v4 G fly 2 '~ '9tA S S nEt~UEST r~JR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PkELIMItIAkY PLAT AND~ufi FINAL PLAT PLANNING A11D ZONING COMMISSION TIME TABLE Fi]R :=UHMIS~I1=i `!: A request far pre±~rninary plat a{,pr~ovai must be in the City Cierks pusse~sicn na later than thrEe days iollawing the reryular meeting of zhe Planning and Zoning CommZSSion. The Planning ar~d Zar,ing Camrnissior, will hear the request at the monthly meeT__nq following the month the request Was made. Alter a proposal crater's the process it may be acted upon at ~ubsequer~t mor,ti~iy meetings provided the nece~sar f procedures and documentation a-re recesved beio•re 5:toOr. M. , Thursday following the Plarir,ing ar~d Zoning Commission action. GENEkAL INFOfiMATION 1. Name oY Ann e:•;ation and Subdivision. ThP villas at the Lakes Sub 2. General Location, Nc,rthwest of Cherry Lane Village No. 1 3. Owners of record, T~,o „_S J. Steiner Address, P.O. Box 190472 ,?ip 83714'elephone 884-2076 ~. Applicant, Steiner Development Address. P.0 Box 190472 L.L.C. Boise, Idaho 83719 5. Engineer, Keith Jacobs P.E. Firm Pacific Land Surveyors Address1295 S. Eagle Flight Wa~'Zip 38 709 Telephone 378-6304 6. Name and address to -receive City billings: Name Doug Campbell StP~nPr nP~ lonmAdtiress P.O. Box 190472 Telephone 884-2076 _ Boise, Ida o 8 PkELIMINARY PLAT CHEChLI~T: Subdivision Features 1. Acres 8.53 2. Humber of lots 48 3. Lots per acre 5.63 4. Density per ac: e ~ .18 5. mooning Clas_~ficationts~ R-4