Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents Cedar Springs AZ 00-019 and PP 00-018 2Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 64 not next to already existing things. Those are the kinds of things to me that is kind of a give and take of how you try to use this plan and then get your ordinances and put it into place going forward, but looking at those types of things, you know, trading off some of those things, providing incentives, not necessarily built -- always having to have the city taxpayers build a park or build a fire station, but to get a developer to build a fire station or provide inexpensive property to build a Fire Station on as a trade off for something else, something else that's reasonable that the city also would like to have. But like the neighborhood center concept, to get someone to do that you may have to trade off density something or else that — Siddoway: We tried that by density incentives there, so -- Nary: And those are the kinds of things I'm thinking -- that's kind of where this blueprint has to go forward and make ordinances to do that. Siddoway: Yes the Commission can entertain one other purpose of the line. The other side of it can be used, you know, more like a growth boundary -- I don't really support that, because that's what I think the impact area is. But there is a lot of interest -- there is some interest, anyway, in curtailing development beyond it. Shreeve: But isn't there some agreement with the county that we are to provide services within, what, another seven years? Siddoway: I think so. Freckleton: And that's to the impact area. Shreeve: And if I understand right from -- or if I recall right from the reading to the USPA, we figure it's either there or at least within five years, is that -- am I recalling correctly? Siddoway. I don't understand. Borup: That service would be within five years. Shreeve: Five years for that matter. I guess what I'm questioning is, well, what's two more years to the impact line, if I recall that. Borup: And it doesn't state that we have to provide services, isn't it that the plan has to be in place and a way to provide services needs to be -- or what -- how is that -- Siddoway: I don't know the exact wording. I know the city has committed to be to providing services. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 65 Borup: And doesn't the sewer plan tell us how services will be provided? Siddoway: We have a -- Borup: Fire Station locations, you know, things like that. Siddoway: Yes. Borup: If we are going to have to provide services there, we are in a lot of trouble. It's not going to happen. Shreeve: To the impact line, is that what you're saying? Borup: Right. I mean -- and I don't think anybody expects that. I know we don't Nary: I think you're right. I think it's -- can you provide the service to that. Borup: That's what I was hoping. I mean that was what I understood. Nary: I don't know that you have to -- I mean I don't know. Borup: I think we would all be interested in knowing -- Freckleton: By virtue of our facility plans that we have developed we have proven that, but I don't know that that satisfies the agreement with Ada county. I didn't -- Borup: Could we get some clarification on that agreement? Shreeve: Because, you know, let me just ask you a hypothetical question. Say a guy comes between the lines, between the impact line and between the first USPA, somewhere in there. Simply put, can we just say no, we don't want to approve you, because you're between that line. Or do we need to say, hey -- I guess -- and if we can do that, if we could just, you know, simply say, well, you're in there, no, because you're inside the USPA, and I'm thinking, well, if we have to serve them within a seven year time frame potentially anyway, you know, are we just developing another step of bureaucracy with this line. Nary: I think the intent is to try and get growth in the city to go from the core out and not out in, in different leapfrog fashion. Shreeve: But you can stop that by virtue of you just don't have the sewage -- for example, this subdivision tonight. You know, well, Kevin, we just don't have it out there, you can take your own risk, you can do whatever you want we just don't Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 66 have it. So by virtue of that you're growing from inward out, so we are not committing ourselves that we have got to just run a line clear out in the middle of nowhere for no reason. I guess by virtue of that, I guess I still don't understand -- you know, because we still have that controlling function that just can't get out there, whether we wanted to or not, we just simply can't do it, so why have the line at all? Why make that designation? Borup: My other concern is if we have got seven -- we had ten years, you know, and we are back at someplace and they are turned down on an application, then can they go to the county and get their project approved there? It's outside of the city's control. You know, we are not going to have any say in what happens. And it's obvious that we are not going to have services in our whole impact area. That's why I'm interested in the definition, some way that we control what happens within those boundaries. Or in seven years is the whole thing wide open to anybody that wants to come along? Siddoway: Well, I think that's what we have seen happen. I mean you have seen all these developments that they come to us and they don't get a favorable recommendation, they go to the county and try and develop an urban density -- Borup: Well, it hasn't happened yet. They are trying, but -- Freckleton: We had one of them go before the County Commissioners. Siddoway: Well, we have had three, but they weren't approved. Freckleton: Right. Borup: That's what I was trying to say. Freckleton: One of them has been approved, but there has been several go before the County Commissioner. Borup: And why have they not been approved? Freckleton: Just simply put, out of respect from the city. Siddoway: Yes because they say -- at least one of them -- I know they said if this isn't -- if this isn't sprawl, I don't know what is, and this is in the impact area and it should be under the -- you know, the city's jurisdiction and develop it if the city would like it. Not all the Commissioners feel that way, but that's how the city feels and we were glad that one went that way. Nary: And that's always the debate is that issue of is that outside in versus inside out and the city's preference versus where to develop, because the land's cheaper further out than it is in and that's what the -- that's why they'd like to Meridian Planning and zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 67 develop that way. That's why I said one of the things the city might want to look at is that offering incentives. You know, if there is going to be something -- if you want them to develop closer to you and pay higher prices for the land, you're going to have to give them something to make it worth their while to do that, otherwise, they are going to -- and eventually either the County Commission may change or if they see repeated after repeated denials of these projects, the developers will say we will build it -- we will build a sewer plant, if that's your concern, we'll do something on the sewer side, we'll pay for it, then the risk is that at some point the Commission might say Meridian doesn't seem to want to grow, maybe they need to readjust their impact boundary and we are going to improve those projects and now we are right on the edge of that and that's I think where the debate is on that particular issue and right now the north Meridian area is being considered with those committees and such, so that you don't end up with that kind of sprawl. That's the hope that -- if you're working together then you can find a way to get that incentive to get that built. Shreeve: No. I completely understand. I guess I just -- you know simply put, sewer, water, you're limiting the line, rather than actually having a line, you just -- another question. The sewer, what's the stand on those treatment facilities, individual -- it sounds like they are -- you're going to approve them and I don't -- you know, they have been talking, even when I lived here before, regionalization, get away from those things, and now that they are entertaining those things it is ridiculous. Freckleton: Brad Watson has had a lot of -- he's done a lot of research into this. I know there are neighboring states that will not approve them -- will not approve the Sewer District, package plant type concept. I guess I'll kind of defer that to him. Shreeve: You know, I -- my personal opinion is, is I'm against that. But, on the same token, you know, again, the argument, if Meridian is not willing to expand out and get those people and, you know, there should be private enterprise that potentially could step in. I mean it's a free market world, you know, so I guess, you know, I tend to want to have Meridian have that business, but on the same token, you know, it's a free market world and to hold people up from that, you know, it's a pretty good argument, in my opinion. Freckleton: Yes. The point I was trying to make earlier is people get focused in on sewer and water. When you're trying to develop urban densities, you got to look at sewer -- or I mean, excuse me, schools, you got to look at police, fire, all the other services that are essential. Shreeve: Which goes back to this definition which may answer the question of sewer. Yes, you can get a treatment plant, but you don't have a school, you don't have which -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 68 Freckleton: Yes and it takes 10 minutes for us to get there to respond to a fire or whatever, you know. Those things that would be items kind of get overlooked and I think they are very important. Shreeve: Sally's getting anxious. Norton: That's all right. I'm just ready to fall asleep. I do have some questions about who's going to handle the meeting next Thursday, Keith, if you're going to be late. Borup: Anybody have a preference? Nary: I can start it. I don't have a problem with that. Shreeve: I second that. Norton: I third it. Moore: Can I ask you a question? 6:30 or 7:00? Nary: It's noticed up at 6:30. Moore: 6:30? All right. Borup: I thought we had talked about 7:00. That would help a little bit, but -- Nary: I think we did, but I saw the notice and it says 6:30. Siddoway: Remember the motion. It was 6:30. Nary: It was. Shreeve: Right. Nary: Yes I've got it written down at 6:30. Siddoway: Brad Hawkins -Clark will be the staff member from P & Z here. I might also mention that in the motion they requested three things from staff. One was this map, one was a summary of the testimony from that last meeting and Brad is working on that and third was the notice to the media and Brad is also taking charge of that. Shreeve: You want to make sure that Bill is on TV. Norton: Thank you, Steve. I appreciate that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 69 Siddoway: Thank you. Nary: The map is great. Thank you. Shreeve: I make a motion to adjourn. Norton: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Meeting adjourned at 10:23 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK Meridian City Council Meeting June 19, 2001 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:30 P.M on Tuesday June 19, 2001 by Mayor Robert D. Corrie. Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Keith Bird, Ron Anderson, Tammy de Weerd and Cherie McCandless. Others Present: Gary Smith Corrie: Okay. Thank you for your patience. I'm sorry we're getting started 15 minutes later tonight. I want to welcome everybody here. If you've got any cell phones, I would appreciate it if you'd turn them off. I guess I'd better do mine too hadn't I? This may seem, its going to be a little complicated, but we'll walk you through it. We're going to get as much done tonight as we can on these Public Hearings. What we don't get to, we're going to do them next week on Wednesday night, the 27th. All non -land use items, such as final plats and that nature, we'll do on the 26th. That's a regular meeting. We'll see where we are by pretty close to 10:00. Then those that we don't get to on the Public Hearings, we will have them next week on the 28th and getting everything done this month. (inaudible discussion) Corrie: 27th, I can't get California out of my mind here. But the 27th. I'll kind of go along and let you know where we are here. We figure that we want to get everything out of here by this month because if we don't we just keep adding to the next one and the next one. Pretty soon, we've got 50 Public Hearings in one night and we never do get to them and they just keep dragging on. We will try that and see how it works. Mr. Clerk would you have roll call please. Item 1. Roll -call Attendance: X Tammy de Weerd X Ron Anderson X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird X Mayor Robert Corrie Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Corrie: Okay. The next item is the adoption of the agenda. Council, we've been requested by legal to table D. Mr. Nichols, would that be the 27th that you had that down or the 3rd? Nichols: Mayor, we can have it on the 27th Corrie: I would say then that legal would like to have it the 27th. We have a request on department reports item No. 4 Ashford Greens subdivision, No. 5 storm drainage easement, Mr. Smith, that one has been taken out, correct? Meridian City Council Meeting June 19, 2001 Page 2 Okay. Item No. 6, this is a final plat approval of Bear Creek. They have requested that that be tabled until July the 3rd meeting. Item No. 7 is Meridian Greens unit No. 4 and also has been requested to be tabled to July the 3rd. I think that's all. Unless the Council has — Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Number 9 moves to 22 A. Corrie: Oh, that's right. Number 9, the request for Conditional Use Permit by Moxie Java has been moved to 22A. We need to do the variance before we do the Conditional Use Permit. So, No. 9 will be moved to 22. Anything else? (inaudible discussion) De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Yes. De Weerd: I believe 19 requested to be withdrawn. Corrie: To be withdrawn? Bird: Yes. De Weerd: Taken off. Bird: Do we have to do that? Corrie: Let's see, that's a Public Hearing. We'll have to open it and close it, I believe. Is that right, Mr. Nichols? Is there anybody here for the Public Hearing on the single family dwelling on No. 19? It's a variance, yes. Okay. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I would recommend, when you get to that item on the agenda that you ask if there's anybody there to testify and announce at that time that the matter has been withdrawn from consideration. Corrie: Okay. Is there anything else that the Council has or the clerk has? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I would like to move department reports to the end of our agenda. Meridian City Council Meeting June 19, 2001 Page 3 Corrie: All right. Item No. 4 will be moved to the last agenda right after water, sewer and trash delinquencies. Shari. Stiles: Mr. Mayor. Could item C of the consent agenda be moved to the regular agenda? Corrie: Item C? Stiles: Yes. Corrie: Okay. Bird: Move that to 5 — Corrie: Move that one to 5 — Bird: 5C Corrie: 5A? (inaudible discussion) Corrie: 5C. I'm sorry. Bird: 5C. Corrie: All right. Stiles: Also, items 20 and 21 on the Bridgetower crossing subdivision, the annexation and zoning has been put to the July V meeting. So, I don't know whether you want to go ahead and hold those Public Hearings and table it or continue it. I believe that the applicant's representative is not going to be present tonight. Corrie: Will they be here the 27th. De Weerd: No, July. Stiles: Probably not. July Td is when the annexation is up for Public Hearing. Corrie: Well, if we keep this up, we'll be out of here by 8:00. (inaudible discussion) De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Meridian City Council Meeting June 19, 2001 Page 4 Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move that we approve the agenda with the following changes. To move from the consent agenda 3C to 5C. To move department reports 4A to the end of the agenda, so it would be item No. 28. To move item 9 to follow item 22 as 22A. And all other actions will have to fall under their individual item. Bird: Second. (inaudible discussion) Corrie: Was there a second? McCandless: What about D on the agenda? (inaudible discussion) McCandless: on the consent agenda? De Weerd: We'll handle that under consent. (inaudible discussion) Corrie: There's been a motion to adopt the agenda. Any further discussion? Roll call vote Mr. Berg. Roll -call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye. Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 4 acres from R-1 to C -C for proposed Hark's Corner by Van Hees Properties — 119 South Linder Road: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-011 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for commercial development with fueling stations, drive-thru, coffee shop, car wash and future retail in a proposed C -C zone for proposed Hark's Corner by Van Hees Properties — 119 South Linder Road: C. Tabled from June 5, 2001: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 01-009 Request for Conditional Use Permit for planned development to include office, retail Meridian City Council Meeting June 19, 2001 Page 5 and industrial for proposed Treasure Valley Technical Center by Meridian Freeway Associates and DBSI Industrial Limited Partnership —'/4 mile east of Linder Road, north side of Overland Road: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law : RZ 01-003 Request for rezone from R-4 to C -C for Partition Specialties, Inc by Ronald and Coleen Schaub — 1315 North Meridian Road: E. Order to Remand to Planning and Zoning: AZ 00-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT -R-4 for proposed Cedar Springs by J -U -B Engineers, Inc — northwest of Meridian and Ustick Roads: F. Order of Remand to Planning and Zoning: PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 333 building lots and 25 other lots on 99.83 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Cedar Springs by J -U -B Engineers, Inc — northwest of Meridian and Ustick Roads: G. Approve minutes of May 1, 2001, City Council Meeting: H. Approve minutes of May 23, 2001, Special City Council Meeting: I. Approve minutes of April 3, 2001, City Council Meeting.- J. eeting: J. Approve minutes of May 9, 2001, Special City Council Meeting: Corrie: We will go now to item 5C — Bird: No. De Weerd: Three. (inaudible discussion) Corrie: oh, that's right. We've got to do the consent agenda. All right. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council Meeting June 19, 2001 Page 6 Bird: I would move that we approve the consent agenda with the exception of item D being tabled until June 27, 2001 and the rest remain as shown. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Motion's been made and second to approve the consent agenda with the correction of item D to be moved to the 27th of this month. Any further discussion? Roll call vote Mr. Berg. Roll -call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) C. Tabled from June 5, 2001: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 01-009 Request for Conditional Use Permit for planned development to include office, retail and industrial for proposed Treasure Valley Technical Center by Meridian Freeway Associates and DBSI Industrial Limited Partnership —'/4 mile east of Linder Road, north side of Overland Road: Corrie: Now (inaudible). 5C which is tabled from the June 5, 2001 Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. It's a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development to include office, retail and industrial for proposed Treasure Valley Technical Center by Meridian Freeway Associates and DBSI Industrial Limited Partnership. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. Did you get the memo dated today regarding the changes to the findings? I met with Dan Bradshaw. Bruce Freckleton and I met with Dan Bradshaw this morning. As you may recall, at the last meeting, Mr. Bradshaw had submitted a position statement and we weren't quite in agreement on the way he had worded some of those items in the position statement. So, we met today and came to an agreement on rewording some of those. I can go over those in detail or not. I did want to ask for your recollection, when they came through with this Conditional Use Permit, this is the site out where Western Electronics and DBSI currently is. My recollection was they were approved for the light industrial uses that were already. It's already zoned light industrial and that they would be permitted to do light industrial projects without coming back through the Conditional Use process. But if they wanted to do the non- conforming uses of office, retail or day care, then they would come back through the Conditional Use process. If I'm wrong on that --. That's what I recall. If that's not correct, -- Corrie: Council. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 65 proposed Cedar Springs by J -U -B Engineers, Inc — northwest of Meridian and Ustick Roads: 9. Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2001: PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 333 building lots and 25 other lots on 99.83 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Cedar Springs by J -U -B Engineers, Inc — northwest of Meridian and Ustick Roads: Borup: Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2001. First, request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 for proposed Cedar Springs subdivision and along with that continued Public Hearing for Preliminary Plat. I believe as we left that last time the issues were all covered at the previous meeting except for that of the access to the park and the single -loaded street Park policy. I believe we left the meeting with instruction for the applicant to meet with the Parks Department and work something out. Let us go ahead and start. I would like to reopen those two hearings and start with the staff report. Hawkins -Clark: Thank you Chairman Borup and members of the Commission. You should have in your packets a memo dated March 14, 2001. One dated March 12, 2001 from Matthew Schultz addressed for four issues and then my response to his dated March 14, 2001. There were a couple of issues on the ACHD collector length. The issue of tiling the White Drain and open space. Then as you say the single -loaded street. We have summarized those there. The Parks Director, I will turn it over to Tom to address the rest. Borup: So at this point you have not received a response from Settler's Irrigation? Hawkins -Clark: That is correct. My understanding is that the board meeting has not been held yet. Since the board meeting has not been held they are unable to give us a firm reply at this point on that tiling issue. Kuntz: Commissioners, just a brief recap Especially for new Commissioner Shreeve. At the last Planning and Zoning meeting I believe it was on the 15th of February. A memo sent to the commission in regards to recommendations from the Parks and Recreation commission and staff recommending a single -loaded street on the southern boundary of Cedar Springs where it butted up to the park property. We listed several benefits to a single -loaded street on such a large park of this size. I think the main issue though was outlined by the memo by Police Chief Gordon as potential safety problems created by restricting visibility across such a large expanse. We went out and took some pictures, and I am not sure how beneficial they are. These pictures are actually just showing a park, actually it is Simplot Complex in Boise that has single -loaded streets all the way around it. Same park again. This shows the actual property. The picture in the top left, all of these pictures are taken from the very back corner of the park, which would be Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 66 the northwest corner of our park. The one on the left-hand corner is looking back to the east. The one in the lower right-hand corner is looking due south. Again this picture is from the back corner of our property, and it is looking southeast. I believe that is towards the Ustick Meridian intersection. The area where the pictures are taken from is where the baseball/softball complex/five-plex will be built or is planned to be built. We feel like that is going to create a hidden area far as buildings there will be fences, restrooms, dugouts, and those type of things. With that I will move to the memo that you should have received dated March 14, 2001. It calls out that we met on February 22, 2001 with the J -U -B and the developer to discuss possible solutions. Park's recommendation was that a common lot be created combining 8 to 10 existing lots that would take care of the visibility problem in that back corner. The developer was concerned about the traffic that would be created by having that area single -loaded, and attachment A will actually show a visual in your packets of where those common lots would be. I believe I blocked out a total of 9 lots on that Attachment A. The developer suggest then an alternative which is outlined on Attachment B that he would be willing to stub in a small street that would come in off of Venable Lane. If that were to happen then woe would relocate part of our large parking lot off of Ustick into the northern corner there as shown on Attachment B, but there are some problems with that and the staff does not recommend that as a good solution. Probably the biggest one is that this would be prohibited by City Ordinance 12-4- 5, which states that all blocks should be two-tiered, no double frontages and that would create a double frontage for those first five or six lots. We contacted the developer's representative a week ago to see if they wanted to get back together and meet for a second time, and they declined that invitation. With that I will stand for questions. Borup: Questions from any Commissioners? Hawkins -Clark: Chairman Borup if I could just point out that the reason for the arrows that this is the revised plat that the City received. The arrows point out the new open space/storm water retention areas that they have changed from the previous plat that you say at the last meeting. The others are the same. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: How many lots did they eliminate by doing that? Hawkins -Clark: I believe it was four. Nary: Thank you. Borup: Anything else from the staff. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 67 Kuntz: I just have one last comment. We are currently trying to select a site for a skate park, and one of the main issues that have be expressed by the City Council twice is the visibility in relationship to safety. I guess I would just like to bring that to the front for the commission. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Getting back to the J -U -B letter says they went to a lot count of 264 and on our agenda we had 333, so did they lose 4 lots or did they lose 69? Hawkins -Clark: Commissioner Centers I believe that that reference and maybe the applicant can correct that is referring to the original. It is the original application; the Clerk will typically keep the original application on the agenda. All the revised changes are not necessarily reflected on agenda as the projects proceed. Centers: Okay, so when we heard this one-month ago it was 268? Hawkins -Clark: Right. Centers: Okay. Shreeve: Again what was the purpose of deleting the four lots? Just making the detention ponds larger or just more common space? Hawkins -Clark: Meeting the 5 percent minimum open space. Shreeve: Okay, but not necessarily to accommodate drainage or anything. Hawkins -Clark: Right. Borup: Okay, the applicant's representative. Schultz: Good even Chairman, Commissioners. Matt Schultz, 250 South Beechwood, J -U -B Engineers representing the applicant. If I could speak to Mr. Shreeve's comment about the drainage. After the last meeting we did not necessarily go back and put those lots there to move away from the park. We kind of stood back, took some of Mr. Simunich's comments, relooked at the Landscape Ordinance, that when we first submitted this it was not adopted yet, so we took a close look at it based on your comments at our last hearing. We decided that those detention basin lots that we previously had in their previous configuration would have had to have been deeper and not so usable. So in order to provide a little bit more extra stormwater protection and make them more usable we widened them out so if you shower. In order to a provide a little bit Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 68 more storm water protection as make them more usable we widened them out so they would be shallower and in doing so went back and counted the open space and we met it. Those are the three discharge points for our storm water, and those are the logical places for having those basins and combining them with some usable open space, a nice entry feature coming up Venable Lane as well. We thought that was the reason for the open space, and we do meet the new Ordinance. We shaded the areas that were countable. We could not count the buffers along Meridian and Ustick, and they are not shaded. The shaded areas are 5.2, and we did lose four lots from the previous time that we were in front of you. If I could go over a couple of the items in staff's comments real briefly. Item one is taking about the Settler's irrigation and April 3, 2001 is when we are going to go their board meeting and ask that that requirement to tile be waived. Fire preliminary calculations a 66 -inch pipe and we are asking for a waiver of that since it is over 48 inches. It is a rather large drain. We are going to fence along it, and regardless if we tile it or not it will be 25 feet wide, so the lot lines are not going to change or anything like that. Number two; staff had a question about the easement micro -path at the northwest corner of the City Park. It says the applicant should address how it is utilized and measures are in place that will restrict pedestrian access. That area right there is not shaded in this version. There is a dashed line there if you can see it. That is where the irrigation waste and storm runoff goes. We had always planned to have at least a storm drain there to pick up some irrigation waste water, and originally we thought it is a pretty good place to combine maybe put it underground and put a pathway to the park. However, at the last meeting Mr. Kuntz suggested that you did not want that there. We took the shading off of it, but since then we have talked to the school, and they said that would maybe be a nice place for the kids to get into the school. Actually, we would like to utilize that. Maybe if we could cut the corner off of the park, they could not necessarily get into the park, but it would be a nice location for the kids to get into the school, right at that corner. We need it at least for a storm drain. We cannot really move it from there, so we might as well make it 20 feet wide or 10 feet wide or whatever, put a micro -path down it, and underground the storm drain so that it is no danger to anybody walking over the top of it. With that I just ask for your approval as per staff's recommendations originally and I am here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Borup: Any questions, Commissioners? Commissioner Centers. Centers: I guess you lost me on that last micro -path right at the corner. Are you just going to kind of wait? Because the School District has indicated the desire for it, but the Parks Department has not. You are going to do your drain there and then just leave it? Schultz: No, we can put a path across there. I am just saying there is going to be some coordination required for the legality of them cutting across a very narrow corner of the park piece and not getting into the park or fencing it somehow. If you understand what I am talking about there. We can actually slide it over 5 feet Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 69 so that it would be on the lot on the school side, so it would be straddling that common boundary between the school and the park. Centers: Move the lot line there of Lot 11 ? Schultz: Yes. But still there is that very small area that the kids may walk across to get into the school. The School District has expressed a desire for that pedestrian traffic. Centers: Could that also cut across Lot 11 rather than the park site too? Schultz: You are absolutely right. It could. It could be totally on Lot 11. It is extra deep right there. It could. We could still stub a little storm drain out into the park property because that is where the water is concentrating. Borup: You said addressing Item 5 that the new plat still does not show the easement boundaries, is that correct? That is what you are waiting for, the Irrigation District's meeting? Schultz: No, we have currently and we have always shown a 25 feet up on the north property. It is not shaded but it is going to be an easement or a common lot where the fence will be built up to the edge of that. We are asking to be able to leave that as an open ditch. Borup: You just do not have it labeled as an easement at all then? Schultz: It is labeled as a common lot. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Schultz, I do not remember if you were here at the last meeting — Schultz: I was. Nary: Okay. At least my perception when we left that meeting was that part of the reason that we set it over is because Mr. Howell said that this issue was not brought up very soon. It was pretty far into the process about this access of the street and all of that. That there had not been any real opportunity to discuss it at all. My perception was that part of why we were sending it over to see whether or not there could be some reasonable discussion between the City and the developer as to how to address these concerns as well as the 5 percent. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 70 Schultz: I understand. Nary: Now when I read Mr. Kuntz's letter, it appears to me that at least the flavor I get out of his letter is that the City did attempt to do that and the developer did not. Because the proposal that the City has here that is Attachment A in our letter — I think there are some reasons to that. I think it makes some sense. It is not just a street that is going to be fronting the park as was originally talked about at the last meeting. It is providing some open space. It provides some visibility if they limit the parking. There should not be a real parking issue. People are going to park there visiting the micro -path to this park on the development side. It does not really matter because people are going to park there. They are going to walk to that side of the park anyway if there is any pathway connection to it. But it appears to me that what was proposed by the developer is not even reasonable. It is not even legal to do it. So to me that is not coming to the table to discuss it reasonably to try and find a resolution to see if there is some compromise on the side. Proposing one option that does not work legally is not doing that. So you could you explain that to me, why that was presented and why no second meeting was even considered. Schultz: I will attempt to. After we left last time, I understand the reason why we were kind of pushed in the direction to coordinate. There was discussion back and forth whether the park should attempt to resolve its visibility issues on its own site or whether we should sell property to the park — there were a lot of different issues floating out there as you remember, a lot of different options. One of the things that led us in the direction to coordinate was the fact that we were short on open space. I know it was on everybody's mind. That is where Tom came up with 9 lots. He said you guys need 9 lots of open space, so let us just do it here. Well, we went back to the office and looked at it. I had to step back and get out of the park issue and look at the overall big picture of drainage, the open space, code, landscaping, and I looked at it as objectively as I could. We have always said and we said it pretty adamantly at the last meeting that we did not think a single -loaded street was good for the development. We comply with Landscape Ordinance. We met with the Parks Department. I was not at that meeting. I understand there was a proposal to maybe possibly extend in driveway access through the north part of the school. I do not know if that was in the memo that the parks sent you. I was not at that meeting at that time, but it appears that the park did not see that as a viable way to address their problem of visibility. I believe that is it and for the Police Department. My client is here to speak on the detriments of the single -loaded street. I think we made that pretty clear at the last meeting that we are just not in favor of that. We would ask that you review our application based on the merits of it, and I think we have proposed a solution that would solve the problem as far as getting access back there. I am just not sure that the reasons he used to say it was not a good idea are necessarily all of the way true. I do not see it as being illegal to do what has been proposed as you suggested. I think there is a legal way to provide that access back there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 71 Nary: It creates a double -fronted lot, so it is illegal. Schultz: Well, it happens all over the place. If you look at all of our side entrances along collectors we have lots that front on and they have a landscape buffer on the back, and the same thing could be done there. You could have a landscape buffer behind those lots. We do it all of the time with a landscape buffer. It could be something we could do at that location as well. Nary: But would you not also agree Mr. Schultz that you are trading green space for blacktop. Schultz: I do not know. We are meeting your Landscape Ordinance with 5 percent, we have a 56 -acre park, and we really do not know what else we can provide. I think the school would be able to have enough room. He is here to speak to that with that pathway if that was the path we took to accomplish Kuntz's desire to have that accessibility. If we decide to do that the school would still work. The fields would still be big. There is 8 acres of open space around that school. You would have slightly less; you still have 7.5 acres. There would still be plenty of open space. I think it is a solution. I do not think that it is impossible. I think it is reasonable, and if Mr. Kuntz has another proposal to do something else in that area, I just do not see giving up 9 lots there just to give up 9 lots. Nary: But what I was asking is that what you just said is that Mr. Kuntz had another proposal. It did not sound like you folks wanted to meet with again. Schultz: I was not at the meeting nor did I ever reject Mr. Kuntz's proposal to meet again. I am not able to speak to that rejection of that proposal. Nary: So maybe we should set it over to give you more time to do that. Schultz: Maybe the client could get up and speak to that as far as he was involved in those conversations. He would have been able to talk — I think we have come to a point where we provided a good solution and we think it is fair and reasonable. Do you want 9 lots, Tom? Do you want us to just give you 9 lots up there along that frontage to make it a single -loaded street? Is that what you are going for? Is it visibility that you were going for because that solution would provide the visibility? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Was there another proposal that you wanted to put on the table? Kuntz: No sir. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 72 Centers: Okay. ***End of side five*** Borup: Any other questions? Shreeve: Just because of being new, but I take it that the proposed school property is the developers property? Schultz: It is. That is why the lot count went from 333 to 268. Shreeve: Okay. Then the future City park -- that is not part of the developers? Schultz: No that is the City's property, City owned and developed property. Borup: Did you say the developer might want to add some comments to Mr. Nary's question? Schultz: I think Mr. Kuntz answered that in that there was not any alternative that he could not bring to the table that he want to. I think we came to an in -pass. He did not want what we offered, and we did not really want his alternative. So we are back in front of you again and asking for your approval tonight as we have it submitted to you. If there is something else that I would be able to answer for you I would be happy to. If you need any more elaboration, we will do what we need to do. Borup: So who was at that meeting? Was it Mr. Howell? Schultz: Mr. Howell was there. Borup: I think if he would like to we would like to hear from Mr. Howell then. Howell: Kevin Howell, 3451 Plantation River Drive. Yes, we had a meeting and lasted probably 2 hours. We talked about everything that we could on it, and we both voiced what either one of us wanted. I basically asked him if it was just an issue that he did not have room on his land for his buffer that he could create or roads, or if just wanted us to put it on our ground and foot the cost for it. He said yes that is what he wanted. So the meeting only lasted about 10 minutes after that. There was no other meeting scheduled. There was a meeting for Monday. It was an irrigation issue, which is a separate issue on the whole thing. There was nothing else to be discussed from the parks on any alternative. They suggested absolutely no alternative or interested in anything that we had to say about alternatives. Gary Lee was also there. So as far as not being cooperative, I have to disagree with that 100 percent. I would love to find a solution, and I am open for any suggests. I stated how I felt about the single -loaded street and our homes Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 73 fronting a regional park. Our subdivision does not want to be part of the park. We want to be separate from it. I do not have much more to add then what I said last time. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary Nary: Mr. Howell, how can you say you want your subdivision to be separate from the park? You want it to abut the park. You want to have a pathway to the park. The last time you wanted to basically use that as your green space for part of it as to why you did not have to have more open space. It sounds to me like you want to have it both ways. Howell: No. The reason we did not come in with the 5 percent, is that what you are talking about to begin with? Nary: Right. Howell: While we discussed it that Ordinance was not in place, and the engineer suggested that we go in with that and if there is a condition put on that, fine. We have no problem meeting the open space. I do not want to put my open space along an open space of a park. I want the people that are paying for the open space in the subdivision to be able to use it. They are already paying once for park fees when they go in there. They should not have to pay for higher lot prices because our density is getting so low, and we have more open space along the park. I just do not believe in a single -loaded road along that park. Putting the lots right across the street from it and having the traffic through there. I have been through this experience with homeowners many times before, and it is going to make it a lot more difficult to sell. It can be done, but that is rather a large park. They have plenty of room to get their emergency access vehicles in there or whatever else they need. We can do it through our pathways. I did not volunteer objective pathways to the park. It was in a letter from Tom Kuntz 9 months ago that that is what he would like. I believe that Gary Lee submitted that with the package, and so we provided them. We can leave them in or take them out. It really does not matter to us. Borup: Anything else? So you said you had one proposal and that was to do the parking lot, is that what you were referring to? Howell: One thing that popped up in my head, I was trying to think of it anyway. All of sudden maybe we can get an access along the back there. It does not sound like that is feasible either, but I was trying to come up with something. But they have plenty of room to put roads along that back. They do not need us as a buffer. I have talked to other parks Departments and what not, and they would prefer homes along the back end with a lower fence to where the people that are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 74 living in the homes basically police the back end of the park because people do not want to hang back there and do bad things because they do not know whether they are being seen or not. They do not know whether someone is doing their dishes or nobody is home or not. Borup: Where proposing that and making that part of the plat condition or the covenants of lower fences along there then? Howell: I do not have a problem with that at all. Borup: What were you looking at 4 feet? Is that what you are thinking? Howell: I was thinking 5 feet, and I knew you would be thinking 4 feet. I was hoping for 54. 4 feet is a little low because what happens is people's dogs can jump it. I have dealt with those on micro -paths and what not. People always want to add on to the top of them. I just thought maybe 54 inches. We might be able to keep people from trying to put something on the top of their fence. Shreeve: Of course you know that is great for policing but I know personally that I would probably want the 6 foot fence just so that they cannot see me in my house. It kind of goes both ways. Howell: It is a give and take there, but there a lot of people that like living on those parks and like that visibility. I have done subdivisions up next to parks before. People like it. It is not a detriment to live to the back of a park. A lot of people with houses that back up to the school; there are probably 90 percent of the people that would not want that. There is a certain type of people that I have dealt with over the years, especially single women with a couple of kids. They love that. They just love living back to that school. There are always people who will take stuff like that. But the traffic going through the subdivision to use the park that is just one thing that I cannot get past. Borup: You had mentioned another medium about an irrigation issue. That is something that I had not heard anything about. That is what I was wondering. Howell: No we are just trying to solve where to put the waste water that keeps building up on the west end of the park. Borup: Along Venable Lane? Howell: I think Mr. Simunich is here to discuss that. You will have to ask my engineer. Borup: Did that get worked out then? Howell: Not yet. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 75 Borup: Is there a problem? Howell: Just a design problem with the wastewater is what I have been told. Where to discharge that. I still have to farm this for at least one probably two seasons. I am not willing to just go in and cut wastewater right through the middle of the thing. Borup: So you say that you are going to be farming it? Part of it you mean? Howell: I am going to farm everything that I can so that I can keep my property tax down. If I do not it goes to residential ground. Borup: Does anyone else have any other questions? Thank you Mr. Howell. Howell: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Mr. Bigham? Bigham: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Wendel Bigham, 911 Meridian Street, Meridian, Idaho, representing Joint School District No. 2. 1 would like to probably make just three comments, one of which I hope you take as germane and the other two please take as information. The School District in talking to J -U -B representing Mr. Howell, we are desirous to have a pedestrian pathway to connect to the subdivision. If not there then there, but generally in the corner of the school site works better. It needs to be understood that this school representation is diagrammatic. Our school may not be shaped like this, and this would be consistent on any of the plats that we see. The parking lot area and its size are essentially what we are looking for, for 124 car parks. It is conceivable that the school may be better situated here. We are reserving that right to when we do our layout. But either way, pedestrian access there. One other comment on the School District, and this actually relates to my past life prior to coming over here in July for the Joint School District No. 2. 1 have spent the last 12 years as the Construction Program Manager for the Boise School District. I am intimately familiar with the land acquisitions for the school sites up in Columbia Village that surround the park that the color photographs were shown on. Trail Wind elementary school exists just down the road from the park on East Grand, East Lake Forest Drive and one of the problems that we have with that regional park — well two comments, one you will noticed that it was burned off; two, the road around that park is put there not for single -loaded purposes but the park side is actually an old dump site that had to be corned off and actually has monitoring wells on it. The road came to be. The bigger problem that we had up there was day use of the park and the safety issues associated with Trial Wind elementary school, which is approximately an eighth of a mile east of that park. I think without seeing it in detail, I would have concern about students coming and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 76 going from here. Walking in this corridor if you will, coming out onto this area where there could be considerable loading of vehicles and I will just say older kids doing things here. I envision in my mind what I want. My kids walking out on the main drive that goes down the center of Ann Morrison Park. I do not have any great insight other than that. For overall school site safety we try to situate our buildings in an area where the public comes and goes from one area, the kids enter the school grounds and they are within a safe confinement. If you will go back to Tuscany that we looked at, the kids are behind and they were fenced off in their own safe world. The reality is that we will need a pedestrian access there, but the other reality is do we want those kids coming and going from a street that will see considerable use at 5pm when you send your 6 year old walking to soccer practice. I bring that up as a community concern, and I think those are probably my only comments having lived through this one way or another. Any questions? Borup: Any questions for Mr. Bigham? Thank you sir Bigham: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Butler: Mark Butler, 222 East State Street, Eagle, Idaho. I came here tonight to kind of break the ice because I started my own planning business about 8 months ago, and I have an item on your agenda at the next meeting. But in looking at this plan and knowing the developer and the friends of the developers and having lunch with them today, I thought I would like to talk a little bit about this plan, just to touch on a couple of issues because I know it is real late. Being a regional park I think it is really important for you to consider what has been brought up already about traffic coming into the subdivision to access the regional park. I could see it differently and hopefully you could too if it were a neighborhood park of maybe a couple of acres. Having homes clustered around it and so forth, and you a little bit of a different type of an access situation. Being a 56 acre park, it seems like if we are going to have an access point coming through a subdivision it has to bring in a lot of traffic that will degrade the subdivision. I believe this is on two arterial roadways or the plan is for it to be on two arterial roadways. Which seems to provide plenty of ability for access. I like the idea of people being able to police the back through lower fences. I think that will be really helpful, but basically I just wanted to break the ice. I am in favor of the plan, and I hope you approve it the way it has been planned. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Simunich: I am Joe Simunich, and I reside at 955 West Ustick Road, which is across the Ustick Road from this proposed subdivision. A couple of questions that I have not been able to get answered even from Ada County Highway District is a new Venable Lane center line going to line up with the existing center Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 77 line of Venable Lane, which is property deeded for street purposes. Also, the drainage water from the new Venable Lane where it is going to be delivered to as a discharge point. Thirdly, I notice on the plan that on the southerly part of the property we have 4 or 5 acres, maybe 3 that are not included in this. Apparently there is going to be some other intended use at a later time. Why is this not being subdivided as a residential area rather than left open for what is going to happen there in the future that we will not know until that time comes. Borup: That was brought out at the last meeting. They are proposing I believe neighborhood commercial use there, but they need to wait for a new Comprehensive Plan. I think the applicant mentioned it. Access to Ustick is not where they would like to have the housing. I think I expressed that correctly. Is that what you were wondering about? Simunich: I just do not understand. Here we only have 150 or a couple hundred houses going in and we need commercial already. Who is going to use this commercial at this point? Who is going to drive out there from Meridian to go to this commercial business? Why do we not keep it all zoned like the Tuscany subdivision, all residential? You have 3 square miles there that can be developed into a real attractive deal rather than starting to have strip commercial on Meridian and also on Ustick Road. You have a good opportunity here. I see no need for commercial across the fence line from me or across the roadway. Borup: Question back on Venable Lane. You were concerned about the alignment of it? What is the width of that road now? Do you know, is there a dedicated road easement there? Simunich: There is a dedicated road easement 20 feet off of the Ward's property and 20 feet off of the property that I own. Borup: So you own the property to the west of this? Simunich: No, to the south and a little bit to the west. Borup: Is your property north or south of Ustick? Simunich: South of Ustick. Borup: You said Venable Lane is off part of your property? Simunich: Yes it is. Borup: It continues on south? Simunich: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 78 Borup: Okay. Ada County Highway District are the ones who are going to have to answer that or maybe the engineer may have an answer on that. We will get an answer on that. Simunich: Also I would like an answer on what they are going to do with the storm drain water. Borup: Right, I will ask them on both of those. Simunich: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Was there any other public testimony? Maybe to answer those questions. Schultz: Matt Schultz again. As far as lining up Venable Lane, I think you can see from this picture, it lines up pretty much. We are right on the section line with our road. It lines up for all intents and purposes. It may be off 5 feet or 10 feet but it is there. It lines up as best as we can put it given the section lines where we have it on our property. The question concerning storm runoff, as we explained in the last meeting, we have to discharge of that water in its historic flow location. It will be about 300 feet north of Ustick on Venable to be a high point where some drainage will come down towards Ustick. Not much is generated from our site; most of it will be coming down Ustick past the park on the park site and just go past our skinny little portion there. We will convey it by us in a borrow ditch. We will pipe the borrow ditch. We are not going to change anything there. As far as north of the high point, that is where we had a retention basin that you guys say at that intersection of Venable as it hits our main east/west street in our site there where that lower red arrow is pointing to. We will retain that and discharge it appropriately in accordance with all regulations and standards. Any other questions? Borup: Are you going to be developing a half plus twelve then? Schultz: Exactly. Borup: That is a 40 -foot easement, and then you are doing another 10 feet off? Schultz: I cannot do the math in my head right now, but it is at least that. Borup: Well 10 and 40 is 50. Schultz: It is not split evenly there. You can see the dash line. We are doing a 58 - foot right-of-way for a collector. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 79 Schultz: So it is not exactly that. Borup: So you plan on having the 58 feet total with existing road easements in there now. Schultz: Yes. We are doing plenty of improvements on our property. Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Schultz? Thank you. Schultz: Thank you. Simunich: Joe Simunich. Apparently my question is not getting answered. Here I understand how they are going to move the road 10 feet this way or that way. Borup: They are widening the road. Simunich: Is the centerline of the new Ustick Road going to line up with the existing centerline of Ustick Road. Borup: I thought you were going to line up with Venable Road. Simunich: Excuse me, Venable Lane. Borup: They would have to go over on their neighbor's property to do that. Simunich: No they do not. Borup: Yes they would. You told me it was 40 feet wide. They are making a 50 - foot wide road. Simunich: Venable Lane, south of Ustick is deeded 40 feet wide. I am asking the commission is a new Venable Lane centerline going to line up with existing Venable Lane? Borup: No sir. Simunich: Why not. Borup: Because it is 40 feet and they are making a 50 -foot wide road. Simunich: I said the centerline. Borup: To make it do the centerline they would have to build it on the property to their west, and that is not their property. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 80 Simunich: I thought you wanted these intersections to be at right angles with each other. Why does this one have to be off centered? Borup: Then tell us the solution sir Simunich: Let them line up with the centerline of the existing Ustick Road. Borup: Would you let someone come and build a road on your property? Simunich: I have already given 20 feet. Borup: But: they need more than that. Simunich: The neighbors gave 20 feet. There is 40 feet already deeded. Why does a new Venable Lane have to shift — Borup: Because they need 58 feet. Where does the other 18 feet come from? Simunich: Where is the centerline going to be? Borup: The centerline is going to be in the middle of the 58 feet. Simunich: Is it going to line up with existing Ustick Road? Are we going to have a jog in this intersection? Borup: The westside would line up with what you have. The eastside would have a jog. From what the engineers told us. You are trying to line a 58ft wide road up with a 40 foot wide. The westside would line up, I am assuming. If the centerline lines up presently then the westside would line up. Simunich: I am concerned about the centerline. If I have to — Borup: We are not getting anywhere with this sir. Simunich: I understand this, but I think I should have an answer. Here is where this road will be. Borup: I gave you an answer. The answer is no they will not line up. Simunich: Well that is not right. Borup: No that is the answer. I do not know what else to say. Kuntz: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, I guess I just want to clarify a couple of points especially for Commissioner Nary. First off, I did contact the developer's representative, Matt Schultz, about meeting a second time. I know that Brad Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 81 Hawkins -Clark can back me up on that because he is the one that contacted me about had I contacted him. I believe the developer declined to meet because he did not feel like there is any other resolve to the matter. Part of the reason that I wanted to meet was to see if we could reduce the number of lots from 10, which was originally discussed at your last meeting on the 15th, to something that would be more suitable to him as well as meeting what we wanted, which was the visibility into that back corner, to allow policemen to drive along Alexis Street and view the park. Two, is the meeting that Mr. Howell is talking about was the meeting that we asked for this last Monday, this week, to discuss the drainage issue in regards to us tiling our irrigation ditches in the park so we can start construction of phase one this summer. The developer's representative met with approximately 18 individuals on January 16, 2001, and at that meeting there was a verbal commitment or agreement that the developer would allow us to channel our wastewater to the north up along Meridian Road. One of those individuals is here tonight, and I know he has chose not to speak, but his name is Dale Cooper, he is one of the farmers. The reason that we discussed and informally agreed that that would be the best way to route the wastewater was to not only help the park site, but also to help the farmers that border around Mr. Howell's property from being flooded out as has been the tradition in that area. We set about working with our engineers, WH Pacific, in pulling our bid information together so we could get our irrigation lines tiled prior to the water coming on April 15. We had a second meeting where the developer was represented again by Mr. Schultz on February 7th, and I will quote from the first paragraph, to insure that Dale did not receive an excessive amount of water, the diversion box requires a checks to waste any excess delivered water from the east into a pipe or ditch placed along the west side of Meridian Road and diverted north into the Settler's irrigation ditches white drain. Matt said his client would dig a temporary trench across the future Cedar Springs commercial site to divert his water right and any wastewater northwest into their existing delivery ditch. When Cedar Springs is developed they will install a combination irrigation, wastewater, and storm water pipe along the westside of the ultimate Meridian Road right-of-way and discharge it into the White Drain. We received a letter from Mr. Hughes who was our engineer from WH Pacific received a letter from Matt Schultz dated March 8th informing us that the developer had changed his mind and did not want that ditch going to the north on his property. In the mean time we had developed all of our bid specifications and gone out to bid, and those bids open this coming Monday. So now we are in a dilemma as far as being able to get our ditches tiled so we can start building this summer because an informal agreement was not lived up to. Again the agreement not only benefited the park but the downstream farmers as well as that pipe will be put in by the developer when he develops this it will go up the west side of Meridian Road to the White Drain. So the benefit is to both the park and the developer to work together to pipe that wastewater. There was an informal offer made from Mr. Schultz two days ago that if the City would pay to pipe 364 feet of that actually 346 feet of that 24 -inch pipe up to the existing drain ditch that that might be an acceptable solution to the problem. The report I got from Mr. Schultz today is that was unacceptable to the developer. So Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 82 there were two meetings held that the developer was invited to. He declined to come to either of those meetings. I guess it seems like from the City's perspective there is a little bit of a pattern developing of not wanting to work with us to resolve this issue. We feel very strongly that there needs to be an opening in the back of that park for safety reasons, and we sure would have appreciated the opportunity to sit down and talk about it a second time. Thank you. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Kuntz? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: One of the things though that Mr. Howell said was that your statement was in essence that the City of Meridian wants him to build them a free road. Kuntz: That is totally inaccurate. We are not asking to build a road. We do not need a road in our park. We have a pathway. Nary: I knew not a road in the park. Kuntz: That is totally inaccurate. I never made that statement. I would not make that statement. I am here representing hopefully the community, and I guess the question I keep asking myself is are we doing what is best for the community here or are we doing what is best for the developer? Borup: Any other questions. Centers: Yes Mr. Chairman. How do you address Mr. Bigham's comments about the area open and a front -loaded street? Kuntz: The way I address those comments is those children, all they have to do is walk down 10 lots and access the micro -pathway that is in the middle there, and they will access the park that way. Centers: I wish it were that easy with children. I wish it were that easy. You use this route and that is it. You know that will not be the case. They will use whatever route they want. Kuntz: In fact I would hope that they would be able to use the micro -path that connects to the school to go around there into the common lot and go to their soccer practices after school. Borup: Mr. Kuntz I have two questions. Mr. Howell said that speaking of the irrigation a drainage issue was more just a matter of engineering than design. It sounds like you were saying something different. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 83 Kuntz: We would have had the option if we would have known that wasting that water in the north was not an option. Of designing the flows, the live irrigation water, and the waste to be wasted out the northwest corner of our park where the pathway in question, the school wants to have access to the school, we can waste all of the water out of that site. The problem is there is still some questions about the amount of water that will go out of that corner of the park and into the development if it is designed and engineered at this point to handle the amount of water that could go out of that corner if all of the users down stream did not want to use their water because of a rainy day or that type of thing. Borup: An interesting comment on the idea of a 54 -inch fence along the park. Kuntz: I think a 5 -foot high fence would meet with our desires. We would want it to be something — Borup: Would that help on the visibility? Kuntz: That would be fine. Borup: Would that address some of the concerns on visibility? Kuntz: No sir. Borup: That was my question. Kuntz: No. We want the police to be able to drive by there, look through there, and see if there are problems into that five-plex area. That is our desire. Borup: You do not feel that the neighbors would be able to police that themselves well enough? Kuntz: No sir. Not based upon the letter that we have from Chief of Police Gordon. Borup: Okay. Mr. Schultz, you had some response. Schultz: If I may respond to Mr. Kuntz's comments, which were quite varied, and there were a lot of accusations. I will see if I can respond to all of them. First of all when I was up here the first time and said that you never contacted me about a second meeting, I apologize I thought you were talking about the park issue specifically. Because I was not involved in the first one, so I was never contacted about meeting about the park. You did contact me about meeting about the irrigation, and as you said, we declined to meet on that pending that we thought that we had all of our issues pretty clearly stated. If I can back up a little bit for everybody's information. I am a professional engineer registered in the state of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 84 Idaho. I deal with gravity irrigation designs day in and day out. I have 3 or 4 under construction right now. My plans had to be approved by February 15, 2001. Approved. If that was going through lengthy review processes, coordination with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District by February 15, 2001. 1 am not the design professional on the park's side. I advise my client on how the irrigation could impact his site. I was party to that meeting of 15 people where I represented one ditch user of 15,and suggested that yes there may be some alternatives at that early stage of the game in January. I got a little nervous around March 1, 2001, and I wrote a letter to Tom Kuntz because I had not seen any plans. All my plans had long since been approved for other projects around town knowing that the water was going to get turned on pretty soon. I got nervous and some of my verbal comments might have been implied that I was getting approvals, and I had never ever implied any approvals and my letter which I would like to introduce on the record dated March 1, 2001 clearly states that. Just show me plans so that I can review them and look at them. 15 people cannot really come to a conclusion real fast. Borup: So you are talking about the drainage on Meridian Road. You are saying that that was never agreed to? Schultz: Can I borrow your laser pointer please? I apologize for the length in this meeting, but I feel it is my duty and obligation to give you all of the facts seeing how I am having to defend myself slightly right now for some of the judgement decisions that I have made. Historically, the delivery waters come across here, straight across the middle of the site. My client as a property owner and a farmer right now for all intents and purposes. He could be for the next 5 years for all that I know. He gets delivery water up here and we ask that that delivery be maintained. Currently as it sits one or two of those 15 people are over here. They currently get flooded by too much wastewater coming down here. Some of that waste goes up through here through that drain easement I talked about earlier. Some of it goes that way. It would suggest that that early meeting in January which was probably prior, all these hearings get continued, we do not know where we were at. We were thinking we were going to move ahead quite fast at that time, so it was suggested that maybe we could coordinate, could, I did not say that we would. I said it was a possibility. There might be some mutual benefit to doing so. Since that time of course some other issues have come to our attention that might slow this development down for a year, two years, many years, so I started backing up and wrote that memo on March 1, 2001 saying just give me some plans. I need some plans to review. I just want to see how you propose to do this, who is going to pay for it or what because my client just wants to farm for a couple of years. I need to look at it from a property owner's perspective not a developer prospective. What came out of that meeting I had with my client after I got the plans on March 6, 2001 1 sent a letter out March 8, 2001 which I will introduce for the record as well. This was written to Kevin Hughes, he is not a professional engineer, but he is a designer that works for WH Pacific and I responded to the plans that he sent me and outlined my Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 85 professional requirements to allow this thing to move forward. I will introduce this to the public record as well. Our concern was that he wanted that waste ditch up this area there across basically that future landscape easement which happens to have a house on it right now. It is an abandoned house but still we do not see baring the burden to basically take some wastewater that used to go this way up this way. Especially at this stage of the game we are not going to develop for a couple of years. I wrote a letter that it was not impossible to comply with the recommendations. They were very reasonable. Yes it was a little late because I got plans late. What could I do? I responded as expeditiously as possible given the time frame. There is another alternative that his engineer could instruct him to. I am not going to speak for his engineer. I am not responsible for his design, but it would be to protect these people by wasting it that way and into the drain that is there and bypassing them with the controlled check structures and things that engineers do when they design irrigation facilities. That is another alternative that would totally bypass this requirement. Those are alternatives that your design professional gives you up front early in the game, and you make those decisions early on to not have to go asking a developer at the midnight hour for an easement. Again, I am just trying to defend my professional reputation as a prudent engineer representing my client, and I would do the same for the Park if I were in his position representing him. I just ask that you do not hold that against me that something might have gotten misconstrued about my professional abilities. Thank you. Borup: Any questions for Matt? Looking at your second letter, and I have not had a chance to look at it real close but it looks like they are all addressing running the waste ditch along Meridian Road. Is that what — Schultz: They could, but we just — Borup: In reading your letter, all of your comments are addressed to that. Is that correct? Schultz: They are addressed to that because there is right-of-way there. Borup: Okay. You are saying that 24 -inch drain must be extended 5 feet into the Howell property and certain boxes need to be built. Schultz: I responded to plans that show boxes in certain locations. I was not proposing the total destruction of their plans. I was proposing an alternative. It may not be easy but doable. Borup: But you did not say that running it along that area is not acceptable? Schultz: I said grating on the property is not acceptable more than the 10 feet. We did not want to grate a ditch all the way up through the future area that may not ever be future. We have — Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 86 Borup: Except for the 10 feet along the border of Meridian Road, so you are saying the ditch would have to run in that 10 feet. Schultz: Right. Borup: You do not think that this is something a reasonable person construed, that they could go ahead with the plans to run it that way after receiving this letter? Schultz: Yes they could. I am just saying to run up it in the right-of-way is very explicit. You could do it. It is not impossible. Borup: Unless I misunderstood, I thought Mr. Kuntz said since that time you have withdrawn that and said you would not allow it to run there. Schultz: He was talking about running the ditch through our site instead. I said to shift the ditch over. Borup: Oh, then I misunderstood what he said. I thought he was still talking about running it along Meridian Road. Schultz: Right, but against the road right-of-way instead of 50 feet into the site. I just suggested they move it over. Borup: Otherwise it is going to be in your property lines. Schultz: I know. Borup: So that is still acceptable to you to run it along Meridian Road? Schultz: In the right-of-way. Borup: Okay. In the road right-of-way? Schultz: It is a legal path of drainage if they can get that approved through ACHD. The other alternative like I said would be to run it down and divert it through the historic location which we planned for a drainage easement down there in the future anyway with a stub. Borup: And the historic location is — Schultz: Where that dash line is. Borup: Right here? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 87 Schultz: Right there, yes. If I had to sight topography you would see a ditch running straight north right into that area. Borup: Does anyone else have any other questions? Cooper: Dale Cooper. I am the one that Tom Kuntz was talking about. I am real concerned about this drainage water that they are talking about going this way. The excess water. That comes down right through my place and goes into a 12- inch tile, and it has been there for 50 years, and at the time it was not designed to carry. It was strictly for runoff water off of the fields. It has in the past we had diverted it. If I do not use the water and the farms here do not use the water, we divert part of it this way to the original drain and part of it down through the ditch. Both ditches come onto my place. What really concerns me is too much of this excess water being pushed over this way into this historic drain as he called it, and the 12-inch tile is not going to handle it. The 12-inch the dumps right into the White Drain. So that is a concern for me. Borup: Thank you. Mr. Lee you have a comment. Lee: My name is Gary Lee with J-U-B Engineers, 250 South Beechwood in Boise. I just wanted to point out to the commission that I was in attendance with Kevin Howell and Tom Kuntz, Daren Fluke from our office, and one of Tom's employees to discuss the park issues in that first meeting in February. There were a lot of things discussed in that meeting about the parks and the alternatives for that roadway business. Towards the end of the meeting it was evident that things were breaking down in the communications, and there were some things said. I wanted to clarify what I heard at that meeting about Mr. Kuntz's position on that roadway. Kevin Howell did ask him if he wanted the City Parks to build that roadway and give up that land at his expense, and I am here just to collaborate Kevin's statement that that was in fact said. So it was evident to me that Mr. Kuntz had made up his mind on what he wanted there. There was not really any room for further discussion. One point that I would like to make, and I am really not sure why it has not been a viable alternative if the Chief of Police and the Fire Marshall are concerned about access around that ball diamond, I just do not understand why they cannot use the existing pathway that they have planned there already for that purpose. There is no reason why it cannot be 10 feet wide instead of 8 feet wide to accommodate a vehicle or a police officer on a bicycle or a horse. They do it all of the time in Boise. They have visibility and they have access. I have no further comments. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, how would you like to proceed? Nary: I think we have heard from everybody so I move that we close the Public Hearing. Centers: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 88 Borup: Motion is seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Would someone like to start with some discussion? Nary: Mr. Chairman, I guess I will. This whole project just reminds me while these are so hard and sometimes very difficult. Sometimes all we are doing is saying move one house over here or move a roadway a little bit. I think that the developer is not being very fair to make the statement that we are basically making him provide a road to the City because we do that in all subdivisions. Borup: Can I just maybe interrupt. At our last meeting there is a staff letter from the Parks Department stating that they are willing to pay for the cost of curb, gutter and sidewalk and the 4 feet of street adjacent to the property. That may not be half of the road, but that is the remainder of the half plus 12. Nary: I guess what I was — ***End of side six", Nary: -- is that road of Alexis Drive go against the park or go in front of a row of houses, which is not really any different than we discuss in every other residential subdivision that we look at. So I think to take the position that Mr. Howell has that we are somehow trying to get a free road out of him is not really very fair. That is not what we are doing. We are looking as to where does that road go? As to what we are faced with, we have two things here. We have a request for annexation and zoning and I think we discussed at length the last time that we are not obligated to annex this piece of property. That is why we felt as a commission generally in the discussion that the 5 percent should be adhered to even though the issue was that is was not part of the Ordinance at the time. We are not required to annex them, and if we feel that that is important which I think most everyone does that it should be a part of it. There has not been any testimony that I have heard that this is not the right piece of property to annex at this time. We have not heard anybody say it is too big or it is too many houses or it is too dense or the zoning is incorrect or it is not contiguous or anything. So there is not anything that tells me that on the issue of annexation and zoning that we have heard any evidence to give us any other conclusion than this is probably the appropriate property to be annexed in at this time. It is contiguous to the City. They are proposing a school site. I do not have a problem with the LO, light office type of things because again it is a large piece of property. Having some offices, dentists, doctors, and things like that at some point in the future is not a bad use of property. That is a pretty good use. So on the next issue is this plat what we want to see? Is that the way we want it to look? That is really what we are wrestling over. They have met the 5 percent. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 89 The issue of the park, I guess it still comes down to in my mind that if we felt it was that important then that is our obligation as the City to design it that way. That we should have made it so that — we knew we would build houses there. They knew houses would go at some point in the future on that other piece of ground or something like that. If we felt it was important and I asked Mr. Kuntz this at the last meeting, would we build it as the City of Meridian, would they build a road there if we did not require the road to be placed there, and the answer was no. That tells me that it is not as important as it would seem to be. If we do not feel that it is required as the City to build it instead. If it was that important we would. They are not going to because it is a preference. It is something that we would like to have, and it is a good means to be able to have visibility on that side of the park, but we could find other ways to have visibility than changing this configuration. I think both sides here maybe could have been a little bit better working together, maybe could have done a little better on some of these issues, but is this a bad design? I did not hear anybody say that is a bad design. I did not hear anybody say that it is too many houses, or that the streets are crooked, and the streets are bad. We did not hear anything like that. All we heard is that we would like to have an open space on that side of the park. That was the City of Meridian's responsibility to design that that way. They chose not to do that, and then they come late to the table to say now we want to do that in this fashion, and I do not think we are obligated to make the developer do that. It would have been nice. It would have been nice if Mr. Howell wanted to that. I understand his reasons for not wanting to do that. I understand the School District. I think that is a pretty fair concern that the School District had. There is nothing to prevent the City of Meridian from working out an issue with the School District. If we put the parking lot on that side of the school site, you would have access to be able to see that side of the park. Having the lower fencing allows that visibility. There are ways to do this without moving that roadway because there is not any other evidence that I heard that says the roadway needed to be moved other than just have an open space there. I guess what I am saying is at least for me I did not hear any evidence that we need to change this plat to any degree other than the preference we have to have that space. I do not think it is reasonable in light of all of the evidence that we have heard that we should deny this project based on that little section alone. That does not seem very fair to me. It does not seem very reasonable in light of all of the evidence. That is my discussion. Borup: Anyone else? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Centers. Centers: I was going to say about the same thing, but in a lot less words. I guess even if they had worked it out before Mr. Bigham came up and told me about his concern for the school children I would have changed my mind. That is the deciding factor. My wife is a substitute teacher, and those children do not go Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 90 where you tell them. If you give them some access or different access, they are going to take it. The only thing I would say on starting the project and letting something out to bid, get it in writing from the owner. That is my recommendation. Mr. Nary said it very well. Borup: Anyone else? Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I still have one more question for Bruce. About the White Trunk drain trunk, how close are we to getting this across to this property? And before you answer I notice in staff notes of February 14, 2001 on page two, it said that Mr. Lee had recommended that a condition of the Development Agreement that there would be no construction of the subdivision until there was more certainty on the drain, on the White Trunk drain. Borup: I think the next project will determine that. That we are supposed to be hearing tonight. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Norton, exactly. The Bridgetower Subdivision project that is coming up next is where that White Trunk is going to start. You might recall from the last time we discussed this project, the developer stated that he will assume all risk of moving this project forward with respect to the timing of the sewer coming to his project. That should be on the record for the last meeting, and I do just want to reiterate that so that we make sure that it is in the record. That we are fairly confident that things are moving forward with the routing and easement acquisitions for the White Trunk. We are real pleased with the progress that has been made recently. We have a lot better level of confidence. Norton: But how long do think it will be until it reaches this particular property? Freckleton: Again, -- Norton: A year, two years? Freckleton: No, it will be — at the last meeting I passed out a schedule. That schedule after we had some meetings with the developers of Bridgetower, that schedule was able to be moved up. Some of the time lines in that schedule were moved up. A lot of the timing hinges on the approval process for the Preliminary Plat for Bridgetower. Norton: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 91 Borup: Anyone else? I had a question for Mr. Kuntz. I guess after reading some of the letters up here concerning the wastewater drainage, what was the intention of the City or the Parks Department that that ditch across Cedar Springs property, where would that be located? Kuntz: Chairman Borup, we anticipated that it will be inside what will become the new Ada County right-of-way. Borup: So it would have been in the right-of-way? Kuntz: 48 feet from centerline. Borup: And that was what you proceeded ahead with the designs and the bid documents, etc.? Kuntz: I do not want to say that that is for sure, but I will say this much, I know that we would not have had to move any of the buildings that are currently on the property to move this line to the north. The reason I say that was because we planned on aligning that waste pipe in the landscaping that is required by the Landscape Ordinance. Borup: What was the applicant referring to when they talked about cutting it across the commercial property? Kuntz: There was discussion at the first meeting about the live irrigation water and how to get that to the point of Mr. Howell's distribution point which is right here. We plan on building a box, a large box here. Borup: Okay. That is the box that they stated would want to go 5 feet into their property, and then it will just go from there over to his ditch then. Is that correct? Kuntz: I am not sure if I am following you. Borup: Their letter stated that when the Parks put theirs in it would need to extend 5 feet into the Howell property. Kuntz: Correct. Borup: And you are saying they would take it from here over to where their access point is now, and then later on it would go down there when they developed the rest. Kuntz: Right, as a temporary one-year thing since we wanted to take this concrete ditch that is in there now. We wanted to take that out as part of phase one in development. Matt suggested and I think his comments earlier were Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 92 accurate, we did not have confirmation from Mr. Howell on this, but you can see the minutes from our meetings that I submitted — Borup: I was looking more at his letter. Kuntz: -- that we could do a temporary trench across to distribute water at this point and take this concrete ditch out. If you are talking about the letter on the 8tn, is that the letter that you are referring to? Borup: I am not sure. We have read so many. It was a letter from Matt that was talking about some of that I think. But it would not go across the rest of their property then? Kuntz: Not the live water distribution. The pipe in question is what we would do with the wastewater and it would go from here up to the White Drain. Borup: Okay that would be a temporary ditch there too. Kuntz: Well, we suggest a temporary ditch that come up to here because there is already an existing drain ditch that would connect to the White Drain that runs across here. It is already in place. Borup: Okay, thank you. Okay, Commissioners? Centers: I would just like to address Mr. Simunich's concern on commercial. If this were to be approved tonight it would be brought in as R-4. Any commercial use would have to come back, and they would have to ask for a zone at that time. That should have been addressed earlier. Borup: The applicant calls for future commercial or multi -family residential. Mr. Nary were you ready to make a motion? — Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, could I just make one minor point? This is just to make sure that it is on the record. The fact that the Final Plat, and we fully anticipate that this White Trunk is going to be built and this is not going to be an issue, Final Plat cannot be approved until sewer is available. Just for the record. Borup: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman, I would move to recommend to the City Council for approval of AZ 00-019, request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 for the proposed Cedar Springs by J -U -B Engineers, northwest of Meridian and Ustick Road. Pursuant to the staff comments from February 15, 2001 and I do not believe for the annexation and zoning that there were any additions or amendments to the annexation. Is that right? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 93 Borup: That would be my understanding, too. Nary: Is that correct, Brad? I do not think for the annexation part, No. 6. Hawkins -Clark: Just for the inclusion of my comments. Nary: Right. I think we have talked enough and maybe the staff comment could be amended to include that the developer has agreed to basically take the risk that he cannot begin development until the White Drain is available for sewer in No. 6, but I think it does state pretty clearly in No. 6 that they cannot begin until it is available. Borup: Okay, we have motion. Centers: I second. Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Nary: aye; Centers: aye; Shreeve: aye Borup: Any opposed? Norton: aye Borup: One naye. That was item No. 8. No.9 is the Preliminary Plat. Nary: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend for approval to the City Council PP 00- 018, request for Preliminary Plat approve for 264 building lots, 25 other lots on 99.83 acres. I think they just removed the four for drainage, and I do not think that they added anything else. In and R-4 zone for proposed Cedar Springs subdivision by J -U -B Engineers to include all staff comments from February 14, 2001 as well as this incredibly lengthy public record that we have had over this issue, but also to include — in appears in the letter dated March 14, 2001 that the two questions outstanding Item 5 on page 6 of the February 14, 2001 staff report is the only thing being asked by the staff is that they confer the 25 foot width and it appears that they have done that, is that correct? And that the revised plat and what is proposed as a micro -path along the northwest corner of the cities future City park basically somewhere between lots 11 and 12 or approximately that area of the revised plat. That there would be a micro -path there for pedestrian access both to the park and to the school. I do not know what other conditions you think the drain issues that we need to have in the staff comments. Borup: One thing that concerned me on the drain, after reading the letter from J - U -B Engineers I would think that a reasonable person would apply that it is intended that that wastewater drain would be going along Meridian Road, and it Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 94 would be reason for someone to proceed ahead especially with what we have got so far. I do not know if that is something that should be made a condition. Nary: I do not know that we need — Borup: It affects this parcel. It affects the drainage across the property, but it also has to do with another project that does not have anything to do with this. Nary: Right and it does not appear to me that putting it in this staff report — you can build it along the roadway. Does it need to be in here? Well they are talking about doing a temporary and tying into existing drainage that is already there. Nary: Let me ask, do you think it would be necessary to put in the Preliminary Plat site specific requirements and then additional condition No. 17, that says a temporary drain can be built acorns the southeast corner of this project. Is that necessary for the Preliminary Plat requirement? Borup: Where else would it come if it did not come here? Nary: That makes sense to me. If we are going to build a temporary drain it makes sense that we would include that as No. 17 if that makes sense to you guys. To include that as a requirement that a temporary drain will be built across the southwest corner to allow delivery of water and for drainage and wastewater. Centers: Southeast. Nary: Southeast corner, I am sorry. Does that make sense? Kuntz: Mr. Schultz, I just want to clarify. Where we are currently legally able to send our drain waters to the northwest corner, Commissioner Nary, is that what you are alluding to? Are you talking about going up Meridian Road? Nary: I am talking about the other side along Meridian Road. I am talking about right here. Borup: As the earlier letter said running it through that commercial property to the existing here. Kuntz: I do not believe that is necessary because we just plan on leaving that concrete ditch in place until the developer develops that area then we will remove that. Borup: So it does not make any difference to you then? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 95 Kuntz: I guess I would like to have some kind of a commitment from the developer of how long that concrete ditch will need to stay. Nary: I do not know that we can put that in a Preliminary Plat requirement. Kuntz: Okay, then let us just leave it. Borup: Maybe the only other issue then is fence height. Nary: Yes, and I do not know that there was anything — No. 14 of the site specific requirements for the Preliminary Plat it says there is a 6 foot perimeter fencing along the northern and western boundaries of the subdivision, and that would probably be the appropriate place to include language that the property bordering the southern edge of the development, bordering the City's park have fencing limited to 54 inches in height. Kuntz: Commissioner Nary. The park's preference is that that be of a metal nature, no wood. Nary: Well, I think what this says here is that it has to be detailed fencing plans for review and approval with submittal of the Final Plat, so the City has to review and approve it, I think that is still a requirement. So on the micro -paths was there not an issue on whether it is 8 feet or 10 feet wide. Centers: I was going to ask you to amend that if you would not mind. Based on the School District request, they want it just accessible to the school only, and you had said — Nary: To the park and the school. Centers: Right. Nary: The park did not want it accessible to the park. Centers: They have one anyway. Borup: You are talking about 11 and 12 right? Nary: So there would be a micro -path between approximately here from 11 and 12 and it will be accessible to the school site only, and there will be another micro -path further down that it is accessible to the park. Does it need to have a certain width? Kuntz: Mr. Chairman, on those micro -paths, the Ordinance does require that they be a 10 foot paved surface. The new Landscape Ordinance requires 5 feet of landscaping on each side. So you are looking at 20ft total width. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 96 Nary: So a 2 -ft path is what was required by the ordinance and you could be bollards there so that you could drive through them if you have to. Centers: What is the plat showing now? I wrote over the top of it. Nary: 20 feet. Borup: It says 20 feet storm easement on there now anyways. Nary: Is that everything? Borup: Mr. Moore does that motion need to be repeated a little bit? Moore: You have taken half of it out, but you want it to include all staff comments, discussions here tonight, you want it to include the micro -path on the northwest corner for pedestrian access to the school only and that is to meet City standards at 10 feet of paved surface with 5 feet on each side? Then you wanted No. 14, that there be a fence along the northwest boundary of the subdivision, which is the southern edge of the development and that fenced to be 54 inches in height — Nary: No more than 54 inches Borup: I think that was all. Just those two things in addition to the staff comments. Moore: The rest of it is crossed out because you guys decided that you did not want it. Centers: I second that motion. Borup: Okay, motion seconded. Any other discussion? All in favor? Centers: aye; Nary: aye; Shreeve: aye Borup: Any opposed? Norton: naye Borup: One naye. Thank you everyone for being here on this item, and Commissioners I guess we have a decision to make. It is now 12:30pm. I talked to the applicant on the break. I was not anticipating that we would take this long on this one, and I expressed a concern about being able to get through the whole thing, but that it may be appropriate to open it. Nary: And these folks have waited all night. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001 Pg. 97 Borup: Okay, if the Commissioners are willing. I am just saying that we will not get through everything. We are going to go ahead and at least open the next hearings and see how far we can get. If this goes like the others, we are definitely not going to get through it. 10. Public Hearing: AZ 01-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres in proposed R-4 and C -G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development Co., LLC — 2420 Ustick Road: 11. Public Hearing: CUP 01-006 Request for Conditional Use Permit of 692 single-family lots, 59 town homes, 17 office lots and 10 commercial lots on 370.55 acres in proposed R-4 and C -G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development Co., LLC — north of Ustick Road and east of Ten Mile Road: 12. Public Hearing: PP 01-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 336 building lots and 58 other lots on 175.91 acres in proposed R-4 and C -G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development Co., LLC — north of Ustick Road and east of Ten Mile: Borup: Item No. 10, 11, and 12, Public Hearing AZ 01-003 request for annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. Item 11 is the Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit on the same project, and No. 12 is a request for Preliminary Plat. I would like to open all three of these Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins -Clark: Chairman Borup and members of the commission, I will go ahead and address all three applications at this time. In terms of general orientation it is shown on the screen. The dark area is the proposed boundaries of the annexation, 371.42 acres. They are proposing two different zones for you to annex. The application does detail specifically which boundaries would be the R- 4 and the C -G. The only R-4 on this map is incorrect. They are proposing another piece of annexation here at the northeast corner of McMillan approximately 16 acres. That is proposed to be a C -G as well as a C -g here in this very northwest corner. Otherwise they are proposing for all of the rest to be an R-4 zone. We have Ten Mile, McMillian along the north, north Linder Road here and Ustick. The City Council has approved a Final Plat for Bridgetower not to confused with Bridgetower Crossing. Bridgetower subdivision, which is here, Five Mile drain is here. That has already been annexed. Here are just a few site photos in the area. Predominantly not unlike what you have seen all-night and last week. Farmland, the main difference is that there are some very large Idaho Power poles the course the north boundary of this property, which this picture you cannot quite get a feel, but they are the tall — I forget what the exact height of them is. Here are a couple of proposed sample townhome elevations that they are proposing Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 2 Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from October 10, 2000: PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 326 building lots, 1 limited office lot, a 12 -acre school lot and a potential multi -family residential site on 99.83 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by J -U -B Engineering for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision — north of Ustick and west of Meridian Road Borup: Okay. First new item is Item No. 4 on the agenda. The item would be continued Public Hearing from October 10th. Request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres to R-4 by J -U -B Engineering for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the Staff report. I guess we've got -- everyone here has received a revised report. Norton: Mr. Chairman did you want to open both the Public Hearings on Cedar Springs, No. 4 and No. 5? Borup: Yes let's go ahead and do that, both on the annexation and the Preliminary Plat. Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, you should have the revised Staff report, dated February 15, 2001 for Cedar Springs Subdivision revised. I'm going to go through this briefly and point out the changes, the hot issues and other such important matters. First of all, the locations, and the vicinity map on the wall. The hashed area is the location of the proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision. The blue area to the south is the City's 56 -acre park site. I also have an aerial photo, which may help to get a better feel for the area. I'll bring this up -- the intersection in the lower right hand corner is the intersection of Meridian Road running north/south, and Ustick running east/west. The City's park site is in this location right here. This white dot in the water tank. The subdivision site is this land surrounding it. You can see it is pretty much surrounded by farmland at this time. Go back to the presentation -- this is a site photo taken on the ground on Meridian Road, looking due west. This grassy line you can see here is the boundary between the park on the south and Cedar Springs Subdivision on the north. You can see the water tower there. It gives you some sense of current site conditions. This is the revised plat. Quick summary of this, as compared to the original one, it reduces the total No. of building lots from 333 to 268. The main difference being that this area in here was originally platted with residential lots. It is now shown as an elementary school site and potential future multi -family or commercial site. So, it does add the school. It states that it increased the amount of open space from 5.82 to 6.21. That increase came from widening the street buffers. The street buffers, of course, do not count towards the five -percent open space requirement, which I'll get to in a minute. The also added some micro -path connections within. If you look at our annexation and zoning general requirements, or general comments. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 3 The original recommendation on this project was for denial. Primarily due to three issues; one the lack of school facilities, two the lack of housing diversity and three lack of sanitary sewer service. The first issue is now is obviously addressed. There is now a school site on the property. The lack of housing diversity is potentially addressed. Nothing is changed with the densities in the north, but with the addition of a potential multi -family site, that would help address that issue. Staff would not support commercial use on this lot. We would support the multi -family use. We see that as a more compatible use with the school and with the park. It gives a great open space amenity to a high- density residential project. So we would support that use on that lot. Page 3, annexation site-specific requirements. No. 2 talks about the open space requirement. They submitted site data calculation showing 6.2 percent in open space. It seems pretty clear that that includes the street buffers, which do not count toward the required five -percent. We've asked that the applicant tonight address the open space issue and confirm that even without those buffers, that they are able to meet that five -percent requirement. All of the open space that is provided is hashed in dark areas on the plat. I believe they are all storm water detention facilities. Skipping to the Preliminary Plat site-specific requirements on Page 6. Item No. 5, along the north portion of this property, Settler's Irrigation District appears to have an easement. It's not clearly delineated on the plat where the centerline of that ditch exists and if -- where the easements line actually is. We ask that they address that tonight. No. 6, right below it, ACHD has a requirement in their file report which you should have. That requires Venable Lane, which is this main street coming into the project to be built to -- let's see -- oh, this is Venable. Yes, sorry, this is the next one. On Venable, which is this one, they have some conflicting reports. One for a 36 -foot section and one for a 40 -foot section. We wanted the applicant to clarify that. The bigger issue is this one that I was pointing to, which is Ashton lane, coming of Meridian Road. ACHD is requiring that it have 64 -feet of right-of-way from where it meets Meridian Road to Greenwich Avenue, which is in this location. Currently they are showing 64 -feet only into this portion of the plat and then it narrows. If that right-of-way were widened, it would create 13 lots that do not meet the minimum 80 -foot frontage. The next one is a modification of -- there's a micro path in this location right here. We'd like it to be shifted to be -- to provide access to the school site for school children that will be in the subdivision. We also are recommending an additional micropath be added in this location on the plat. This is No. 9 on the Staff comments, so those children in this area will be able to have quicker access to the school site by a more direct route. One final issue with school children and access to the school is the crossing down here on Ustick Road, which will be a five -lane road, eventually. The -- right now, ACHD is not requiring any sort of crosswalk or signal at this location. No. 10, in the Staff report asks the applicant to address this crossing to the Commission. No. 11, which I'll only mention briefly, is the issue of single -loaded street, adjacent to the future City Park. City Park Staff feels strongly that this road should be a single - loaded street on this side, butting up against the park. I'll let Tom Kuntz from the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 4 Parks Department address that in more specificity. The final issue being the sewer is also a major issue, and I'll let Bruce Freckleton speak to that one. Centers: Mr. Chairman, has the applicant received a copy of this letter from the Parks Department? (Inaudible) Freckleton: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. With regard to the issue of serviceability of sanitary sewer, I just want to give you an update, rundown, on where we are in life. You may recall from the previous Staff comments, we recommended denial of this application for three reasons. Basically two of them were planning and zoning issues and the third was the sewer issue. The current set of comments that you have in front of you does not have a recommendation from Staff. I believe Steve, Planning and Zoning Department; they have addressed the planning and zoning issues. However, the sewer issue still is outstanding. So basically, I passed out to Shelby tonight, a little critical path model of an estimated timeline for sewer. This is a best guess. Then what I want to do is, I'll talk about this and then, basically I want to present a couple of different options that I would propose, maybe for the tail end. Do you have that model in front of you? Borup: Yes we do. Freckleton: As you're aware, there's development on Ten Mile Road that the White Trunk originates in. Well, it originates through out Treatment Plant, but it has to make it through this development off of Ten Mile Road. An annexation has been filed for annexation and zoning, Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit. That application will be coming before this Commission on the fifteenth of March. The application for -- then will make it before City Council, we hope, according to this model roughly 30 days following, which would put it May 11 to Final Plat could be submitted 45 after, July 12, 2001. The issue that really the sewer is hinging on is the ability to obtain easements through this parcel and get sewer under construction. This model shows that the easements would be obtained after Final Plat. I'm not sure if that is entirely accurate, but we have had some discussion with Ms. Bocut about those easements and we may be able to move that up a little bit, but on this model it shows it June 22nd. Design on the White Trunk, once easements are in place, is going to take roughly 90 days. Bid the project, will take a day, and then there is a 120 day construction window. All of that takes us out to June 4th, 2002. So, like I said, some of that could be moved up if we can get easements and get construction and design moving forward. Borup: Bruce, yes, I think you alluded to a question I had. Is it required for the Final Plat before the easement can be conveyed? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 5 Freckleton: No, it doesn't. Borup: So that could be done almost anytime as long as they had a legal description? Freckleton: As long as the property owner is comfortable, yes. Borup: Yes that's what I mean Freckleton: They could dedicate the easements, yes. So, basically, what I'm going to propose to you is there are basically two options from our perspective. Option one would be continue these items until after the March 15 th meeting of P and Z on the application for Bridge Tower. At such time you will have ACHD Staff reports, you'll have -- they will have gone through tech review -- things will be nailed down a little tighter on that development. Or, option No. 2, if you recommend approval of this development to move forward, we would just request that you include a statement that the approval should not be construed a guarantee for sewer service at all, and that by proceeding forward, the developer assumes all risk of non -serviceability and also that no other methods of sewer service will be considered. So, he has expressed some desire to move forward at his risk, so I just offer that up. Borup: Anything else? Freckleton: That's all. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Kuntz: Pardon me? Borup: You had a comment too? Kuntz: Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you should have received in your mailboxes a memo, dated February 14t", from the Parks and Recreation Commission and Staff. It's in regards to Item No. 11, on Page 6, and 7 of the Planning and Zoning Department's Staff reports. We have some of out Parks and Recreation Commissioners here tonight. I know that Bruce McCoy was elected to go through some of our comments and the other two Commissioners may want to make some comments afterwards. Is this the appropriate time to do this? Borup: Are they making comments on behalf of the Parks Department? Kuntz: Yes, sir. Borup: Yes, I think we can do that in a Staff report -- as part of the Staff report. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 6 Kuntz: Okay, Bruce McCoy? McCoy: Evening, Thanks for giving me an audience for a minute. I've been requested on behalf of the Parks Department to speak -- Kuntz: Go ahead and repeat your name again, just for the record. McCoy: Bruce McCoy, you want my address as well? Kuntz: Yes. McCoy: 2171 South Retriever Way. Kuntz: Thank you. McCoy: We feel very strongly on the Parks Commission, that this proposal of a single -loaded street, houses on one side, facing the park, need to be put forth and enforced by the Planning and Zoning. We prepared a list, which I'd like to walk through a few minutes with you that back that up. Our goal, in planning the parks -- and all the parks that Meridian will have. This is our largest undertaking to date and will probably be one of the key focal parks in Meridian going forward, is to have probably the finest park system of anywhere in Idaho. Toward that end, we've looked at a lot of opportunities to have amenities to parks and the single -loaded streets provides us with a lot of details that we think are important to making this park a real presentable park and a park to be proud of for years to come. First of all, to put a single -loaded street along this edge, where the houses are, which is primarily what we are focussed on, it's going to make the park appear larger as you look at it -- as you approach it from the main streets, by creating that open space around the edge of the park with the trees behind it. That should add value to the subdivision so I think it would benefit the developer to consider that very seriously, because that a nice look to the entrance of the subdivision. It creates a buffer zone between the park and future homeowners. Any time you have private land bordering public land, and you've got an area of (inaudible) public use, you're going to have conflicts. By creating a public street between the homes and the park, you do great amounts to reduce the potential for conflict there. Some of the things that will happen in that conflict zone, and, we'll say, a street will eliminate, or at least go a long way to help defer these problems, is privacy. If you have home backing up to the park, you are going to have people in that area up behind those homes. Those homes may not enjoy having people looking over their back fence into their back yards. We, at the Parks Commission, have heard a lot of things, to date, from parks that exist where they have homes owners backing up to the park, where people complain, in spite of the fact that they bought their home knowing full well that the park was behind it. They don't like the noise after hours; they don't like the noise during certain hours of the day. They don't like the lights coming over the fence. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 7 You've got an issue with trespassing. There's a tendency, if you see someone into somebody's yard, some folks might want to go into other people's yards. There's easy access from the public space into private space. Vandalism is a possibility along those fence lines as well. You've got things open to the public that people might be tempted to actually take advantage of. Light encroachment. Anytime you've got a situation... we've focussed most of our activities up off the main corner into that area, where the homes are going to be based. We've got the balls fields and we've got the soccer fields. We will have some lighting. There will be some evening games in the summer time. To date, we've had -- since I've been on the Commission, we've had one complaint about lighting already in one of our parks, and because of the fact lighting comes on at night and comes into their backyard. Noise encroachment. People constantly complain from the amount of noise that's going to be. Since we've focussed the amount of activity in that corner of the park away from the main drag, we're going to have probably the most focussed group of people in that area, with a lot of games going on. There's going to be quite a bit of noise. Having that street buffer is going to do a lot to alleviate that. Damage of homes due to park use, there's a potential that homes backing up to the park, against those sports fields, with flying balls going into people's yards, soccer balls, baseballs, frisbees. There is potential, when that happens that things might get damaged, that people might get injured. Another nice advantage to having a road along the back of the park, is since we've created that area to be most of where the activity's going to take place, in terms of team sports, currently the way the park is set up, we don't have access except across the grass from parking lots for handicapped individuals that want to use that area. By having a road across the back we allow ourselves to have handicap parking spaces along that road to allow people to have easy access to that end of the fields. One of our main goals, in the Parks Commission, is to provide easy access for all people who want to access public spaces. One of the other advantages that come of our doing that, it eliminates the fencing and privacy landscaping costs for the developer. If homes area going to back up against the park, it has been the tendency of this Council to require that developers put a standard fence along those public spaces, which is going to be very costly for the developer. Another thing it's going to do, is eliminate the cost the developer has of maintain and building the public access -ways -- the two walkways coming through the property line to the park will actually provide the developer with only 40 -feet of frontage they could put back into the development if they're able to recalculate their spaces. They would not have to have that. It also eliminates hidden areas. Having people's homes back up to the park and having solid fences along there, our big concern is this area up here, where you've got the outfield of the ball park, you've got a walking path, you've got a green space. You want to eliminate any kind of hidden areas that make people feel unsafe in that area. It also provides higher visibility towards it, then, for the police. The police would like to have access to all corners of the park, in order to patrol it effectively. In this case, if something is going on in that field ... that corner of the field, a police officer has no easy access to that corner of the field, except to park his car on the residential street at the top and come Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 8 through one of those access ways, or park in one of the parking lots and come across the field. There is no easy way to gain visibility or access to that corner of the field should there be a problem there. Toward the end, you'll see in the notes -- does everybody have a copy of this Tom? Kuntz: Yes, sir. McCoy: We've attached a letter from the Chief of Police, asking his opinion. I won't go through that with you, you can read that on your own. He concurs with our desires to have that road in the back, to have easier access for the police officers. It also provides better access for emergency vehicles. The way the park has been designed, with all of the ball fields and all of the soccer fields and activity fields in that corner, that means that most of the activity is going to take place there. The potential for injury, the potential for emergencies, is probably greatest in that corner of the field. The Fire Department and the emergency crews have a concern about getting access there. Currently, the way it is designed, they would have to park on the residential streets, drag their gurneys down the walkways, and across the grass, or park in the parking lots -- or better yet, they'd end up driving through the park and disrupt everything else that's going on -- the activities -- and destroying some of the vegetation. They would like to have access to back of the park as well. Their letter, which is included in the memo, shows their concurrence with this desire. So, to close, I'd say it's a pretty compelling case we have here. We would like to establish with this park, a precedence that goes forward with every park we develop down the road. That we have this access -way so our parks will get greater use and actually be safer places for enjoying activities. Borup: Questions? Mr. McCoy? Nary: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if Mr. McCoy or Mr. Kuntz is the appropriate person to answer this but if this project wasn't before us right now, asking to build houses in the area north of the park, what we do for access to that area? Since it's just fields. Kuntz: One thing I'd like to point out too, that I probably just glazed over here, we realize on the Parks Commission that we are asking the developer to do a whole redesign of their subdivision, or at lease a partial redesign. We also realize that there's cost incurred with that. One of the things we'd like to do is provide the curbing and the street edge, and if need be, some parking in the park space on that side, to eliminate some of the potential cost and some of the potential conflict of people park on a residential street. So, what would we do if there was no subdivision going in there, I believe at this point we haven't actually considered in the Parks Commission that there wouldn't be a subdivision there, but I think we would desire to have a road access along that side anyway, wouldn't we? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 9 Nary: And, I guess this is just for discussion purposes, Mr. Kuntz, but I mean the developer could say, well, you could put a road in on your property. Why do you want us to put the road in on our property? Kuntz: Commissioner Nary, Chairman, the rest of the Commissioners, since the developer is coming before this Commission asking for annexation we feel like it's reasonable to ask the developer to provide that road. To answer your question, what would we do if there was no development planned at this point? We would plan to have some kind of access through that back lot, either through an easement, with the landowner. If that weren't available we would certainly have to look at other alternative ways of getting back to that area. Nary: When the park was designed, wasn't that anticipated? I guess, when I read your letter here, the letter from Chief Gordon, and the letter from Chief Bowers, wasn't that anticipated when you designed the park, that they wouldn't have access to that back section to the park without a roadway? Kuntz: No, sir. Nary: So, after you made all those plans and designed those fields, is when the Police Department and the Fire Department realized they couldn't access the back for emergency purposes? Kuntz: Yes, sir. Nary: Okay. Borup: Mr. Kuntz, when was this Preliminary Park Plan designed? It's been quite recent, hasn't it? Kuntz: Yes, it was done in the last four to five months Centers: When was the land acquired by the City? Kuntz: Oh, I'm not exactly sure, but I'm sure it was at least five years ago. Centers: When is it planned to be developed? Kuntz: We're starting Phase One of the development this summer. Centers: I did some rough calculations and, plus or minus probably just a quarter acre, but that's asking the developer to give up four acres of land, irregardless of the platted lots, which, of course are more valuable, and asking the developer to pay half of the expense of the street. Kuntz: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 10 Centers: That's the proposal? Kuntz: Yes, sir, yes. Borup: Which land are they giving up? Centers: Pardon? Borup: What land are they giving up? Kuntz: The 19 lots that border on the street. Centers: The 19 lots. Kuntz: And Commissioner Centers, we didn't really want to offer this up tonight, but we would certainly be willing to discuss the possibility of trading out those 19 lots, at predevelopment cost, in exchange for impact fees. That would be one option, if the developer did not want to totally redesign the park. Centers: Now, you're making some headway in my mind. Kuntz: And I think the reason we bring this to you, and I know it appears rather late, but there were discussions, predevelopment meetings, where this issue was discussed. The reason we feel like this is so essential is because of the size of this park. The total size is 58 acres. It's the first one of these Meridian, and we want to really make sure we do it right the first time and not turn around in two years and say, why wasn't that north side of the park left open somehow. Centers: Okay, let me say, regarding Bruce's comments, I think I agree with 90 percent of them. When a park backs up to homes, I have it in a subdivision -- I live in the same subdivision as you do, where the interior park and homes back up to a park. I wouldn't want to live there, but the homes do sell. The lots probably for a lesser price, they end up selling them. It's quite an expense for the developer. Kuntz: My understanding, that if you do it right, my experience has been with communities I've lived in, when you single -loaded street, facing the park, typically, those homes on that single -loaded street are of greater value because of that access and because of the separation as well. You get the best of both worlds, the access to the park but you don't have to live in the park. That generally brings a higher price for those homes. Centers: Well that's what you're saying. If he has to give up 19 lots, he's going to tack that price on to the remaining lots and the people end up paying. That's Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 11 the bottom line. Somebody's got to pay for that loss and its not going to be the developer. Nary: Mr. Kuntz, so I'm clear. This plan was developed, you said, about four or five months ago? Kuntz: It was completed five months ago. Nary: September of 2000, approximately. Mr. Siddoway, when was this application submitted? Do you have any information? Siddoway: Our first hearing was October — Nary: Right, so October 9th — Siddoway: — so It would have been submitted a month and a half before that. Nary: Was it submitted prior to this Final Plan being developed? Kuntz: We didn't have a final draft of it, but we knew what was going on. We had a -- the master plan had been worked on months before that, but the final draft we didn't get until that timeline. The developer knew of our plans for the park and, you know when we had the predevelopment meetings. Nary: And was this discussion had with them at the time about having a roadway there? Kuntz: There's a little bit of disagreement upon, was it discussed or not? I certainly don't want to split hairs with the developer. I know for a fact that in the meeting I attended in November, we definitely discussed it, and their response at that time was, we don't want to give up the additional lots, which I can certainly understand and empathize with. Again, it's the size of this park, is the reason we're bringing this park to you. If it were a seven or eight acre neighborhood park, we would not feel the say way we do now. I don't know if any of the other Commissioners want to speak tonight or not, but I'd like to let them have an opportunity, if that's all right. Borup: Just if there was something that hasn't been brought out already, I think. Watkins: I'd like to (inaudible) -- Debbie Watkins, 525 West Washington. What I'd like to say is just, in this last couple of three weeks we've been trying to decide where in Meridian, to place a Skate Park. One of the formal issues of that Skate Park was visibility, visibly, visibly. Can it been seen from all sides? Is it going to be safe? Is there anybody that's going to be in that Skate Park that's going to feel threatened because the visibility is not there? That's one of the biggest issues, in my opinion, is the visibility. This is not a neighborhood park Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 12 this is a community park. There won't be any visibility on that entire backside, if it's loaded up with backyards of house and fences. For me, that's a huge issue for my children that are in a park or for myself as well. I've been in many parks. I've lived in Omaha, Nebraska, where the parks are three times the size and three times as many -- well eight times as many, and I have not visited parks for that reason. Beautiful parks, but if they're not safe for me to walk through, I'm not going there. So to me, that is a huge issue that you folks need to be aware of, when you make this decision, because that is the future. Our kids are in those parks. So this is the biggest reason I can see that we want a street there, for the visibility issue around the surroundings of the backside of that park. Nary: Were you present at any of the meetings that this was discussed with the developers? Watkins: No I was not. Nary: Because I don't particularly disagree with what you're saying, I guess the issue comes out, who's responsible for that? Watkins: And I would say that that's an honest answer and I would also say that's very reasonable. Borup: Okay, thank you. Anything else Mr. Kuntz? Kuntz: I don't have anything else, but Mr. Siddoway has a comment. Siddoway: Just one comment, maybe an option. One potential alternative along the north side of a single -loaded street, it couldn't -- the building permits couldn't happen under the current single-family residential Comp Plan. We would support a higher density townhouse development along that north side which could make up for the lost density and still provide the developer with the same No. of unites, once the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted, which would support higher density development around the park. So, that's just an option I would mention. Borup: Any other questions, comments? The question I did have was -- I don't know if you addressed -- you mentioned the two future sites. That proposes L -O zoning then? That was the only zoning that was mentioned. It talked about -- I mean are we being asked -- pardon? Kuntz: I believe the entire annexation is for R-4. Borup: So how is that handled on those areas? Centers: You have one separate lot. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 13 Kuntz: That lot cannot be zoned anything other than single-family residential under the current Comprehensive Plan. So after the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted, they could come back and request a rezone. That's the only way we could handle it at this point. Borup: Okay, so that was the intent, on those parcels? Kuntz: That's correct. Borup: The same applies to that parcel out front, in front of the school site? Kuntz: Yes. Borup: Excuse me, did the developer donate the school site, the 12 acres? Kuntz: I believe they are selling it to the School District. I have not been in conversations with that so I will let the developer address that. Borup: Alright, is the applicant here who would like to make a presentation? Fluke: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission thank you for hearing this this evening. My name is Daren Fluke with J -U -B Engineers, 250 South Beechwood in Boise representing the applicant in this matter. Kuntz: I might just mention for the audience that the board we have here is the same one we have on the screen. Fluke: What I intend to do is go ahead and deal with the other issues that are in the staff report, basically intern, and then we will take up the issue of the sewer and the issue of the park for last. As I like to save the fun stuff for last. What I want to do is prepare to hand out for you so you can follow along while we discuss these various issues. A couple of exhibits attacked to the back of this that I would like entered into the record as well. Basically, I am just going to follow down Steve's format in dealing with these issues. The first issue that comes up would be on page 3 of your staff report that would be requirement No. 2, which is dealing with the 5 percent common open space within the development. This development was designed in the spring and it was submitted approximately in August sometime. We have been continued since that time for a No. of reasons, the school, but most particularly the White Drain and a couple of other issues. Most notably you will notice this issue of a single -loaded road along the park was not one of the reasons that we had been continued because that is a pretty recent issue, and we will talk about that in a little bit. First though let's talk about the 5 percent. I forget exactly when your Ordinance was adopted, but as is noted in the staff report it was well after the submittal of our application, and therefore our design did not take into account any of the provisions of that Ordinance because it not exist at the time we submitted it. We are not opposed Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 14 to complying the best that we can. Based on our calculations total open space in the plat that you see there is 6.2 percent. That includes some areas though, that your new Ordinance will not allow us to count as open space including buffers along Meridian and Ustick Road, and then the common lot that accommodates an irrigation easement on the northern property line. So what that means is we end up with about 3.14 percent open space that complies with the standards of your new Ordinance. We will fully comply with the Ordinance as far as the design of these other open space areas which the staff correctly notes are stormwater retention areas, but that will double as open space in some cases usable open space. There are some fairly significant areas in here as you can see. Those we will comply with one design, and we will submit a Landscape Plan and do the best that we can. What I do ask, however, is that you not hold us to the 5 percent simply because it was not law at the time that we designed our subdivision, and it is really a basic matter of fairness. If we were to comply with the 5 percent over the 100 -acre total, we would lose an additional 10 lots. Now what would we do if we lost 10 lots? Well, we probably create a park space, which seems a little bit crazy to us being that we have a 60 -acre park on our southern border. So, I am just going to offer that up for your consideration and logic would seem to dictate that we go ahead and comply with what we have, but it does not seem to make a whole lot of sense to provide some more significant open space when we have plenty of landscaping as it is. Next issue would be a requirement No. 3, also on Page 2. This deals with a 20 -foot buffer on this lot right here off of Meridian. We have proposed R-4 zoning for the entirety of the sight because your existing Comprehensive Plan under which we must be evaluated does not support anything else. So our intention is — and that is why we called it out on the plat, we are not trying to hide anything, but we cannot do it at the moment — to come back with an application for L -O here and a more multi- family type designation here. These were things that the staff wanted to see. We added them in even though we could not do them at this time. What I would simply propose is that we deal with this buffer issue when we come through for a Conditional Use Permit and rezone on that parcel. Currently, it will be zoned R-4 and if we can never develop it as an L -O site it will end up getting a house on it, or it will be platted with a couple of more lots that will be residential and the buffer will not make any sense there anyway. Quick comment on Condition No. 5, which is Page 4. They are asking for a detached sidewalk on Meridian Road with a 5 -foot planter strip in-between the sidewalk and the roadway. We are not averse to doing this; I just simply want you to recognize that we have to deal with the Highway District on that. We will need to have a License Agreement with them to put landscaping within the right-of-way, and they will want the sidewalk within the right-of-way. Or conversely if we do not put the sidewalk in the right- of-way, we of course would like to put it in our 35 -foot landscape strip there along Meridian. We are willing to work with you on that. I just ask that that condition be structured in such a way that it does not box us into something where we cannot comply with the Highway District at the same time as complying with your condition. Condition No. 6 deals with the sewer and I want to deal with that last or second to last right before we deal with the park issue. We move on to Page Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 15 5, there is question on No. 3 there dealing with irrigation. It is correct when we redrew the Plat; we neglected to get it on. What we anticipate at this time is that we will get a pump structure in that area, the northeast corner which is where the existing irrigation water comes from, and that of course will be detailed when we get our irrigation plan in for you. As far as No. 4 right below that, the pressurized irrigation system is proposed to be owned and operated by Nampa Meridian. We are in the process of putting that paper work together right now. No. 5, on the same page and on to the next page deals with the easement along the northern property line for the settlers ditch. Currently our northern property line that you see there is the centerline of the ditch. We have 25 feet from that centerline back to the closest lot line. We do propose to fence that northern boundary outside of that 25 -foot easement. We expect to deal with the Settlers Irrigation District on that. We have a verbal from them as far as that scheme goes. Dealing with Venable Lane over here on the western side of our project, is a residential collector. What our traffic study showed, what ACHD is requiring, and I have attached an email from Kristy Richardson to my colleague clarifying basically that the residential collector will go to approximately that point right there which is the northern end of the school site. That will be your 42 -foot street section then it will be a 36 proceeding north from there. So that is just a matter of clarification on that. Steve is right; this one does appear to be more problematic. It appears that way but in actuality what the traffic study showed was that we need a residential collector street to this point right here. In the staff report, ACHD inadvertently put it to right here. We are working with them right now to get a clarification of that, and we will deal with that issue. The traffic study shows that we only have 1000 trips beyond this point to Meridian Road, and so the collector just needs to come to Ashton Street right there. With regard to this micropath right here leading to the park, we are going to talk a lot more about parks, but we had a number of discussions with the Parks Director about where to locate those paths. We changed our plat prior to submitting the application a number of times based on what he was telling us. So we went ahead and located it here. We are not particularly averse to switching this, however, if you look at where it is located, it is a nice spot because it provides access to both the park as well as the school site. It is right there on the corner, and it works fine. If you feel strongly about it we can certainly move it, but give the layout that we have seen for the park it seems to work fine. As far as adding an additional micropath in this area right here, we think that is a fine idea, and we will be happy to do that. You can go ahead and add that condition in, and we will put that on our next redraw. With regard to this issue of a crosswalk in this area as you see in my response, we agree with staff that development of either the park or the school site could very well require that we get a safer way for kids to cross. We are looking at approximately a half of a mile from the intersection here over to our western property line. It is kind of unrealistic to think that kids are going to walk a half of a mile down to a signal to cross and then come back to the park or the school site. However, that requirement would not be something that was precipitated by our application. It would be from the school and or the park, and we would suggest that you look at that issue when the Conditional Use Permit comes through for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 16 the school and the park. That would probably make a lot of sense to get something there. I would emphasis that our traffic study showed that we did not warrant the signal at this location, and I would further note that we are being required by ACHD to kick in $30,000 for the cost of putting a signal at the intersection of Meridian and Ustick Road. ***END OF SIDE ONE*** Fluke: -- we are okay there. As far as the sewer issue goes, we have a discussion there in the narrative that I gave you dealing with that issue. What the Commission may or may not know was that the City Council held a workshop this last Tuesday, and this was a topic of discussion that came up. At that time the developer's representative of the easements that you are waiting for, that developer's representative stated that the delay had not been that developer trying to stall anybody else, but merely figuring out how he was going to lay out his property. The easements got located in a logical place which makes good sense. However, that layout has now been established and the developer's representative indicated that those easements would be forth coming perhaps even before they got to Public Hearing on their Preliminary Plat before this body. So that alignment seems to not be an issue. That basically gets you to Linder Road at that point and from that point they have easements for the alignment traveling east including through our development. We proposed to bring the White Trunk rather than along our northern property line, we would drop it down into the roadway here and bring it down as an 18 -inch line. We basically have verbal confirmation from Public Works that that is generally acceptable, so we just have to work out those details. Given the fact that the White drain is a high priority of the City Council and this body as well I assume. We have a real high degree of confidence that that line is going to get built and be able to serve our project. Therefore, we just ask that you go ahead and condition it however you see fit as far as getting sewer service to this site. We would like to go ahead and keep moving on so that we can get into design phases, and then begin construction as soon as that is feasible after the City is able to get their line in. We still have another Public Hearing before the City Council, and we just ask for your approval or recommendation of approval on that, and we will go ahead and start work on that so that we are ready when it happens. Okay, the park issues. As you might be aware, we have a different take on this than the Parks Department does, but maybe not necessarily for the reasons that you might think. Redesign is one of the issues, however, and you touched on that. If you look at the way our plat is laid out, we have got a tier of lots here that are 100 - foot in depth and then we have a roadway and then a double -tiered lot, which is typically what you try to do. You do not want to have single -loaded roads because the cost twice as much per lot, obviously. If we were to eliminate this, lets just say for the sake of argument that we were amenable to having a single - loaded road there even though we did not design it that way, and we thought that was a great idea. Lets just say to make it easy on ourselves, we would just eliminate these 19 or 20 lots and just throw them away and put the road down Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 17 there. We have still got a significant problem because we have 150 feet to deal with, where roadways are only 50 feet in width, so I have this extra slop of 100 feet to somehow distribute to these other tiers of lots in the subdivision. If you have ever tried to lay one of these things out, it is like plumbing, you touch one thing and it messes up three other things. I can tell you that there is no easy way that it will necessitate a total redesign of the northern portion of the development. There is not an easy way to do it. We have looked at it, and I can guarantee you that it will not be cheap, and it will not be easy for us to come up with a different design not to mention the time we are going to lose because the layout will have changed so significantly that you are going to have to hold another hearing on it. So that is the first thing. The second thing is and this is a primary importance to us. As the Parks Department has said this is a 60 -acre park, this is a major park, and it is meant to serve a regional area, a whole lot of people. If this were a 10 - acre park, we would not be having this discussion. We would design it as single - load in a heartbeat because it would be an amenity to our subdivision and it would add value to the lots that fronted on that; however, we are talking about a half a dozen baseball diamonds, 8 or 10 soccer fields and lighting with those. Putting a single -loaded road along the northern tier here would simply invite people to drive into our development and park along the roadway because where do you think the closest spot is to those fields that they have designed? They are right here. What the Parks Department is basically telling you is that they have laid out a poor design for their park, and now they want us to accommodate that poor design by completely changing our layout. A regional park of this magnitude would have an impact on this development far beyond that first tier of lots. I can guarantee you that a 50 foot right-of-way, a 36 foot road section is not going to have any significant buffering effect on noise, on lighting, or on anything else that they claim will increase the value of our development. What we would propose is, there are two options we think for dealing with their concerns and basically getting what they want, one the Commission touched on would be for them to simply put an internal road in their park which maybe they should have thought about designing in the first place if it such a key item to have access to that northern section of the park. The other idea which we think is novel and we would be really willing to work with park on is for them to sell us 100 feet of land across the bottom here, where we could put another strip of lots. Then they could put a road right in front of that and we would accomplish the same thing. Then we would not have to redesign our subdivision entirely. Of course, they would have to redesign the park layout, and I image they might be feeling about the same way as we feel about redesigning ours to do that. I do not know if that layout has been adopted yet, but we did work with the park extensively before we designed our application, and not until we had not only submitted our application but also redesigned our sight two times, did this idea come up. Never once did we get the opportunity to address the Parks Commission on this idea. We talked with staff very informally, very off the cuff, and we never realized this was such a significant issue really until the memo showed up on our fax machine today. That was this morning and we did not get the memos from Police and Fire until this afternoon at 2:30 pm. So guess what my afternoon consisted of? That is all Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 18 I have to say. I think we have designed a quality project here. I think this is exactly what the City is looking for when the Comprehensive Plan designates as single-family residential. We have complied with all Ordinances as well as the plan, and we just ask that you forward this on with the recommendation of approval. Borup: Any questions from the Commission for Mr. Fluke? Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Fluke, we did have a workshop with City Council about 3 weeks ago regarding the single -loaded roads and that was the first time that I had heard that single -loaded roads were important for parks. They did have a Commission and had quite a nice presentation from the Parks and Recreation Commission. We understand that this has been continued, that Cedar Springs Subdivision has been continued since October 10, 2000 and we are now at February 15, 2001. My question to you is about the school site. Did you donate the land to the School District for the school site? Fluke: No that is a 12 -acre site. We are selling it at cost. What my client paid for it is what we are selling it for with an agreement as far as bringing the road to the property and the utilities as well. Norton: And you proposed that to the school? Have they accepted that? Fluke: Yes, we haven't settled on a price yet, but we have been dealing with Wendell Bigham extensively. Basically my client and Wendell decided that it was best for us to get a little bit further along in the process before we nailed some of that down. Norton: Okay, and then, go back to the open space of 3.14 percent, 3 -acres that you had said, that does not include the buffers or the drainage? Fluke: That is correct. If we included those things we would be at 6.2, 1 believe. Norton: Shelby, do you know when the Landscaping Plan was approved? Oh, Steve has that, I am sorry the Landscape Ordinance. Siddoway: The Landscape Ordinance was formerly adopted the first week of December, I believe on the 5th. However, I would point out that this is an annexation, and as an annexation the City can require additional requirements on an annexation. They have been aware from the very beginning of the 5 percent open space requirement. It is in our original staff report dated October 10th as one of the issues. It has been something they have been aware of since day one. Fluke: May I respond? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 19 Borup: Sure. Fluke: Quite frankly, the City may or may not be able to put any sort of condition they want on when somebody asks for annexation. I have heard it a No. of times. I heard it again yesterday, and I am not so sure, but I am not going to debate that point. What I would say is when we laid this subdivision it was not in effect at the time. We designed these around the rules as they are at the time that we lay them out, and that is only far. How can you expect us to guess what the City is going to do in the future? Yes, it was in the first staff report, but of course at that time we had a layout, and the other mitigating factor that I would ask you to keep in mind is why are we going to lose 10 lots to comply with the 5 percent open space in this development? Would it be to provide more landscaping, or would it be to provide open space? Lets say usable open space, and if the later is true, why in the world would we do that when we have 60 acres of open space to the south of us? Given those to factors in tandem, it does not seem to make any sense to require us to lose another 10 lots on the top of the 65 that we already eliminated for the school site. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Well, the school site is going to be a wash. You are not going to have lots there, but you just said the developer is going to sell the School District — Fluke: He is going to cover his predevelopment costs. I can guarantee that is considerably less than what you would make off of the sell of lots. Centers: I think part of the Landscape Ordinance is to reduce density a little bit. I think staff makes a good point that you have known about it. It is a City requirement. You were not in the City; you are not now. You want to come into the City, so you should. I feel, live by the City requirements. Fluke: I feel we should live by the City requirements that were in force at the time we submitted the application. Centers: They changed. You are not in the City, and you were not then. They changed, things change everyday, and they may tomorrow. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Fluke, I guess I was a little troubled by your other comment. So would you think that since you are building next to a park why should you have to have Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 20 any green space? Since you have a 60 -acre park. That is kind of what I get from your gist. There is no reason to have more green space because you are just borrowing the cities. Fluke: Borrowing? I beg to differ. I mean each one of these lots is going to have to pay a Park Impact Fee, each one of these people that live in this development are going to pay taxes that go to the maintenance and upkeep of the park. They will be citizens of the City like every other citizen of the City. Nary: That placed every subdivision, though. Fluke: Correct. Nary: And the other subdivisions need the 5 percent. Centers: Right, you are saying because you are next to the park that you do not have to comply with that because you are borrowing the parks green space — Fluke: I am saying that it is redundant because given the fact that we have a park there nobody is going to use usable open space. Yes, we can add more landscape lots. I am merely saying it just seems illogical. Centers: It would redundant if that was the only reason for it. Would you agree? Nary: If the only reason for that 5 percent open space was simply to provide park like areas, then that would make some sense, but that is not the only reason that it is required. Wouldn't you agree? Like for density, for example. Fluke: I think I take issue with it, but I really do not want to debate that. This has been designated for single-family lots on 8,000 square foot lots, and that is what we have done. If you wanted less density, I would assume that we would have a larger minimum lot area than 8,000 square feet. It seems like a back door approach to getting less density, but that is just to my way of thinking. Nary: But that is the way the Ordinance is written though, isn't it? Fluke: Well that may be I cannot speak to that. Nary: The other question I have for you Mr. Fluke is you talked about two options for this road issue, but Mr. Kuntz had proposed a potential third option. Do you have any comment about it? About the City acquiring those lots at the same predevelopment price as the School District did, and setting that off against impact fees for the park that the developer will have to pay? Do you think that is a potential? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 21 Fluke: We think a single -loaded road is a bad idea because of the impacts of this park of this magnitude of park. Nary: Okay, but that was not my question. Fluke: I do not think that my client would be amenable to that, but he has not told me specifically. Nary: Okay, but your client was more amenable to moving that single row of houses down into the City's park and then putting a wider road above it. Was that what your second option was? Fluke: No, it was if they really want a single -loaded road we would purchase a 100 -foot strip of land along here, and we would front a tier of lots on here. Right here, we would just back them up to those and put the road right in front of it. Nary: So you do not agree with the other things from Mr. Kuntz's letter about privacy, trespassing, vandalism, none of those things are applicable to — Fluke: That is correct, and I am prepared to deal with those bullet points on a point by point basis, if you like. I would point out that my client developed Austin Creek subdivision at the corner of Eagle Road and McMillian which backs up to Boise's regional Sports Complex. It is only about 40 acres rather than 60 acres, but it is the same type of idea, a very active recreation site. He has approximately the same number of lots backing up to that development. Those lots sell for exactly the same that everything else in the development sells for, and Candlestick Park to the north of that park has the same scenario. I would argue that those back yards and those houses provide a better buffer to this very significant use and the very significant impacts that go along with a park this busy then does a 50 foot road. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: In those two examples you gave, are the back yards fenced? Fluke: In? Centers: Austin Creek? Fluke: Yes, they are. Centers: They are fenced. Have you known subdivisions where they do not fence the back yards? One person talked about visibility earlier. That would eliminate the visibility problems. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 22 Fluke: Well again I think this is a design problem with the park. If you want to put a Skate Park in, and you want it to be visible, you put it right here. You do not put right here. With regard to what the public safety folks are saying, they are saying yes in a perfect world we would love to have access as close to all portions of that park as we could have. There are any numbers of parks that are developed just this way that operate just fine. This is going to be a busy area for Meridian. This is going to be a busy corner, and you are going to a '/ mile of visibility into the park here and a Y2 mile of visibility into the park here. Frankly, it does not gain you much to have a street here, but it sure does impact us. It turns our development into a parking lot because that is the closest spot to all of these fields, and rather than come and park right here or right here, which is where the parking lots are shown people are going to say, well I would sure like to have my cooler closer to my ball -field. I am going to come park right here. We are going to be dealing with cars on that road for every hour that the park is open during the day. If you think that you might have complaints with people who knowingly buy lots backing up to a park, wait until you have people using that street as a parking lot for the park, and you will know complaints then. I am sure that this body has heard any number of times complaints about traffic. It seems to be one of the things that really riles people up. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Fluke, with the micro -paths is there going to be parking anyway? It is not going to make a whole lot of difference. Fluke: Well, I tend to defer in that. This creates a much more residential scenario. You -- a streetscape when you have lots on both sides of the road that feels a lot more proprietary. It feels more private to people than does a road that abuts on a park side. The parks folks are absolutely right when they say it will open up the park and make it seem bigger. It also makes all of that space that is interstitial between our development and the park also seems much more public, and it really will invite people to come park three. Nary: Would it be safe to say Mr. Fluke, that primary opposition to what the Parks Director and the Parks Department is proposing is the cost of redesign, and then the philosophical differences to whether or not it is going to benefit this subdivision versus what the benefit the City perceives it will be. Fluke: We believe that the intensity of this use will have adverse impacts on our development far beyond any benefit that we gain and the cost, effort, and time that it is going to take to completely redesign. Nary: About how much would a redesign like that cost? Roughly? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 23 Fluke: We would spend $10,000. Nary: You are also leaving out the fact that they lose sale of 19 lots minimum. Fluke: Well then I will not even get into the cost of the road, either. We would certainly expect more than us building the road, and them building curb, gutter and sidewalk. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Fluke, if the City sold you some more of that park so you can put another row of houses in there and then build the road, then the road would not be a problem for you? Is that what heard? Fluke: Yes, I thought that was illustrative of what was being asked of us. We would certainly entertain it rather than impacting all of our development. We would impact one tier of lots there, and we may get a lot less for those lots, that is true, but the balance of our development remains buffered from the intensive use that goes on in the park. It does not invite the parking internal to our development. Norton: So it would just be parking on the one side of the extra property that you would purchase from the City. Fluke: Yes, granted it will absolutely affect this tier of lots. If we were to just draw a line straight across there and bump in 19 or 20 more lots and then have a road to the south just like Parks has purposed. Those 19 lots would bear the grunt of the cars coming in on that road and parking there and using the park. Norton: And that is different then taking out the 19 lots? Fluke: Yes, because a double tier of lots basically, if we have one tier of lots here it affects those 19 lots. If we eliminate these lots it opens it up to a much broader area in our development. It impacts the value of many more lots than just the 19. Nary: Well, Mr. Fluke could not we just build the road on that side anyway, we do not need to sell you any of it. They can just build a road on that bottom. Fluke: Yes that was my second option. They certainly have the option to put a road in. They would not have to do curb, gutter and sidewalk. It would basically be a vehicular road. You see them in Julia Davis, Ann Morrison, and Barbara Park they all have those types of roads. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 24 Borup: Mr. Fluke what have you got there? About 3 '/2 acres or so for that last proposal you were just talking about? Fluke: 100 feet by 1000 feet. Whatever it is, it is a couple 3 acres. Borup: Rather than buying it would you look at trading the property with the City for like amount of acreage? Fluke: Our upper tier of lots? Borup: Well I was just looking at your proposal to put another street in down below and put more lots in rather than the City giving up that property for the park. You would trade that for some of the property to the west, that way the park size could stay the same. I do not know what that would do to the school site, but — Fluke: Well, our feeling on that is if we do not even talk about the design considerations involved with working around the school and the multi -family site, it is just that it still opens up our development to all the adverse impacts that happen in a 60 acre park with all of that activity. Borup: I understand that but you are saying you are restricting that to one street then rather than more of the subdivision. Fluke: Yes, if we backed another tier of lots up to that one, but if we eliminate that one — Borup: No, I am saying back another tier up. Fluke: Oh, okay. Borup: Trade that 3-'/2 acres or whatever, 3 acres, for 3 acres of your property. Fluke: Oh, I see you and you pick it up on the west? Borup: Well or wherever would work. I guess maybe part of that commercial site, or whatever is practical. Fluke: We would certainly be willing to listen. Centers: How would a road go in there? Fluke: Well that is one of the other design problems. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 25 Centers: You have the commercial site there, you are not going to go right through the middle of it are you? Fluke: I have not gotten to this level of detail, but you are exactly right Commissioner, that is one significant issue that — Centers: Well, you commented that the City could put it in, and maybe they could, but you are not going to cut right through your commercial site — Fluke: No, it would have to entail probably moving this, which has problems of its own. You are going to hear an application on this site right here, and I think we have our drives lined up, and then we have offset problems. We have got distance from the intersection to worry about. Centers: Could not you just take south of the commercial site and then wind it around just south of your 19 lots without making a sharp right, you could — Fluke: Yes, but then we double -fronted lots. Centers: I mean whoever puts the road in. It could be done south of that. Fluke: Quite frankly I think that an internal road, or a road internal to the park, makes more sense for what they are trying to accomplish. Than does public right-of-way through the middle of that development. Centers: It would not have to have curbs or gutters or anything else, would it? Fluke: If the park did it internally, no it would just be an internal drive. Centers: Just blacktop and access. Fluke: Right, they could get by with a 20 -foot ribbon of asphalt or less if it were one way. Borup: Any other questions? Fluke: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone from the public who would like to testify on this application? Anyone else from the public? Come on up sir. Simunich: I am Joe Simunich and I reside at 955 West Ustick Road, Meridian approximately across from this development that is planned. I have been here 30 years, and I notice these school sites and the locations of them. Some are in very desirable places, and others are put in undesirable places that causes bussing of students. This particular school site it looks to me like it were put up Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 26 in the northwest corner near the center of this section, it would be more attractive to the remainder of the development in this section. Also, in the southern half of this section is 330 acres, you are taking 60 acres out for a park, another 10 or 12 acres for a school, and I understand there might be a junior high in the southern half of this section. So you are only going to have approximately less than 200 acres of houses in a 330 -acre half section of ground. For grade school students to walk, it would be much more desirable if this school was up in that upper left- hand corner to serve that entire section which probably the north half of this section will be in housing. That is my comment on that. Also, I would like to ask the engineer what will they do with the storm water from the school site and that future commercial site? Fluke: Okay, we can find that out. Borup: They have some pretty strict regulations on the storm water, though. Did you have anything else Mr. Simunich? Simunich: If he will not answer the question, but I have another question. Borup: Okay, why do not you go ahead and finish your questions and then we will — Simunich: Also, I do not know when they plan to build the school if they do use this site, and this future commercial or apartment site. I would think that this entire project should be zoned at this time so we know what we are going to have in this high-density area if that is what they plan, or are we going to have some commercial things there? I think now would be the time to address them, rather than at a future time. Borup: I can answer that question. Right now the Comprehensive Plan does not allow that use for it to get rezoned it would be back in with another application. There would be another public testimony and everyone would have an opportunity to — Simunich: Yes, but if they put the school site in leave that 3 or 4 acres what can they put there then? It would be difficult to put it into housing. Also are there provisions made to irrigate the school site and that commercial site until it is developed? How long might that be? Thank you. Borup: Okay, thank you. Shultz: My name is Matt Shultz from J -U -B Engineers, 250 South Beechwood. I am the engineer on the project and if I could respond to Mr. Simunich's questions the best I can remember. Borup: The first question on the storm water. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 27 Shultz: Yes, the storm water of the commercial sites by Ordinance they to provide 100 percent on site retention. The other main drains that go through the site, what we are made to do is to maintain those same discharge points at a pre - developed rate or less to not adversely impact anybody. There is a drain about midway where that street goes off to the west there. There will be a drain down through there, and we will convey all that water in accordance with ACHD and local Ordinances. Simunich: Where is this drain, sir? Shultz: There is drain up on Venable Lane. It is the current lowest spot where all the fields are, where the water drains out, and that is the primary discharge point. I believe the park is going to put a drain down Ustick, as well. Simunich: The drain is right there facing Ustick Road. Shultz: That is the one I am talking about. There is a drain there, and there is another one further north as well. Both of those will be provided in our final designs. Borup: We need to address the Commission Shultz: As far as the timing of the school, I have dealt with Wendell Bigham extensively on the placement of that site, and he has agreed upon the placement of that site. He has a map of where all the future sites would be, and although he admitted that is not the ideal 100 percent location for it. It would be acceptable, and the timing on that is around 2004. If that is of value to you. As far as the irrigation of those sites in the interim, that is a concern to us, and it would be something that we are going to address with the school. Borup: On the maintenance of it? Shultz: The maintenance, in the mean time, because that of course is going to impact sells, and we would want it to look nice in the mean time as well. If there were any other questions I could answer for you, I would be happy to. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: The individual, Bruce something, he wanted to — Borup: If he is speaking his rebuttal — Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 28 Nary: If he is speaking his rebuttal, Chairman Borup, I believe he was asked to be part of the staff report and it would be inappropriate for him to present rebuttal at this point. We need to wait for the applicant to make his rebuttal and then the staff report at the end. Borup: Okay. Centers: He will have the opportunity. Borup: Did the applicant have any final? Fluke: I do not think I really have anything else to add. I think we covered all of the ground, I would like to reserve some time to address what the Parks has to say to our proposal if we can fit that in somehow. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission at this point? Simunich: Can I speak again? Borup: Well, I think if it is a question you could get directly with the applicant and they could probably answer the question. Simunich: My name is Joe Simunich and I reside at 955 West Ustick Road. I am concerned. The engineer is very vague of where this storm water is going to go from Venable Road. I had a problem in 1982 with irrigation water there and it cost me several thousand dollars, and I would like to know just what is going to happen — Borup: Okay, the storm water from this property is going to stay on site. Simunich: How about the street? How about Venable Road, the extension of Venable Lane? Borup: The storm water on that street? Simunich: Yes. Borup: The engineer can correct me. I believe that at least the street drainage on the east side is also going to need to be retained on site. As far as on the west side is that the side you are concerned on? Simunich: Well, the water from whichever side of the road, where is it going to go? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 29 Shultz: If I may, Matt Shultz again, I have been working with Tom Kuntz on the irrigation, which you seem to allude to is a problem, which runs right now through the middle of the park, in one of those irrigation ditches that we have been working real closely with the local ditch users. Borup: Okay, but I think Mr. Simunich is concerned with any drainage off of Venable Lane. Shultz: And that is all related in that the majority of the drainage that he is probably being impacted by is being taken care of by the park with their infrastructure. They are going to divert 100percent of that. The Venable Lane drainage, we are not made to 100 percent retain that, but it will be greatly reduced from the historic condition that he is faced with right now. It will not be 100percent retention; there will be some going down there, but that is by drainage law allowed to go there. Simunich: But where will it go? Shultz: There is a low spot in Ustick, and then there is a low spot — Simunich: It will drain down Ustick to where? Shultz: It will drain down Ustick to the west in the historic irrigation line location as well as there is a drain to the north about midway up to the sight, and that will be handled in the same manner of being passed with a catch basin into a storm drain that discharges to that point, and it will help the existing condition. It will not adversely impact downstream property owners. I am not allowed to do that as a professional engineer. I would be very liable in doing so. Simunich: The ditch along Ustick Road is a live irrigation ditch. Shultz: The Parks Department is going to tile that whole way along Ustick, and we will continue that tiling for our short segment. We will match that same design and let the water go by. Simunich: But you are still not allowed to put storm water into an irrigation ditch Borup: They understand that sir and that will not take place. Simunich: Well, then I am asking where is it going to go? Shultz: Currently, when it rains storm water does go into that ditch. Simunich: From where? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 30 Shultz: From ditches that run in from the south. We are not going to alter that condition. ACHD has full jurisdiction over this, and they are watching us very closely that we do not adversely impact anybody, and we obey all of the rules and will continue to do so. Borup: I do not think we are going to be able to settle anything more than that right now. Simunich: I know the lay of the ground, and I just wonder are we going to create another mess with storm water and irrigation. Borup: Well, the testimony from the engineer was that no, it will get better. Simunich: When will I know that, do I have the right to know what is going to happen there? Borup: You mean, do you want us to let you know when it is going to rain or what? Simunich: No, I want to know what they are going to do about this storm water. Shultz: Before we can pull a building permit or any kind of development permit, we need to get a full drainage study approved through ACHD as well as the City of Meridian documenting all drainage related items, and they insure that meet all the rules and regulations. We will not be able to construct until everybody is in agreement that we are doing everything correctly. Borup: Mr. Simunich, are you concerned about drainage from inside of the property or just on that one street? Simunich: Well no. First of all I do not like to see them digging these pits and putting all that stuff in the ground. Borup: Well, they do that so that the drainage will not be going into the ditches that you are concerned about. Simunich: I would rather have that water going down a ditch rather than in my well water, but I do not see that there is any prevision made for the drainage on Venable Lane, extension of Venable Lane. The water cannot cross Ustick Road. Shultz: The drainage coming from the property itself? Simunich: From the roadway. Shultz: Okay and that will be part of the engineering designs, and I think that that information will be available to you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 31 Borup: It certainly would be available from the ACHD, and I am sure that their records would be accessible by you, if you wanted to check with them because you were stating something about how will I know. I think they would be the best agency to talk to. Simunich: Has this already been submitted to ACHD and approved by them? Shultz: From a conceptual standpoint they have looked at it from a roadway layout. They have not looked at the specific drainage concerns yet. We have looked at them, and we are comfortable that we can address all of those concerns. Simunich: Okay, thank you. Borup: Steve, did you have any final comments you wanted to make? Well, it may not be final, but anything at this point? Siddoway: We already touched on the fact that the Landscape Ordinance should apply. On the detached sidewalk requirement, that is a requirement also of the new Landscape Ordinance, and that was discussed with Ada County Highway District. They will allow -- the sidewalk will not have to be in the right-of- way. They can handle it with an access agreement along the sidewalk. Borup: So that would be their standard policy? Siddoway: Yes, we would not ask for trees to be placed in that 5ft stripe, but we would ask for the sidewalk to be detached from the road with a planter strip between them. The settlers irrigation ditch, they said they are placing a 6ft solid cedar fence. I just want to make it clear that that does need to be tiled by the applicant and not simply fenced off. Then finally, requirement No. 7, page 6, that is the Collector Street. The place that Mr. Fluke was pointing to on the Plat as to the point where the collector road could stop is the place that Ada County Highway District was requiring it to go to; however, the current design does not match that collector road status. So I think that that may require some additional redesign. Shultz: Can I respond to that? Borup: Just a second, let him finish his comments first. Shultz: Okay. Siddoway: That is all I have. Borup: Let us go ahead with the Parks Departments comments. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 32 Siddoway: Matt might lose his train of thought, though. Shultz: Just real quick on that Collector Street going from Meridian down to basically the middle of the site. We have a traffic study which shows 64 up in that area which I just pointed to first and it transitions down to a 58, which is a residential collector that is the requirement. The traffic state document is down to that point right there, Greenwich, which is in your report is actually one street over. I think it is a typo, and the reason we have a 64 is to allow for an 8ft median. We do not propose to extend the 8 -foot median the whole way, so that is why it is able to transfer down to the 58. We are going to resolve that with ACHD and be able to forward you the comments. Borup: So the bottom line is whatever ACHD deems final — Shultz: We are going to request clarification from them. Borup: And staff is okay wit that I assume. Mr. Kuntz. Kuntz: I would like to let Mr. McCoy respond, and then I have some final comments, if that is possible. Borup: Okay. McCoy: My name is Bruce McCoy at 2171 South Retriever Way. A couple of things I would like to clarify, the developer pointed out. One thing in -particular, the developer pointed to the open Boise space that has the Austin Creek subdivision bordering it and the fence lines and the properties are backing up to the property there. One thing I can point out is that space is particularly uninviting. It is not easily accessed and you can see by the limited amount of use it gets; it is not an attractive park. If I can speak frankly, it likes hell actually having those fences in the back of the park, and it is not the kind of park that Meridian Parks wants to create for our community. I think it is a bad example. To address the parking, when we talk about — you have to realize that we have single -loaded streets we will have conflicts there regardless. There will be parking on that street. It is obvious that that is the easiest access to that corner. I did point out, which the developer failed to note, that are willing to put a small lot off that street at that corner of the park to collect that parking and keep it as much off the street as possible. Another thing — Borup: What size lot would a small lot be? McCoy: We have not actually looked at that on the plot that — Kuntz: Can I comment on that? We are willing to make redesigns to our plan to really accommodate any size of lot because as you can see if we shift that 5-plex Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 33 baseball or softball field to the south and split the size of that lot which is currently 400, the southern lot. We could split that 400 lot in half. We can provide any size of lot that the developer would like to see up in that area. I think the point that one of the Commissioners made is, whether you have single - loaded or you micro -paths going to the double -loaded street people are going to park along that street and walk in. Now, we are proposing a certain number of handicapped spots, and there is still only going to be so much parking along that street whether it is single or double -loaded and the people will have to go around and park in the big lots. But we are prepared to do a redesign if that is the wish of the developer. We did not think the developer would want that because then that really invites more cars into the subdivision than what is available on on - street parallel parking, but we are willing to look at that. Fluke: One point that Tom is making here, we talk about potential conflict by having people park in a residential area to access the park, we will effectively be cutting that in half by having a single -loaded street, that conflict. It will not take long for people to figure out that they can park along that street along the bottom and go down those paths to access that side of the park. You will have people parking all through that area to access that park down those paths, which we feel will then lead to problems with maintaining those paths in good order, pollution problems on those paths, who picks up the litter, graffiti along those fences. The more traffic you create through those walkways, the more potential you have for damage in that area and we think that just creates more problems. By making a single -loaded street you only half the people on the side of the street upset about parking rather than both sides of street, which you will have in this scenario. Another concern that I have is the perception issue. 99.83 acres of houses is still 99.83 acres of houses if you put a street along that edge and take it out from the middle of the property. It does not diminish the amount of property to turn into homes, so I do not see where the developer loses a lot of land on that deal. Kuntz: That is not related to the statement. Fluke: That is what I got from the discussion. Kuntz: They are not going to lose the acreage, but just because you have the same amount of acreage, you start shifting streets, it does not mean you get the same amount of lots in there. I think is what they were saying. Fluke: Okay. The statement was made that we were going to lose acreage. Kuntz: Yes that would not be true. Fluke: Okay, I want to make that clear. In response to the idea of putting an internal road in there, much like in Ann Morrison Park and do t B wn own olse, our desire is not to encourage traffic in the open space, we feel you put a paved surface internally in the park, and you will encourage people to drive through that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 34 space and then you are putting cars in conflict with pedestrians and open land use. Our desire is not go there with this park. We do not feel like that is compatible use. Borup: Tom. Kuntz: I guess I would like to clarify on a couple of points, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. One is there is a comment alluding to a poor design of this park. We think we have a good design; we paid enough money for it. We have an internal system, which is a path 10 feet wide asphalt that will encompass the entire site. The primary purpose of that path is to provide a recreation amenity, which has been identified in our Comprehensive Plan as one of the top two recreational activities in the City. That pathway will also serve as — ***END OF SIDE TWO*** Kuntz: -- to get to the northern boundary. The down side to that is that those pathways where they butt up to parking lots and roadways will be ballard. The emergency vehicles will need to have a key to those ballards which we will provide, but we will delay them a little getting response time as far as getting those ballards opened up, if there is problems with the ballads so forth and so on. So we have an internal pathway that we can get emergency vehicle to where they need to go. I think the bigger issue, from at least the police chiefs letter, is the visibility issue, and I again want to reiterate the size of this park, 58 acres, and to look in from Ustick Road across that acreage and see what is going on in this back corner of the 5-plex is going to be difficult at best. Yes, it is much easier for emergency vehicles to pull up to a single -loaded street, drive over the grass, and come into the soccer field if you have an injury on the soccer fields. We can get those vehicles in through the internal pathway; of course there will be walkers and joggers on those pathways. The other issue or another issue that was raised was on the pathway, the internal pathways, which are located here and here, and I look back in my notes at our November 16, 2000 meeting and I definitely said two pathways would be fine, but the problem is, is this line of school property will be fenced. They have already told me that, so to shift this pathway over here on this side ore in-between these lots somewhere will make the school property more accessible. The other reason that we do not want it in this corner and I did make comment to this at our November 16, 2000 meeting is if you look at the plan where the 5-plex is located here it creates a real dead spot as far as vision. So we would prefer not to have that there to create a dead zone where problems my happen. So that is why we suggested moving it over so it accesses the school and then we have the one access point here. One of the comments that I just could not believe when I heard is that this park is not an amenity to a neighborhood and the reason I cannot believe that is because other developers that we have worked with and I will give you an example of Bear Creek who donated 18 acres to the City for a park said that the first lots that sell are the ones that border around the park. I could certainly bring in pictures of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 35 examples of single -loaded streets and what a nice looks that creates for a community and for a neighborhood. It is very attracted, and the information I have is that these lots across here, which would cross the single -loaded street, would actually potentially worth more money because of the park location, so it is definitely an amenity. They discussed that the vandalism and privacy is not an issue. It will be an issue, because what we will require along this line will be the same requirements we have along the pedestrian walkways and that is either a 4 -foot high solid fence, or a 6 -foot high fence that can be seen through. Well 4 feet is not very high and I can guarantee you that there will be people looking through into those back yards. The other issue is that if this becomes a single - loaded street we are certainly going to landscape this area and buffer it with trees to try and deaden the sound coming from the park. The right kind of tress with canopy will deaden the overflow from the lights that will be in this area. I guess what I will close with is when a developer is requesting annexation from the City, they have to show that this development is a benefit to the City. To ask the City and the community and the citizens to give up another 100 feet of land, where is the benefit? Is that to the community or is that to the developer? The last item just for clarification, Mr. Chairman, so that we understand what we were possibly proposing or willing to discuss. Is that the project could stay just as it is with the street right where it is and we would be willing to discuss purchasing or having these lots purchased in exchange for Impact Fees. So they would not have to do any redesign of their project. Was there any question on that? It seemed like there was some confusion, okay. Borup: Had there been any thought of a land swap to accomplish the same thing? Kuntz: No, but we would certainly be willing to discuss that. Borup: Would that work for the City as well, or is it going make a cumbersome park design? Kuntz: My initial response would be to give up parkland open space for the benefit of the community, would probably be our first option. Borup: No, I am not saying give it up; I am saying swap. Kuntz: Yes, sure. We would be open to discussing that. Borup: So acre for acre essentially. Kuntz: You bet we would discuss it. Borup: And which one of those two would be the best for you, to trade those 19 lots or put another street to the south? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 36 Kuntz: We certainly would not prefer to put another row of lots and then another street here. That is giving up parkland, and we do not see any benefit to that. If you were talking about swapping some of our parkland down here for some of this land here, we would certainly be open to discussing that. The other thing is in order for them to achieve their 5percent open space; they need to already give UP 10 lots, so now we are only talking about 9 lots that we can swap. I cannot offer that without the Planning and Zoning director being involved in it. I will stand for questions. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Kuntz? Nary: Mr. Kuntz how long have the plans for this park been completed and when were they started? Kuntz: The plans were started in January of 2000. The final plans were presented to the staff — well I know this much, it was adopted by the City Council in November or December of this year. Nary: Did you receive the handout that J -U -B gave us? Kuntz: No sir. Nary: I think it is applicable that you respond to the email that he attached where Mr. Gary Lee spoke to you, he is with J -U -B, in April of 2000. Would it be appropriate Mr. Chairman for him to read that and respond at this time? Borup: Not if he has not seen it. Nary: I mean read it to yourself and — Nary: Do you recall that conversation? Kuntz: Yes sir. Nary: Okay. Kuntz: And we were certainly working on those plans during that timeline. Nary: I guess what I am looking at is the lateness of your proposal for the single -loaded street. Kuntz: And I certainly understand that, and my only response would be we are building something here that is going to be there for many, many, many years. It is going to be a direct benefit to the citizens in this community. It is a much needed amenity in this community, and it is better to take one step back now and do it right then move ahead and do it wrong. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 37 Centers: Let us go back to Commissioner Nary's comment if no subdivision was proposed or platted then what? Kuntz: Then we would have our internal system for the length of the park. Centers: Your 10 foot wide pathway. Kuntz: The 10 foot wide pathway as soon as another developer decided to develop along their, then our approach would be as it is tonight. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I guess Mr. Kuntz, I think what we are wrestling with I would agree with part of what you said. I think when a developer wants to be annexed into the City, they are subject to some of the requirements, and I think the one that is fixed in my mind is the 5 percent. I think they can accept that 5percent requirement or they do not have to be annexed. I think we can impose that. I think it is reasonable, but I think it is reasonable also because Mr. Siddoway's response was, we told them that from day one, they knew that. They did not want to do it, and they are not doing it. There is a philosophical reason maybe that they chose not to do that, besides their technical argument that the Ordinance was not in place, but I think I have the same concern that Commissioner Centers does is that I do not see this as the same thing. This seems to me to be a surprise. The would not have Platted and drawn those lots along that border if they had believed from day one that what was desired by the City of Meridian was that a roadway be there. I do not believe you would have been discussing micro -paths if that were what the discussion was. So I think it is fair for the developer to say, hey wait a minute We bring this Plat forward, and now five months later we look at this plan and say we do not have a roadway. I do not want to sound rude or disrespectful, but I agree. This is a very nicely designed park, but it is not very nicely designed when you then bring the Police chief and the Fire chief to say we do not have enough emergency access to the rear of the park. That is a design problem that is the City of Meridian's responsibility not the developers responsibility. They are not required to do that. Meridian is required to do that. Do you believe if we, and we are just the advisory, but say the City Council does not require that roadway there, and legally I do not know if they can, but if they do not require it, will the City build a road through there? Kuntz: No sir. Nary: Okay, but does not that seem a little bit inconsistent with your statement that it is significant, it is necessary, it is needed, it is a public safety issue, if a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 38 road is needed then it is needed. Whether the City has to build it on our side of the property line, or the developer has to build it on their side of the property line, if I am to believe what you are telling us that it is needed, then it has to be there. So I guess I think it is a little inconsistent to then say, well if we do not make the developer do it, we are not going to build it. We will just live with the micro -path. I do not think you can have it both ways, Mr. Kuntz. I do not think that is very reasonable. Kuntz: My only comment to that, Commissioner Nary, is to build a roadway that would only be used for policemen to access to police the park. I am not sure makes a lot sense when there is already going to be a roadway in that vicinity that could suffice for that if it was single -loaded and not double -loaded. Nary: But legally, sir, if it is necessary, which is the reason you are saying we should legally require the developer to do it, then legally it is a very difficult argument to tell me that the pathway is sufficient if we do not have the developer build the roadway. Kuntz: Commissioner Nary, I am not telling you legally that we are requesting that this roadway go in. What we are saying tonight is we feel like because of the size of this park, the distance the police have to look through, the open and attractiveness to the community because of the size of the park once again that having a single -loaded street is preferential to having houses backing up to the park. We are not saying that we are requiring the street as far as — I am not an attorney — Nary: Well, Mr. Kuntz, you are telling us to require them to put the street there. Kuntz: We are asking you. Nary: No you are telling us that that is what you would want us to require. Kuntz: Correct. Nary: You can build a roadway there, can you not? Kuntz: Sure. Nary: Okay. Borup: Anyone else? Mr. Kuntz, if I may ask a question, if just this row of lots along here where the single -loaded, would that accomplish the same thing, Parks Department is trying to do. I mean that would get the open access back to the back area of the park; I am thinking maybe from the developer's standpoint — Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 39 Kuntz: This area here is not going to be visible from Ustick. I guess once people know about it that they are going to come down there, but it may not be quite as inviting. He is talking about the row of houses from here from the micro - path over — Nary: Right just that row along there. Borup: About 9 lots. 9 or 10. Nary: Yes, I think it is about 12 lots to the intersection. If that area became the park ground, would that accomplish the same thing the City is trying to do? Kuntz: It would certainly help. Nary: What part would it not accomplish, of all the statements that have been made? Kuntz: Probably the only one that it would not accomplish it is still these houses as far as the fences and privacy issues go. I think the items we addressed in item No. 3, but as far as the openness for the police, sure because they can see in from Meridian Road into this corner. It would alleviate the concerns we have about this dead spot here. We are amenable to discussing any kind of a compromise. We do not want to be an adversarial role here. Nary: I am just looking at that as maybe an option that would accomplish partly what the Parks Department is trying to do. I guess we need a comment from the developer if that encompasses what they want it to or not. Borup: Anyone else for Mr. Kuntz. Kuntz: Thank you for your time. Norton: And that would solve the 5percent open space? Borup: We it would not because it would belong to the Parks Department then, but if they are talking about losing 10 lots, you know, there is still some opportunity from some land swap, if do not know if that is more trouble than it is worth. Commissioner, I do not know if — are we ready to do some discussing? I would maybe suggest we do not close the Public Hearing, I anticipate we may want to get some questions from either party. In fact, I would not mind if maybe — if the others feel — get a comment from the developer on that last idea. I do not know, Mr. Fluke are you in a position to comment on that? Fluke: I guess what this comes down to is an incompatibility of land uses. If this were a neighborhood park, and if my client thought for one minute that having a single -loaded road next to us would benefit his project, do you think we would not Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 40 do it? Do you think we would not have designed it that way? Of course, we would. We are convinced that having a 60 -acre regional park site and all the attended activity that goes along with that will be a detriment to this development if it is opened up to the development in that fashion that you are speaking. Whether it is a portion of those lots, or whether it is all of the lots. Detrimental impacts come from the level of activity that comes from a 60 -acre park site. It is not that it is a park, it is that it is a regional park, and it is that you have five baseball diamonds right next to that and inviting people to come in there and park is going to be a bad situation for us and for the City. Borup: Excuse me, do not you think the parking is probably the only detriment that you are looking at? As far as sales and market ability, etc. etc. Because you knew that the park site was there when you platted and the people backing up to the park — there are pros and cons whether it makes them more saleable or less, so you knew that ahead of time. Fluke: Yes. Borup: So really it is the parking, and I agree with that. You are probably going to have more activity on the parking end, but would not that be the only detriment? Fluke: Our experience is that there is a segment of the population that likes to have the lots that back up to the park even with the intended impacts. That has been borne out by our development next to Boise City's Park, which may be ugly now, but it is three years old. Your park is not going to look like this in three years, I guarantee you. These things take time to develop, and simply clearing out a row of houses along there is not going to significantly improve the look of that park. It is just not. The plan that we have seen has a very significant buffer of deciduous trees. We assumed they were significant class 3 trees that they were putting between the developments. That is what is going to provide the edge to the park. Opening it up to a street and then a tier of houses is not going to persuably change the look of that park so we feel like opening it up really does impact a lot more of the development than just the one tier of lots. We feel like those lots are not diminished in value in any way, and our experience bares that out. Borup: So the short answer to my question was no. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Fluke do you have any examples of what the Parks Department is purposing and how that is a negative impact? Do you have any examples locally Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 41 of that? Of where it is a street buffer between the park and the houses, and how that seriously impacts the quality? Fluke: No, that is a good question. I cannot think of a 60 -acre regional park on a single -loaded road abutting a residential development, anywhere. Nary: How about the Simplot Sports Complex? There is a road that runs all the way around that that is a public street, and there are houses right across the street. Fluke: That do not front on that road. That is a spine road, and all the roads come off it at 90 -degree angles. Nary: I understand that, but so it is the frontage of the houses, but you said the entire subdivision is impacted. Even though those houses right there may front the park, since your argument is that the entire development is impacted by it. Has the entire development of Columbia Village been impacted by the Simplot Sports Complex negatively? I do not think so. Fluke: I do not know. Nary: Well, I do not see anybody not buying houses up there. So I guess I will say the same thing I said to Mr. Kuntz, I do not find that argument to be very persuasive. That does not seem to be very reasonable in light of what exists out there in our community. There are parks like this, there are streets that run around them that people seem to buy those houses just as well and learn to live with that feature because it is there when they move there. Would not you say that that is the case? Whatever is there when they move there, people learn to live with it. Fluke: Well, perhaps, but this park is not going to be there when these people come in. Nary: Well the empty space they know is going to be a park when they buy their house, wouldn't you say? Fluke: And I cannot think of an uglier park than Simplot either if that is one of the concerns that the City has. Nary: I am not talking about the way the park looks, what I am talking about is what your concern was, the salability of the other houses in your development. I do not see Columbia Village as a very slow moving development. Fluke: I do not think Columbia Village is analogous. If I am not mistake those are 6,000 square foot lots with somewhere in the neighborhood of 9 to 12 hundred square foot homes on there. Where here we are talking about 8,000 square foot Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 42 lots and probably we are talking about two-story, up to 3,000 square foot homes in this development, so you are talking about different market segments for sure. I do not know if we are talking apples to apples with that comparison, but I cannot refute what you are saying. Nary: Would it be fair to say though Mr. Fluke, if we as the commission do require that 5percent open space, you will lose some lots, so there may be some room for discussion and negotiation between the developer and the City. If that is the particular area we are talking about, that is a pretty good starting point, wouldn't you say? Fluke: Yes if you require the 5percent open space then we are going to have to find where we can best incorporate that into the development. I do not think that that is a linear comparison that you can make, that we are automatically going to go and give up 10 lots next to the park because it invites the impacts that we are talking about. Nary: I do not know that we are going to require you to give up the lots yet, but it certainly is a starting point to discuss since that is what the City would like to see, and you would have to readjust and redesign to some degree anyway, correct? Fluke: Yes, I mean typically what we would do is go into the middle of the development and create a park for the residents by losing lots. We might even do a single -loaded road on a park that size. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I have to be frank. If I would recommend the project I would have to require the 5 percent open space. You mentioned that was 10 lots. What Commissioner Borup came up with, I think is an excellent idea. It involves 11 lots, and I think if the City wants that they should put in the road, they should provide parking off street, take two of those lots and create parking and offset the cost of that land with the impact fees. I think the City agreed to do that. I think it would be a fair trade, because there is no way that I am going to support the project without the 5 percent open space. So I think it is a fair tradeoff, I really do, then let you live with the 3.2 or whatever it was for the remainder of it. It is too bad that the guy who signs the checks is not here, but he is not here, so -- Oh, maybe he wants to speak? Nary: To follow what Commissioner Centers said to turn around and say we will just build another park in a different part of the subdivision does not make it real inviting for us to annex you. If we do not annex you and you want to go to the County, then that is fine. You are not going to build that many homes in the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 43 county's zoning. I do not think that is very helpful to try to get resolution. I think that is very spiteful, and that is not a good way to get anything — Fluke: That was certainly not my intent. I was trying to add a little levity to the situation, sorry. Nary: It did not seem very funny. Fluke: Dually noted. Borup: Anything else? Nary: I guess Commissioner Norton was going to ask if the developer wanted to say something. Norton: Maybe the developer would like to say something, we are not getting very far with Mr. Fluke. Howell: Kevin Howell, 3451 Plantation River Drive. Well he pretty much covered everything on it, but there has been so many things tossed up that it would be kind of difficult. We have to sit down and pencil around a bunch of different ideas. If we are going to go with the 5 percent, I do not have a problem with that. I would rather put it around in the middle of the subdivision somewhere then just add it on to the edge of the park. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Well what if the City gave you the cost of that land in trade for Impact Fees. That was one comment that was made by the Parks Department. Howell: Well that is a possibility. I do not know how much money they have. Those are $40,000 lots, and I have already burned 65 of them for a school site. When I bought the site — Norton: So are you donating the school site, then? Howell: No, I did not donate, but I will sell it to them at cost, and they are totally willing with that. That is standard for most developers. If I had more money, I would love to do that but not at this time. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Howell that is the development price that is not the pre - development price? Howell: That is the sales price Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 44 Nary: Sales price right. That is not the price that the School District is paying? Howell: No. Would you like to know what the school district is going to be paying? Nary: It does not matter. I was saying if you were going to do a land swap with the City, they would be looking at the pre -development prices and off setting your Impact Fees. Howell: I will lose a little money to the school district just in carrying costs and everything else, but I do not have a problem giving them a school. But if would have know that I was going to have to go with a front -loaded street, you know I have built over 1000 houses in this valley and probably 1500 lots, and I have been in this business for 20 years. I really do not desire it, and I may be wrong, but that is for you guys to determine. From my experience and after building up next to parks, people do not have a problem backing up to them. If we can trade off the school site and get rid of that, then we will make the nicest park in the whole world, but the project is getting smaller and smaller. I have partners to answer to. Borup: So what you are saying is you do not have a problem with the 5 percent open space within the subdivision? But you really do not want the front -loaded street. Howell: Well, you can require the 5 percent, and I can go argue it with Council. But if I am going to end up with 5 percent, I really do not want it to butt up to the park. I would rather put it internally where it would benefit the people a lot more. I just went through a case with a daycare in Austin Creek Subdivision right next it, and I had 85 people against it, all because of traffic. It is exactly like that little 2 -acre lot right up front that is commercial, but they were concerned about all of the traffic going through from other subdivisions. Yea, that will all be developed around there, and it was denied. It was a City requirement that I have a daycare in there, and they turned around, and I ate the cost of that and now it is going to be an office building. The people are going to come all through that subdivision to that single -loaded street, and it is going to be a parking issue, and I am going to have a lot more complaints. I have never really had a problem with people backing up to parks. They all know it; they like it. They can jump their fence, built a gate. It is like Daren said, if thought it was better, I would do it. But if I am forced to do it, I am going to redesign the whole subdivision and start over. Borup: What other subdivisions are you talking about it that backed up to parks or interior parks, I guess. Howell: I built Mahogany Park Subdivision, 200 lots. I built Austin Creek, 322 lots. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 45 Borup: And they back up to parks? Howell: Yes, I have provided pathways, fenced them, and ballard them. The ballards looked out; they are not chained in. It is not an access problem, but the Parks Department is asking me to put in their road that they could very well put in themselves on their own property. I do not understand that, and it is coming at a very late date. We sat down, and we had a meeting, and he knows exactly what I said. I told him, quite frankly, all the experience I have had with parks and that I just did not believe in that single -loaded street as a developer. I may make mistakes now and then or whatever, and I will live with that, but that is just my stance on it from my experience in this business. I have been in it 20 years. Norton: Mr. Howell, how long have you been building houses in the Boise area? Howell: Since 1979. Norton: So you have been here since 1979 Howell: Yes, Mr. Borup knows me. Norton: And then I think the issue is not whether the homeowners object to being against the park. I think the issue is having the park more beautified by having a single -loaded street there, and therefore benefiting the City. Not necessarily the homeowners not wanting to be backed up against the park, I think that was the issue. So what I am hearing is that you and Parks Department are at an impasse and cannot agree on what to do there, is that correct? Howell: No, we have not had any formal discussion. Norton: Okay, so we just now spent 2 hours and 10 minutes discussing something that maybe that you and the Parks Department could discuss and come back with a plan. Howell: I am not so sure I could ever agree to that without totally revamping the whole thing and sitting on it for awhile. I do not know; I would have to re -look at the whole thing. We have looked at it from a lot of different angles, but they are asking me to put their buffer on my land. They have land to put the buffer on; they can put the trees. I mean we are going to landscape the heck out of that whole thing in there. All that stuff that is open. You are going to see some pretty nice landscape plans, because I know how much trees will sell homes. Norton: Mr. Howell, we also have a problem with the trunk line for the sewer. It looks like now it might not be in until June of 2002. They will have more information after March 15, 2001 when the other development comes before this commission. Would there be objection to you at all to postpone this until March Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 46 15,2001? Then we have the sewer situation that has more constant date and then perhaps you and the Parks Department could discuss the southern boundary line of the development. Howell: Well, addressing the sewer issue, I have no problem taking the risk and waiting for it. Ed Bews is a personal friend of mine. I know all of the other developers in there; we all know what is going on. We have been in contact since day one. I bought that land over a year ago. I optioned it. I knew exactly what the risk was, and I might have to sit on it for quite some time, and I willing to wait for the sewer. In the meantime, I would like to be able to get design and get through all of the problems and get everything through the Council. So that we are ready to go, and if the sewer line never comes through, I have got a big farm, and really the cost of $30,000 to $40,000 bucks worth of engineering is not going to make any difference at that point. I would love to proceed with it, and I will take all the risk. I will sign anything, and I do not expect to be able to hold the City liable for any promises or anything like that not at all. Norton: So you want us to make a decision, yes or no, tonight, is that correct? Howell: Whatever you guys decide, I will take and I will deal with that. If you want to table it fine, but I would just as soon have a decision. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Howell? Commissioners, do we have some other discussion? Norton: Mr. Chairman I think we all agree on the 5 percent open space. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I guess I have to agree with Mr. Howell that it is very obvious he wants to get this done. He has been at it since August, and he is adamant against the front -loaded street. I guess I cannot blame him, and I think maybe his view I might respect pretty much because of the history he has had in subdivisions in Meridian and the area. There are pros and cons on whether it would hurt the marketability of the homes, I personally think that it would hurt the marketability of a lot of those homes close to it. I guess it is obvious that Commissioner Nary feels the way I do. The Parks Department came up with this at a very late moment and maybe say the chance to get a street and access. I agree with Mr. Howell if they want a street then let them put it in. I do not think it should be tabled tonight. I think we should resolve this tonight and move on. We have spent 2 hours and 15 minutes, and we do not want it to go to waste. Borup: I do not know if Parks Department was trying to come up with something at the last minute, I think a lot of this came from their Commission going through Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 47 parks studies and preliminary stages on an overall park policy for the City. I do not think it was really firmed out a year ago. Is that a correct statement? Kuntz: That is correct. Borup: That the single -loaded street policy is something that was developed with workshops and meetings over the last several months or longer perhaps. Kuntz: That is correct, and the record shows that we discussed it in predevelopment meeting on November 16th. There is some discrepancy of if it was actually discussed at the July meeting. Borup: I think what I am saying is that was on a firm policy of the Parks Department at that time, and it is something that developed probably the same time this project has been on our agenda. I have mixed feelings about this on the double -loaded — I like what it does to a park. I think that the thing you have different here between a smaller park is — and the benefit of people living, you know whether it is a backyard or a street facing it. If it is a green area for kids to go and play and run around, that is one thing with ball diamonds and soccer fields, maybe that is another. I think we are talking two different types of parks and whether it is desirable or not. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I guess I am a little torn by a couple of things. I guess the information that we heard tonight was first that there really is not any opposition to this annexation in concept. It sounds to me that there was not really any opposing testimony to the whole idea of having this piece of property in the City of Meridian and development of homes. I am a little troubled by what at least appears to me by the evidence to be some late notice to these developers as to what the City would like to see for that park and that area on the north side of the park. I do not think that was discussed very clearly or very cleanly, because I do not really think they would have made those plans for micro -paths and everything else if all they have been talking about from the onset was putting a single -loaded street there. I believe that the 5 percent was discussed from the onset. I think we have seen that from the very beginning, so I do not see any reason why we would want to deviate from that. I think the developer is going to have to do that from the way most of the comments have been tonight. So what I am torn with is what Commissioner Norton brought up is that there has not been any real reasonable open discussion between the City and this developer to see if they can deal with that north side of the park. I am not 100 percent convinced that it has to be a road there. If there does have to be road there that the City should not built it at the City's expense and redesign that park or move the parking lot so that side of the park or do something different to provide that public safety access. I do not Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 48 think you can have the argument that it is needed, but say if the developer does not build it, we will not build it. I do not think that is right. It just does not seem reasonable to me, but there has not been any real discussion about it. There has not been any real thing other than tonight; us all trying to redesign this project on the board while we are looking at it, and that is not very reasonable to anybody. I guess I would be inclined to want to delay this, I am hoping that both the developer and the City would be willing to have some very honest discussion and try to do this for the publics good. I think that is all that Mr. Kuntz and the Parks Department want, they want to provide some safe public park access to the citizens of Meridian. They want to provide it in a better way than what is there. I think there can be some ways to do it. I guess I would like these folks to be able to say, we have tried and we cannot make this fit, and we have really honestly tried to bring these things to the table, and I guess that is just the one thing that has not been done yet. They may not be able to and maybe there is not a good way to do this differently, and we will have to deal with the 5percent anyway. They will have to do some redesign to some degree because they may lose some lots, but I think it is to the developers interest to try to meet what the City would like to do to some degree. It is the City's interest to try to get the developer to voluntarily do that, and we do not have to annex them otherwise. The county is not going to let you build that big of a subdivision like that with their zoning. It just is not going to work. So you are going to have a big farm if you do not at least try to find some meeting of the minds, or we will just make a decision and tell you what you have to do. I guess that is my feeling, when we get to that point. I do not think we have actually closed the Public Hearing. Borup: We have not. Nary: That we at least say there does not appear to be urgency. You heard Mr. Howell's statement that he would like to keep moving, but it did not sound to me that is certainly going to be significantly a problem to delay it for a short -time to see if they could do that. That seems to me to benefit the City's interest as well as try to get this resolved to a little bit better degree for everyone. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I would just like to add also, I believe the reason that the first time it was delayed was because there was not an ACHD report. And I believe that the developer or the applicant has asked to delay it several times because it has been on our docket several times. So I do not believe it was our fault for delaying this. Borup: No, I think it was the sewer line is probably the major thing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 49 Norton: And I agree with Mr. Nary's statement that I think the applicant will need to understand that we are all looking at the 5 percent as a must. We certainly would appreciate if the applicant and the City can discuss on some kind of a meeting of the minds on that one boundary that we are all discussing. So with that I would like to make a motion. Do we want to close the Public Hearing first? Borup: Not if we are going to continue it. Norton: Okay, well I would like to make a motion to postpone to March 15 Borup: Well, we need to check our agenda at that time Ugarriza: Commissioners, we have a couple other continued items, I believe on the 15tH. I think that there is already just one Public Hearing scheduled for that day, so it is relatively opened. Norton: Would that give enough time for the sewer, Bruce? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Norton the March 15th date that I offered up was because the Bridgetower Subdivision will be coming before you. With that application coming before you, you are going to see ACHD comments; they are going to have their tech review and everything for Bridgetower Subdivision. Those are the answers that I was talking about. I did have some discussions with the applicant of Bridgetower Subdivision representative. She was telling me that they were having tech review on that, she thought it was next Friday, so we are getting some answers. Norton: Would the first meeting in April be better? Freckleton: You are going to have this application and the next two applications after this that is in the same boat as far as sewer, The Sundance Development. Norton: Okay, well how about — Borup: If we did the second meeting in April, which is — then we should have covered the 19th. That would pretty much cover -- we would not have a whole lot of anything else said at this juncture. Wouldn't that be correct? Freckleton: I do not think we have anything at the April 1St meeting, do we? Ugarizza: We have one on April 6tH Freckleton: So that is an open schedule at this point. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Steve just relayed that they took in 10 applications, today, for that date. Today was cut off date. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 50 Borup: How extensive of applications were they? Siddoway: I have not reviewed any of them, but the first meeting of every month is held for new Public Hearings. The second one is held for those continued items or the more controversial ones, so it would make mores sense to me to have it on one of those that the new items are not going to be scheduled for. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: What was the major reason for the delay here? It was for the discussion with the Parks Department, correct? Norton: Yes, and more information. Centers: I think I tend to agree with you, Commissioner Norton. That certainly would not hurt whether the developer comes to an agreement or not, but why could we not fit it in earlier? The developer already said he is willing to gamble on the Trunk line that is not a factor. Norton: Well, I think March 15th. That gives him four weeks to meet several times I hope. Borup: Let me ask one question of the Commissioners, you have mentioned the 5percent several times, and I guess I am wondering, it sounds like most of you are pretty and fast on that, the question I have, if there is maybe any other concessions on park access would that offset that aspect of it for you at all? Norton: I think that is the main process. Borup: Yes, if there was some park access along that side, would the current 3 point whatever percent, would you feel it would be adequate, and maybe recommend -- Nary: I guess my personal feeling is I am not 100percent sold that we should or can require that the roadway be built by this developer on that north end of the property. That being said, I certainly think there should be some reasonably frank, open, and honest discussions on making this a better project for the people of Meridian if we are going to annex this huge property into the City. And one way to do that is to work with the Parks Department in providing some safety and some access. All the things that Mr. Kuntz talked about which I do agree with as well. I agree with the reasons for it; I just do not know whether or not at that juncture that it has come up that it is necessarily fair or reasonable to require them to do that. That is why I think they need some time to discuss. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 51 Borup: That is why I wanted to bring that out is so that that would be one more item I hope would be on the table. ***END OF SIDE THREE*** Norton: Can I make a motion? Borup: Yes, I would like you to. Norton: I would move to continue this Public Hearing on AZ 00-019 and PP 00- 018 request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres to R-4 by J -U -B Engineering for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision north of Ustick and west of Meridian Road, and the same with PP 00-018 with the Preliminary Plat approval of 326 building lots, one limited office lot, and 12 acres school lot, and a potential multi -family resident lot on 99.83 -acres in the proposed R-4 zone by J -U -B Engineering for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision north of Ustick and west of Meridian Road. Continue that until the March 15th meeting. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion. Nary: I would just like to for the record, Item 5, that is 268 lots now, it is not 326. Norton: Oh, yes thank you. Borup: Motion so amended. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: I think we are going to want to take about a five minute break here, but before we do, this is only the first item on the agenda, and Steve, I would maybe like your opinion, if you think we are not going to get through this full agenda tonight. I am not sure how many items we have on the next two subdivisions. Siddoway: Certainly the longest one will be the last one, I believe Silverstone. Borup: Okay, let us go ahead and get input from the audience. How many people here for the Sundance project that is planning on testifying? I am talking just public. Then how about the Inglenook? We are talking public, not the application and then O'Neill? Just public and Silverstone? I am just looking at public testimony. We assume the applicant is going to be here. It sounds like we are going to want to try and proceed, but we are going to need to move things along a little faster than we did on this first one, so we will make an effort to do that. We will take about a 5 -minute break right now. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 15, 2001 Pg. 52 Borup: -- Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Start on the next Item, which is Item 6 and 7. This is also a continued Public Hearing, but it does not say so on the agenda. Siddoway: I do not think it has been continued. I think it is the first one even though it was submitted last year. It has just been tabled. Borup: Was it tabled without a Public Hearing? Siddoway: I do not think the Public Hearing has been opened. Borup: Well, it was on the agenda on November 14th. Either way, let us open that hearing, or maybe we can clarify that later, but we will open both Items 6 and 7. Item 6. Public Hearing: AZ -00-021 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 70.72 acres to R-8 for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L Voigt Development — northeast corner of Ustick and Meridian Roads Borup: I would like to begin with the staff report. Would you like to start on that Steve? Siddoway: Yes. Commissioner Borup and Commissioners. This is the Sundance subdivision. It is actually abutting the property we were just discussing. The 56 -acre park is in this location. Cedar Springs subdivision requested project surrounds it here. The hatched area is the proposed location for the Sundance subdivision. It obviously has the exact same issue with sewer in that sewer will not be available today to this project if it is annexed. It will be mid part of next year before sewer is available. Our staff comments from November 9, 2000 stand as the staff report on this project. The developer's representative issued a response to those comments dated February 13, which you should have. Most of the issues the applicant is stating that they will comply. There are three issues, one related to not wishing to the a section of the Finch sub -drain, which I will let Bruce speak to as well as the sewer trunk issue which is already clear, and then the final one is Preliminary Plat requirement No. 12, which requires bike -lane stripping on the collector street. They are stating that they do not wish to do that. Those are the issues I have on this project. I will turn it to Bruce if he has anything. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, as I mentioned in the last application this application has the same issues in regards to the sewer. I will note, however, that our staff report recommended denial. I guess I would just state that if this applicant is willing to take the risks and everything that we talked about in the last application that basically you would incorporate, if at all possible Mr. Swartley, incorporate my testimony from the previous application regarding MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 18. 2001 The meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 18, 2001, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Richard Hatcher, Bill Nary, Jerry Centers Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Larry Moore, Brad Hawkins - Clark, Shelby E. Ugarriza Members Absent: Sally Norton Borup: I would like to welcome everyone to our regular scheduled Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for January 18, 2001. 1 would like to start with Commission members present. Commissioner Norton has asked to be excused she has had a conflict this evening. Commissioner Nary is here, Commissioner Centers, Commissioner Hatcher and Commissioner Borup. Item A. Approve minutes of January 4, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Borup: I would like to begin with the minutes, or approval of the minutes. Any comment or question from the Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I move we approve the minutes of our January 4, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion is second to approve the minutes. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 1. Continued from October 10, 2000: AZ 00-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 100.71 acres to R-4 by Kevin Howell for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision — northwest of Meridian Road and Ustick Road: Item 2. Continued from October 10, 2000: PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 333 building lots and 25 other lots on 99.83 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Kevin Howell for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision — northwest of Meridian Road and Ustick Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 18, 2001 Page 2 Borup: Before we get started into the meat of the agenda Item No. 1 and No. 2 we have received a letter from the applicant requesting some additional time and they have asked to have this item moved to a future meeting. Do we have anyone here that was here for this item, Cedar Springs? You were here for testimony? (Discussion with unidentified audience member) Borup: We can get to that, if we proceed to open it up. They are requesting for February 1, 2001. 1 believe we have — I don't believe, I know we have a full agenda for that night that we may even have trouble getting through. We could go to the February 15, 2001 or into March. Nary: I would think notice issues too. I think the first is probably difficult to get adequate notice out anyway. Borup: This is already an item; it's a continuation. Nary: That's true; I don't know what the 15th is like. Borup: We're about average. Hatcher: I say we move it to February 15, 2001. Centers: Up to you Keith, the 15th. Definitely not the first Borup: No, we could go ahead and take some testimony on this if you had a brief comment. I think — there will not be a presentation from the staff or from the applicant. That was done two months ago, 1 believe when the item first was on the agenda. We did have report from the staff and from the applicant at that time. Partial report — it was continued because of some engineering et cetera on the sewer lines. If you would like to come forward sir we can take some testimony on this item. Simunich: I'm Joe Simunich, and I live at 955 West Ustick Road, which is across from this proposed development. I appreciate all you people being on this Planning and Zoning Board. But — Borup: Do you have the right — are you thinking of the right application? Simunich: Is this Kevin Howell's? Borup: Yes, but it doesn't border on Ustick. That's why I — Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 18, 2001 Page 3 Simunich: It doesn't? Borup: Okay part of it I'm sorry, yes. Okay I was thinking the main part of it. Excuse me. Go ahead. Simunich: Anyhow we got a notice we were going to have a meeting on this. Numerous neighbors came in the meeting on -- and it postponed. Then re - postponed and then it is re -postponed and then it's re -postponed. Why don't you give them about six -months or a year to come back and then maybe they will be ready? These people have something to do. I've got something to do. Every other Tuesday night or Thursday night we're supposed to have a hearing. Nothing happens you send us home. That's all I've got to say. I think you should — these people that bring these in they should be rea:'y to ;reser:} some him-- to ui. 00:"Up- vva' .'� Th 1>„ .e: :� :�: :i�:s :�elr j u, ..er. f'�s>»}rare• !'l..l1., hn+e.•w! L_1ra+ra6rar• 1 -- 1.4-4 �° rra ra ri;}1� L.;wn mf rra uL:ej• ^.w o -%.;n iS 1.l.v I+vr At 7 C�irr.:: ;ra La• <J �:rae: n+ w .�'a:a..-1 .�+� Fater +4.in mw�+; r�n7 Centers: But we can't guarantee it won't be postponed again. That's not up to UJ. ti:..::.".: ....: 7. ... :;P3: j1, •`7•:.-: uJ :SS, =1:.-.R:.. V7 L]t r., n• Ynn craLar....ar„ Simunich: But what happens if there is no meeting? They don't come here. TL..-.qF A-14.nl.t — . Th.-... ..r.l., �Cr :.. tnly ., .a a� ..a _ :�t �,a .t.s•a: r=! ��. = ., .m a.-......+ • ,..i.;: ....� .^.m�> s:o y :. cur .. yv¢: �°u.:: cs;^;,:e:;rr:a: :ws:i:aildrej J::u ..r�Y :�. �::: on the microphone. We can control what we can control and that's not _-:.#La; ra-.�.#a.r+: .a>=.+s.l.i !'Z r; Lar.- _�. __ r-•+:a.r. !� t•�o.a _ -- #!mss-.+ 8L_ -lath") 'e°J �•��• ,. 711.• ..e .:GFYf 'eF ...__4 J!! i_ 4i:: Ft.4i li iii iK rVel UU. Adie than Punning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 1$, 2001 Page } Nary: I would so move to move it to the February 15, 2001, but felt's get on wit; : sr, : ...a ' ss, s .! ..s 's. ti• 7 .. tS:SR YYG .... <,. ..- Ft..,..,v �tilG .SSG•L 7Yv LSJ +�Gt *JS! 77St" it. Borup: They requested the first, so hopefully that gives them two more weeks an :.. Nary: i would concur with what Mir. Simunich said. It is very frustrating for us as dl.a n' - — T:% i- - - -4 �. sT -- -.L.�. Sim. r. - r..-., �. r.Ts. -- -:x 5�.:. Sr.� Vr YYGSS t.r �:t tttGSG 7.: L•: :l�j JSr .SSL,:.tt YYG :sGt:' S.t SJ tl :::OS SSG .:SG •�,Gr7 them- I think certainly at some point we would set it down a lot further sig we i . i ! 2L:.-... :d T! lf.. A ! :.2 f lan to ncia� s v- ctts::s�j :t. ::tear to VI NY v MIUC- e I de icu::s :.= a: t.... - 'r7v:es;j -' - S'---- 4i__ 4 -' A ni._ n i=_ i�__ �_L___ �� AAAI 7Sr !t t`lYG UOUL YYG SSSSJYG :tett: t•SS:, , Cit SSA ,.®, — L4' tStG : G:�: Ld :A:f :v, LVv t LS`�l L'stuu. �: u!✓, :a:vl:iri c cv vvt,svi cu. ;: cy u:vvl,tvvivt t : : ve :. c cs.: v tis: : iY:V i :Vii Vi'4i ii 4i L.5J. ii i5 i1.L ia`i•L4it i_ J +L: ii iii i Item 3. Ciontinuted from, Nisvembiei ,4.2600--0: AZ 00-013 0.2 Re qu est uSr d l: i::V-.^.LA i::rii STi: iii: LCL•: :ii i4�i 'i . ::i,T SAtii•.Iv SL• . . . i.�g i`..i: i�J:.�:i i'S--._—_ — • t � ..! ti_-- S"i61i1lri LiC�i LLCJ; illi ift aiir—Tii.9tCCt %3Ii{ifiULida 7 �iiiLiiiiYi$iiiii CALiiiL �YzP �c+V': e<zs +�+c:.xlx __ _x_:,��-ags x{s'a3i4 i+—=�=VYxs sedseSizij £s4f_. £.-s 4ii 2*s 4: 4••zx �r:♦ i \VLA tA. 3 .E: _iSf•'i 3'iF Rta 94 azs: ___£__ EL5iii3Lii i-SUMe :V%J -=III€%: �v��. r ��3���� :Sir =.ice.`.` i :c:S e�� fit�';-moi.°:' - - — __—---.--- � i • A i iz a z r s_Public Hear' .:s al._'g- � - MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 12 2000 The meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, 2000, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Richard Hatcher, Jerry Centers Others Present: Will Berg, Bruce Freckleton, Tom Kuntz, Steve Stiles Item A. Approve minutes of October 25, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Item B. Approve minutes of November 14, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Borup: We'd like to open the regular schedule meeting Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. First item on the agenda, we have a consent agenda, which consist of the minutes from October 25 to November 14. Do we have a comment or motion? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda, Items A and B the approval of the minutes of the October 25 and November 14 Planning and Zoning meetings. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 1. Continued from October 10, 2000: AZ 00-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 100.71 acres to R-4 by Kevin Howell for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision — northwest of Meridian Road and Ustick Road Item 2. Continued from October10, 2000: PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 333 building lots and 25 other lots on 99.83 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Kevin Howell for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision — northwest of Meridian Road and Ustick Road Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 12, 2000 Page 2 Borup: Item No. 1 and No. 2 are continued from our October 10th meeting. Mr. Siddoway, have you got any comment on those items. Siddoway: Only that we have received message from Gary Lee, the representative from JUB on this project, requesting that this item be tabled or continued until January 9th is what his letter said. That's not an actual Planning and Zoning Commission hearing date, but to be continued to January. Borup: And that would probably need to be the 18th- I believe our agenda is already filled until the 4th, which would be the first meeting in January. So we will not have any testimony from — is there any here that really feels would not be able to come in the future that wants to make a comment on this application tonight? Seeing none, Commissioners. Hatcher: I move that we continue Items No. 1 and No. 2 to the January 18th meeting. Norton: 1 second. Borup: Okay, motion is seconded to continue Items No. 1 and No. 2 concerning Cedar Springs Subdivision to our January 18th meeting. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Oppose no. Thank you. Item 3. Continued from November 14, 2000: AZ 00-022 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 118.4 acres to R-4 by Gemstar Properties, LLC, for proposed Springdale Subdivision at the Seasons - east of McDermott between Cherry Lane and Ustick Road Item 4. Continued from November 14, 2000: PP 00-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 400 building lots and 7 other lots on 118.4 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Gemstar Properties, LLC, for proposed Springdale Subdivision at the Seasons — east of McDermott between Cherry Lane and Ustick Road Borup: Our next Items No. 3 and No. 4, 1 am going to ask to be excused from these items and Commissioner Nary will take over at this point. Nary: Now we are on Items No. 3 and No. 4 with the Commissions preference to be to take both items together, AZ 00-0222 and PP 00-022? Commission: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 36 Item 5 Public Hearing: AZ -00-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 100.71 acres from RT to R-4 by Kevin Howell for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision — northwest of Meridian Road and Ustick Road: Item 6 Public Hearing: PP -00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 99.83 acres for 333 building lots and 25 other lots in a proposed R-4 zone by Kevin Howell for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision — northwest of Meridian Road and Ustick Road: Siddoway: I'll just mention that you have our staff report Norton: We've got it. Borup: Would one of the applicants like to come forward? Just any comment on our discussion here. Essentially we will — go ahead state your name. Lee: My name is Gary Lee with JUB Engineers 250 S. Beachwood in Boise. We did submit a request to the City to continue the public hearing so we would have an opportunity to arrange and meet with the school board. Borup: That was for the school board also. I thought your letter said highway district? Lee: There is that issue that is coming up as well. The tech review isn't until Friday. Borup: So they would have that by next month. Lee: They would have basically — Borup: Would they have a draft report by then? Lee: They should have the draft report by next Wednesday. Our goal is to meet with Meridian School District Monday or Tuesday of next week. To get some of these things resolved as far as their needs. Borup: Is your preference to have this on the November meeting or does December or January make any difference? Lee: We're aware of the sewer situation and right now I suppose unless Bruce has any ideas on when that might occur. That's going to hold us up anyway as far as construction. The same time the developer wants to be ready to go and offer as much input to the design team, Keller and Associates on alignment for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 37 the sewer. Which means we need to get down the road on our preliminary plat approval for roads, streets. So we can work with them on that alignment. Borup: Is that other project coming along timely? Freckleton: To this date we do not have (inaudible) — Borup: From the other developer? Freckleton: We've got a pre-ap with the other developer. (inaudible) plan of course he's not comfortable granting any easements until he has the final plat excuse me the preliminary plat is approved. Borup: But there is a preliminary design. I assume their preliminary design has a sewer going through it somewhere. Freckleton: We have a route we would like to take the sewer through yes. Borup: They haven't even done a preliminary design. Freckleton: (inaudible) preliminary plat. Roughed out. Borup: Does that allow for the sewer to go through the project? Freckleton: Yes. Staff raised some concern with the preliminary plat Borup: So staff is holding it up then. I don't know if that answered anything Gary. ***End of Side Two*** Nary: -- might be the best rather than a special meeting we may have to bring it up at the November meeting but to set it on the December meeting. I don't know if this — Borup: Or a second November meeting. Hatcher, But it doesn't sound like it's a priority to make a special meeting for it. I would concur we schedule this continuance for the December meeting. Nary: We'll just bring it up at the November meeting if there is anybody here again that came for that they think that's when it is. Its going December that's when our regular meetings are so that at least people are going to be a little more attuned. If this a project they are going to follow and they think its important then it makes more sense to me to keep it on our regular agenda at least to make sure the people are informed enough to be available if they want to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 38 be heard on this. But it doesn't sound like its urgent that kind of splits the difference of January verses a special meeting in November I guess. It still keeps the developer and applicant on track a little bit. It gives us time to make sure that folks who wan to come can be here. Borup: There may be time for testimony depending how that meeting is. Nary: Certainly Mr. Chairman if we feel at the beginning we can bring it up if there's folks here that say December is a bad month that's a holiday month I can't be here. The problem in sort of testifying in a vacuum when there's really no presentation is awfully difficult for people. Borup: Usually they spend a lot of time on stuff that the question would have been answered in the presentation. It wastes time. Nary: I just think seems like we're stacked so heavy in November and the applicant is here and there is not an urgency. But we do need to keep to on track that would make the most sense rather than a special meeting — we put this on the December — Hatcher: No I would say December Borup: Any comment on that Gary? Lee: I wouldn't want to go any later than that I don't think. We want to be right on the heels so the project that's holding up the sewer with our application. We want to have our preliminary plat approved and our final plans started when that sewer gets to our boundary line. So we want to be hitting the ground running. Nary: At least setting this in December at this point you are not going to have that agenda filled up yet this would be a first item (inaudible). Lee: Be a great Christmas present to be number one. Borup: Especially if something is worked out with the school district it may not be a real time consuming application either. Some of the last subdivisions granted they are a lot smaller than this. There has been no public testimony and very little discussion and it doesn't have to be half of the evening. The secret there was that they were in agreement with all the staff comments. Lee: That may not be an easy route for us in this case. You've seen their comments I don't know if you read them yet or not. Borup: Yes. Lee: We do have some responses to that. If you would like to see those early we can send them to you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 39 Borup: It sounds like — Nary: What I would move Mr. Chairman is that we continue the public hearing in this matter on Items 5 and 6 AZ -00-019 and PP -00-018 to December 12, 2000 meeting. So therefore the public hearing is still open for comment and such. We will put I ton the December meeting and obviously it will be the first item. Borup: Is that a motion? Nary: Yes. Norton: I second that motion. Borup: Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: As Commissioner Hatcher mentioned we do have a couple of — at least one other housekeeping thing. We discussed it last time and that was a meeting date. Sounds like the City Council is moving ahead with taking our Tuesday. They are going to meet every Tuesday in the month. They're going to be holding three City Council meetings a month and one workshop on the other Tuesday. They are going to be holding two public hearing meetings and one in house meeting I believe. Department reports etcetera and since this is an Ordinance item they would like us to pick a date that can be written in the Ordinance. Are you going to be writing that? Swartley: No I won't be. Hatcher: You might want to -- Borup: Last time we talked — last time I we were going between Monday and Wednesday I thought Wednesday was kind of where it was heading. Hatcher: Also want to mention that Will had expressed the desire the to have them on Thursday's because it works well his office and his staff. Nary: I think the Monday — I think the City Clerk's office prefer not to have it on Mondays because the developers are concerned about having to be with both of the Boise Planning and Zoning Commission and this Commission on the same night. Hatcher: Mondays are extremely bad for me. Norton: There are a lot of holidays that are Mondays Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 40 Borup: There are a lot of holidays and if we get the reports on Friday, you've got the weekend only for us to review it. We would lose Monday night for that if — Nary: In the big picture of things, Thursday works better for me. Norton: If we did Thursdays — the first and third Thursday — that would work. I have commitments on the second and fourth Thursday. Hatcher: I wouldn't care about first and third Thursday as long as it's fixed and we don't fluctuate. That's been the hardest thing for me. Borup: That's because we've only had one designated date, and the second ones always had to be worked in. Hatcher: I can work with a fixed date. Nary: I would concur with that. It's a lot easier if you have a fixed date. Hatcher: It's first and third Thursdays. Borup: And Thursdays is good for you, Jerry. Centers: Yes. Borup: Looks like that's what it will be Thursday for me for next year. Norton: Wednesday is good, but — Wednesday is a better night than Borup: It varies from — well, this year, Thursday will be better and next year Wednesdays. It depends on the year. Nary: What I also will say is that if he is going to at least ask the Council that we not really start this until January, if preferred since we've already sort of set our schedules — Borup: From what Will had said, as my understanding, it's going to take at least that long to get the ordinance in place. So, that's our intention — yes, that's going to start in January or no sooner than. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Hatcher. Hatcher: I will not be present the first Thursday of January. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 41 Borup: What is that? Hatcher: I don't know. I just know I won't be here. Borup: Okay. Is that New Year's Day? Hatcher: It's the 4th, yes. Borup: An intention would be the first Thursday would be our normal one. The 3'd is if it's necessary. Nary: The first Thursday would be every month. Borup: Unless we'd want to be the other way around, but I don't know how the other way around worked very well. Nary: The first Thursday is a lot easier to me — to set it — and whether or not you want to — you can put it in the ordinance and we can set our calendar that at least we may be available the 3rd Thursday of each month and we'll have set dates if we need to move. We have a long agenda. We have to move something. Borup: If it's like this, it's going to be about half of the time. This month and last month, we wouldn't be using it. Nary: And if the Council decides to give us a little more things to do, then we'll use them both anyway. Hatcher: I think it would be prudent to let the rest of the board know that the last six months have been cake walks compared to what it was a year ago. Borup: One other item that Mr. Berg reminded it might be time to bring it up — probably two years ago, we voted on a policy at that time for the Chairman to serve a minimum of one year. Essentially, after that time that it would be revisited and then this Commission would have option of electing a new Chairman — electing a Chairman — either the same Chairman again or a new person. The intention, I think, was to give everybody an opportunity, or those that wanted an opportunity. Also, at least at that time, there was a little more longevity among the Commissioners, too. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for you. Borup: Yes. Hatcher: Do you have any desire to step down or relinquish your current obligations? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 42 Borup: I'm comfortable where I'm at, but I wouldn't be uncomfortable if someone else felt like they'd also like to. It would be up to the Commission, but then just bear in mind that that's something that we probably want to look at on an annual basis. Hatcher: Do we need to fix a date every June or every July? Borup: It was August, I think. We're you here when that was done? Hatcher: I know we talked briefly. Borup: They're reviewing the whole minutes. Maybe January would be a better time. I don't know if the time matters. I don't know how the August came up. I think that was just the day we had the discussion or something or whatever month it was. I'll have to go back and double-check that. Hatcher: I quite, frankly motion that Keith continue on for another year. Nary: Probably the only thing that I would modify is that if we want to revisit, January makes the most sense. Borup: I think revisiting it probably does make sense. Nary: It's easy to remember if we do it in January than if we do it — Borup: Rather than the middle of the month. That's been the problem. The middle of the year thing was hard to — I think that's why it kind of got overlooked. Plus, it was in when Commissioner McCoy was the Chairman and he had been — I can't remember how it came up, but it had to do with a motion from some previous Commissioners. I think I remember. I'm remembering. I didn't think that's such a bad idea. There's a mechanism for some rotation if so desired, rather than being an undetermined time with no — because it's not in an ordinance, other than the Commission will elect the Chairman. Nary: This is 2000, so would we revisit this at January of 2002? Are you willing to make a commitment to January, 2002? Borup: Yes. Nary: Well, then I would make a motion that — Borup: Still, something comes up in the meantime. Ugarriza: Do you want to revisit it the month before the end of the year so the person can take over with the new year? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 43 Borup: That would probably be a good idea. The way it is right now, if the Commission changes their mind, I think we can still do it any time of the year, technically. Ugarriza: Does their need to be a vote? Norton: There was a motion on the floor. Borup: Did you make a motion? Okay. Norton: I'll second. Hatcher: December of 2001 — that Commissioner Borup remain as the Chairman and that we revisit the Chairmanship each December of each year with the next being December of 2001. Borup: I think it came up. One of the Commissioners wanted it to be a new -- I'm sorry. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: One of the Commissioners wanted to be automatically new Chairman every year, and then the other discussion was that you may not have someone that wants to and I think it was decided — the original one was that there would be a new election every year and then it was added that the same person can be voted in. Hatcher: I think that's fair. It doesn't matter who limits in this level of — Borup: i don't think so. Norton: Is there more business? Borup: Not unless anybody else has anything else. Norton: Then I move to adjourn the meeting. Hatcher: Second. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:55 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) I don't think there's any term H BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIA.4U L 2 6 20111 ATY OF PLANNING & ZONING C/C 06-05-01 IN THE MATTER OF THE REMAND ) CASE NO. PP -00-018 TO PLANNING AND ZONING FOR ) THE APPLICATION OF CEDAR SPRINGS) ORDER OF LOCATED NORTHWEST OF MERIDIAN) REMAND TO AND USTICK ROADS ) PLANNING AND ZONING BY: J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC. ) This matter having come before the City Council on April 17, 2001 and continued until June 5, 2001, at the hour of 6:30 o'clock p.m., at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, and the Council having received the Recommendations from Planning and Zoning, correspondence from Berry Peters, J - U -B Engineers, Parks and Recreation Commission and Staff, Chief William Gordon, and Fire Chief Kenny Bowers, and additionally having heard testimony at the June 5, 2001 meeting from Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Tom Kuntz, Parks and Recreation Director, Fire Chief Kenny Bowers, and the testimony from Matt Schultz and Gary Lee both from J -U -B Engineers, and John Kennedy, owner of property adjacent to the northwest corner of the proposed Cedar Springs, and due to inconsistencies in the preliminary plat, and being fully advised in the premises issues the following Decision and Order. ORDER GRANTING REMAND TO PLANNING AND ZONING PP -00-018 1 F, L_ r] DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING ORDER OF REMAND TO PLANNING AND ZONING Based upon the above and foregoing correspondence, testimony, and inconsistencies in the preliminary plat, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER THAT: The decision of the City Council is based upon the grounds there are inconsistencies in the preliminary plat, and such plat shall require the following: 1.1 Applicant shall be required to supply access for John Kennedy's property, the neighbor to the west, and note said access by the applicable stub street on the plat. 1.2 Applicant shall remove from the plat the future L -O and multi -family references if they are not intended to be planned development. 1.3 Applicant shall design a new single loaded street along the park on the southern boundary of the proposed subdivision, and additionally it shall address any safety issues within the plat. 1.4 Applicant shall design the lots to be of various sizes to add diversity within the subdivision. 1.5 Venerable Lane shall be vacated on the latest plat, and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall address what they want covered and what they want done with this lane. 2. This matter is remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further action in accordance with this decision. ORDER GRANTING REMAND TO PLANNING AND ZONING PP -00-018 E NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Please take notice that this a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the remand of the preliminary plat may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the l 6�lday of TC Tt6 7 , 2001. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN ANDERSON Voted COUNCILMAN BIRD Voted—*,&' COUNCILWOMAN DEWEERD Voted_�� COUNCILWOMAN` MCCANDLESS Voted MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (Tie Breaker) Voted DATED: MOTION: APPROVED: ORDER GRANTING REMAND TO PLANNING AND ZONING PP -00-018 DISAPPROVED: 3 4a;x �=tea Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department and the City Attorney. �,tErthrrrf,, � r r/, Z ti Dated: City Cleric • SMA w r Ar ZAWork\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Cedar Spgs PP00-018 Remand PP back to P & Z\orderRemandingAV �P' `�' �► 018.doc ,r�V#�,�� ORDER GRANTING REMAND TO PLANNING AND ZONING PP -00-018 rd aantaoaa uw"fo-xaw°: k'Al1I8NNfIDOOO TVO3VM?O1NVIUNIVHM3WI NOISIA108fOS:333N0�a� ' S ITS �VI1N3aIS3H S�JNIIidS HVU30 - y y = -LY7d AHVNIWIl3lid !ixx I� '!! jip Nlfl, tl.! � f �� � fill !11)all �r�: $ , ;` t; p t 49.93 11M .ill I Tl 10M 11 i I y l I 1!f 0 .Y rant• n I , "_-_� Arm-_�_--_-__ T__ I ; •,, � i. a •" � n' a i IBM m IP ON June 5, 2001 Honorable Mayor of the City of Meridian Honorable Council Members Bill Nichols, City Attorney Gary D. Smith, P.E./L.S., City Engineer 1 46 j- C ENGINE He" NO. to 4 l i 250 South loL)4*0`l Fax: 208-323-9336 RECEIVED RE: Cedar Springs Subdivision (Annex and Prelim. Plat) JUN - 5 2001 No. AZ -00-019 CITY OF MERIDIAN No. PP -00-018 RE: April 17 letter sent to Mayor and Council by Barry Peters representing John Kennedy Transmitted to the City Clerk's Office, via Fax No. 887-4813 and to the City Engineer's Office, via Fax No. 887-1297 and to Bill Nichols, City Attorney, via Fax No. 288-2501 Dear Mayor,, City Council Members, City Attorney and City Engineer: J -U -B ENGINEERS is the engineering and land -surveying consultant for Cedar Springs Subdivision, which is located approximately at the corner of Meridian Road and Ustick Road around the City's planned park site at that intersection. As most of you know, I have been a Registered Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor within the State of Idaho for the past 25 years. 1 have been asked from a surveyor's viewpoint to respond to the April 17 letter sent to you by attorney Barry Peters representing John Kennedy. A copy of his letter is attached. I have reviewed the 1908 Quit Claim Deed referred to in Mr. Peters' letter and I have reviewed the legal descriptions contained therein. 1 have also re -reviewed the legal descriptions contained in the Cedar Springs Subdivision and the Cedar Springs preliminary plat. In addition, I have made onsite investigations of the properties discussed herein. From this review process, I can make the following conclusions: 1. In the 1908 Quit Claim Deed, attached to Mr. Peters' letter, a party named Hedges quitclaimed a 29 -foot strip of land "to the Public" for use as a public highway. 2. The legal description of this 29 -foot strip shows that it is contained entirely in the SOUTHWEST quarter of section 36, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. 3. The legal description of Cedar Springs Subdivision is contained entirely in the SOUTHEAST quarter of section 36 of said Township and Range. 3. No part of Cedar Springs Subdivision is contained in the SOUTHWEST quarter where the purported 29 -foot strip of land is located. N JUN 05 101 15:44 208 323 9336 PAGE.01 �.i u -B A • Engineers Surveyors Planners ,• Honorable Mayor of the City of Meridian Honorable Council Members Bill Nichols, City Attorney Gary D. Smith, P.E./L.S., City Engineer June 5, 2001 Page 2 4. Cedar Springs Subdivision and the 29 -foot strip are in different quarter sections and do not overlap. 5. Therefore, Mr. Peters' statement that the 29 -foot right-of-way is "now designated as North Venable Lane" is incorrect. NO part of the 29 -foot strip is designated as North Venable Lane and no part of North Venable Lane, designated on the plat of Cedar Springs Subdivision, contains ANY part of the 29 -foot strip Mr. Peters refers to. 6. That any access that John Kennedy may have over the quit claimed 29 -foot strip to and from, his property remains the same whether Cedar Springs Subdivision is built or not built. Since the two do not overlap, it is not possible that the plat of Cedar Springs would in any way leave Mr. Kennedy "essentially landlocked" as Mr. Peters contends'. 7. My on-site investigation shows that the access to the Kennedy property from Ustick Road, which is currently being used is a private driveway, is located 40 to 70 feet west of the alleged 29 -foot strip. There is no indication that the 29 -foot strip referenced in the Quit Claim Deed has ever been used for access by Mr. Kennedy or anyone else. While it is not relevant to this discussion, I will mention in passing that I have reviewed aerial maps for the area in question. From my review of aerial photographs for 1964, 1978 and 1999, it appears that the 29 -foot strip, during that 35 -year span, has never been used as an access to the Kennedy property or anyone else. It also appears that from at least 1964 on, at least the eastern 47 feet of the Kennedy property (including the 29 foot strip) was occupied and continuously farmed by the next-door property owner to the east. Sincerely, J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc Gary A. Lee, P.E./L.S Project Manager GAL:Ihc cc: ' Kevin Howell, Howell -Murdoch Corporation F:\projects\11644\admin\City Letter 6.5.01.doc JUN 05 101 15:45 7)PP 77)7 Glc G��... ..�.�. .. . A / ^ O • Attorney at Law, RA, Y" [ Admitted to Practice in Idaho 8 Calltomia 10 1 Eag)c Otsn Lane, Suite A Eagle. Idaho 83616 1Lr-i V I=J 1 V J& 1J APR 17 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN ) UWff]7R OF PACES DDG TRANSMITTED - 2 IF ALL PACES ARE NOT R6CSiVi.D, PLEASE TEIE MOVE MARY AT a0t2) 939-2692 TDAE SENT, 4. IS r.M. TIM ORIGINALOF THIS TFIUOPY WILL BZ SENT BY REGULAa MAIL FAX NUNI MER. ao8 US -CIS Fhx , VNM1 R: (Zoo zas.st)t April 17, 2001 Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, 1cdaho 63642 Re: Cedar Springs Annexation and Preliminary Plat Applications Case No. AZ -00-019 Case No. PP -0o--018 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: Telephone: (208) 939-2600 Facsimile: (208) 939-2692 This office represents John Kennedy who owns property adjacent to the northwest corner of the proposed Cedar Springs Residential Subdivision. Mr. Kennedy brought this proposed plat to my attention today with concerns regarding access to his property_ X am enclosing with this letter a copy of the 1908 Deed which established the public right-of-way for what is now designated as North Venable Lane. As you will note, the right-of- way extends the full length of what is now proposed as the Cedar Springs Residential Subdivision. However, the preliminary plat being submitted in connection with this property only provides for Venable Lane to extend about two --thirds of the way toward the north end of the property. This will leave my clients property essentially landlocked. For that reason, Mr. Kennedy vehemently opposes the approval of this subdivision as submitted. APR 1? '01 16:02 JUN 05 '01 15:45 2013 323 9336 PAGE.03 Mayor and Members of the ` Meridian city council April 17, 2001 Page 2 Although I will be unable to evening on this issue, attend the hearing this the I do believe that it is v city not to approve this subdivision which will leaveortant my cliefor nt essentially landlocked. Mr. Kennedy hopes to be able to attend the meeting this evening, He will be happy to answer any questi wish to submit to him at that time. ons which you might Thank you for your consideration of this important issue_ BP.-mmg Enclosure cc: John Kennedy RSALNM�A^95103 APR 17 101 16=02 JUN 05 101 15:45 very truly ours, Barry P ters 7AA 777 477A P4f;F Gid I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I -m 0 S4 i — -------___ — mozr.ewxes_e__reJ i c I .�� A G d h r ::'E W E tV -_— NO12S'10'E OEe.6Y --- ` ,, f ttr � p �i F�, � �e a [,� p $i[ `�' '• pg � �. `S at rj i ii d�!Fr iI it J� R bif t MaJANARY -- Rt�V1B NOT FOR - PRELIMINARY PLAT CEDAR SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION HOWELL.MURDOCH DEVEU]PMENf CORP, INC. MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO J -U -B ENGINEERS m swn, evr�i.am AVOW inW >a eDt. O.O el1CFOY Hao xW-rn-nw [Au aae-ta[-.w if MAYOR HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Robert D. Corrie A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY OF MERIDIAN (208) 288-2199 • Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORKS Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 Tammy deWeerd (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING Cherie McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT (208) 881-5533 • Fax 888-6853 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Clerk's Office Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: September 13, 2001 Transmittal Date: August 22 2001 He D t S t b File No.: Request: By: _ aring a em ep em er 20, 2001 PP 00-018 rreiiminary mat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs Kevin Howell Development Location of Property or Project: nw of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road Sally Norton, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP) Jerry Centers, .P/Z (No VAR, vAC, FP) Bill Nary, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP) Keven Shreeve, P/Z (No VAR, vAc, FP) Keith Borup, PIZ (No VAR, VAC, FP) Robert Corrie, Mayor Ron Anderson, C/C Tammy deWeerd, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Cherie McCandless, C/C Water Department Sewer Department Sanitary Service (No VAR, vAc, FP) Building Department Fire Department Police Department City Attorney City Engineer City Planner Parks Department (Rmaam AZ - 27 FP - 24 PP/PFP - 28 VARNAC - 20 CUP - 28 RECEIVED AUG 2 7 1001 CITY OF MERIDIAN Meridian School District (No FP) Meridian Post Office (FP/PP only) Ada County Highway District Community Planning Assoc. Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP only) U.S. West (FP/PPonly) Intermountain Gas (FP/PPonly) Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PP only) Idaho Transportation Department (No FP) Ada County (Annexation only) Your Concise Remarks: FF�CE AUG ? 3 ^„11 CIS �� '' RID -LAN WAS :,t,E WATER DEPT. MAYOR HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Robert D. Come A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT CITY COUNCIL CITYOF MERIDIAN (208) 288-2499 Fax 288-2501 MEMBERS Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO PUBLIUBLI C WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 857-2211 • Fax 887-1297 Tammy deWeerd (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING Cherie McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Clerk's Office Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: September 13, 2001 Transmittal Date: August 22, 2001 Hearing Date: September 20, 2001 File No.: PP 00-018 Request: Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs By: Kevin Howell Development Location of Property or Project: nw of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road Sally Norton, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP) Jerry Centers, .P/Z (No VAR, vAC, FP) Bill Nary, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP) Keven Shreeve, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP) Keith Borup, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP) Robert Corrie, Mayor Ron Anderson, C/C Tammy deWeerd, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Cherie McCandless, C/C Water Department Sewer Department Sanitary Service (No VAR, VAC, FP) Building Department Your Concise Remarks: Fire Department Police Department l' City Attorney City Engineer City Planner Parks Department tR"iovnwmo.,7o AZ -27 FP -24 PP/PFP-20 VARNAC- 20 CUP -26 Meridian School District (No FP) Meridian Post Office (FP/PP only) Ada County Highway District Community Planning Assoc. Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP only) U.S. West (FP/PPonly) Intermountain Gas (FP/PPonly) Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PP only) Idaho Transportation Department (No FP) County (Annexation only) RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN AY R Ro rt D. orrie CITY CO NCI MEMBERS R An rson eith ird T Y Weerd Cherie CC HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) - Fax 288-2501 33 EAST IDAHO Pt8-2499 WORKS BUILDING IDEPARTMENT NIERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 887-2211 - Fax 887-1297 (208) 888-4433 - Fax (208) 887-4813 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 - Fax 888-6854 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN S To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Clerk's Office Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk„ by: September 13, 2001 Transmittal Date: August 22, 2001 File No.: PP 00-018 Request: Prelims an ry Plat a tyearing Date: September 20, 2001 NNl%jVQI of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs By Kevin Howell Development Location of Property or Project: nw of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road Sally Norton, Pr: (No VAR, VAC, FP) Jerry Centers, .P)Z (No VAR, VAC, FP) BiII Nary, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP) Keven Shreeve, IP/Z (No VAR VAC, FP) Keith Borup, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP) Robert Corrie, Mayor Ron Anderson, CIC Tammy deWeerd, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Cherie McCandless, CIC Water Department --.__ Sewer Department Sanitary Service 1,No VAR, VAC, FP) Building Department Fire Department ___ Police Department City Attorney City Engineer City Planner Parks Department rR••:d. 0,,wAZ - 27 FP - 24 PP/PFP - 20 VARNAC - 20 CUP. 20 —__ Meridian School District (No Fp) Meridian Post Office (Fr_ Pp o„ty,) Ada County Highway District Community Planning Assoc, Central District Health ______ Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co. (Fpippony) U.S. West (FP/PPony) Intermountain Gas (FP/PPonly) __Bureau of Reclamation (FP/Pponly) Idaho Transportation Department (No Fp) Ada County (Annexation onw) RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2001 CITY OF MERLDUM NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 6:30 p.m. on December 4, 2001 for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of Kevin Howell Development for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Revised Cedar Springs; Furthermore, the applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs generally located northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road. A more particular description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, and is available for inspection during regular business hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. A copy of the application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing, and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Written materials may be submitted seven (7) days prior to the above hearing date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to the hearing. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 72 hours prior to the public meeting. DATED 5th of Noveb9pj o PUBLISH 16thand 30 f vmer 0(o 1J ti� � - //- NILLIAM G. BERG, JR., C Cif•RK 0 , 100 �- li=p= ------------100 ----------_ 100 ---- I I N0 9 P O� v INTERNAL ADT PREDICTIONS CEDAR SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION FIGURE 4 BY STREET 1760 I I i R rJ-U-B ,k ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS . ar Ammr-Dc 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN 10 PRELIwIINARY SUBDVISION PLAT CHECKLIST INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED APPLICATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED P&Z MEETING. ITEM DESCRIPTION 1. Pre -application submittal meeting held 2. Thirty (30) copies of the completed and executed written application form 3. Proof of current ownership of the real property included in the preliminary plat and consent of recorded owners 4. Name and address of party to receive billings/correspondence 5. Legal description of subdivision prepared and stamped by Registered Land Surveyor 6. Thirty (30) copies of the preliminary plat with dimensions of not less than 24" x 36", drawn to a scale suitable to insure clarity of all lines, dimensions and other data. Preliminary plats shall include: a. Proposed Subdivision Name b. Drafting date c. Sectional location of plat - County d. North arrow e. Scale of plat (not smaller than 1 "=100') f. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of owner, subdivider or subdividers and engineer, surveyor or planner who prepared the preliminary plat; g. Statement of intended use of the proposed subdivision (i.e., residential single-family, two-family and multiple housing, commercial, industrial, recreational or agricultural) h. Sites proposed for parks, playgrounds, schools, churches or other public uses i. Streets, street names, rights-of-way and roadway widths, including adjoining streets or roadways; COMMENTS/DATE IV/ PRELIMINARY PLATOHECKLIST ITEM DESCRIPTION 0 j. Lot lines and blocks showing scaled dimensions and numbers of each; k. Legend of symbols 1. Minimum residential house size m. Contour lines, shown at 5' intervals where land slope is greater than 10% and at 2' intervals where land slope is 10% or less, referenced to an established benchmark, including location and elevation; n. Any proposed or existing utilities, including, but not limited to, storm and sanitary sewers, irrigation laterals, ditches, drainage, bridges, culverts, water mains, fire hydrants, streetlights, pressurized irrigation and their respective profiles o. Any dedications to the public and/or easements together with a statement of location, dimensions and purposes of such p. Master street drainage plan including method of disposal and approval from the affected drainage district q. Floodplain boundary as determined by FEMA or measures to amend this boundary r. Stub streets to provide access to adjacent undeveloped land or existing roadways (block lengths do not exceed 1,000') s. Cul-de-sac lengths not in excess of 450' 7. A statement as to whether or not a variance will be requested with respect to any provision of the Ordinance describing the particular provision, the variance requested, and the reason therefor 8. A statement of development features 9. A map of the entire area scheduled for development if the proposed subdivision is a portion of a larger holding intended for subsequent development Page 2 of 3 COMMENTS/DATE r� # 0 6 PRELIMINARY PLAT CHECKLIST ITEM DESCRIPTION 10. Thirty (30) copies of a vicinity map showing a minimum 1/2 -mile radius from exterior boundaries of plat, including land use and existing zoning of proposed subdivision and adjacent land (scale optional) 11. Thirty (30) copies of a 1 "=300' scale map on 8 '/z" x 11" paper indicating all adjacent development and/or lots of record within 300' of any boundary of the proposed development, with the layout of the proposed development in bold outline. Request list of property owners within 300' of property seven (7) days prior to submitting application. 12. A statement of traffic impact on existing adjacent roadways and intersections 13. Four (4) sets of conceptual engineering plans, including respective profiles 14. Fee Paid - $300.00 + Lots @ $10.00/Lot certified mailings @ $1.73/mailing x 2 15. Proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions 16. A site report for establishment of the highest seasonal groundwater elevation 17. Other Information as Requested by Administrator, City Engineer, Planning & Zoning Commission, or City Council REVIEW BY: Shari Stiles Planning _& Zoning Administrator Gary D Smith P E City Engineer APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE DATE: Page 3 of 3 COMMENTSIDATE 200 E. Carlton Suite 201 Meridian, ID 83642 (208) 884-5533 Fac To: Nancy Taylor, J -U -B From: Brad Hawkins -Clark Fax: 323-9336 Pages: 2 Phone: 376-7330 Date: 08/10/00 Re: Cedar Springs AN & PP Applications CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment 0 Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle Hi Nancy, I reviewed the two subject applications submitted 08-01-00. Below are my comments Annexation Application Evidence of ownership was submitted in the form of a Quitclaim Deed, not a Warranty Deed. Please submit a recorded Warranty Deed as proof of ownership. 2. The Quitclaim Deed conveys the land to two different entities — The Leslie Family Trust and The Moore Family Trust. However, the notarized consent from Ron Leslie does not refer to either of these entities. Please submit a notarized Legal Affidavit showing Ron Leslie as a legal representative of both family trusts. The legal description submitted is not stamped by a licensed land surveyor. Ordinance requires that annexation and rezone legals be stamped and signed. Please comply. 4. The legal description also must be a full metes and bounds of the entire external boundary of the land being annexed. The legal you submitted references four different existing parcels with exceptions, not a single description encompassing all subject property. Please submit a revised legal complying with this requirement. Preliminary Plat Application ----1. See #1 above. Please submit copy for the Plat application. ` x Ron Leslie's notarized consent form for the Annexation application does not give consent �/ for the Preliminary Plat application. Please submit. August 10, 2000 See #3 above. Please submit a copy of the revised legal for the Plat application. Per Item 6.b. of the application, please add a drafting date to the face of the plat. �) Per Item 6.1. of the application, please add the minimum residential house size to the face of the plat. 6. Per Item 7 of the application, submit a statement as to whether or not a variance will be requested. Note that Wallis Court is over the maximum 450 -foot cul-de-sac length and will require a formal Variance unless this length is reduced. 7. Per Item 12 of the application, submit a statement of traffic impact. I saw your note that ACHD is preparing a traffic study. However, this is required with the application. Please submit. Nancy, given these missing items in both applications, we cannot process the applications for the September P&Z meeting. If you get all of the above mentioned items to me by Friday, September 1 st, we will process for the October 10 meeting. • Page 2 if'J-U-B,i J-U-WGINEERS, Inc. 250 S. Beechwood Avenue Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83709-0944 Telephone: 208/376-7330 FAX: 208/323-9336 STER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE C1 - I - PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME; l - ATTENTION: GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU El ATTACHED ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: ❑ .SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ PRINTS ❑ PLANS ❑ SAMPLES ❑ SPECIFICATIONS ❑ COPY OF LETTER ❑ CATALOG SHEETS ❑ CHANGE ORDER ❑ THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ AS REQUESTED ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ FOR YOUR USE i�� FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN T. US REMARKS: IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE, COPY FOR SIGNED: tee. RECEIVED BY: DATE PLEASE SIGN. DATE AND RETURN WHITE COPY HP Lase?e100 Printer, x/Copier/Scanner SEND CONFIRMATION REPORT for City of Meridian 2088886854 Aug -10-00 12:53PM Job Start Time Usage Phone Number or ID Type Pages Mode Status 350 350 8/10 12:48PM 8/10 12:52PM 0'00" 0'48" 3239336 .......................... 208 323 9336 Send.............. Send .............. 0 2/ 2 .......... EC 96 Remote Fax was Busy............ 961 Completed........................................ Total 0348" Pages Sent: 2 Pages Printed: 0 ;t(IO E. GAM SN1e 201 City of Meridian Planning Zoning �,Wy,:b 83842 ftx w Nancy Taylor, J-1-13 no Brod Nawxrns-Clerk 323•9336 Paaees 2 Ohmm 376-7330 axes W10f00 thm Cedar Springs AN 3 PP Applications C� Uniaai ❑ For Revinv ❑ FIMN Cermelwd ® Fke R"ly ❑ Fleeee aweyele 1�I1 Nancy, reviewed the two subs- appec ons submihed 08-01.00. Below are my comments: h. Evidence of ownership was submitted in the form of a Quitclaim Dead, not s Wanenty Deed. Please submit a recorded Warranty Deed as proof of ownership_ R. The Quitcla m Deed conveys the land to two different emidss – The Leslie Family Trust and The Moore Family Trust. However, the notarized oortaent from Ron Leslie does not refer to either of these entities. Please submit a notarized Legal Affidavit shoving Ron 1 Leslie as a legal representative of both family trusts. 3. The legal description sub OW is not stamped by a licensed land surveyor. Ordinance requires that annexation and rezone lapls be stamped and signed. Please comply. <. The legal description also must be a full metes and bounds of the entire external boundary of the land being annexed. The legal you submitted references four dMerem mdatirg pamexs with exceptions. not a skrae description ermmPasskq at subject property. Please submit a revised legal complying with this requiremam. jPreliminmy P181 6291 1. See v1 above. Plasm Submit copy for the Plat application. 2. Ron Leslie's notarized congers farts for the Annexation application does not give consent for the Preliminary Plat application. Please submit Meridizn City Council Meeting rebruay 19, 2002 Page 13 Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion for request for services is denied. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from December 4, 2001: AZ 00-019 Request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development - northwest Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from December 4, 2001: PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots on 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development - northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: -- once we have been here before -- I have got to check the ground rules here for Public Corrie: Item Number 7 is a Continued Public Hearing from December 4, 2001. Let me Hearings. We have got a mess of them and what I would like to do is -- what we will do, we will have the staff report first, then we will have the developer or the requestee have the first on the podium for five minutes. Then we will have the Public Hearing for the people in the public that would like to testify and we have three minutes for each person that wants to testify. Then after we are through we will go back to the developer or the requestee and they will have the last to answer questions that were brought up from the Public Hearing. So, with that in mind I will continue the Public Hearing now on December the 4t" -- hearing from December 4, 2001. This is a request for an annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development, Northwest of Meridian Road, and West Ustick Road. There is also a Continued Public Hearing involving a request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for revised Cedar Springs. So if the council doesn't object I will open -- continue the Public Hearing on Number 7 and Number 8 and testimony can be taken on both. With that, I will have the staff comments first. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I believe these applications were continued in part because of the continued work on the North Meridian Area Plan. You did listen to a presentation by Wardle and Associates regarding the plan at your last meeting. We did receive since the December 4th meeting revised staff comments from the Ada County Highway District and I believe a lot of that had to do with the road that was beginning from Meridian Road to Venable Lane. Mr. Tom Kuntz, the Parks Director, has some comments regarding this project and I would like to turn it over to him now. Kuntz: Thank you, Mayor and Council. The parks department just wants to go on record that we plan on submitting a letter to the developer agreeing to paying for four feet of the road on our northern boundary of our park and the curb and gutter, totaling Meridian City Council Meeting February 19, 2002 Page 14 approximately $13,500 by the engineer's estimate, and that is being done at the request of Ada County Highway District. We just want to go on record for that. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. Any questions for staff? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: On our sewer through this -- this is the sewer that will -- that will eventually run through to our park; is that correct? And staff recommendation -- is there a recommendation that that sewer line be run to and through in the first stage or is this developer going to phase it in from the north side and we will just get sewer whenever the phase reaches the park? How does that work? Kuntz: Council Member de Weerd, Mayor and Council, staffs recommendation is that the developer is required to run the sewer through and to their southern boundary line to the northern boundary of the park as part of the first phase of their development. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Kuntz: Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. Is the developer representative here this evening? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Lee: Yes, I do. Corrie: Thank you, Gary. Your name and address, please. Lee: I was just waving at you, I didn't know that -- my name is Gary Lee with JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing Al Murdock, the developer. I believe the last Public Hearing that we had when this project was tabled, we had addressed all the remand items that Council had requested prior to that meeting and went back to Planning and Zoning. They re -heard those remand items and passed a favorable recommendation on to Council and I believe the Council was comfortable with that at that last meeting. I'm certainly glad to answer any questions you may have about the project at this time. Bird: I have none. Corrie: All right. Thank you, Gary. Lee: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting February 19, 2002 Page 15 Corrie: Mr. Berg, do we have anybody signed up on that one? Okay. Okay. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak in favor of this project? Okay. Anyone against the project? I have Joe -- you wanted to speak on this subdivision? Raise your right hand, please. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Simanich: I do. Corrie: Give your name and address, please. Simanich: My name is Joe Simanich and I live across the street from this. I have been to two or three meetings on this subdivision and I would like to have a little more information as to what is taking place now. Apparently, there have been some discussions with Venable Lane and other items and I would like to be informed of what they are. Thank you. Corrie: Okay. Anyone else like to issue testimony? Okay. Hearing none, Gary, do you have anything you would like to say in reference to what Mr. Simonich had to -- questions? Lee: Yes. Gary Lee with JUB. The question about Venable Lane was brought up about -- from the staff at the last hearing and the plan is to extend Venable Lane north from Ustick Road -- I'm going to guess on the dimensions, probably about 1,500 feet and we will dedicate our half of Venable Lane on the east side. There currently exists an old deed granting right of way on the west side of that center section line where that arrow is going down the map, so on the end there will be a full collector -- residential collector wide street from Ustick to the north and it will line up with the existing Venable Lane property. Thanks. Corrie: Thank you. Council, any discussion on the Public Hearing? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess I have a question for the attorney. This proposal was tabled for a couple of reasons. One was the question as to when the White Drain would come on line. The second was kind of a compilation of issues and those were in regards to being able to provide city services to this property and -- as far as police protection -- police, fire protection, and roads, those kind of issues that we are hoping are addressed in the North Corridor Planning. Can we take action on this and impose conditions that are not yet defined by the North Corridor Planning or can you put whatever is a result of that planning process to answer some of these issues that the city has in question? Is that too vague? I don't think you can really put conditions on something that are not yet Meridian City Council Meeting February 19, 2002 Page 16 defined. So I believe that in Bridgetower a condition was put on that they would adhere to any of the recommendations that came out of the North Plan regarding roads, but this is a -- we could look at something like that for this, but how about some of the other things that come out of that plan as well? Nichols: Council Member de Weerd, Mayor, Members of the Council, the only condition on Bridgetower that pertained to anything that might come out of the North Meridian Planning Area has to do with the requirement that the developer was willing to agree to, which was that in the event there was an agreement worked out generally between the development community and ACHD on how to more quickly fund arterials, the road construction. That Bridgetower would participate fully, along with the others, in that and what was contemplated there, if I recall correctly, was that the development community was looking at how can we build things more quickly so that the roads are there contemporaneous with or ahead of the growth, as opposed to lagging behind. Secondly, is there a way that the roads can be built less costly than ACHD's current per mile cost. So there were some ideas being explored, such as having the developers build the roads, private enterprise building them to certain standards and then having a reimbursement through some sort of phase-in thing out of impact fees or going to ACHD and then come back to the developers, kind of like a latecomer's fee. So, you could do something similar to that for Cedar Springs. If the applicant is willing to do that we would put it in the annexation and zoning portion, we'd put it into the Development Agreement, so that it's a condition of annexation, as opposed to a condition of Preliminary Plat approval. With regard to some of the other issues, the public safety issues in terms of furnishing fire coverage, police coverage, and those sorts of things, from the things that I have seen in the North Meridian Planning Area. I'm not sure that there is anything that's necessarily going to come out of that which would specifically address that issue unless it pertains to the issue of impact fees for public safety, which is something that city staff is already looking into. Those, of course, would have to -- they would have to be capital facilities planned. There would have to be zones created so that those impact fees would only be spent in that particular zone and you have that ability to do that now anyway. That is part of the building permit process and just because they build the subdivision and have the lots for sale doesn't necessarily mean that they pay impact fees at all once. So you could still do the impact fee ordinance for those things subject to the Public Hearing process and the rest of it down the road that would apply to this subdivision. It's not that this subdivision would get out from under having those impact fees as far as any heretofore unbuilt upon lots. Somebody that would buy a house that was already built would not have to pay the impact fee. But that issue -- and I also think that -- although I wasn't here on the December 4th meeting when this subdivision initially came before the Council, that was before the last attempt to raise the mill levy at .004. So I don't know if that answers your question, but it's very difficult for me to put conditions into a Development Agreement unless you specifically state what those conditions are. I haven't got my degree in mind reading yet, just ask my wife. Meridian City Council Meeting February 19, 2002 Page 17 Corrie: Tom, I had a question. On this revised plat, I don't notice that it shows where the street is blocked off at the park. So you will have a straight shot? Is that going to be -- where is that place in there? Kuntz: Mayor and Council, if you move the arrow right back -- or right there, that road would now have to proceed to the north. Corrie: All right. Kuntz: And then come back around the block and come back down to the park. So, that section would not have a road in it. Correct. Corrie: Okay. That will be shown on the revised plat, though, for -- Kuntz: That would be my recommendation. Corrie: Okay. So they don't have a straight shot down there? Kuntz: Yes. Corrie: Okay. Kuntz: And that was actually JUB's suggestion and was supported wholeheartedly by ACHD. Corrie: And the developer as well? Kuntz: I believe so, yes. Corrie: Okay. Any other questions? Gary? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council Members, I believe the developer has been holding off on granting the city sewer easement for White Trunk pending resolution of this plat. I don't believe there is a comment in our staff recommendations concerning the easement for the White Drain, but we really need to get that easement moving forward, if this plat is approved, by Mr. Howell. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess that would raise two questions for the applicant. One would be would you be in agreement to participate in any road assessment that might come down to help this North Meridian Area and you might want to comment on the easement that runs through that property. Meridian City Council Meeting February 19, 2002 Page 18 Lee: Gary Lee with JUB Engineers. As far as the road situation with Ada County Highway District, it really is similar to what they used to do in the old days where the developer would construct their portion of the roadway up to their -- Ada County Highway District standards. I think it's just kind of gotten away from that in the last few years and I think it's catching up to them now. As long as there is an equitable, way for a developer to get his share of the cost back through impact fees or whatever mechanism they come up with, it would be agreeable to do so. As far as the sewer easement is concerned, I have been working with Keller and Associates on the easement document. I have reviewed the easement once and made some comments, took them back to them to review. I have not seen anything back from them to date. I would like to see the final construction plans through that alignment as well just to be sure that we coordinate elevations for alignment and that sort of thing with the developer and the discussion with Kevin Howell on the easement. I don't think he has a problem signing that easement. He's reluctant to do so until we can secure an alignment for a roadway. We don't want to put that easement in there and come to find out the plan is denied and we got to come in with some sort of revised alignment and still make the sewer work, because they both have to kind of work together. Does that answer your question? De Weerd: Yes. Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Lee, if I may, before you get down, since I wasn't here December 4th, I'm not sure I'm understanding what we are talking about in terms of blocking off the street. Is that -- can you identify that lot and block, tell me -- or are you not going to build that lower portion of the street at all in there? Lee: That's correct. It's a non -continuous street. I handed out an eight and a half by 11 reduction of the plat kind of showing where that area was, but on the -- Nichols: So we have this drawing, which shows that -- Lee: Yes. Nichols: Okay. Can you tell me that block? Lee: We show that at least in our Preliminary Plat as Block 12 and it's between Alexis and Greenwich Avenue and a portion of this continuous street is with that street. The blocks will likely change in the Final Plat. They tend to do that, the numbering system. Nichols: Okay. If we are going to put that into the Preliminary Plat findings I need to have something to tie it to and -- Lee: I understand. Nichols: -- I can't read the small numbers. Meridian City Council Meeting February 19, 2002 Page 19 Lee: I can't either. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you, Gary. Any other questions for the Public Hearing? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, only if Gary's response works for our Public Works Department Smith: Council Member de Weerd, Mayor and Council, yes, we understand their concern and we will be happy to work with them on their development plan, so that the manhole rims will work with their roadway design. We just need to get this easement document signed by the developer as soon as possible, so that this will complete our plan set that's going out for bid. I don't know at what point the developer would feel comfortable in doing that, but if this plat moves forward this evening, I would like to be able to submit that easement document back to the developer ASAP for his signature. De Weerd: I feel like I'm in a tennis match. Does that work for you, Gary? Lee: Gary Lee with JUB. It certainly does. I just wanted to point out the one comment that I did have on the easement is that there were -- there are two points of connection up in the very northwest corner on that easement document. I think the reason for that at the time was in negotiation with Mr. Kennedy and we'd like to see that northerly portion of the easement go away, because it really is not doing us any good to have an easement across that corner of the project. So hopefully you can get that situation with that other parcel resolved, so we don't have two easements going across there to do the same thing. Corrie: We would hope to have this the 19th of March anyway. Thank you. Anything else? Okay. Then hearing no more, I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on Items 7 and 8. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we close the Public hearing on Items 7 and 8. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item Number 7, AZ 00-019, and Number 8, which is PP 00-018. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion say. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Discussion? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council Meeting February 19, 2002 Page 20 Corrie: Okay. I will entertain a motion on Item No. 7, request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from an RUT to an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for the Revised Cedar Springs. To include all staff comments, as well as the revised plat, to also ask that the applicant participate in the -- I don't know -- Mr. Attorney, you probably have better words than I do on how to word the participation of anything from the ACHD road improvement from the north corridor plan and to have the attorney draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made to approve the annexation of 00-019 and to include all staff comments and the original motion. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none -- De Weerd: Do you want me to -- Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Wait a minute. Okay. Mr. Bird. Bird: I do have a -- I'm in favor of it, but I would like to see a stipulation that no Building Permits would be issued until the sewer is up and running through their place and ready to go on line. De Weerd: This motion -- I would agree to add that to my motion, if the second would agree. Nary: I agree. Corrie: Motion was to include no building permits at that point until the sewer line is in. Let the record show that both the motion and the second approve. Any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg, roll -call vote, please. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion has been approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council Meeting February 19, 2002 Page 21 Corrie: Now Item No. 8 is the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we approve the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs, to also make special notation on the map that we looked at with the -- what street is that? Nichols: Mayor and Council Members, I'm looking at a drawing, which is dated November 30, 2001, by Gary Lee, showing a portion of Ashby Street between Alexis and Greenwich. De Weerd: Okay. As noted, then, by the attorney, to include all staff comments, and to ask the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to approve the request for Preliminary Plat with the conditions on Preliminary Plat 00-018. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll -call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 2001: AZ 01-012 Request for annexation and zoning of 70.72 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development - northeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Meridian Road: Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 2001: PP 01-015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 214 single family lots, 4 future office lots, and 23 common lots and 3.43 other lots on 69.79 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development - northeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Meridian Road: Meridian City Council Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2001 Page 47 of 90 they could come here and have an agreement, other than us tying up another hour or hour and a half at a Council meeting trying to -- De Weerd: That's why I suggested that Mr. Jewett might have something more to discuss at that time. Anderson: Well, I'm hoping they have something before that. Bird: But in a Public Hearing, when you continue a Public Hearing, I don't believe we can specify one single thing, because it's an overall Public Hearing, we are -- so, yeah, I would agree with that and I hope that staff could get together -- Anderson: I would encourage them to get together ahead of time to try to work out some of these details. Corrie: Well, I would recommend highly -- I don't have the calendar, but that's the end of the discussion. Okay. Let's have a roll -call vote on that ordinance -- or that motion, please. Roll -Call: Bird; aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Then we will continue the Public Hearing until December 18th on Items 11, 12 and 13. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Before we go to Item 14 I'd like to take about a ten minute break and then we will be back at -- try to be back here about five after 9:00. Bird: So moved. RECONVENED AT 9:05 P.M. Item 14. Public Hearing: AZ 00-019 Request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: Item 15. Public Hearing: PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: Corrie: Okay. I will reconvene the City Council Meeting from our recess. The next item on the agenda is the Public Hearing, request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development, Meridian City Council Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2001 Page 48 of 90 northwest of North Meridian Road and west of Ustick Road and also there is a request by the Revised Cedar Springs for a Preliminary Plat approval on 264 building lots and 31 other lots -- or those are two different things, aren't they? Okay. We can open them both up if you'd like. Okay. So I will open the Public Hearing on Items 14 and 15 and the staff comments first. McKinnon: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. I have got a laser pointer, so I can help out now. Hopefully it will help follow along with what I'm saying. This is the 56 -- 58 acre park that the city is working on right now. I know at your last meeting there was some discussion that was had about whether or not the straightaway would be located in the subdivision. Go ahead and change maps here. This is the park right here. There is a straightaway starting from right here running directly across the park frontage. ACHD has some very serious concerns about creating a drag strip right in front of the park, especially with people traveling from the neighborhood across the street into the park. So there has been some discussion with ACRD. I know that members of my staff, Brad Hawkins -Clark, met with the parks department and with the applicant to discuss some traffic calming ideas and some techniques that could be utilized in these areas. The four different ideas that they came up with are as follows: Number one, construct a street section at 29 feet width, rather than the standard 36 feet to reduce the speed of traffic. Essentially just taking the road and narrowing it would not allow vehicles to travel as quickly as they do in the neighborhood subdivision, which typically has a 36 foot wide road section. Number two is to restrict parking on both the orth and the south side of the street. Number three is to paint the south curb, the curb directly adjacent to the park, with a red paint to designate it as an emergency lane and access and also to prohibit people from using that for parking for the park. And, number four, we were talking about installing a landscape aisle to Ashby -- which I believe is this street right here -- to eliminate the straightaway and force vehicular traffic north around the block. So what we would essentially do is right here bump the park out and up right there so that instead of having a straight path they could travel on -- my hand's shaking because it's a long distance from here -- right there they would have to travel along the street and then go up, over, and then back down and across, which doesn't allow them to have a straight shot. So if we had a narrow street right here and then added the bump out right here, they wouldn't be able to travel down the street as quickly as they can right now with a 36 foot wide street section. We are comfortable with those types of traffic calming techniques. ACHD had some concerns with those traffic calming techniques. However, they can only make a special recommendation to the city, they can't make any requirements to do any further changes from this. Brad Hawkins said that the applicant would be here tonight to discuss those options with you and he can go into depth further as to what else they would like to do with that and how they would accommodate those changes. As far as the design of the subdivision, there is very little change, if any, from when you saw it last and I'd ask if there is any questions. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2001 Page 49 of 90 Bird: David, you say you're taking the street down from 36 feet to 29 feet to reduce speed? McKinnon: That's correct. Bird: The ones that are going to speed in there, regardless of how wide it is, all you're doing is getting in closer to a wreck. I mean the kids -- the guys that are going to speed in there regardless of whether it's 36 or 29. The wider the street the better you are. McKinnon: To some extent I agree with you only from this -- from about right here to here. There is some curve to the street as you get to these areas right here, then if you also add the bump out in addition to the 29 feet of narrowing it -- and that comes from some traffic engineering studies that say that in a neighborhood with a narrower street they actually do travel slower. Part of that is a result of allowing people to park on both sides of the street and they can't actually travel in a fast lane. If you imagine the north end of Boise, the traffic can't actually go much faster because of the narrower streets, the crossing. I agree with you wholeheartedly that a 36 wide one would allow just as much speeding as a 29 and there could be some changes there, but if we made the bump right here, that wouldn't allow them to come as quickly into that bump, because they wouldn't would have as much radius to make that turn. Bird: What about just speed bumps? They are the greatest thing I have ever seen to slow somebody down, especially me. McKinnon: To me, Mayor, Councilman Bird, it's a mixed bag with speed bumps. ACHD -- I have had numerous discussions with ACHD. They receive complaint after complaint after complaint with the speed bumps. I know for a fact living on a street that has had speed bumps in the past that one of the more fun things to do is -- when you're a young man or a young woman that's driving a car is to actually go faster over the speed bumps. You can't catch any air, but you actually -- your suspension feels it a lot less if you go faster over the speed bumps. I've seen it over and over and over again off of Vista where we used to live. The speed bumps do slow some vehicles and I think that there is some types of speed bumps that do, but in neighborhoods people typically do not like to have speed bumps in the neighborhood and, like I say, I think it's a mixed bag. We are looking for something as an alternative to that. Some other alternatives that we discussed with staff was to put in some marked crossings with stamped concrete of a different color going across the street that would designate that, hey, these are crosswalks right here, another idea has been discussed to slow vehicles down. However, at night when you have vehicles traveling it's hard to see and they don't do a whole lot. There is a lot of different ways to calm traffic. There has been some discussion about, you know, putting in the barricades right here, the small bump - outs. If you have ever traveled down Irene Street from State Street to Harrison Blvd., you know that they have the bump -outs across from the park that's there between 24th and 25th -- well, between 24th and 22nd Street. This is similar to this where they have a park with homes adjacent to it and this is the main street through here. What happens with the bump -outs that are right there is the same thing he said, Chairman -- Meridian City Council Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2001 Page 50 of 90 Councilman Bird, is that the vehicles actually can go straight through those bump -outs. Rather than follow the curve through there, they just go straight through, because there is no other vehicles is coming crosswise at them. We are not going to be able to stop everybody from speeding and we are just trying to come up with some alternatives to putting this park out further and then back in and some all alternatives so speed bumps, because they are sort of a mixed bag. Just some different alternatives and I know that applicant is here tonight -- or he was here earlier, I was talking to him, but they have some thinking and some thoughts on those alternatives as well and I think that they probably ought to have a chance to explain some of the reasoning behind that. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: David, how about traffic circles? Were those considered? McKinnon: A traffic circle as you see in -- where you would have a center circle right here with vehicles that come in and be able to rotate around until they want to escape is De Weerd: I know that you don't have a four way, but as a calming device utilize the circle -- McKinnon: Putting a circle so they'd have to go out and around the circle? De Weerd: Yes. McKinnon: The island, is that -- the island concept? Yeah. We discussed an island concept there, too. Some of the problems that we have with the island concept is that you have an island that's in the middle of traffic that's hard to maintain anything that's planted in there. Otherwise, you end up with just an extruded curb in the middle of the street and that can run into some problems with the fire department when they come down this road for emergency vehicles, they are a larger length vehicle and they wouldn't be able to turn up and around a small island in there. It makes it hard to maneuver the vehicle. In addition to that you have a wider street with parking on the north side, right there, and you have an island right here, to be able to maneuver a vehicle from -- around an island with a vehicle parked right here, it makes it much harder with a longer length truck. We are looking for options and those are some of the options that we have looked at, Tammy, and we would be -- we are very open to any types of options that you guys have and that's as good an option today as we have come up with. Corrie: Okay. Any questions? De Weerd: Does Elroy have anything to add? Meridian City Council Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2001 Page 51 of 90 Huff: Elroy Huff, city parks. I don't know if you guys have -- let me show you -- what I was talking with Gary about today — Corrie: Talk into the mike. Huff: What I was talking with Gary about today was right here is to block that street and I talked to Paul about it, too, and what it would do is essentially bring the park right up into there a little bit and all the traffic would go up and that would be the -- that would eliminate having to do anything else in this street, narrow it or anything else. It would just be that block right there which would be park and landscaped and the traffic would go up and come into there either way. If we can't have a street all the way through, that's probably the easiest option I can see from what I have been looking at. Does that make sense, Dave? Did I get that pointed out to — Corrie: Yes, it does. Huff: The simplest thing we can do the better it is. Corrie: Any other staff comments? McKinnon: That's works for me. Corrie: Okay. The developer. Lee: My name is Gary Lee with JUB Engineering, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, and I just wanted to quickly hit some of the points from our last meeting when this Council had remanded the preliminary plat back to Planning and Zoning. There were five specific issues that were addressed in that remand order. I'll just quickly go through these and read them for you. The first one was to extend Ashton Street to the western boundary. Up on the very northwest corner of the site you can see where there is dashed street going off to the west. That would provide access to the John Kennedy parcel. That was added to the preliminary. There were -- the second item was to remove any references to limited office or multi family. There is a couple of cul-de-sacs, one right on Ustick and one over on Meridian Road, that had notes on the previous preliminary plat about a different use than single family. Those, obviously, were removed. But on the third item was to relocate the street that we just were discussing, that's Ashby Street along the common boundary with the park, and the fourth item was to add some lot size diversity within the development and along with that item -- it wasn't specifically stated, but the Planning and Zoning director had concerns about block length. So we did some redesign work throughout the development to cut down the block length and to also increase some of the lot sizes in there and to get a little better spread on our lot dimensions. The fifth item and last item was the Venable Lane situation along the western boundary about two-thirds the length of the site. We are going to construct Venable Lane as a residential collector up to that T intersection and from that point north we will vacate Venable Lane on our side of the development and we will still provide access to Mr. Kennedy's parcel in two Meridian City Council Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2001 Page 52 of 90 locations. So we addressed those five points and in regard to the preliminary plat before you and the real fly in the ointment is that common roadway between our development and the park. You see that the staff -- now this hasn't gone to county -- Ada County Highway District commission yet and staff has taken the position that they are concerned about safety. I asked the question of a staff member why she was concerned and I never have gotten a really good answer. There isn't a lot of traffic on that road, there is less than a thousand trips. I don't know that we are going to experience a lot of pedestrian traffic that would cause some special concerns crossing that roadway, it's a local street, but they expressed the concern and that's how they presented it to the county commissioners. This particular application was to go to the county commissioners during their mid November meeting, although they neglected to invite myself over to the city to attend that meeting to discuss the situation. So they pulled it off the meeting and they tabled it until this week's meeting with the hopes that myself and also the city parks could attend to review this street. Tom Kuntz was out of town, so we postponed it again to the 12th and we'll have our chance to go in and talk to them. I did take the liberty to contact one of the commissioners who I knew personally and talk to her about that situation and the way it was presented to me was the staffs recommendation is a special recommendation to the City of Meridian. It's not a site specific requirement. It's not something that has been in their ordinances or their policies to limit this kind of design. What they are doing is just kind of throwing up a flag and saying, City of Meridian, you want to do something special here to maybe protect yourself from future liability? So along those lines we met with city parks a couple of times. We also met with the planning department and with ACHD staff and kicked around a lot of different ideas on traffic calming and the consensus was at our last meeting with Mr. Kuntz and Brad Hawkins -Clark was that the four items I dictated on that memo that I just passed out to you to help reduce the safety concerns and to hopefully slow down the traffic and I personally believe that the blocking of the road in that block and -- it's actually one more block over from where Dave was pointing out on this -- right in there. The next one over. In that area is probably the best solution. So what it will do, it will dump more traffic onto the collector street to the north and it will further reduce the amount of vehicles going through that roadway. Of course, they are going to have to slow down to make that maneuver, it's going to be a fairly sharp turn on both sides. Folks will have to slow down. So I believe the combination of those four items is a pretty good effort to show ACHD that we can do some things to calm that traffic. But the decision is yours, you know, from the city's point of view. I will be glad to answer any questions about any of these five items or the safety issue. Corrie: Any questions from Council? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Anderson: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Meridian City Council Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2001 Page 53 of 90 Anderson: I just had the one question, Gary. Are you proposing doing all of these options or just choosing the best option? Lee: I think we can do all four or we could do a combination of any of them. I know the parks had stated at one time that they just as soon not do anything to it, just leave it the way it is. But, you know, the choice is yours. Anderson: Okay. Lee: Thank you. Corrie: This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony? Huff: Elroy Huff, park superintendent. We looked at that street a long time and Tom and I have talked about it on occasion and we talked about the fact if there was some way to leave that street open, that we would, but we realize the safety concerns and rather than do a whole lot of fancy stuff, we feel like if we just block that area off, that would cut traffic and we wouldn't have to put a lot of other obstacles into that street. That's kind of what we are looking at without doing a lot of other things, but do that one thing and that would probably take care of the concern with ACHD and the safety issues at the same time without having to put a lot of other traffic stuff out in the street or narrowing the street at all. I'd rather do one thing than do a whole bunch of things. Thank you. Bird: Just a minute. Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Along our northern boundary there are we going to have a chain link fence or any fencing from the park to the roadway? Lee: We are discussing what kind of fencing we may need as a buffer along that pathway that goes down the north side of the street that would interrupt anyone from being able to get right into street real quickly, some kind of a buffer, something that you might even just go through and maybe get over, but you just can't go back over into the street without slowing down, but that would be back off the street a little ways. It won't be too close. Bird: And that would have some pedestrian entrances and stuff? Lee: Yes. I don't know if it will be chain link or something decorative, but something that will act as a buffer to make sure that there is some space between that -- that buffer or fence before we get to the street, so if they do get over it real quick they don't just come out into the street. We have those concerns. Meridian City Council Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2001 Page 54 of 90 Bird: Okay. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. Lee: Thank you. Corrie: Anyone else? Okay. Council, questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on Items 14 and 15. Bird: So moved. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing for Items 14 and 15. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I appreciate all the work that's been done. This is a much more viable project and it works well with the park and that sort of thing. I guess the only thing I would raise at this point is this same issue that came up across the street and with the timing of the White and whatever comes out in the recommendations with the North Meridian Planning process. So I just want to put that out for discussion and just again reiterate to the applicant we really appreciate what you have done and I know you had to go through a huge effort with the frontage road and appreciate all your efforts. Corrie: Any other comments? Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion on the request for annexation and zoning, AZ 00-019, 100.71 acres, Revised Cedar Springs. Get paid by the hour. Bird: I will throw something out, find out whether it goes or not. Corrie: Okay. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2001 Page 55 of 90 Bird: I would move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the Revised Cedar Springs, northwest of Meridian Road -- North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road and for the staff comments to be incorporated and for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. Corrie: Okay. Do I hear a second? Anderson: I will second it. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request annexation and zoning of the AZ 00-019, 100.71 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone, Revised Cedar Springs. Any further discussion? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Okay. Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess I would like to say again, as I did with the application in the last month, is I don't have a problem with this application, it's more of the timing and getting some answers to the White Drain and the North Meridian Planning Area. So we did delay the action on another one until February and I don't see what makes this different from that. Anderson: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I, too, have a lot of the same concerns as Tammy has and I think the size of this project concerns me. We have talked about sewering issues and we have talked about the development that -- how this will strain public services. I know that we have had a developer who, in the interest of knowing that we had these concerns, had promised that whatever happened with the North Meridian Planning Group that they would be willing to pay whatever additional fees might come out of that and things like that and I would hope that this developer might maybe think along those same lines and get involved in those discussions and so the reason I seconded this motion is just to sort of get it on the table and discuss it a little bit -- a little bit more and what their concerns were. I really don't have any heartburn, if this motion fails, in delaying it a little bit. Corrie: Okay. Any other comments? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2001 Page 56 of 90 De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess my question would be is this would be on an approval, but if it's felt that it would be a denial, but more of a deferral. Corrie: Is everybody clear on what the motion is? Okay. Mr. Berg, roll -call vote, please. Roll -Call: Bird; aye; de Weerd, naye; McCandless, naye; Anderson, naye. Corrie: Okay. Three nayes. Motion to approve is denied of annexation and zoning. Which makes the item on the Public Hearing request for Preliminary Plat mute at this point. Do we still have to have -- I will entertain a motion on the Preliminary Plat for the approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone by Revised Cedar Springs. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: We haven't acted on the annexation and zoning. We didn't deny it, we just didn't approve it. Bird: You didn't approve it, you denied it. De Weerd: No. We didn't. We voted on the motion. So I would like to make a motion on Item No. 14, request for annexation and zoning to defer until February 19, 2002, for the Revised Cedar Springs. Corrie: Defer to what date again? I'm sorry. De Weerd: February 19, 2002. 1 believe that — Corrie: That's the date that -- Bird: That's the other one. Corrie: Okay. McKinnon: Sundance Subdivision. The Sundance Subdivision would be heard on that same night. Corrie: Do I hear a second on the motion? Meridian City Council Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2001 Page 57 of 90 Anderson: I'll second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to defer until February 19, 2002, the request for annexation and zoning of the Revised Cedar Springs, AZ 00-019. Any further discussion? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess just to give clarity -- and I would imagine the applicant probably already knew we took that type of action on Sundance, so might have anticipated this, but it -- to look at how the White Trunk is timed and to what the development frame will be on that and also what recommendations come out of the North Meridian Planning Area. Corrie: Any other comment? All right. Mr. Berg. Berg: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Members of the Council, my concern is we are deferring this and we are going to have a new member of this Council and we are going to have to have some findings to be prepared by the attorney -- Bird: That's right. Berg: -- and I'd just, I guess, ask for legal advice or whatever. Do we need to continue the hearing? Do we want to get information after you have heard Sundance? Bird: But you have already closed the hearing, so you can't -- Berg: You can come back and reopen it. I'm just stating there is another situation that will be happening on the February 19th meeting. Swartley: Mayor Corrie, Members of the Council, I would suggest you reopen the hearing and then continue the Public Hearing until the 19th if that's what date Mrs. de Weerd would like to hear it. McKinnon: Mayor Corrie, Councilwoman de Weerd, that is what we did. Bird: What's that? De Weerd: We continued the Public Hearing? McKinnon: We continued the Public Hearing. Corrie: There is a motion before the floor. Meridian City Council Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2001 Page 58 of 90 De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I would happily withdraw my motion. Anderson: I second. Corrie: All right. Then the motion is back on the floor and -- Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we reopen the Public Hearings for Items No. 14 and 15, which is the AZ 00-019, request for annexation and zoning of the Revised Cedar Springs and PP 00-018, request for the Preliminary Plat approval for 264 building lots and 31 other lots for Revised Cedar Springs. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Time? Bird: We have to reopen now. Corrie: All right. Motion has been made to reopen the Public Hearing on Items AZ 00- 019 and PP 00-018. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Now I would move that we continue the Public Hearing for the request for the annexation and zoning of the Revised Cedar Springs to February 19, 2002, and also the Public Hearing for the request for the Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots for the Revised Cedar Springs Subdivision until February 19, 2002. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Okay. We have got a motion and second to continue the Public Hearing on Item 14, which is a request for annexation and zoning 019 and for the request for Preliminary Plat of 018 to be continued until February the 19th, 2002. Any further Meridian City Council Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2001 Page 59 of 90 discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of that motion say aye. Opposed no. Motion is carried. It will be continued, the Public Hearing on the 2, until February 19th MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Item No. 16 is a Public Hearing. This is for a variance -- Bird: No. I moved to approve it and I didn't get a second. Corrie: He didn't get a second. We didn't get it approved. It wasn't denied. Bird: We vote 3 to 1 to not approve it. Corrie: It's not been approved, but now we are coming back and doing the Public Hearing again on the 19th. De Weerd: It hasn't been denied. Corrie: No. I think we are all in agreement of what's there, we just need to make sure we have got everything on that section all put together at the same time. De Weerd: And the reason the Public Hearing was reopened so that if the new Council member needed any additional -- we have the advantage that he's heard this application at P&Z, so there shouldn't be too much. But then we can enter in a time table for the White Trunk and also any information from the North Meridian Planning Area. Item 16. Public Hearing: VAR 01-017 Request for a Variance for Time Extension of one year time frame for Final Plat recording in an R-4 zone for Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 5 by Brighton Corporation — east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Cherry Lane: Corrie: Item No. 16 is a request: for a variance for time extension of one year time frame for Final Plat recording in an R-4 zone for Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 5 for Brighton Corporation, east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Cherry Lane. I will open the Public Hearing and have staff comments first. McKinnon: Mayor Corrie, Members of the City Council, I have on the overhead the location of Ashford Greens No. 5. It's directly to the east of Turnberry Subdivision off of Black Cat. The variance requested before you tonight is very similar to the one you heard earlier from Turtle Creek. They haven't submitted this phase of the subdivision within the one year time frame as required by city ordinance. The reason the applicant gave for not submitting within that time frame is that there were some easements that were -- that needed to be obtained from the city in order to accommodate their storm drainage plans. I have gone through the findings. The findings are in front of you. They are based on the fact that the city held them up on this. The city staff Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 95 issue there beyond any other local street in the city. There may be some more speed there than there should be because of the straight stretch and the open field that you will have the park next door to it. You may tend to drive a little faster and I tend to favor a narrower street and have the people pay more attention to where they are driving. So with that I'll certainly be glad to answer any questions the Commission may have. Borup: Any questions, Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Yes. Nary: Mr . Lee, one of the suggestions by the staff was brick pavers and stamped concrete that varies the roadway and that makes you slow down, too. Was that something you talked about or is that just impractical or -- Lee: Well, that was an item we discussed as well, as long as there is bump outs, they go hand in hand. Nary: Okay. Shreeve: You can make a distraction, you can put it in the street, too, to slow people up. Borup: Mr. Lee, is it definitely agreed, then, that the parks department or the applicant wanted any parking along the park? Lee: Yes . With our -- Borup: The concern was -- the concern was what, specifically? Lee: Well, the concerns from a development standpoint is we didn't want to have excess vehicles there in the subdivision along that park. Of course, the park has plenty of parking the way it is, so even then -- Borup: So that the only way to stop that is a narrower street, then, isn't it? Lee: Well, you could do it with a regular street and signing, but people are going to park there anyway. Borup: Well, I mean being practical. Lee: Being practical you're probably right. The best way is to put a narrow street in. Borup: How about the bike lane would do it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 96 Lee: It would certainly help. As long as there is a stripe there and people are going to take note that they are not supposed to be crossing that stripe to park. You'd have to paint the bike lane like you normally see around town. Borup: Well, if the speed is truly the concern, I mean -- I like the idea of the bump outs, too, I think that and if it needed a stop sign mid way -- I mean I don't know how you know that in advance, but -- Nary: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. The only thing I would be concerned about is that stop sign in mid block. It's going to be very unexpected to most of the drivers and I have a tendency to --. The pedestrians are going to recommend the stop sign there, the drivers aren't, and that just may cause another problem. I mean I guess that's something that could be done in the future. I guess I would be more inclined to want to pick like the bump outs or the concrete -- bricks on the roadway so that helps slow the traffic, you know, that way. Without the parking there is no visibility, so the pedestrians can see. I would be really --. I would be deathly afraid to walk on that street. You can be taking your life into your hands to do that. But I mean that's another option, but I think the other things are probably the best we could do for what's being proposed. Borup: Okay. The only bike lane that I have seen that I think would be safe is like there on Cloverdale where they have concrete separation between the road and the bike lane. I don't know if that's practical for here, but that would definitely -- but you also have to have a bike lane to go somewhere. You know, a short stretch of bike lane doesn't accomplish much. Nary: Right. Borup: So are you looking for a recommendation on which one of those options or what do we -- Lee: Well, I don't -- I don't think so. I think it's something that's probably still pertinent for discussion. Maybe we ought to ask City Council to put that on there as well and get the parks department. But I think the narrow street is probably the way to go myself. You can make it a recommendation or make it as an alternative. Borup: Okay. Lee: Something like that. Borup: Did the parks department have any other comment on that aspect? Yes or no? I should have -- what a silly question to ask if you ever had comment. Kuntz: Tom Kuntz, parks director, 11 W. Bowers Street, Meridian. We certainly support this plat as far as the street alignment and everybody for attending the meeting last Friday to show that support. We also share Gary Lee's views that we are not really sure the way the plat is really a safety issue. But given the fact that the Ada County Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 97 Commissioners and the Council --. They met, what was it, the 3rd, suggested that the staffs, our staff and the Ada County Highway District staff and the developer meet and try to come up with some possible solutions. We certainly support some of the ideas that Gary has laid out. I think my only concern -- and I think we would want to include the school district in this discussion, is what that narrow road would do to school bus traffic. The other thing that we are planning on doing is — Borup: Is there going to be school bus traffic on that road? Lee: My guess, yes, but I don't know that. I think we would just want to make sure we find that out. Borup: Because it won't be within the subdivision, will it? Lee: No. But if the buses are going north they are going to come up and go across to Meridian Road and go north. Borup: Okay. Lee: So I think they we will want to be included in the discussion or should be. Borup: I assumed they would be going the other way, but -- Lee: The other thing, you will notice the dark triangles where the road moves away from the park. What we will need to do there in those areas is connect the attached sidewalk to our detached pathway or sidewalk in those corners. I don't know if that makes sense to you or not. Borup: Yes. You're saying you have a detached sidewalk along the park? Lee: It is attached and then it will be just attached to our meandering walk, as well as here, and should negate the need for a bike path along here. I would agree with Chairman Borup's comment to have a short bike path like that. The only purpose would be to connect to the pedestrian path that would connect to a school, would be the only reason for it. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, could I ask some questions? Borup: Go ahead. Freckleton: So are you planning any kind of a parking lot off of this? Lee: No, sir. There will be a parking lot that accesses off of Meridian Road and one that will access off of Ustick road near the back property line of the development. Borup: So you support -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 98 Freckleton: My thought is -- I mean a regional park, there is going to be a lot of activities going on, you got a great access to your park there. If I was headed to an event and the event happened to be on the north side of the park, I would be looking for a place to park. I'm just wondering if you can't park along the road, people are going to be turning and parking in the residential neighborhood and then walking to the park. Centers: That was a concern 9 months ago. I remember that vividly. Borup: But the developer specifically did not want parking along that road; isn't that correct? Does the parks department support that, too? Or is it carried away? Lee: We do as a point of compromise. Borup: Okay. So it's not a real issue with you, it could go either way? Lee: I understand Mr. Freckleton's point, but we are providing adequate parking. The other 2 large lots and as a point of compromise with the developer and with the homeowners in that subdivision, we would be willing to support no parking along that road. But I think the point is also well taken that if they can't park there, they are going to park up the side streets. I mean we are all aware -- Borup: I also think the only way to keep the parking there is a narrowing street, because of the width is there, whether there is a sign or not, it's -- Lee: And we will discuss that, but, again, I think we want to discuss the bus traffic there. Borup: So maybe the bump outs are a good option. Lee: I think if you're asking for my recommendation tonight it would be to leave the street the width it is, which doesn't benefit us, because we are paying for four feet of that street and to add 2 bump outs. We discussed the exact location and I think we are thinking stop signs at those bump outs, instead of the mid point, but I'm not a traffic engineer and I certainly would like to discuss it with someone who has more experience in this than I do. Borup: Does it make -- is there any -- does it make sense to maybe look at -- look at the use and whether the stop signs are necessary or not down the road? Lee: Sure. Borup: If the traffic does. I don't know. Lee: I mean these are all just options that Gary threw out that we all support, a combination of them or -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 99 Borup: Okay. Lee: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify in this -- Mr. Simunich, have you signed up? Simunich: Is this open for the public? Borup: Yes. Simunich: My name is Joe Simunich and I reside across the street from this development at 955 West Ustick Road. Do I understand this correctly now you -- that the LOD has been eliminated from this project? Borup: The limited office and the multi -family? Simunich: Yes. Borup: Yes. It's all single family residential now. Lee: All right. Thank you. One more question. On this little plat that I have got there, there is irregular property lines on the west side. I asked last time if the new Venable Lane is going to connect with the existing Venable Lane and I did not get that answer. Borup: Well, I think you did, but let me try again. My understanding -- are you saying the existing Venable Lane lines up with the center line of yours? Simunich: No. Borup: It does not line up now. No. The existing one, is it centered -- the center line of the existing is the center line of the one on -- the center line on north and south of Ustick do line up at this point. Simunich: I don't know, because the map does not show it. Borup: Okay. Then I guess -- Simunich: Venable Lane on the south side is a deeded 40 foot roadway. Borup: Okay. Simunich: There is irregular property lines at the -- Borup: But this is going to become a 50 foot right of way. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 100 Simunich: Well, that's fine. Borup: This applicant is giving up, is dedicating 10 feet of their property to make it 50 feet is my understanding from before. Is that correct, Mr. Lee? Okay. Simunich: Will the center lines line up approximately? Then this plat shows irregular property lines for a full half mile on the west side. Are these irregular proper lines going to be included in this project? Borup: So your 2 questions were, one, will they line up, and the other was --. What was your second question? Simunich: Well, I notice irregular property lines here on this map. They don't show them here. It looks like it's incomplete on the west side. Nary: You'll have to answer that in the microphone. Mr. Lee will have to come and answer that in the microphone, sir. Did you have other questions? Did you have any other question? Simunich: No. I think that's all. Borup: Gary? Lee: Gary Lee, JUB Engineers. To answer Mr. Simunich's question, the center of Venable Lane on our Preliminary Plat is the west boundary of our project and it lines up with Venable Lane directly south of Ustick across the road. So those 2 roads will line up. As far as the irregular boundaries, I assume he's talking about the right of way we are showing here on our preliminary along the west side. That's just shown in there for a reference to what the future right of way is going to look like. Actually, there is a right of way there now, there is 29 feet on both sides of that section line, 29 on our half and 29 on the other half. So we will be developing the roadway on the center of the section line. I'll try to answer those questions. Borup: Did the 29 feet -- you said the 29 feet on either side of the center line of Venable Lane? Lee: Yes. Borup: So there is a 58 foot right of way there now? Lee: Right. Borup: Where does this 40 feet come up? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 101 Lee: Well, I don't know. I don't know what the deal is on the south side, but 59 or 58 feet to center is a collector width right of way and there is no -- that 1908 deed dedicated 29 feet along the west side of the center of Venable Lane and we will dedicate 29 feet on either side, a total of 58 feet. Borup: Okay. And so that is line established? Lee: Yes. Borup: So you're going to be doing one half plus 12 feet? Lee Correct. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify or question on this. Commissioner? Nary: I'd move to close the Public Hearing. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? . MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: I think the main thing -- question is still the roadway and that was because of ACHD's recommendation, basically, I think. Nary: Yes. I mean I don't know what the --. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the best way to handle the roadway issue --. I guess we could certainly make some recommendations to Council. I think Mr. Lee was correct that also the Council is going to decide. They are probably going to say work it out with the staff and come up with some proposal that we can all agree on. But it's in the developer's best interest to try to get that done before you go to the Council, so you can work on it and agree with it. But all the adoptions seem reasonable. Borup: Yes. I don't think we want to or need to make anything specific. If we want to make some of them our preferences, that's fine. Nary: I mean I think we have made it pretty clear, even though our record doesn't reflect it, but about the only thing I don't think is very practical is the stop sign in the middle of the street. I don't think that's -- it's just more dangerous than it's really going to work. Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 102 Norton: But the other things that are suggested are, all make sense and all or some of those are probably the best way to go. There is narrowing the street, no parking, brick pavers, bump outs, all of those things make sense. All will solve in some measure that they want to work out with staff probably makes sense to me. Borup: Okay. Anything else we need to --? Nary: I don't think there was any other comments that we need to amend. Centers: I don't either. I think they were all --. Just work out the decision prior to Council. Nary: I guess I would go ahead and move, Mr. Chairman, that we recommend approval of AZ -- I don't even remember the number now -- AZ 00-019, request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development, northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments contained in the memo of September 19, 2001, and with respect to Brad Hawkins -Clark. I think that's it. Centers: I would second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Nary: I would also move, Mr. Chairman, to recommend approval of PP 00-018, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development, northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road, to, again, include all staff comments of the September 19, 2001, memo by Bruce Freckleton and Brad Hawkins -Clark and that's it. Borup: We have a motion. Centers: The safety issue needs to be addressed. Nary: Yes. I guess we could -- we will include in the motion that the staff and the applicant will attempt to at least work out all the safety issues regarding the roadway that runs adjacent to the south side of their property, the north side of the regional park for the city. Centers: Second. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, was there anything in the previous hearing that we needed to have in the motion at this time? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 103 Centers: The February --. That's a good point. The February staff comments, February 15th, could you note that they remain --. The report remains as far as the annexation and zoning. Is that what you're referring to? Freckleton: Well, I guess specifically what I was thinking is just the fact that the White Drain Trunk is still not -- we are not there. Borup: Oh, just to develop at his own risk? Freckleton: Exactly. Exactly. Centers: So we do want to include -- Borup: And that was discussed last month, I believe, even though we -- Freckleton: I just didn't know if those things would automatically be brought forward as part of this motion. Nary: Well, I guess just to make sure --. I mean I think we want to make sure that we make note that in the course of both of these hearings we have been trying to address all of the concerns that Council has and that the developer recognizes in this motion for this Preliminary Plat that there currently is not services to this particular property and he may have to --. Didn't we have to sign an agreement or a waiver I guess before? Borup: We recommended that. Freckleton: On the Sundance project I think you had them do a — Nary: A hold harmless agreement. Freckleton: A hold harmless agreement. Nary: Hold harmless agreement so that the developer recognizes that this approval is at his, at their risk on waiting for the sewer and if they are comfortable with that. So just to make sure that they recognize that, I'd like to include that as part of the motion. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Second. Borup: Any question on the motion? Moore: No. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 104 MOTION CARRIED: THREE ,AYES, ONE ABSENT. Item 12. Discussion of Proposed Elevations for Washington Mutual Bank at the southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Cherry Lane: Borup: Looks like we do have one quick, or one final Item No. 12. We have some elevations in our packet. I'm not sure why that --. Mr. Siddoway, can you expound on -- Siddoway: Yes, I will. Borup: What we are supposed to be doing here? Siddoway: This was added to the agenda at the request of Shari Stiles. The issue is as part of the St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center Conditional Use Permit -- Borup: Oh. Siddoway: -- the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law state that the construction materials for the proposed bank must include metal roofing and either brick or brick vaneer. The colors were up for discussion. Apparently -- I wasn't at the Commission hearings for this one, but apparently it was a fairly big deal for the Commission wanting to know what this facility will look like, because there were no submitted elevations with the Conditional Use Permit. Centers: You mean way back when? Siddoway: Way back when. When St. Alphonsus came through. Centers: Could I quote one of the City Councilmen? I'm not going to sit here and tell the businesses what color to paint them or what kind of roof or what kind of windows. Quote. Unquote. When they were talking about a design review committee. I'm -- Siddoway: Shari was uncomfortable approving these on her own -- Centers: I agree with that Councilman. Siddoway: -- and wanted to get the Commission's input. Centers: I don't --. I think we have a right to have some input on some things. We have got some real ugly buildings in this town and -- Siddoway: Well, and there has been -- Nary: Mr. Chairman like you said, but I appreciate that Ms. Stiles did bring it back to us, because that was what was requested earlier. It was something that was a burning Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 105 desire of Commissioner Hatcher when he was here. That's why we talked about it. Because it was his concern on that. But I do think that at some point the city needs to probably evaluate a design review aspect and maybe this is a little baby step to do that and that's okay. I think it looks fine. Nothing else to say. I think that's fine. Borup: I'd rather this Commission do it than a whole separate design and review committee myself. Centers: Yes. I know what you're saying. Nary: Because I think it was a problem, but I do think that's why it's here, because I think Commissioner Hatcher has this terrible express need to know about those things. Centers: And that's out here at St. Luke's -- Siddoway: St. Alphonsus. Borup: Cherry Lane and Ten Mile. Siddoway: We have an A and we have a B. So don't just give me it looks good. Tell me which one is good. Centers: You mean they have given us 2 choices? Siddoway: Yes. Centers: Go back to A. Siddoway: This is basically the same thing without the roof. Centers: And it's got more brick, too. Nary: A. Shreeve: A. Centers: What does the applicant want? Do we know? Nary: They obviously don't care. Borup: Do you want A or B? Centers: Let the applicant choose, because they are both nice. Nary: Mr. Chairman, the problem I guess from the applicant's standpoint is this is what we told them they had to do. So it appears that what they did is they gave us 2 options, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 106 because they don't care. It doesn't matter to them which one we choose. Does that seem correct? Siddoway: Yes. Or, if you don't like either one, I need some direction as to what they need to change. Borup: Or if we are okay with either one, would that also be acceptable to say either one is fine? Centers: I would say either one is fine. I would vote for that motion. Nary: Well, let me stop for one second. Chairman Borup, you said you would like to review these things. So if we send them back with a message saying we don't care which one, then, they won't think you even wanted to review it. Borup: Well, because we could end up with a square box, you know, with all the, with flat walls and nothing to break up the texture. Nary: That's an overlay district -- Borup: My personal preference is probably B, I guess, but I don't know. Nary: Yes. B. Centers: It would appear to me that's -- Nary: I think that's a mansard door, is my recollection from -- Borup: Oh, it's a hip roof. Nary: Oh. It's a hip roof. I can't remember. I'd make a motion that we recommend to the City Council Scheme B. Shreeve: I second that. Siddoway: I don't think it's a recommendation to the City Council. I think it's a recommendation to staff. Nary: Then I would recommend to staff Scheme B. Borup: And they are both good-looking buildings, as far as I'm concerned. I mean they have got a lot of surface -- they don't have a lot of straight surfaces, they are broken up nice, they have got different textures. I think that's -- Shreeve: I make a motion to adjourn. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 46 Norton: Just one final comment is that perhaps Mrs. Fowler may want to buy a less expensive home and apply the money toward a commercial establishment and do your preschool there. You know, there are very fine preschools that people would love to go to in a commercial -- and that's a pretty spendy home. So if you need to make enough money -- I have been doing a lot of figures here how much you need to make in order to make your payment on your mortgage, plus your expenses, and you need 12 people, so with that I would like to make a motion. Shreeve: Before you do, just one quick comment, that we don't want to run you off to Boise, though, but -- Borup: We have closed the Public Hearing. Norton: Okay. I'd like to move to deny Public Hearing AUP 01-012, a proposed family day care, five or fewer children, by Mary Fowler. Shreeve: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you, everyone. Good luck, Mary. Commissioners are we -- would you like to proceed or would you like a short break? Okay. We'll take a short break at this time and reconvene for the -- our last two hearings. (Reconvene at 9:12 P.M.) Item 7. AZ 00-019 Request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: Item 8. PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: Borup: We'd like to reconvene our Public Hearing this evening. Start with Item No. 7, AZ 00-019, request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 for the Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development. And the adjoining application of this is PP 00-018, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on the same property. I'd like to open both these Public Hearings and start with the staff report. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 47 Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This project has been before the Commission before. I don't know how many of you were here. It's been a little while going through the process. The project is located as outlined in red at the -- near the intersection of Ustick and Meridian Roads. Surrounding the property here, which is the City's 58 -acre park. The surrounding zoning is pretty much all county, with the exception of the park. This is the proposed plat. It is a revised plat. I'll try and give you a little bit of history for those that may not be familiar with the project. The Commission recommended approval of this project originally on March 15th, 2001. On June 19th the City Council acted on these applications, remanding them back to the Commission. It is my understanding -- and Mr. Moore can verify this -- that since the Commission originally recommended approval and since a new application was not required, a Public Hearing is not necessary for this. So this has not been noticed as a Public Hearing. There have been no mailings. It's just been remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for four specific items and I will go over these items with you, because any testimony from the applicant should be limited to those issues that it was remanded for. In the City Council's letter, the decision and order, it says: One, that it has to supply access for John Kennedy's property, which I believe is the property to the west up in this area. Second, they needed to remove from the plat the limited office and multi -family references that were in this location right here and in this location right here, if they are not intended to be -- to do a planned development, which they are not proposing to do. Third, the applicant shall design a new single loaded street along the park. The park sits south of the property here. Council required a single loaded street to be constructed adjacent to that park. Fourth, they wanted the subdivision redesigned to include various lot sizes and I don't think anymore specificity was put to that word various, so it's kind of a subject call that the Commission will have to look at and see if they feel that it is -- has enough variety. They have a breakdown of lot sizes provided on the plat. And the fifth issue is Venable Lane, which is running north -south along the west side of the property. I don't fully understand this issue, so I'm going to rely on the applicant to clarify what this issue is, but my understanding is there is a right of way that continues up the west side of the plat, which would create lots with double frontage, which our zoning ordinances do not allow. They expect that right of way will be vacated. For those specific issues it has been remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further design review. There is a staff report -- I hope you have a copy. It was done today. Well, yesterday. Sorry. September 19, 2001. Brad Hawkins -Clark and Bruce Freckleton prepared it. On the second page of that there is a comparison between the previous plat and this plat. For annexation and zoning we have -- they are -- we have no changes to the proposed original staff report in February 15, 2001, and those staff -- that staff report stands for annexation and zoning. There is -- there are some issues that need to be discussed regarding the single loaded street, specifically the Ada County Highway District has proposed a redesign and I'm not sure if everyone has a copy of that. I hope you do. But on page five of 14 in the ACHD report they show a proposed re -lotting structure. We as city staff don't like it, frankly, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 48 and we are proposing three other options for traffic calming, which is the basic issue that ACHD is trying to respond to. They are worried about high-speed traffic going down a straight through way. So we have talked about constructing bump outs in alignment with the stub streets and/or pavers or stamped concrete to provide crosswalks at those. All of these would be traffic calming devices that should slow traffic. The third is a three to four foot high open vision fence, like a split rail fence, along the north boundary of the park, which would open only in line with those stub streets and the crosswalks that would be provided. Frankly, I'm less excited personally about that option. I think, myself that it would be better left open, but the other two options seem like really good ones, the bump outs and the concrete crosswalks. The next issue specific to the plat itself is regarding the usable open space calculation. There is a requirement for a five percent common open space. The plat crosshatches the areas that are designated as usable open space that they have included street buffers and areas along Settler's irrigation easement, which would not be counted. We just ask that the applicant clarify if they have five percent excluding those areas that cannot be counted. We have already talked about vacating the right of way. Also there are no specific phase lines and phase lines would have to be approved with a Preliminary Plat. Fourth, there -- I'm on -- I'm reading from page four now of the staff report. There seems to be some errors in the density calculations that should be clarified. There is a note issue that can be taken care of and then an acreage, but that's fairly simple to correct. So those are the outstanding issues and I will stand for questions. Borup: Any questions? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Nary. Nary: Steve, I heard you say that the staff doesn't like the proposed revision that ACHD has, but why specifically don't you like it? What specific reason? It looks goofy, but I mean is there something more than it just looks goofy? Siddoway: The amount of -- City Council's requirement was for the street that fronts along that park, it decreases that I'm guessing by about a third. Let me look at that. Like half. About half of the street is now gone. The idea is to get the street adjacent to the park, people can have frontage along the street. That's part of it. In fact, I'd say that's the main issue. Nary: So it doesn't comply with the City Council's directive, I'm assuming. Siddoway: Yes. Nary: Okay. Fair enough. Oh, yes what's a bump out? I guess I don't know what that is. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 49 Siddoway: If you can picture right down here in Old Town at the corners where the -- at the intersections, the curbs bump out and constrict the street. Typically they are along street parking adjacent to that allowed, but it narrows the street so it's not as wide, you don't get the -- as high of speeds -- Nary: Harris Ranch kind of has the same sort of effect as well. Siddoway: Probably. Nary: Is that something ACHD has more -- I mean this revision -- staff recommendation -- I'm trying to talk as loud as I can. This staff recommendation from ACHD is simply a recommendation. Siddoway: Yes. Nary: So wouldn't those bump outs -- wouldn't they have a little bit more say in that, because they are going to -- they may restrict the flow of traffic or they narrow the lanes down and there is a lane width requirement, I mean is that going to end up being a problem, too? Siddoway: They would have something to say about that, yes, and that is our proposed alternative to what their recommendation is. Nary: Okay. What I guess I want to be clear for the record, though, what they are suggesting or what they are recommending, right, I would say we are free to ignore it; correct? They are not requiring that, they are not saying that their only approval is to do it this way, they are just recommending that because of their concerns about traffic. Siddoway: My understanding is this is a staff recommendation, not the Commission's final written report. Nary: Okay. But I guess I'm only concerned that they -- if they make -- if we add those other things that that might give them more fuel to deny it and I don't know, maybe it doesn't make any difference, you know. Siddoway: I do not know. Nary: Okay. Freckleton: Commission Nary, members of the Commission, I don't know if Brad Hawkins -Clark has had an opportunity to talk with Andrea at ACHD regarding this proposed alternative, the bump out alternative. Nary: Oh. Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 50 Freckleton: They are scheduled to go before the Commission's -- or the staffs recommendations to the Commission are scheduled to go before their Commission on the 3rd of October. It would probably be appropriate for Brad to have dialogue with her and just, you know, put forth our recommendation for the bump out. The idea behind the bump out would kind of serve two fold, too. It would give a break in the parking along the park, so that you don't have just a row of cars, you have a row of cars, you would have some landscaping, bump out, then you would have some more cars. So Steve just said he thinks ACHD is saying no parking, so -- Nary: The other thing that is just you don't have a final approval from ACHD and we generally try to wait for that. Are we premature in making a decision on this particular project tonight? Siddoway: Could be. We've done it both ways. If there is a significant issue, we've held it up in the past. If there -- we have also sent them on subject to ACHD conditions before. So it's just a judgment call the Commission needs to make as to how significant this issue is and its likelihood of affecting the design of the project and getting it back again. Nary: Thank you. Borup: Any other -- okay. Back to -- or more, maybe, on the same question Commissioner Nary had on staffs opposition. Or maybe not -- opposition may be too strong, but not agreeing with the ACHD's alternative. It sounds like you said that were essentially you felt to more fully comply with the City Council? Siddoway: That's correct. Borup: And did you feel it was City Council's intent to have the entire subdivision as a single loaded street? I noticed their -- they didn't say how many lots or how many feet or anything to that extent. So is that your basis on that recommendation? Siddoway: It is, although I'm going to have to say that I don't have -- I didn't have the opportunity of hearing the Council testimony to know specifically how set they were for a -- you know, the full length of the street versus half the street. I'll defer to the applicant, because I wasn't at the hearing. Borup: Well, I notice it's tied in with that -- let me see, that -- with the same proposal to address any safety issues and it looks like the two are -- conflict with each other. That -- you know, that straight long shot on a single -loaded street to me is a safety issue and I assume from reading ACHD's report that was their main concern. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 51 Siddoway: That is the main concern. That's what we are trying to address is the bump outs and crosswalks. Borup: Yes. Okay. Why don't we let the applicant address some of that. Any other questions from the Commission? If the applicant's representative would like to come forward. Mr. Lee, I assume? Lee: Thank you. My name is Gary Lee I'm with J -U -B Engineers, 250 S. Beechwood, representing the applicant Howell Murdock Corporation. I think staff has presented the situation pretty clearly about the remand order and the five different conditions that we are required to meet. I did want to touch on a couple of those items a little bit more. During the Council's review of this project in talking about item 1.4 in the remand order, their statement was they wanted lot diversity and I spent some time trying to find out what they really intended, because they didn't explain that that evening. I finally got around to Mayor Corrie and his discussion with other Council members was that they wanted to see more of a lot size diversification on the project. So part of our redesign was to add some additional lots in there with more width. We have a few 80 foot wide, and we have a few 82's, a few 84's, and we have quite a mix on the percentage. I'm not sure if your reduced scale drawing clearly shows that in the lot area summary. I know I can't read it on mine. But I'll just briefly go through these numbers. The 8,082 square foot range, we have 23 percent. The 8,200 to 8,400 square feet we had 22 percent. 8,400 to 8,800 square feet had about 15 percent. 8,800 to 9,200 we had ten percent. 9,200 to 10,000, 12, on up to 15 percent -- or 15,000. Excuse me. So we got a pretty good mixture of lot sizing in there, which will afford quite a few diversified house plans as well. I think that's kind of what the Council was looking for. Venable Lane, I want to just briefly touch on that as well. Currently there is a recorded document that dates back to 1908 where an individual had granted a right of way to the county for a strip of land 29 feet wide along our western border. There was some question as to the validity of that document. There were some quiet title actions that were in process, although they were never completed. So there is a question as to whether or not there is really a right of way there or not. So our proposal is to go ahead and construct that portion of Venable Lane that you see along the west side there next to the school up to I believe it's Ashton Drive. And from that point north along what is Kennedy's property to our north boundary we will vacate whatever rights there are for a road. Obviously, there is no road there right now it's being farmed. So we will take care of that vacation at the time we prepare the plat on that western border. The safety issues that were discussed not only at Council, but at various meetings we had with the staff, which included both fire and police, was primarily the issue of having access to the north side of that park and visibility. The police department wanted to be able to see into that park area while driving their cruisers by. They didn't want to have any backyards and fences to obscure their site. That was their main concern. The fire department was basically the same. They wanted to be able to have access directly into the park if there were emergencies and to get their EMT's in there and ambulance Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 52 and whatever. It wasn't really an issue of traffic that was discussed with the safety items it was the two issues from the fire and the Police Department. The staff report that you have in front of you, dated 9/19 from Brad, I wrote a letter this afternoon and I apologize for not getting it in a little sooner, but I only had today, so I'll pass a copy around to each member. I will just go through this real quickly, so you won't have to read through that. Item one is concerning usable open space designations. The staff is correct, we -- when we prepared this revised Preliminary Plat when we were drafting all the revisions that we make to it, I didn't catch the fact that the cross -hatching went through those areas where it shouldn't have. And that is along the northern boundary, all that is cut off on your northwest corner there a little bit. There is a Settler's irrigation easement through there. That area shouldn't have been crosshatched. The area along Meridian Road, the 35 -foot buffer, shouldn't have been crosshatched.. And then a small area along Ustick shouldn't have been crosshatched. But the calculation for the usable space didn't change. It wasn't included in the calculation anyway and I attached a summary table to the back and you can go through that in your leisure, but we ended up with 5.16 percent usable open space over the entire 99.8 acres. If you were to evaluate the open space afforded by the school site, the area that's not covered by building or a parking lot, there is another seven percent of open space. It goes up to about 12.7. So we meet the minimum five percent. The second item discussed was the vacation of Venable Lane. I spoke about that previously and we'll go ahead and take care of that. The phasing, the developer Kevin Howell has expressed a desire to phase this project. He typically likes to do about 70 or 80 lots per phase. So we are thinking probably three phrases in here, maybe four, and he and I are going to work on those phase boundaries probably tomorrow or the first of the week. But our anticipation is that the first phase will start up on the northern end with that northern entry. And the reason I say that is that's the alignment for the proposed White Drain Sewer that's coming in the northern entry and go all the way over to the west boundary to Kennedy's parcel. So we want to develop along that sewer line first. I don't think we'll go entirely all to the west, but that will be the main focus would be up on that northeast corner of the site, is that first phase. So whatever it takes, then, about 80 lots or so, that's where we will start. But we will put together a phasing plan and get it to your staff. The density calculations that Brad mentioned in his letter, I went through those calculations again today and summarized all the lot areas and, again, it's on this table in the back. But if you look at the gross density, excluding the school -- well, including the school -- it's 2.64 dwelling units per acre gross, 3.49 dwelling units net, and that's taking the roads out. If you exclude the school site and just take the residential portion, the gross is a shade under three and the net is about four. Again, the areas are summarized in the table. The fifth item in Brad's response is concerning a note -- and I thought I got that changed on this revision, but I missed it again -- to call that an old subdivision name and we will change that to the correct name in note three. The school acreage is the last item on his list. The gross acres actually are 11.41, instead of 12, like we have got shown on there. And the net is 9.47. So just some mathematics to kind of clean that up. I guess the other item is the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 53 ACHD issue and as you're all aware, this is just a staff recommendation to the Commission. l did have a conversation with Tom Kuntz today, parks department, and he said that he and some of the Council members are meeting with ACHD the first of next week, I believe, and they are going to discuss this item. If you read their recommendation and look at site-specific number eleven, talking about Ashby Street -- maybe that's not the one I was thinking of. There is one in here that talks to the fact that ACHD doesn't have a policy on lengths of street or alignment, except for curb and linear alignment. So their recommendation — Norton: Number 14. Lee: Is it number 14? Norton: Yes. 612. Lee: Yes. So although district staff does not have any specific policies prohibiting the length and configuration of a roadway, staff recommends the roadway be configured to eliminate straight-aways. You know, you talk about the straight-aways and you have all seen them, we have got straightaway streets all over the county, and there is one that came to my mind when I was reading that and that's that park that's on the corner of Eagle Road and McMillan that the City of Boise has and it has quarter mile straightaway on both sides and one of the streets is 55 miles an hour, Eagle Road. And then, of course, McMillan is -- I think it's probably 35 or 40 in there. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I'm going to stop you there, Mr. Lee. There is a pretty big buffer between where the park is and where those streets are, though, is there not, on both Eagle and McMillan at that park? Lee: Well, there is some landscaping there, yeah. Nary: There is not just landscaping, there is parking lots on both sides or adjacent to McMillan and Eagle Road, is there not? There is not grass four feet from the roadway -- Lee: No, there is not. Nary: -- on those parks, are there? Lee: But there isn't a parking lot the whole way either. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 54 Borup: I mean the main difference is there no residential around that park, is there? Some residential housing? Lee: On two sides there are, but not across -- Borup: Not on Eagle and McMillan. Lee: There is a school on one side and something on the other. But I was talking about the straight street issues and -- but there are some solutions, I think, that can probably be worked out. Steve talked about the bump outs, painted crosswalks. In fact, Tom Kuntz mentioned a fence today, but it was shorter than three or four feet, he was talking two or three feet in a vinyl plastic fence, something that can be broken easy with a cruiser if they had to get in there for emergency purposes. I thought about maybe a stop sign midway to help slow some traffic. Reduction of speed limits. There wouldn't be any reason why we couldn't put a 20 -mile an hour in there like a school district. The parking was kind of an interesting comment. One of the things that I thought that Mr. Kuntz and I agreed on is that there wasn't going to be any parking along that street for park use, because they have enough parking on site and that was always an issue as a development standpoint and it was agreed upon there wouldn't be any parking there. So we assume it's going to be signed and controlled that way. I think that probably concludes my presentation. If you have any questions I would be glad to -- Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Actually, I don't have a question for Mr. Lee at this juncture. What I do have a concern is in looking at our ordinance -- and Mr. Moore can offer his legal opinion, but I don't find any exception in our ordinance that revisiting a plat that -- especially when it's been redesigned, but revisiting a plat is an exception to the Public Hearing requirement. So to me if we are not -- if this isn't properly noticed as a Public Hearing, then no one can come and comment, Mr. Lee is going to have to come back and he's going to have to give that presentation all over again after he gives notice, but -- Moore: Chairman Borup, under 12-3-3 on Preliminary Plats it states that a Public Hearing held prior to a plat approval, a Public Hearing shall be held at the time of the presentation of the Preliminary Plat by the developer to the Commission for purpose of allowing public input on the proposed subdivision. If you go back to the 12-3-7 D-2, it says the administrator shall review the Final Plat for compliance with the approved or the conditionally approved Preliminary Plat. If the administrator determines that there is substantial difference in the Final Plat, then that which was approved as a Preliminary Plat or conditions which have not been met, the administrator may require that the Final Plat be submitted to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 55 Commission in the same manner as required in the Preliminary Plat process, including a Public Hearing and notice thereof. Borup: So this is still a Preliminary Plat, not the final. Moore: But there is a substantial difference from the last one, is there not? Nary: My additional concern would be is that in setting the matter back it's one thing if the Council set it to this date. At their Public Hearing they said on September 20th the Planning and Zoning Commission is going to revisit this plat and you're going to bring back a new design plat. They didn't do that. So no person from the public would have any idea, unless they read this agenda that we were talking about this plat tonight. There is no posting, there is no mailing, there is no nothing, you know, and I guess my concern would be if we take any action on this it's invalid, because there hasn't been proper notice of this hearing for the public to be able to provide comment. And as you may recall the last time, we had a lot of people provide comment the last time. So I certainly -- and I asked Mr. Moore, I don't see any exception and when the Final Plat approval -- as that last part said, if it was substantially changed from the Final Plat we have to have a Public Hearing. Here it's just kind of a word quirk as we are reviewing the Preliminary Plat a second time, but it is substantially changed, there is no doubt. Moore: Yes and that's the point. Nary: So, Mr. Chairman, I don't know that we really need to continue with this hearing, because this needs to be a Public Hearing, it needs to be noticed. And I hate to waste Mr. Lee and Mr. Howell's time, but it should have been noticed before today for tonight. Borup: Any other comments from staff? Siddoway: I raised it, because I also had the same concern, but I would point out in Brad's memo dated August 17th regarding the Cedar Springs re -submittal process, it says that in accordance with the remand order, Bill Nichols, City Attorney, recommended the P&Z Commission review the revised Preliminary Plat. Since the Commission originally recommended approval of the plat and since a new application was not required to be submitted by the applicant, a Public Hearing is not necessary before the Commission. To fulfill due process, a Public Hearing will be held before City Council, but only after the Commission makes a formal recommendation upon review of the revised Preliminary Plat. Your review should include both the annexation and zoning application, as well as the Preliminary Plat application. Based on this it's my understanding that Bill Nichols' opinion is that it doesn't need a hearing. Nary: A Preliminary Plat. Just Council? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 56 Siddoway: Just Council is what -- is what I read into this, but -- Borup: What you're saying is that Mr. Nichols indicated that there is no public hearing needed here, but when it goes back before the City Council there must be a Public Hearing. Siddoway: That is what I read. Nary: But just so the record is clear and I don't want to put Mr. Moore in an awkward position, but I don't care if I'm in an awkward position. Mr. Nichols -- in reading this ordinance it doesn't say that an application is the trigger to a Public Hearing it says the plat is the trigger to the Public Hearing. And this is a new plat, not an application. So to me I don't think the ordinance gives an out and I think Mr. Nichols is missing the fact that the plat is what is key here. And so I don't think -- I don't think it's responsible of us as a Commission to ignore what our own ordinance says. Attorneys can be wrong and I feel very comfortable in saying that. Attorneys can error. And I just don't think that that's really quite exactly what that ordinance says. I think it's our responsibility to the Commission to also interpret that ordinance as well. So I guess I still feel like that a Public Hearing is necessary and people should have the right to comment and if there isn't anybody, there isn't anybody, but I don't think it would be proper for us as the Commission to ignore what's pretty plain in this ordinance and that a plat -- a new plat, whether it's an application or not, requires a Public Hearing. Lee: Did they ever close that Public Hearing at Council? Siddoway: I don't know. Nary: They must have. They issued a final order that allowed them to appeal it. So they would have had to and that's what that order says, that that's an appealable order. Mr. Chairman, I'm willing to make a motion. I guess we'll see what happens, though. Norton: Wait. Let's have some discussion. Nary: Okay. Norton: I'm still back reading this memo, because it was cc'd to Bill Nichols. You know, sometimes the trouble is like this is dated August the 17th and we don't get them until two days ago. So if maybe if our Commissioner Attorney Nary had seen this in August 17 , instead of just two days ago, you know, we wouldn't be sitting here pondering what to do. I notice a lot of these, you know, are submitted and we don't get our packets until Tuesday night and so we have two days to review these things. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 57 Borup: And this first letter from Mr. Park we should have got much earlier. Nary: And I also want to be clear. I mean I'm not blaming the staff or anybody. I mean I understand the reasons for following the advice that they get. I mean they should do that. But I can't read 12-3-3 B and say that anything but a Public Hearing is required to review a Preliminary Plat. Just because it's been revised is not an exception to the Public Hearing requirement. And, again, the staff may have directed when this was to appear on our agenda, but the Council didn't direct it as a public meeting. There is no way a member of the public would know to come. That's how they -- that's how they are supposed to know. If they made a direction to send this back at the very next meeting of this body and we set it over, again, the public has notice, they have the ability to know that, but they didn't have the ability to know this and they have the right to come and make comments to us before it gets to the Council. Mr. Nichols is right, everyone gets a Public Hearing at the Council level, but our ordinance requires that they can have one here. Borup: Further comment, Mr. Moore? Moore: I'm looking at 12-3-4 and it says Preliminary Development Plan. Upon receipt of the Commission's action concerning the Preliminary Development Plan or the receipt of an appeal of such action by the applicant or other agreed party, the administrator shall respond as follows: A, set the Public Hearing date for the Preliminary Development Plan and, B, review Public Hearing comments by concerned persons, public agencies, or city departments. It seems clear that when it comes back to you on an appeal you still have to have a Public Hearing. Borup: Okay. Well, that's the opinion from our attorney here sitting with us, what we have to go by, too. Nary: And my view would be that the term Public Hearing here doesn't mean that we are just having this hearing in public. That means that the public just has notice to be here and they haven't. That's what that means, so — Borup: Well, maybe before we proceed on, I would be -- I think just for the applicant's -- I appreciate the direction we are going, but for the applicant's benefit if there is anything on the plat that any of the Commissioners feel that input would be pertinent, maybe that would be helpful to do that this time, especially thinking that would -- any changes or additions or anything that -- that would like to be seen, I think it would be appropriate to do that tonight, rather than at the next meeting. Norton: I just had some comment. I voted no to pass -- I vote to deny this and so I'm the Ione no vote when we sent it to City Council and I'm very pleased to see this revision. I see there is still a little walkway into the schoolyard. I don't see a problem with that street. You know, you can do 20 mile an hour school Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 58 crossing signs. I was very happy to see that this is a single loaded street and I'm glad I wasn't in any of those meetings, because I bet they were pretty heated. But I think the final result looks very good. It's very good. Borup: Any other comments from -- Nary: Mr. Chairman, about the only comment -- I do like the change. I think it's - - I think the change is positive. I don't have as big of heartburn, maybe, with the ACHD's recommendation, but I do think that this is better with the suggestions that staff has made. I think those are things that are probably better looking, it's a little bit nicer looking down that drive there, it's going to look a lot better than this dead end that's going to stare at you as soon as you turn on that street. I think that's -- I live near Chateau's park, which isn't developed yet, but it has a long straight street -- or it has a little bend in it, but not much, that goes all the way to Ten Mile. So it concerns me some that it would be a race track, so I understand where the County Highway District is coming from, but I think that the staff suggestions are adequate to meet those same concerns, the pavers and the -- whatever those other things are called. Siddoway: The bump out things. Nary: The bump out things. I think all those things are adequate to address the same concerns without just making a 90 degree bend in the road, so I like that better, too. Borup: It sounds like the Commissioners are saying -- sounds like traffic calming would be -- Nary: Yes definitely. Borup: -- would be appropriate, not necessarily what ACHD said. Okay. Any other comments? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I'm going to move that we continue this public -- continue this hearing, and that it be a Public Hearing, onto our October 18th agenda. That should be adequate time to provide public notice and we'd also at least have the final report from ACHD as well, but that we move items seven and eight, AZ 00-019 and PP 00-018, to our next meeting -- or our second meeting in the month of October, October 18th, to provide for public comment. Shreeve: I second that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 59 Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. Any questions from anybody? Thank you. All right. I think in the beginning Mr. Siddoway said he had some additional information for us on the comp plan. I think that would be real good, since we have that next week. I've still got a little bit of a conflict that night. Right now I anticipate I will probably be late. But I hope not too late. Steve, you wanted to talk about what? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, at the last Comp Plan Hearing it was requested by Mrs. Norton that staff prepare a map of all requested changes. It's done. And I'm handing it out to you tonight so you can have a week to look at it and I don't have to give it to you the night before. Norton: Thank you. So this is an overlay of all the different -- oh, I see what you have done. Excellent. Everybody had a complaint and wanted -- oh. Good for you, Steve. Thank you. Siddoway: You can see that the map is titled requested changes to the future land use map. All of the requested changes are in red with a note as to what it is and what they are requesting it be changed to. As -- we tried -- we went through the last two Public Hearing notes with the Commission, we went through all of the -- what we believe are all of the written comments to date, as well as the written comments from a year ago when the original draft went out, and we noted all of the requested changes from all of those various sources that have not yet been responded to. Everything that had a specific location is noted directly on the map. There are over on the right-hand side, titled unmapped land use issues, the outstanding land use issues that are, you know, more general in nature and not tied to a specific property. We tried to be comprehensive and just lay them all out. I would note that this is just an objective comprehensive list. Don't take it as a staff recommendation for changes. It's just all of the changes good and bad for your consideration. Also there are several issues outstanding that are not land use related that are related to air quality or bike lanes or other things that don't show up on this map and Brad is compiling those in memo format and we will have those for you as well. Nary: Steve, just so I can make sure we are oriented, since it's not marked, the far eastern boundary would be Eagle Road, the far northern -- the northern boundary is Ustick; is that correct? Siddoway: No. Nary: Or is that McMillan? Siddoway: Chinden is the northern. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 60 Nary: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Siddoway: Yes. It goes from Chinden down to just below Amity. You can see the freeway running through the middle. Eagle Road is here. The edge of our impact area -- I mean the dark line is our impact area. Nary: Oh. Okay. Siddoway: It is the impact area line. Underneath -- in black and white is the Comp Plan map, minus the land use designations, but all of the land use, all of the parks and the pathways and the well sites and the fire -- you know, the land use map is underneath there, but then I turned off the land use, put on the lots, so that you could -- because we were following lot lines for most of these issues and just noted those with all the call outs. So the -- it is the impact area. Chinden on the north, Amity on the south, McDermott on the west, and a quarter mile west of Cloverdale on the east. Nary: Thank you. Norton: Steve, do you have that -- what's that imaginary line called? Service use? Siddoway: Service Planning Area. Norton: Yes. Is that on here? Siddoway: Oh, yes. Norton: What line is that'? Siddoway: Do you see the dashed line that we run here? That is on there? And you can see some red dashes that are proposed changes that were requested and noted, you know, to include property in the USPA. Also over on the right- hand side I have an entire section of items seven through ten that are in the Service Planning Area general issues and these are very much abbreviated, they are intended to be bullet points just to jog your memories about what the issues are that you can take and use. Shreeve: Are we allowed to ask any questions or do we have to wait until next week? Borup: I don't know why you can't ask any questions. It's -- Siddoway: It's just staff for clarification. I don't see a problem with that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 61 Nary: The Public Hearing part is over and this is just something -- Shreeve: Yes I don't have anything now, but -- Siddoway: Big build up here. Shreeve: Actually, I do have one. Remind me again why the USPA was even conceived, because I have had some questions about that presented to me and - Siddoway: Sure. Shreeve: I know why -- I know why it's there, but tell me again. Siddoway: It's a mix. To control growth is the gist of the issue. Shreeve: Right. Siddoway: We have had several applications that are noncontiguous. Staff would refer to them as sprawl. Inadequate public facilities. And all the rest. The line is an attempt -- the line can be used a couple of different ways and I would very much refer you to the memo that I handed out at the last hearing that really kind of lays out, from staffs perspective, the options that you have in setting this line or not setting the line, what -- you know, what it would be used to do, what it would not be used to do. My opinion of what it is and what it should be -- in my opinion it's not -- it never should have been called the Urban Services Planning Area. The Urban Services Planning Area is the impact area. We are planning -- we already have sewer planning and well planning done for the entire impact area. Our Urban Services Planning Area is the impact area. Okay. But not all of it has urban services today. What I see that line is -- as, is a line that demarcates where urban services are — Shreeve: Which is your CUS line? Siddoway: Yes the Current Urban Services Area is what I would propose calling it, or something like that, to delineate the areas that either have urban services or are fully committed. And I define fully committed in the memo as basically, you know, have to be dedicated -- you have to be sure. You know, the -- or some -- even that's maybe not — Shreeve: It's readily available for -- Siddoway: The White drain is a good example. It's not in place. We show the White drain service area in the USPA -- CUSA, whatever we are calling it. It's not built yet. It's not 100 percent guarantee, as Bruce can say, because all of the easements are not in place, but the funding is committed to that. If it's a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 62 funded project or already in place, you know, I think it should be in there. Some urban services are going to have a deficit within there, like parks is an obvious one to me, and I think that the city has to be committed within that line to make up the deficit. Beyond that line I think that -- and this needs some discussion, we need to define what urban services -- because there is police and fire and parks and schools and roads and not all of those the city has direct jurisdiction over, but which ones are we going to use to regulate growth and what are the standards by which we will say that the facilities are deemed adequate. I think that is something that we are missing. We have a provision in the annexation ordinance today that says -- one of the required findings is adequate public facilities, but it's very vague and the only thing people have paid attention to in the past is sewer -- is their water line. The other part of the facilities has got peripheral consideration. Borup: I think up until a year ago. Last year a lot of things have changed. Siddoway: A lot of things have changed and I think -- but there is a lot of frustration in the development community, because they don't know what the standards are. A lot of frustration from staff, because we seem to spin our wheels on projects that go nowhere. I think we need -- we need some defined standards for public facilities to determine adequacy and the line to me is nothing more than saying within that line we are saying that public -- all public facilities are either available or a deficit -- the city is committed to make up any deficit. To move beyond that line -- Borup: You're saying the city would be committed at their expense to make up the deficit? Siddoway: Yes. Like parks, for example. You can't -- if you establish a -- if you establish an impact fee for parks and you base that on a certain level of service, if that level of service is higher than the actual existing level of service, new growth can't be expected to make up the deficit that already exists in the city park system. The city has to be committed to making up the deficit for its existing residents and make future residents and developments pay their way. That's the idea is to get concurrent public services with development. That's the word that I would use. We have the criteria by which we determine the adequacy of those public facilities and then it's a way in my mind to get away from the Tuscany Lakes and the Autumn Faires that are in continuous -- continued mode while the public facilities, like sewer issues, are worked out. It's frustrating to the public to have to come to hearing after hearing just to find out it's continued and continued and continued again and again and again, pretty soon they quit coming, whereas if up front we had the standards that said either you meet these standards or it will be deemed inadequate, I think it would help that. Borup: So that's a little different -- a little different approach than I had understood before, so that's interesting. But you say inside the boundary the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 63 city would be expected to bring the services and -- but so -- it seems like that's also saying, then, outside the boundary, if the developer provides those services, then in my mind it should be acceptable if — Siddoway: And that is another issue. I'm going to have to think on this a little bit, because there are some growth areas within that -- within that line and a growth area would be expected to pay its way. So I — Borup: Have to think about that a little bit. Siddoway: The existing built out -- the growth can't be expected to pay for deficits in the built out area is what I intended to say. Borup: Then the growth within that boundary -- Siddoway: Even growth within the boundary would -- Borup: Would pay its way. Siddoway: Yes so I misspoke. Freckleton: Could I ask a question on that? Steve, at one time we talked about setting up a primary urban service planning boundary and then a secondary. We talked about that at a workshop. Or maybe that wasn't the right words, primary and secondary, but it was the -- the one that we were going to give greater attention to is the one that's closer in and when you're talking about services, we have to talk about all services, not just sewer and water. It seems like everything in this development they hinge on sewer and water, but I think we have to look at all services, fire protection, schools, everything and there needs to be a level of service established as what's acceptable and if you're below that limit it's just -- you can't meet the level of service. Borup: I think that would be good. I think there has been a big change. I mean any major subdivisions have either a school site or a park site it seems like lately or that's been real close that it hasn't been necessary. Nary: Well, one thing that I thought of also is that one of the things the city can do -- not necessarily to fund those types of things, but at least to provide incentive for those types of things, even within the boundary, and that's something maybe in this process as we go through it we can look at that. For example, in Boise at times people can trade off development to be able to -- or the city would like a park, a neighborhood park of some sort, so they could take their green space and combine it into a park and with the trade off the city gives them this higher density different location to allow that exchange, so that now we get a park where we would like it and you give them higher density in sections that it's not going to be a tremendous impact on this new development and it's 1 0 RECEIVIED ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT �� 2001 Planning and Development Division CITY OF MERIDIAN Development Application Report Preliminary Plat — Cedar Springs n/w/c Meridian Road/Ustick Road Modification MAZ-00-019/MPP-00-018 REVISED The application has been referred to ACHD by the City of Meridian for review and comment. Cedar Springs is a 268 -lot residential subdivision on 99.8 -acres. The site also includes one office lot and one elementary school site, and one possible multi -family or office/commercial site. The applicant is also requesting annexation into the City of Meridian and a rezone from RUT to R-4. The site is located generally north of Ustick Road on the west side of Meridian Road. This development is estimated to generate 4,168 additional vehicle trips per day based on the submitted traffic study. On October 25, 2000, the ACHD Commission reviewed and approved Cedar Springs Subdivision, a 333 -lot residential subdivision. The applicant has modified the site plan. The new plan has fewer residential lots, the addition of office/commercial lots, and a school site. Changes to this report have been made in bold. Roads impacted by this development: Meridian Road Ustick Road ACHD Commission Date — February 7, 2001 - 12:00 p.m. VI/p��BUR Y Cedar Springs.rev.cmm - Page 1 8. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 9. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. Conclusion of Law: ACED requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development Division at 387-6170. Submitted by: Planning and Development Staff Commission Action: February 7, 2001 Cedar Springs.rev.cmm Page 10 r: Standard Requirements: A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall specifically identifv each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of why such a requirement would result in a substantial hardship or inequity. The written request shall be submitted to the District no later than 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original decision. The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #193, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACRD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. Cedar Springs.rev.cmm Paee 9 13. One driveway on Ashby Drive shall be approved for the proposed office/commercial lot. The driveway shall be located a minimum of 100 -feet west of Meridian Road and constructed 24 to 30 -feet wide. ACHD will review the office/commercial site as a separate application in the future. 14. One driveway on Venable Lane shall be approved for the proposed office/commercial/multi-family lot. Driveways shall be located a minimum of 100 -feet north of Ustick Road and constructed 24 to 30 -feet wide. ACHD will review the office/multi-family site as a separate application in the future. 15. Construct Venable Lane from Ustick Road to the north property line of the school lot as one half of a 40 -foot street section plus 12 -feet of additional pavement, with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk within 42 -feet of right-of-way. 16. ACHD will review the school site as a separate application in the future. IT Any proposed landscape islands/medians within the public right-of-way dedicated by this plat shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this should be required on the final plat. 18. Unless otherwise specified, construct all public roads within the subdivision as 36 -foot street sections with curb, gutter, and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of-way. 19. The public streets within the subdivision shall be located to align or offset a minimum of 125- feet(centerline to centerline). 20. The turnarounds shall be constructed to provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet. 21. Provide a $30,000 deposit to the Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund for the cost of one-quarter of a traffic signal at the intersection of Ustick Road and Meridian Road. 22. Other than the proposed public streets, direct lot or parcel access to Ustick Road and Meridian Road is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. Cedar Springs.rev.cmm Page 8 4. The two main entrances on Meridian Road located 270 -feet north of the south property line, and 300 -feet south of the north property line, are approved with this application. The entrances shall be designed with two outbound lanes and one inbound lane on either side of a center median, within 64 -feet of right-of-way. The median shall be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. 5. Construct center turn lanes on Meridian Road for the main entrance intersections. The turn lanes shall be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lanes with District staff. 6. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Meridian Road abutting the entire parcel, located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way. Coordinate the location and elevation of the sidewalk with District staff. 7. The main entrance on Ustick Road located at the west property line, is approved with this application. Construct Venable Lane as one half of a 36 -foot street section plus 12 -feet of additional pavement within 42 -feet of right-of-way. 8. Construct a center turn lane on Ustick Road for the main entrance intersection. The turn lane shall be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 9. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Ustick Road abutting the entire parcel, located 2 - feet within the new right-of-way. Coordinate the location and elevation of the sidewalk with District staff. 10. Construct the segment of Ashton Lane from Meridian Road to Greenwich Avenue as a residential collector street with no front -on housing. The access restrictions for this street segment shall be stated on the final plat. Construct this segment of Ashton Lane as a 46 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks within 64 -feet of right-of- way. Parking shall be prohibited on this street segment. Coordinate the signage plan with District staff. 11. Construct three stub streets to the north, located as proposed: • Between Lot 1, Block 15 and Lot 11, Block 18 • Between Lot 11, Block 15 and Lot 1, Block 13 • Between Lot 8, Block 13 and Lot 2, Block 10 Install signs at the termini of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub streets with District staff. 12. Construct Ashton Lane to the west property line, as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. Cedar Springs.rev.cmm Page 7 2005. A traffic signal will cost approximately S 120,000. The southwest corner and the southeast corner have been developed. The northeast corner is vacant land, and staff has received a traffic study for a 215 -lot residential subdivision with four office lots on corner. Full build -out of that subdivision is expected by 2005. Staff recommends that this applicant contribute one-quarter of the cost of a traffic signal, $30,000 to the Public Rights -of --Way Trust Fund. The District will also require the same deposit from the developer at the northeast corner. W. Based on development patterns in this area and the resulting traffic generation, staff anticipates that the transportation system will be adequate to accommodate additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. Special Recommendation to the City of Meridian: The City should require the applicant to provide pathways to the City Park site so that pedestrians to not have to access collector roadways for access into the park. The following Site Specific Requirements and Standard Requirements must be met or provided for prior to ACHD approval of the final plat: Site Specific Requirements: 1. Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Meridian Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right- of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #193. 2. Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Ustick Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right- of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #193. 3. Locate any existing or proposed irrigation facilities on Ustick Road and Meridian Road outside of the new right-of-way. Cedar Springs.rev.cmm Page 6 0 0 M. The applicant is proposing to construct Ashton Lane to the west property line. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the street because the stub is less than 100 -feet in length. The applicant should be required to install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that. "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE" Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. N. The applicant is proposing to develop one office/commercial lot on Meridian Road at the southwest corner of the intersection with the proposed southerly main entrance. The applicant is not proposing direct lot access to Meridian Road. One driveway is proposed off Ashby Drive. The driveway should be located a minimum of 100 -feet west of Meridian Road and constructed 24 to 30 -feet wide. ACHD will review the office/commercial site as a separate application in the future. O. The applicant is proposing to develop one office/commercial or multi -family lot on Ustick Road at the northeast corner of the intersection with the proposed main entrance to the subdivision. The applicant is not proposing direct lot access to Ustick Road. Driveways should be located a minimum of 100 -feet north of Ustick Road and constructed 24 to 30 - feet wide. ACHD will review the office/multi-family site as a separate application in the future. P. The applicant's site plan indicates a proposed elementary school on Venable Lane located north of Ustick Road. ACHD will review the school site as a separate application in the future. Q. Due to the volumes and types of vehicular uses on Venable Lane from Ustick Road to the school site, Venable Lane should be constructed as a local/commercial street. The applicant should construct Venable Lane from Ustick Road to the north property line of the school lot as one half of a 40 -foot street section plus 12 -feet of additional pavement, with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk within 42 -feet of right-of-way. R. Any proposed landscape islands/medians within the public right-of-way dedicated by this plat should be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this should be required on the final plat. S. The applicant should be required to construct all public roads within the subdivision as 36 -foot street sections with curb, gutter, and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of- way. T. The public streets within the subdivision should be located to align or offset a minimum of 125- feet(centerline to centerline). It appears that the street layout is in conformance with District policy. U. The turnarounds should be constructed to provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet. V. The applicant's traffic study indicates that frill build -out of the subdivision should occur by 2005, and that traffic at the Ustick Road/Meridian Road intersection will warrant a signal by the year Cedar Springs.rev.cmm Page 5 • 0 100 -square foot area. The applicant is proposing to construct two outbound lanes and one inbound lane with a median, within 64 -feet of right-of-way. F. The applicant should be required to construct center turn lanes on Meridian Road for the main entrance intersections. The turn lanes should be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lanes with District staff. G. The applicant should be required to construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Meridian Road abutting the entire parcel, located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way. Coordinate the location and elevation of the sidewalk with District staff. H. The applicant is proposing one main entrance on Ustick Road located at the west property line. The proposed entrance is located in conformance with District policy, and the applicant should construct Venable Lane as one half of a 36 -foot street section, plus 12 -feet of additional pavement within 42 -feet of right-of-way. The applicant is not proposing to construct a median at this entrance. I. The applicant should be required to construct a center turn lane on Ustick Road for the main entrance intersection. The turn lane should be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. J. The applicant should be required to construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Ustick Road abutting the entire parcel, located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way. Coordinate the location and elevation of the sidewalk with District staff. K. The applicant is proposing to construct a segment of Ashton Lane from Meridian Road to Greenwich Avenue as a residential collector street with no front -on housing, because the anticipated traffic volumes exceed 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The access restrictions for this street segment should be stated on the final plat. The applicant is proposing to construct a 40 - foot street section within 58 -feet of right-of-way, the standard street section for a 3-1ane industrial/commercial street. District policy requires that this street segment be constructed as 46 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks within 64 -feet of right-of-way. Parking should be prohibited on this street segment. Coordinate the signage plan with District staff. L. The applicant is proposing to construct three stub streets to the north. The applicant should not be required to provide paved temporary turnarounds at the end of the stub streets because the stubs are less than 100 -feet in length. The applicant should be required to install signs at the termini of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub streets with District staff. The proposed stub streets are located: • Between Lot 1, Block 15 and Lot 11, Block 18 • Between Lot 11, Block 15 and Lot 1, Block 13 • Between Lot 8, Block 13 and Lot 2, Block 10 Cedar Springs.rev.cnun Page 4 Ustick Road is improved with two traffic lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. B. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. C. The applicant submitted a revised traffic study for this development. The results of the traffic study, and the key findings include: • The proposed project is a 268 -lot single family subdivision located near the Ustick Road and Meridian Road intersection. The revised plan also has one office/commercial lot off Meridian Road, one office or multi -family lot (approximately 63 units) off Ustick Road, and an elementary school site. • The estimated build -out year for the subdivision is 2005. • The trip generation is 4,168 vehicle trips per day, or 420 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. • The subdivision proposes one approach to Ustick Road, located west of Meridian Road, and two approaches on Meridian Road, both located north of Ustick Road. • All three proposed approaches have two outbound lanes: a left -turn lane and a right -turn lane. The left -turn movements will operate at LOS A for the three approaches. • The construction of left -turn bays on Ustick Road and Meridian Road for the three proposed subdivision approaches. • There are four stub streets proposed, three to the north and one to the west. • The ADT on Ustick Road is 3,960 vehicles per day and 4,156 vehicles per day on Meridian Road, counts taken on August 2, 2000. • The Ustick/Meridian Road all -way stop control intersection is estimated to operate at LOS B. • With the estimated "background" traffic in year 2005, the Ustick/Meridian Road all -way stop control intersection is estimated to operate at LOS C. • With the estimated "site" plus "background" traffic in the year 2005, the Ustick/Meridian Road all -way stop control intersection is estimated to operate at LOS E. • The study predicts that the Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant will be met for a traffic signal at the Ustick/Meridian Road intersection when the proposed development reaches full build -out-_ • One internal street, Ashton Lane from Ashby Street to Meridian Road, is estimated to exceed 1,000 vehicles per day and is being designed as a collector street. D. Any existing or proposed irrigation facilities on Ustick Road and Meridian Road should be located outside of the new right-of-way. E. The applicant is proposing two main entrances on Meridian Road located 270 -feet north of the south property line, and 300 -feet south of the north property line. The proposed entrances are separated by over 800 -feet and are located in conformance with District policy. The roadway entrances should be designed with minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median. The median should be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a Cedar Springs.rev.cmm Noe 3 Facts and Findings: A. General Information Owner — Leslie Family Trust/Moore Family Trust Applicant — J.U.B. RUT - Existing zoning R-4 - Requested zoning 99.8 - Acres 268 - Proposed residential building lots I - Proposed office/commercial lot (Meridian Road) I - Proposed office/multi-family lot/commercial (Ustick Road) I - Proposed elementary school lot 2,566 — vehicle trips per day for single family lots 474 — vehicle trips per day for office/commercial lot (Meridian Road) 418 — vehicle trips per day for office/multi-family lot (Ustick Road) 710 — vehicle trips per day for elementary school site 4,168 — total vehicle trips per day North Ada - Impact Fee Service Area Meridian - Impact Fee Assessment District 255 - Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Meridian Road Minor arterial with bike lane designation Traffic count of 4,156 on 8-2-00 Better than C -Existing Level of Service Better than C -Existing plus project build -out Level of Service 1,530 -feet of frontage 50 -feet existing right-of-way (25 -feet from centerline) 96 -feet required right-of-way (48 -feet from centerline) Meridian Road is --improved with two traffic lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. Ustick Road Minor arterial with bike lane designation Traffic count of 3,960 on 8-2-00 Better than C — Existing Level of Service Better than C — Existing plus project build -out Level of Service 460 -feet of frontage 50 -feet existing right-of-way (25 -feet from centerline) 96 -feet required right-of-way (48 -feet from centerline) Cedar Springs.rev.cmm Page 2 I po- Im Wm -NN3,m I I I I I I I / I STREET o , vomms 00 0 OMNI I on 1 ■ MEN lim W. USTICK ROAD (FUTURE CITY PARK) CEDAR SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION FIGURE 1 i / ' wti,m / 0 Q O T z Q 0 W r U•B � ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS sx3xxtl td ssuaAH(ls • SMKIDx3 NO ISlAicignS 7VI-LN:�aIS:] SSNI�JdS �Jb'Q�3 4VIdP.mv.xyv llmMvd ; m X' D z I o: D 1 C>i�:jdd alio 3�:inin-�) i� -- - - - - c 133?�1S ZT ado��:j >iousn nn C ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Planning and Development Division Development Application Report Preliminary Plat — Cedar Springs n/w/c Meridian Road/Ustick Road Modification MAZ-00-019/MPP-00-018 REVISED The application has been referred to ACHD by the City of Meridian for review and comment. Cedar Springs is a 268 -lot residential subdivision on 99.8 -acres. The site also includes one office lot and one elementary school site, and one possible multi -family or office/commercial site. The applicant is also requesting annexation into the City of Meridian and a rezone from RUT to R-4. The site is located generally north of Ustick Road on the west side of Meridian Road. This development is estimated to generate 4,168 additional vehicle trips per day based on the submitted traffic study. On October 25, 2000, the ACHD Commission reviewed and approved Cedar Springs Subdivision, a 333 -lot residential subdivision. The applicant has modified the site plan. The new plan has fewer residential lots, the addition of office/commercial lots, and a school site. Changes to this report have been made in bold. Roads impacted by this development: Meridian Road Ustick Road ACHD Commission Date — February 7, 2001 - 12:00 p.m. .corm age i 4. If Public Right -of -Way Trust Fund deposit is required, make the deposit to the District in the form of cash or cashier's check for the amount specified by the District. 5. Furnish easements, agreements and all other datum or documents as required by the District. 6. Furnish Final Plat drawings together with the plat and plan review fees for District acceptance and endorsement. The final plat must contain the signed endorsement of the Owner and the Land Surveyor's certification. 7. All of the material must be submitted to District staff two -weeks prior to Commission review of the final plat. 8. Approval of the plat is valid for one year. The Commission will consider an extension of one year if requested within 15 -days prior to the expiration date. Please contact me at (208) 387-6170, should you have any questions. Cc: Planning & Development Chron/File Planning & Development Services -City of Meridian Construction Services — John Edney Drainage- Chuck Rinaldi Mathew Schiltz J -U -B Engineers 250 S Beechwood Ave. Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709 _"eoil CHD Ada County Highway District February 8, 2001 TO: Kevin Howell Development 1087 W River St. #250 Boise, ID 83702 FROM: Christy Richardson, Principal Development Analyst Planning & Development d. SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat: Cedar Springs RECEIVED FEB 12 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN Meridian Road & Ustick On February 7, 2001, the Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District (hereafter called "District') took action on the preliminary Plat as stated on the attached staff report. In order that the Final Plat may be considered by the District for acceptance, the Developer shall cause the following applicable standard conditions to be satisfied prior to District certification and endorsement: 1. Drainage plans shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District. 2. If public street improvements are required: Prior to any construction within the existing or proposed public right-of-way, the following shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District. a. Three complete sets of detailed street construction drawings prepared by an Idaho registered professional Engineer. b. Execute and Inspection Agreement between the Developer and the District together with initial payment deposit for inspection and/or testing services. C. Complete all street improvements to the satisfaction of the District, or execute a Surety Agreement between the Developer and the District to guarantee the completion of the construction of all required street improvements. 3. Furnish a copy of the Final Plat showing street names as approved by the Local Government Agency having such authority together with the payment of fee charged for the manufacturing and installation of all street signs. 318 East 37th Street Judy Peavey -Derr, President 8 Garden City ID -6 Dave Bivens, 1st Vice President Phone (208)) 3 38787-6110000 Sherry R. Huber, 2nd Vice President FAX ( 7-6391 38D.ada.id.0.id.us Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner E-mail: tellus@ACH David E. Wynkoop, Commissioner February 8, 2001 TO: Kevin Howell Development 1087 W River St. #250 Boise, ID 83702 FROM: Christy Richardson, Principal Development Analyst Planning & Development d. SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat: Cedar Springs RECEIVED FEB 12 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN Meridian Road & Ustick On February 7, 2001, the Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District (hereafter called "District') took action on the preliminary Plat as stated on the attached staff report. In order that the Final Plat may be considered by the District for acceptance, the Developer shall cause the following applicable standard conditions to be satisfied prior to District certification and endorsement: 1. Drainage plans shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District. 2. If public street improvements are required: Prior to any construction within the existing or proposed public right-of-way, the following shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District. a. Three complete sets of detailed street construction drawings prepared by an Idaho registered professional Engineer. b. Execute and Inspection Agreement between the Developer and the District together with initial payment deposit for inspection and/or testing services. C. Complete all street improvements to the satisfaction of the District, or execute a Surety Agreement between the Developer and the District to guarantee the completion of the construction of all required street improvements. 3. Furnish a copy of the Final Plat showing street names as approved by the Local Government Agency having such authority together with the payment of fee charged for the manufacturing and installation of all street signs. February 9, 2001 ..9mwle MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 15, 2001 APPLICANT Kevin Howell Development ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval for 268 building lots and 27 other lots on 99.83 acres for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision - north of Ustick and west of Meridian Roads AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See previous Item Packet See attached draft report See attached comments J See attached comments Contacted: 21t�l�(,t� �I Date: 2 / �% ( Phone: �j�(p -�03 .� v Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian Fire Department Memo To: Mayor Come, City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission From: Chief Ken W. Bowers, Meridian Fire Department Date: 02-15-01 XLS , Re: Cedar Springs Subdivision In the interest of providing emergency services to the 58 -acre park site next to Cedar Springs Subdivision, we would like to request that consideration be given to providing a street between public and private property. This would ensure access to all portions of the park, without having to transverse large portions of unoccupied surfaces. Our experience in providing emergency services in similar situations require that ambulance gumeys be wheeled over 600 feet unimproved surface. The result is that the patient care can be delayed when we have to access patients in remote portions of the park. We would be glad to work with the design team to improve emergency access to the park. 0 Page 1 MERI-01AN POLICE IfE PART N1E_� rC' W. L. "BILL" GORDON Chief of Police TO: Mayor Robert Corrie 2/14/01 FROM: Chief William Gordon REFERENCE: Parks and Public Safety After reading a memo from Tom Kuntz and Elroy Huff, I revisited the PHONE: (208) 888-6675 FAX: (208) 884-5077 preliminary plans for a proposed subdivision north of Ustick Rd. at Meridian Rd. that borders our newest park. All city parks should provide for access by emergency vehicles and personal to as much of the park as possible. Parks generate problems mainly because they do what they are designed to do (attract people). Any place that attracts people also needs extra services (police, fire and ambulance). The need for emergency services is a 24 hour a day need that must be considered at the beginning of any park design. All parks should have roads capable of handling a variety of emergency vehicles to prevent crimes, provide emergency services, and promote use by kids and families. Parks do require extra services and the layout of all parks or recreation areas should not cause safety problems by restricting visibility and easy access by all. Parks need to have roads surrounding them and when they reach a certain size, they should have roads through them. The current plan also needs to address the school site on the west end, it to posses some of the same concerns. If you should have any questions please feel free to contact me at your convenience. 201 East Idaho Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 • • Helps to eliminate potential complaints or conflicts from homeowners related to: a. Privacy b. Trespassing c. Vandalism d. Light encroachment from sports fields e. Noise pollution f. Damage to homes due to park use g. Injury to home owners from baseballs and soccer balls • Handicapped parking spaces can be provided next to the park athletic field area. • Eliminates fencing and privacy landscaping costs for the developer or homeowner. • Eliminates costs to the developer of pedestrian access pathways between homes. • Eliminates hidden areas created by solid fences. • Provides higher visibility for police (see attached memo dated 2-14-01 from Chief William Gordon). • Provides better access for emergency vehicles to the northern portion of the park, which is predominantly athletic fields (see attached memo dated 2-15-01 from Meridian Fire Department). The City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department is willing to pay for the costs of curb, gutter and sidewalk and, as per ACHD's requirements, 4 feet of the street adjacent to our property. If a wider street were required to allow for parallel parking, we would consider sharing those additional costs. To minimize the possibility of park patrons parking in front of homeowner's property, we are also willing to re -design our park plan to include a parking lot in the north-east corner of the 58 acre site. We are currently trying to select a site for a new skate park, visibility and safety are key issues to City Council and Mayor in selecting and planning park sites as is also evident in the attached memos from the Meridian Police and Fire Departments. This is the first park of this size to ever be developed in Meridian. The single loaded street is a vital component of this park. Please help us plan Meridian's future by requiring a single loaded street in the Cedar Springs Subdivision. 1*1 ROBERT D. CORRIE QTY OF MERIDIA Mayor PAWS AND RECREATION DEPART iV NT TOM KUNTZ 11 W. Bower St. - Meridian. ID 83642 Parks & Recreation Director Phone (208) 888-3579 - Fax (208) 898-5501 MEMORANDUM To: Planning and Zoning Commission, Mayor Corrie and City Council From: Parks and Recreation Commission and Staff Date: 02-14-01 CC.: Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, and Bill Nichols COUNCIL MEMBERS RON ANDERSON KEITH BIRD TAMMY DeWEERD CHERIE MCCANDLESS FXCEIV-ED 9 5 200 i CITY OF HERIDLA Re: Requiring a single loaded street on the southern boundary of Cedar Springs Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction The Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission and Parks Staff would like to submit the following comments into the record for Planning and Zoning Commissions consideration in regards to the Cedar Springs Subdivision request for annexation. zoning and preliminary plat. We want to address the single loaded street issue as it relates to Cedar Springs Subdivision and our new 58 -acre park which are contiguous to each other. We have discussed and researched this issue, since it pertains to this park and our new park development standards. Staff and Commission consider it essential that a single loaded street (no yards backing up to the park) be required on the southern boundary of the Cedar Springs subdivision. A single loaded street is vital for a variety of reasons, as listed below. This issue affects the community's use of this park and the development of future parks of this size. The concept of the single loaded street was addressed with the developer and their representative at two pre -development meetings (July 18 and November 16,2000). The developer chose to ignore the request due to potential loss of building lots. Single loaded streets along the park boundary provide the following benefits: • Park appears more inviting to the public due to unobstructed access. Create a buffer zone between the park and future homeowners. J � f L k �J 1 f �J I i Phone Log Job #11644 Nlt Date: July 13, 2000 With: Tom Kuntz, Director - Meridian Parks and Recreation Department 888-3579 RE: Howell Meridian Site — City Park Coordination Overview: I sent a fax of a preliminary layout for the Howell Meridian site indicating general lot layout with future park access points labeled. He contacted me saying the west and north access points seemed to coordinate very well with his master plan (which I haven't seen yet). He expressed some concern with the proximity of the northeast access point to the proposed ball diamond. In addition, he would like the height of the fences along the access ways to be less than 6 feet. I agreed with him that a "tunnel" effect is created, however maybe making the pathway a little wider would alleviate the concern. He seemed to seem o.k. with everything in general. • Followup: I called him back and asked for a digital version of the master plan and gave him my e- mail address so we could incorporate the park plan into our submittal. 0 Gary Lee From: Gary Le ent: Tuesda , April 18, 2000 2:58 PM o: 'dflukea langstonwilliams.com' Subject: Meridian - Howell site Contacts: Darren Fluke, AICP Daren: Just spoke to Tom Kuntz, Meridian Parks Dept. The City has hired a firm in Seattle to prepare a park master plan that will consiste of: 4 little league diamonds, 4 soccer fields, open park area and a meandering pathway around the entire perimeter of the site. The plan will be available in about 30 days. He will call us when he has it available. The pedestrian pathway will be set back about 25 to 50 feet from the property lines of the park. The property line will be fenced. Two vehicular entrances and parking lots will be off of Ustick and Meridian Road. No entrances required or desired along our common boundary. He said that he would welcome ped. pathway connections along the north and west boundary of the park site. However, no stub streets or vehicle access. Ped. access are welcome, maybe 3 or 4 points would be good - but no more than 6. Any questions, please call me. Thanks, Gary Lee JUB Engineers. Daren Fluke • _ _._. From: Gary Lee Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 7:38 AM To: Daren Fluke; Matt Schultz Subject: Cedar Springs Conditions of Approval - ACHD response Daren & Matt, Please forward this e-mail and clarification to the City Staff G. -----Original Message ----- From: Christy Richardson Imailto:Crichardson(a-)achd ada id us1 Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 11:13 AM To: GAL(cDJUB.com Subject: Re: Cedar Springs Conditions of Approval I will fix the report to clarify, but your assumptions are correct: up to the school Venable Lane should be a 40 -foot street section. To the north of the non-residential uses it can be a 36 -foot section. Gary Lee <GAL(cDJUB.com> 02/12/01 03:27PM >>> Christy: I would like to get a clarification on Site Specific Condition 7 and 15. No. 7 asks for %Z of a 36 foot street + 12' of pavement for Venable Lane. Condition 15 asks for of 40 foot street + 12' of pavement. I have assumed that Condition 15 applies to that portion of Venable Lane from Ustick to the north property line of the school site & Condition 7 applies for everything north of that. Am I correct? Gary A. Lee, P.E.,L.S. J -U -B Engineers, Inc. 208-376-7330 l rJ - U - B ,A • • City of Meridian _J February 15, 2001 Eng veers Surveyors Planners Page 4 request we can respond in a reasonable manner, and we still believe that this is a bad idea for all involved. Because of the lack of notice on this issue we do not have time to respond in writing to bullet points noted as favoring the single loaded road concept in the memo. We will address each point in turn at the public hearing but our opposition can be summed up in two clear points, to wit: • A single loaded road will invite additional vehicle traffic into the development and will increase impacts on surrounding properties. One glance at the master plan shows that the closest location to the baseball diamonds and soccer fields clearly shows that the closest parking spot to those facilities would be a road on the north boundary. Untold cars will be enticed into the development to look for parking as near to the field as possible. If you think you will have complaints from neighbors, just wait until you turn their street into a de facto parking lot. • A single loaded road is a fine concept and works extremely well to accomplish the goals listed in the memo for a neighborhood park up to about ten acres in size. However, this is a regional park, almost sixty acres in size, meant to serve a good portion of the city. The impacts of a park this size reach far beyond those of a neighborhood park and invite much more in the way of adverse impacts on surrounding properties. We are not opposed to working with the Parks Department and have done so to facilitate the location of utilities and irrigation facilities. However, this concept makes no sense at this location and we ask that you approve the plat a presented. Sincerely, J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. Daren S. Fluke, AICP Planning Associate DSF: the U:1Ust\Cedar Springsl2.15 response.DOC fJ j -g ,1 • Engineers Surveyors Planners . City of Meridian February 15, 2001 Page 2 Requirement #5, pg. 5, pertaining to the irrigation easement on the north boundary. The Settler's Irrigation District easement on the north property line will be maintained. We have provided a 25' common lot to accommodate the easement in accordance with the District's policies. A 6' solid cedar fence will be provided on the north boundary of the lots abutting the 25' common Lot. Requirement #6, pg. 6, pertaining to Venable Lane. The District is requiring a 40' street section to the north of the school, the remainder of the road is required to be a 36' street section. See attached email from Christy Richardson to Gary Lee, dated February 13, 2001. Requirement #7, pg. 6, pertaining to Ashton Lane. Our traffic study documented a need for a residential collector to Ashby Drive, not Greenwich Way. We are working with the Highway District to clarify what appears to be a clerical error. Requirement #8, pg. 6, pertaining to relocation of the park micro -path. We coordinated the location of the path with both the Meridian School District and the Meridian Parks Department. We can certainly move the path but believe that the proposed location works well for both the park and the school. Requirement #9, pg. 6, additional micro -path. The requested path makes good sense and are amenable to a condition requiring such. Requirement #10, pg. 6, pertaining to a pedestrian crossing on Ustick Road. We certainly agree with the staff that development of an elementary school and a regional park could necessitate construction of a controlled pedestrian crossing and/or a signal. However, our traffic study clearly showed that our development does not warrant construction of a signal at this Location. We are required to contribute $30,000 above and beyond the required impact fees for construction of a signal at the Ustick/Meridian Road intersection. We suggest that the Commission evaluate the need for a signal upon a development request for the park and/or the school and condition those applications accordingly. Requirement #11, pg. 6, pertaining to a single loaded road adjoining the park. See below. OTHER ISSUES Availability of sewer We are of course aware of the lack of sewer at the present time. As the Commission is no doubt aware, the delay is attributable to a downstream property owner who has been unwilling/ unable to grant easements for the future White Trunk Line until development plans for the property were finalized. The plans have been finalized and submitted to the City for approval in the form of an annexation, conditional use, and preliminary plat application. At a workshop before the City Council U:\DsACedarSprings\2-15 response.DOC rJ - U-Bk • City Meridian February 15, 2001 Eng neers Surveyors Planners Page 3 on February 13, 2001, said land owner's representative stated on the record that the land owner has no problem with granting the easements and that the alignments have been delivered to the Public Works Department and the city's design consultant on disk and that the City had not asked for the easement up to that time. We further understand that the City Council has placed a priority on the design and construction of the required trunk line. For these reasons we have a high degree of confidence that the line will be built within the near term and view any current complications as simply a matter of timing. We fully understand that we cannot record a final plat without the trunk but would like to proceed with the final design and construction of the subdivision so that we can simply hook in upon the arrival of the trunk line at our property line. We have designed the trunk line through our development in accordance with the sewer master plan and have submitted preliminary plan and profiles for our segment of the line to the City and the City's design consultant to incorporate into the design of the White Trunk Line. We are comfortable with a condition of approval requiring physical hookup to the line prior to the City's signature of the final plat and ask the Commission to send the application to the City Council with a recommendation of approval contingent upon such a condition. Treatment of the park boundary We are in receipt of the unsigned memo from the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Mayor Corrie and the City Council dated 2-14-01 wherein the Commission is requested to require a complete redesign of our preliminary plat to provide a single loaded road along the north boundary of the park site (our southern boundary). We received the memo by fax only this morning (2-15-01). We will deal with the merits of the request but feel that we must point out our extreme disappointment with how this whole matter has been handled. In particular, the closing line of the third paragraph ('The developer chose to ignore the request due to potential loss of building tots.") is simply untrue and is counterproductive to a mutually acceptable solution. In the 2-14 memo, it is stated that the concept of a single loaded road was discussed at two predevelopment meetings in July and November. In point of fact, we discussed our layout relative to the park at least three times with Tom Kuntz prior to design of the plat and submittal of the application. We are able to document two of those discussions (see attached) and at no time was the topic of a single loaded road mentioned. in fact, Mr. Kuntz commented on the location of our proposed pathway connections saying that they seemed to work fine with the master plan that was currently under development. Prior to our submittal of the preliminary plat in September, our pedestrian access and utility stub locations were submitted and revised pursuant to the direction of Mr. Kuntz. Since the original submittal in August, our item has been continued primarily due to the White Trunk Line delay. At the same time, we were worked closely with the Joint School District No. 2 to delete approximately 65 building lots and add an elementary school to the site plan. The single -loaded street concept was first mentioned by Mr. Kuntz in a rather off -hand manner in a meeting to discuss issues with the school site in late November. At that time we indicated that we were opposed to the idea because of the size of the park and the attendant impacts on our development and the difficulty of redesigning the plat to accommodate such a request. Since that time we have seen nothing until today in the form of a formal request. Now that we have said U:\Dst\Ccdar SpringsQ-15 responsc.DOC �City of Meridian 1rJ - U -B,1 B , • • February a 2001 dia Engineers Surveyors Planners Page 2 Requirement #5, pg. 5, pertaining to the irrigation easement on the north boundary. The Settler's Irrigation District easement on the north property line will be maintained. We have provided a 25' common lot to accommodate the easement in accordance with the District's policies. A 6' solid cedar fence will be provided on the north boundary of the lots abutting the 25' common lot. Requirement #6, pg. 6, pertaining to Venable Lane. The District is requiring a 40' street section to the north of the school, the remainder of the road is required to be a 36' street section. See attached email from Christy Richardson to Gary Lee, dated February 13, 2001. Requirement #7, pg. 6, pertaining to Ashton Lane. Our traffic study documented a need for a residential collector to Ashby Drive, not Greenwich Way. We are working with the Highway District to clarify what appears to be a clerical error. Requirement #8, pg. 6, pertaining to relocation of the park micro -path. We coordinated the location of the path with both the Meridian School District and the Meridian Parks Department. We can certainly move the path but believe that the proposed location works well for both the park and the school. Requirement #9, pg. 6, additional micro -path. The requested path makes good sense and are amenable to a condition requiring such. Requirement #10, pg. 6, pertaining to a pedestrian crossing on Ustick Road. We certainly agree with the staff that development of an elementary school and a regional park could necessitate construction of a controlled pedestrian crossing and/or a signal. However, our traffic study clearly showed that our development does not warrant construction of a signal at this Location. We are required to contribute $30,000 above and beyond the required impact fees for construction of a signal at the Ustick/Meridian Road intersection. We suggest that the Commission evaluate the need for a signal upon a development request for the park and/or the school and condition those applications accordingly. Requirement #11, pg. 6, pertaining to a single loaded road adjoining the park. See below. OTHER ISSUES Availability of sewer We are of course aware of the lack of sewer at the present time. As the Commission is no doubt aware, the delay is attributable to a downstream property owner who has been unwilling/ unable to grant easements for the future White Trunk Line until development plans for the property were finalized. The plans have been finalized and submitted to the City for approval in the form of an annexation, conditional use, and preliminary plat application. At a workshop before the City Council U:1DsACedarSpringsl2-15 response.DOC J-U-B ENGINEERS71nc. rJ - U - B I • ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS - PLANNERS 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83709-0944 208-376-7330 FAX: 208-323-9336 February 15, 2001 j?BeErVEJ) Planning and Zoning Commission City of Meridian F F B 15 2001 200 E. Carlton, suite 400 CITY OF :tiIERIDL�v Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Response to Staff Report dated February 15, 2001 Cedar Springs Subdivision Members of the Commission: We are in receipt of the staff report for Cedar Springs Subdivision and offer the following responses to the issues raised therein. For ease of use we have addressed any issues in the order they appear in the staff report. Requirement #2, pg. 3, requiring 5% open space within the development. As requested we have analyzed our open space relative to the newly adopted landscaping ordinance. Of the total amount of open space provided, 3.14 acres or 3.141 of the total land area complies with the provisions of the ordinance. We willfully comply with the provisions of the ordinance for the design and maintenance of the open space but must reiterate the comments of staff noting that our application was submitted well before the adoption of the landscape ordinance. To fully comply with the 5% requirement would require eliminating approximately ten tots. Had the ordinance been adopted at the time of design we would have of course complied. However, we have already eliminated 65 lots for the addition of a school site and do not feel that the loss of an additional ten tots is warranted, especially given the proximity of a regional park on our southern boundary. Requirement #3, pg. 3, requiring a buffer between lot 34 a -id future L-0 site to the east. The proposed L-0 site is currently requested to be zoned R-4. The site will require both a rezone and a conditional use to be developed and any buffering would be properly addressed at that time. Requirement #5, pg. 4, requiring a planter strip on Meridian Road. The Ada County Highway District has required that the sidewalk on Meridian Road be placed two feet within the new right-of-way. We are amendable to placing landscaping within the right-of-way provided that the District will grant a license agreement to do so. Requirement #3, pg. 5, pertaining to irrigation service. The irrigation pump facility is proposed to be located within the common landscape area along Meridian Road and the alignment of the irrigation supply ditch for the area. The final plans will detail the exact location. Requirement #4, pg. 5, pertaining to ownership and maintenance of the pressurized irrigation system. We intend to have the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District own and maintain the pressurized irrigation system. The application to accomplish this is currently being completed. NO* March 12, 2001 Brad Hawkins -Clark City of Meridian 200 E. Carlton, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Dear Mr. Hawkins -Clark: 0 Cedar Springs Preliminary Plat J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS Regional Office 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709-0944 208-376-7330 Fax: 208-323-9336 Please find the attached revised Preliminary Plat for Cedar Springs Subdivision. Since the last meeting, the following issues have been resolved: The ACHD requirement for an additional collector street was a misprint. ACHD staff has issued a revised report. J -U -B ENGINEERS has requested a waiver for the requirement to the the White Drain. Depending on the results of the next Settlers Irrigation Board meeting, we wilt submit a variance application to be heard at City Council. 3. We have reviewed the site drainage and landscaping requirements. Based on our analysis, the detention basins were upsized. The resultant lot count is 264 and 5.2% of the area has been designated as usable open space in accordance with Meridian criteria. 4. As discussed in depth at the last meeting, the developer does not wish to encourage parking for the City Park interior to the Cedar Springs Subdivision. A "single -loaded" street on the south property tine is not proposed with the revised preliminary plat. On behalf of our client and in accordance with staff recommendations, J -U -B ENGINEERS requests approval of the subdivision as submitted. Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. Matthew B. Schultz, P.E. Project Engineer MBS:Ihc Attachment cc: Kevin Howell, Kevin Howell Construction Gary A. Lee, P.E./L.S., J -U -B Daren Fluke, A.I.C.P., J -U -B F:\projects\11644\admin\new plat commission.doc f'J-U-B,k March 12, 2001 Brad Hawkins -Clark City of Meridian 200 E. Carlton, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Dear Mr. Hawkins -Clark: 11 Cedar Springs Preliminary Plat 0 J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS - PLANNERS Regional Office 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709-0944 208-376-7330 Fax: 208-323-9336 Please find the attached revised Preliminary Plat for Cedar Springs Subdivision. Since the last meeting, the following issues have been resolved: 1. The ACHD requirement for an additional collector street was a misprint. ACHD staff has issued a revised report. 2. J -U -B ENGINEERS has requested a waiver for the requirement to tile the White Drain. Depending on the results of the next Settlers Irrigation Board meeting, we will submit a variance application to be heard at City Council. 3. We have reviewed the site drainage and landscaping requirements. Based on our analysis, the detention basins were upsized. The resultant lot count is 264 and 5.2% of the area has been designated as usable open space in accordance with Meridian criteria. 4. As discussed in depth at the last meeting, the developer does not wish to encourage parking for the City Park interior to the Cedar Springs Subdivision. A "single -loaded" street on the south property line is not proposed with the revised preliminary plat. On behalf of our client and in accordance with staff recommendations, J -U -B ENGINEERS requests approval of the subdivision as submitted. Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. I-- d6l Matthew B. Schultz, P.E. Project Engineer MBS: the Attachment cc: Kevin Howell, Kevin Howell Construction Gary A. Lee, P.E./L.S., J -U -B Daren Fluke, A.I.C.P., J -U -B F:\projects\11644\admin\new plat commission.doc C0lk 1 NO moans 1YLLN3otm SMMHds MYMO �+ua�■o.rao-rt+ lYld,Ib"InMwd .49=CL'�:_T_ "L=•- f�. lilt s ! ! ! ! III t (�, to ;# � l i c f � :� r,�� ��t��� �+ll � � l �� _� 'I, i t�j ■ j ! tj .'� .%#� .�►�fi� .11t j! �� ie .� :1l :jl ��liit e j i � � y � 1 j 1 ] t • � •� �1 sit f , 1 ). ' I ■ II r , '' •,ori . i) ) i � )1 I j j '� I ; — –` •1 ,1 � i �. 31311 � oa •1 •'1 '1 '1 ' ° Ju 3 ■1 .i �r ■ �) I I I 1 Za i ril .i I 171 1 I_ •, A �I �i'I�I I 71 0.1 '� I 1 ■ 1 ■ 1 ■ 1 ■ 1 ) ■ I ' : I '� i I Itoo� 1L°01 _a I� �I • L !� !I € r .1 .1 fl ,ll ;1 .I rl I' �i . I ���,_ 3 � �'�•!1 ° , AS •i �1 �i �1 �i �1 �i �1 -1 '. --- — -- ------ xts■■------ ' 11 II I • �� �"� NOI icons T/I1N3als3u soNmds bva3o�= = ■ .Y �V 'QLi�110M7 •iN LV'1d A M1nn3Hd -IRE I� I! •� � . � '�� ��j l,l�t! >I II %i ;.:j : '� {{�t..�1t ' �! t I!t l!i ---------w--------- • . • '3' 98 I r j ' � � • ^ y � 'L 71 ') ,_ it ■ ZT .i �•' am I p. p� ) )' jam• ') I .�))'_) I s 11,7 1)A i REC177 E Lig; R 14 -4f GI m City of :Meridian Meo City Clerk office To: Planning and Zoning Commission, Mayor Corrie, City Council, Parks and Recreation Commission From: Tom Kuntz K Date: 03-14-01 Re: Negotiation of single loaded street in Cedar Springs Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction At the February 15 Planning and Zoning meeting, the Commission recommended the City Parks Department meet with the developer of Cedar Springs Subdivision to resolve the single loaded street issue. On February 22, the Parks staff met with representatives from JUB and the developer to discuss possible solutions to the street issue. At the conclusion of the meeting, two options were left on the table without a viable compromise. The Parks Staff recommends the developer combine eight to ten existing lots into one common lot along the northwest park boundary (see attachment A). This common lot would help the developer meet the 5% open space requirement, and address the Parks Department's concems about visibility and safety in the park. The developer did not support this recommendation due to traffic concerns. The Parks staff believes the developers concerns about increased traffic could be mitigated by prohibiting on street parking on the south side of Alexis Drive. In exchange for a single loaded street, the developer offered to construct a road from the North Venable Lane into the northwest comer of the park. The Park staff does not support this option for three reasons; (1) the building lots on Alexis Drive would be bordered on two sides by a street or parking lot (attachment b). This is prohibited by City Ordinance #12-4-5 (which states all blocks shall be two-tier, i.e. no double frontages). (2) This would invite more traffic than the single loaded street. (3) It would not meet the original purpose of a single loaded street which was to provide law enforcement the opportunity to perform "drive by views" from an adjacent public street into the northwest comer of the park. • Page 1 The developer declinedAhe opportunity to meet with the Parks staff a second time to resolve this issue. Without an acceptable compromise to the single loaded street issue, the Parks and Recreation staff recommends denial of the Cedar Springs subdivision application for annexation and preliminary plat. 0 Page 2 DV.CEMrP ID 3130 South Owyhee Street ' MAR 1 .5 2001 y is I Boise, Idaho 83105-4168 CITY OF Y1ERIDLAN 208.342.5400 Fax 208.342.5353 A Member of77k /r Group PROJECT MEETING MINUTES 2.00 pm January 16 2001 @ Meridian City Hall Council Chambers 56 AC. MERIDIAN PARK IRRIGATION DITCH TILING WHP Project No. 822212.00100000 Present: (See attached Attendance List) Purpose: Project Kick -Off Meeting DISCUSSION I. Introductions — The attendees introduced themselves which included City Parks & Rec. and DPW staff, ACHD representatives, J -U -B Project Engineer for the Cedar Springs Subdivision proposed north of the park, the City's irrigation ditch tiling consulting engineers, W&H Pacific (WHP), Ken Aschenbrenner, the park site farmer, and downstream surface water users Martin Yurke, Dale Cooper, Dick Richards, Ranny Endicott, Warren Watson & Lester Vogel. 2. Review Site Topography & Park Master Plan — WHP presented the site topographic map overlaid with the City's three -phased Park Master Plan. The ground falls about 7' over the ± 2,000' length of the park site (east to west) with about 8' of fall in the existing concrete irrigation ditch with delivery water running through the middle of the site. J -U -B presented the Cedar Springs Preliminary Plat with the existing irrigation delivery and waste ditches shown running through the park site (formerly Lopez Property) and the Cedar Springs/Kevin Howell site to the north (Creason Property) and future elementary school site to the west (Vastrey Property). The water running to the west is delivery water that serves the Cooper Property and former Scholten Property. The water running to the north in the concrete irrigation ditch along Meridian Rd. is delivery water that serves the Creason Property and the water running north in the dirt ditch along the park's west property line is waste water that runs north and northwest through the Creason Property into Settler's Irrigation District's White Drain. Based on a prior Parks & Rec. mtg. with Ken on December 11, 2000, he confirmed that the existing 15" pipe running under Meridian Rd. about 285 feet north of Ustick Road carries irrigation waste water behind the house on the northwest corner of Meridian & Ustick Roads and dumps it into the existing dirt combination storm water & irrigation waste ditch running along the north side of Ustick to the west. An existing 24" corrugated metal pipe near the southwest corner of the site also discharges irrigation__ waste water into the ditch on the north side of Ustick from the existing dirt combination storm water & irrigation waste ditch running along the south side of Ustick and properties to the south. Tom was not aware of any easements encumbering the park site. 3. Disposition of 522 GPM Irrigation Pump — The existing artesian well and pump, which Ken said has a flow rate of 522 GPM, are located about 10' west of the existing 50' wide Meridian Rd. right-of- way (25' from centerline/section line). (Ken owns the pump.) When the Meridian Rd. right-of-way is widened to its ultimate width of 96' (48' from centerline/section line), the well and pump will have to be relocated outside the new right-of-way. Ross suggested that Tom contact their Planning & Development Services Division and ACHD Right -of -Way Division to confirm who would pay to relocate the well when Meridian Rd. is widened. The City's well and pump ground water source and its surface water right are to be combined to serve the park's future irrigation pump station and sprinkler system. The consensus was that the best spot for their relocation is in the northeast corner whpacific.com planners surveyors engineers landscape architects of the park site abutting Meridian Rd., for easy access, and Cedar Springs, where J -U -B shows their irrigation pump station. 4. Agency Jurisdiction — The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and Settler's Irrigation District (SID) have confirmed that the park site is outside their jurisdiction and that the ditches running through it are "user's ditches". However, SID has requirements for discharging into their system - - in this case, the White Drain running east to west along the north side of Cedar Springs. (Per my subsequent call to the SID Manager, Nathan Draper, who was unable to attend this meeting, any proposed new irrigation waste water or storm drainage discharge points or changes in the proposed discharge flows into the White Drain will have to be approved by SID.) 5. Tiling Pipe Sizes & Alignment Options — Ken provided WHP with a breakdown of the water user's water rights which come into the concrete irrigation ditch running through the center of the park site from a 2.5' wide x 1.5' deep squash pipe that runs under Meridian Rd. and discharges into the ditch at the park site's east property line as follows: Creason Property 38.75 miner's inches Vastrey Property 24.75 miner's inches Scholten Property 19.75 miner's inches Cooper Property 21.25 miner's inches Lopez/Park Property 42.49 miner's inches The irrigation delivery pipe/tiling will have to be sized to deliver each property its respective water right. Matt said the delivery water allocated to the Cedar Springs/Kevin Howell site (Creason & Vastrey Properties) will have to be maintained until the site is developed. Its development is pending a sanitary sewer extension from the west, which may not happen this year, in which case the property is likely to be farmed. Mr. Cooper is on the tail end of the delivery ditch and requires delivery of his full water right. Three tiling alignment options were discussed including 1) Tiling Center Ditch, 2) Tile Ditch @ E., N. & W. Property Lines and 3) Tile South Ditch. The three options involve tiling ±2,5001.£ (through the center of the site with waste water from the east and south diverted along the east and south property lines) to 5,500 11 (along the east, north & west and/or south property lines) of new and/or rerouted existing irrigation ditch within the park site. It was agreed that the preferred option was to construct an irrigation diversion box in the northeast corner of the park site to deliver water to 1) Mr. Cooper and the other downstream water users to the west, 2) Mr. Howell to maintain his agricultural lands until he develops Cedar Springs and waste the extra water to the White Drain, and 3) the City for use in their park's future pressurized irrigation system. Duane said that ACHD is planning to chip seal a 28' wide swath along Ustick Rd. this spring which will require them to tile the existing dirt combination storm water & irrigation ditch running along the south side of Ustick Rd. The road storm drain runoff would be collected in a new borrow ditch drained to flow with the grades to the west. Ross said that ACHD does not have any Ustick Rd. or Meridian Rd. storm drainage improvements in their 5 -year capital improvement program. Since the existing 15" waste water pipe, that runs under Meridian Rd. and carries irrigation waste water behind the house on the northwest corner of Meridian & Ustick Roads to the ditch running along the north side of Ustick, cannot be redirected north due to its invert being 2.4' (elevations 86.1-88.5) lower than the concrete V -ditch to the north, Tom suggested that ACHD consider tiling the existing dirt combination storm water & irrigation waste ditch running along the north side of Ustick Rd. instead since the 15" waste water pipe will have to be kept alive until the property at the northeast corner of Meridian & Ustick Roads is developed. ACHD prefers that irrigation pipes be located outside of their right-of-way since the pipes are not theirs and therefore they do not maintain them. However, it may be possible for ACHD to grant an irrigation pipe easement within their right-of-way if the pipe were placed under their sidewalk or within the landscape strip in front or behind the future Ustick Rd. sidewalk. An ACHD License Agreement may also be required. Duane did not see a problem with tiling either ditch except for deciding the pipe's location with respect to the ultimate Ustick Rd. right -of way. Since this portion of the park will not be developed until the second phase, Tom wanted to explore this option after confirming the timing of the property developing at the northeast corner of Meridian & Ustick Roads. 6. Thine Desien Criteria — With the downstream irrigation water user's concerns about a tiled ditch getting plugged with debris and them possibly having to clean the pipe out, it was agreed that the upstream/opened ends of all irrigation pipe be fitted with a trash rack to reduce the chances of downstream plugging. It was also agreed that junction boxes be installed in the tiled ditches at all angle points and at adequate intervals to allow the pipes to be flushed or rodded with available equipment. Gary said he prefers that the irrigation pipe running within the park site be designed for gravity flow and that siphons be avoided wherever possible. Weirs and gates will need to be installed in the diversion box proposed at the park's northeast corner to regulate/divert the respective water rights to each property owner. 7• Waste Water Tiling Coordination with Cedar SRrinQs Subdivision — It was agreed that the park's waste water discharge could be combined into Cedar Springs' proposed combination waste water and storm drain line to be installed along the west side of Meridian Rd. and discharged into the White Drain to the north. 8. Irrigation Pipe Maintenance Res onsibilities — This was a major issue for the downstream water users since they do not have adequate equipment to rod or flush out plugged irrigation pipes. When ditches get plugged it's easier to clear them than it is an underground pipe. Resolution of the irrigation pipe maintenance issue was deferred to a later date. 9. ACHD Ultimate 96' Wide Right-of-Wav Requirements — ACHD confirmed the ultimate Meridian & Ustick Road right-of-way widths at 96' (48' from centerline/section line).. The proposed irrigation tiling along Meridian Rd. should be located outside this ulimate right-of-way (i.e. — within the park property). Ross said that ACHD would likely require the City to construct deceleration/acceleration lanes into their park entries/driveways and sidewalk, but no curb & gutter, along their park's Ustick & Meridian Rd. frontages when they submitted their park improvement plans. He suggested that Tom contact Christy Richardson in their Planning & Development Services Division to confirm the ti ng of the right-of-way dedication and what off-site roadway improvements would likely be imposed on the City as a result of their proposed park project. 10. ACHD Borrow Ditch/Road Drainage Requirements & Maintenance — ACHD agreed that it is their responsibility to handle borrow ditch storm water. If existing combination storm water & irrigation waste ditches are tiled within ACHD's right-of-way, Duane said that ACHD would maintain them. 0 0 However, as mentioned above, ACHD is not responsible for maintaining irrigation pipes lying outside of their right-of-way. 11. Project Schedule/Construction Inspection - The City wishes to complete the construction of this project prior to water returning to the irrigation system for the spring irrigation season, so that construction of Phase 1 of the park (northeast portion of the site) can begin immediately thereafter. The City will be responsible for inspection of the gravity irrigation/ditch tiling improvements. THESE MINUTES REFLECT THE AUTHOR'S RECOLLECTION OF THE MEETING DISCUSSIONS. IF THE READER DISCOVERS AN OMMISSION OR ERROR, THEY SHOULD BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE AUTHOR IMMEDIATELY FOR CORRECTION OR THE MINUTES WILL BE DEEMED ACCURATE AS PRESENTED. David Caneer, P.E. Project Manager February 27, 2001 Cc: Tom Kuntz & Elroy Huff, Meridian Parks and Rec. Dept. Matt Schultz, J -U -B Nathan Draper, Settler's Irrigation District Manager Ross Oyen & Duane Hays, ACHD Attachment 3130 South Owyhee Street I MAR 15 2001 Boise, Idaho 83705-4768 CITY OF NIERIDLAI Fax 208.342.5353 A Un br of n� ?Group PRO ECT MEETING MINUTES 1:30 pm, Meridian Parks & Rec. Offices 56 AC. MERIDIAN PARK IRRIGATION DITCH TILING (WHP Pro ect No. 822212.00100000 Present: Tom Kuntz, Meridian Parks & Recreation Dept. Director Elroy Huff, Meridian Parks & Recreation Dept. Superintendent Ken Aschenbrenner (Part-time) Dale Cooper (Part-time) Matt Schultz (Part-time) Kevin Hughes, W&H Pacific Designer David Caneer, W&H Pacific Civil Engineer (WHP) Purpose: Review Preliminary Tiling Plan Design DISCUSSION Proposed Diversion Box Location - WHP presented their preliminary design plan with the three - celled diversion box (42.49 miner's inches to the park, 38.75 miner's inches to the Cedar Springs Subdivision to the north and 65.75 miner's inches to the users to the west) located in the northeast corner of the park site and west of Cedar Springs' proposed commercial site. Ken stated that there could be a maximum delivery of 225 miner's inches to the east side of the park site due to waste from other properties to the east. Since the existing Cedar Springs delivery ditch due north of the proposed diversion box will be removed when the site is developed, the possible maximum excess waste water (225 — 42.49 — 38.75 — 65.75= 78.01 miner's inches) will have no place to waste to. Consequently, it was agreed to relocate the diversion box and future park pressure irrigation system pump station to the park site's northeast corner abutting Meridian Rd. To ensure that Dale did not receive an excessive amount of water, the diversion box requires a check to waste any excess delivery water from the east into a pipe or ditch placed along the west side of Meridian Rd. and diverted north into the Settler's Irrigation District's White Drain. Matt said his client would dig a temporary trench across the future Cedar Springs commercial site to divert his water right and any waste water northwest into their existing delivery ditch. When Cedar Springs is developed, they will install a combination irrigation waste water and storm water pipe along the west side of the ultimate Meridian Rd. right-of-way and discharge it into the White Drain. Matt will check with Nathan Draper, Settler's Irrigation District Manager, to confirm that this increased amount of irrigation waste water is acceptable to them. 2. Irrigation Tiling Ali nment — Kevin confirmed that the irrigation pipe could deliver each water user's respective water right by gravity, but due to the relatively flat grades, the pipe would be extending above the ground and therefore require a couple feet of fill over it for protection. Tom said the planned park entrance drive off Meridian Rd. could be moved south of the 2.51W x 1.5'D delivery elevated irrigation pipe. The berm could be turfed around the perimeter of the park squash pipe coming from the east side of Meridian Rd. to avoid the berm that would result from the p into the ark landscaping with a meandering asphalt path running over it. The irrigation pipe is site and designed proposed to be ADS N-12, but Tom asked WHP to price ADS vs. PVC pipe with a seal to see how much more the tighter sealed pipe would cost. whpacific.com tanners P surveyors engineers landscape architects Diversion Box Desi n — Elroy requested the three -celled diversion box with expanded metal lid be set a couple feet west of the ultimate Meridian Rd. right-of-way to allow him room to plant an irrigation screen around it. The main/incoming cell would contain the waste water check to the north and three delivery pipes connecting into three weir boxes metering Cedar Springs' water right to the north and the park's and the downstream users water rights to the west. The pipes would be fitted with lockable screw gates. The park pressure irrigation pump station's clearwater screen could be bolted to the flanged end of the park's delivery pipe and set in the main/incoming cell. A 1 '/2" return pipe from the pump station would have to be stubbed through the diversion box and connected to the Clearwater screen to spray debris off the screen. Elroy said the clearwater screen should be capable of handling 500 — 600 GPM. The users would have to adjust the waste water check and weir heights the first year of operation in order to work out the actual heights required to deliver and waste the proper amount of irrigation water. Tom said Cedar Springs' weir box with lockable screw gate should be located on their own property behind their fence line. Elroy requested an 8" Cl. 125 pressure line be run from the exisitng well & pump into the downstream side of the park's weir box. The well pump is equipped with a screen. 4. Final an Delivery Schedule — Kevin will fax Elroy a sketch of the proposed diversion box layout by noon, Friday, February 9t', along with the proposed Clemons clearwater screen catalogue cut for his review and comment by the end of the day. Final plans will be delivered at the end of the day Monday so the City can perform their plan review Tuesday and Wednesday for submittal of comments to WHP for incorporation into Friday, February 16`f''s bid set. THESE MINUTES REFLECT THE AUTHOR'S RECOLLECTION OF THE MEETING DISCUSSIONS. IF THE READER DISCOVERS AN OMMISSION OR ERROR, THEY SHOULD BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE AUTHOR IMMEDIATELY FOR CORRECTION OR THE MINUTES WILL BE DEEMED ACCURATE AS PRESENTED. XavidCane—er,P.E—. Project Manager February 27, 2001 Cc: Tom Kuntz & Elroy Huff, Meridian Parks & Rec. Dept. Nathan Draper, Settler's Irrigation District Manager Matt Schultz, J -U -B I:\Project\822212\Word\2-7MtgMins.doc l J -U -B ENGINEERS, Jnc. rJ - u - B , ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS - PLANNERS 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83709-0944 March 1, 2001 Tom Kuntz Meridian Parks Department 11 East Bower Meridian, ID 83642 208-376-7330 FAX: 208-323-9336 Dv'CEIVED MAR 15 20011 CITY OF NIERIDLkN RE: Irrigation Coordination City Park at Ustick/Meridian CDear Mr. Kuntz: This letter is to summarize several meetings and phone conversations regarding the acceptability of the Meridian Park gravity irrigation design. This area is not regulated by either NMID or Settlers Irrigation District for design approval. As such, the design must be acceptable to the ditch users on this line. OAs a representative of one of those users, Kevin Howell, I have repeatedly stated that the irrigation water needs to be delivered to its historic location at the common boundary between the park and his property. Ideally, provisions should be made for the ease of connection to convey the wasted irrigation water to the White Drain along the Meridian Road alignment. pYou have proposed to grade an interim trench across a portion of our site, until our site develops. With development, we will connect to the pipe stub on your property and continue the drain. At first glance, this would seem to be the most affordable solution to all affected parties. However, J -U -B ENGINEERS has never implied our approval of this alternative and have repeatedly stated that we will require plans for review and discussion with our client prior to consenting to this alternative. Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, J -U -B ENGINEERS, In. Matthew B. Schultz, E. Project Engineer MBS:Ihc cc: Kevin Howell, Howell Construction Dave Caneer, W&H Pacific Gary A. Lee, P.E./L.S., J -U -B F:\projects\11644\admin\park irrigation.doc N ;ineers Surveyors Planners Kevin Hughes March 8, 2001 Page 2 6. The existing driveway between the north boundary and the existing drain outlet must be tiled with a 24 -inch pipe for 30 feet and the driveway replaced to the existing condition. 7. With the exception of the 10 feet along the common boundary at Meridian Road, no grading wilt be allowed on the Howell property. 8. As an irrigation ditch user, Howell and all successive owners of this property shall have unrestricted access to Box "A" and Box "B" to ensure fair proportioning of irrigation water. 9. J -U -B ENGINEERS does not assume any responsibility for the functional operation of the structures to be designed by W&H Pacific and constructed by the City of Meridian to deliver adequate irrigation water and dispose of irrigation wastewater. 10. Please submit revised plans incorporating these revisions for review. We understand time is of the essence and will review the plans and provide comments O within 48 hours of receipt. Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. Matthew B. Schultz, P.E. YProject Engineer MBS:thc cc: Kevin Howell, Howell Construction Tom Kuntz, Meridian Parks Elroy Huff, Meridian Parks Ross Oyen, ACHD Ken Aschenbrenner F:\projects\11644\admin\park gravity review.doc to 0 0 March 12, 2001 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 15, 2001 APPLICANT J -U -B Engineers, Inc ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval for 268 building lots and 27 other lots on 99.83 acres for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision -- north of Ustick and west of Meridian Roads AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See previous Item Packet OTHER: Contacted: Date: AILI Q Phone: 3—f L- J :� Materia s presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. March 8, 2001 Kevin Hughes W&H Pacific 3130 S. Owyhee Street Boise, ID 83705-4768 RE: City of Meridian 56 -acre Park Site Irrigation Plan Review J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. &NGINEERS - SURVEYORS - PLANNERS 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83709-0944 208-376-7330 FAX: 208-323-9336 FBCE1VEJ) MAR 1 5 2001 CITY OF NERIDLA Dear Mr. Hughes: We are in receipt of the Gravity Irrigation Plans for the Meridian Park Tiling Project and have reviewed the plans on behalf of the owner, Kevin Howell Development. Although we wish to develop this property, the City has delayed the review and approval of the preliminary plat. In addition, the White Drain sewer extension is delayed for at least 18 months by the latest City schedule. As such, we have no guarantees of developer work on this property, if any, for O at least 18 months. In the meantime, this property must be provided its fair share of irrigation water in the historic location while not adversely directing wastewater to the site. The following is a list of comments and concerns that must be addressed prior to our approval of the plans: I LJ 1. To ensure fair proportioning of irrigation water, Box "B" must be designed with an additional weir. 2. The 12 -inch delivery pipe must be revised to 15 -inch (minimum) and deliver our share of irrigation water directly to the concrete delivery ditch. Some adjustments to the box height may be required. 3. Unless an alternate delivery method is proposed, the concrete delivery ditch must remain in place until the Howell property is developed and a pressurized irrigation system is installed and operational on the Howell site. 4. The 15 --inch delivery pipe and 24 -inch waste pipe must cross connect with a gated box or valve downstream of the Box "B" to allow diversion of the delivery flows to the waste drain. 5. The. 24 -inch waste drain must be extended five feet north of the property line. The open ditch drain to the north may be located on only 10 feet of the Howell property and will be constructed at no cost to Howell. The remainder of the ditch may be constructed within the existing ACHD right-of-way with a license agreement to the existing drain location approximately 345 feet north of the property line. The existing drain outlet is approximately four feet inside the right-of-way line. Please contact ACHD concerning the license agreement requirements. Please research all potential utility conflicts prior to design and construction. ft BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CEDAR SPRINGS SUBDIVISION, KEVIN HOWELL ) CONSTRUCTION, ) Applicant ) Case No. PP --00-018 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL 1. The property is approximately 99.83 acres in size and is generally located at the northwest corner of Meridian and Usticic Roads on the north and west sides of the future 56 -acre City Park in Meridian, Idaho. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is the Leslie Family Trust and Moore Family Trust of Eagle. 3. The Applicant is Kevin Howell Construction of Boise, Idaho. 4. The subject property is currently zoned RUT. However, there is an application before the City Council for annexation and zoning to R-4. The zoning of R-4 is defined within the City of Meridian's Zoning and Development Ordinance Section 11-7-2. 5. The subject property is within the city limits of the City of Meridian. 6. The entire parcel is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 7. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT - CEDAR SPRINGS SUBDIVISION 9 0 manner: develop a 333 buildable single family lots and 25 common lots subdivision. 8. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that affect the consideration of this application. RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the preliminary plat as requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application, subject to the following: Adopt the Planning and Zoning Administrator and Assistant City Engineer Recommendations as follows: 1. Sanitary sewer service to this development will have to be provided by the future White Trunk Sewer. The Trunk alignment/construction is totally dependent on whether or not the subdivision layout of the future Bridgetower Subdivision on the east side of Ten Mile, north of Ustick, is satisfactory to the City, ACHD, the irrigation district and other agencies, and that the appropriate easements can be obtained. If this future phase of Bridgetower is approved (which will be reviewed at the 3-15-01 P&Z Commission hearing), the Public Works Department would proceed with surveying and easements procurement along the proposed route. Approximately 3 to 4 months of design time, followed by 6 or so months of construction is expected. The Public Works Department anticipates the trunk being completed by the end of 2001, assuming a relatively smooth approval process. This proposed development cannot be provided sanitary sewer service by gravity into any other existing city sewer system. When sewer is available, applicant will be responsible to construct sewer mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of the centerline. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT - CEDAR SPRINGS SUBDIVISION 2. Water service to this development shall be via extensions from the existing main in Ustick Road adjacent to the proposed subdivision. Applicant will be responsible to construct water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. 3. Underground pressurized irrigation must be provided to all landscape areas on site. Due to the size of the landscaped areas, primary water supply connection to the City's mains will not be allowed. Applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. Applicant shall submit a revised plat showing service locations and source for the irrigation water. The irrigation pump station for the subdivision must be located on a common lot, designated as such on the plat. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a creek or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer. 4. Applicant shall indicate whether the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by an association or the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. If the system is being proposed as a private system, plans and specifications for the irrigation system shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process, and a draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual must be submitted prior to plan approval. 5. To date, Settlers Irrigation District has not submitted a response to the preliminary plat transmittal. The plat shows what appears to be a 25 - foot wide irrigation easement along the north property line. However, there are no easement delineations or notes explaining this area. Applicant should clarify at the hearing their intentions for these three common lots, the Settlers Irrigation District conditions for use of this facility, and how fencing along the easement will be handled. 6. ACHD's Site Specific Requirements #7 and # 15 on page 7 of their revised report require conflicting street section widths for N. Venable Lane. One requires a 36 -foot section and the other requires a 40 -foot RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT - CEDAR SPRINGS SUBDIVISION 9 0 section. Applicant should clarify for the record. See revised ACHD requirements below. 7. ACHD's Site Specific Requirement #10 (pg. 7) classifies Ashton Lane from Meridian Road to Greenwich Avenue as a residential collector street with no front -on housing. The street is required to provide 64 -feet of right-of-way to Greenwich. However, the revised preliminary plat only shows the 64 -foot width to N. Byron Place and then reduces to a 58 - foot right-of-way until Ashby Drive. Applicant should clarify ACHD's condition for the record. If the collector status is required to Greenwich and front -on housing is restricted, 13 lots will not meet the minimum 80 -foot frontage requirement on the connecting local streets. These lots include: Lots I and 7, Block 11, Lot 1, Block 12, Lots 1, 18 and 19, Block 6, Lots 16 and 17, Block 14, Lot 17, Block 16, and Lots 6-9, Block 5. The Applicant must be prepared to address ACHD's requirement and how these 13 lots will comply with the minimum frontage if they can't front on Ashton Drive. See revised ACHD requirements below. 8. The micropath at the NW corner of the future park must be relocated to the west so it serves the future school site instead of the park. The park master plan does not accommodate a pedestrian access into the park at this location. The Planning and Zoning Commission further recommend that the micropath along the NW corner for pedestrian access shall be for school access only. There shall be a 10 foot paved surface with five feet on each side for landscaping on all walking paths. A fence will be provided along the northwest boundary of the subdivision. The southern edge of the subdivision shall have a fence no more than 54 inches in height. 9. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that an additional micropath be provided at the west end of Block 17, possibly between Lots 7/8 and Lots 24/25, in order to improve pedestrian accessibility from the NW portion of the subdivision to the school and park sites. 10. The Planning and Zoning Commission have some concern about how children residing on the south side of Ustick Road will access the school site at the Venable Lane intersection. While there is currently limited residential in this area, the Comp Plan designates the entire south side of Ustick as single family residential. ACHD is requiring a center turn lane at this intersection but not a signal or crosswalk to facilitate a safe RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 4 PRELIMINARY PLAT - CEDAR SPRINGS SUBDIVISION A • 0 pedestrian crossing. The Applicant and Commission should address this concern at the public hearing. See revised ACHD requirements below. 11. During two different pre -application meetings held with the Applicant and his representatives in July and August, 2000, Staff presented the possibility of designing W. Ashby Drive as a single -loaded street. One concept discussed was townhomes or other higher density housing that would front on the north side of Ashby and the south side would remain open for greater accessibility into the park site. Due to the significant cost of re -design, the Applicant was not amenable to the concept. Subsequently, Tom Kuntz of the Parks Department has also presented the concept to the Applicant's representative. In his 1-29-01 letter to Mr. Kuntz, Matthew Schultz of J -U -B Engineers stated that he felt the design as submitted has many merits and "does not warrant revision. The addition of a single -loaded street along the north boundary (of the park) will require a wholesale revision of the 100 -acre preliminary plat layout." The Parrs S& Recreation Commission are strongly in favor of having the park accessible from Ashby Drive. Representatives from the P&R Commission intend to testify at the P&Z Commission hearing on this matter. 12. Three (3) copies of a detailed landscape plan for the street buffers, open space common lots and the Lot 34, Block 1 land use buffer, including a detailed fencing plan, shall be submitted for review and approval with submittal of the final plat application. The plan must include sizes and species of trees, shrubs, berming/swale details, and all proposed ground cover/treatment. A mix of tree species is required per Ordinance 12-13. No fencing will be permitted within the required landscape buffers. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to City signature on the Final Plat. All required landscaping shall be constructed prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for the future buildings. All perimeter fencing shall be installed prior to applying for building permits. 13. The Meridian Road and Ustick Road landscape buffers shall be a minimum of 35 feet and 25 feet in width respectively, constructed beyond the required ACHD right-of-way and constructed by the developer as a condition of the plat. The landscape buffers shall be placed in common separate lots as shown. Fencing is not to encroach RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT - CEDAR SPRINGS SUBDIVISION 0 0 upon these buffers. 14. Six -foot -high, solid, perimeter fencing shall be required along the full northern and western boundaries of the subdivision, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Director. Fencing adjacent to the future City park should be determined in coordination with the Parlcs & Recreation Department. Submit detailed fencing plans for review and approval with submittal of the Final Plat. All required fencing is to be in place prior to issuance of building permits. A letter of credit or cash will be required for these fences prior to signature on the final plat. 15. Notes #3 and #8 refer to "Amherst" Subdivision. Correct to read "Cedar Springs." 16. Submit letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names with the final plat application. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 17. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 18. Provide five -foot -wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance 12- 5-2.K. 19. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 20. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project shall be tiled per City Ordinance No. 12-4-13, except as provided for under site specific requirements. The ditches to be piped should be shown on the site plans. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Worlcs Department. 21. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 22. Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 6 PRELIMINARY PLAT - CEDAR SPRINGS SUBDIVISION common landscape areas on the site. 23. Two -hundred -fifty 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. 24. Indicate on the final plat map any FEMA Flood Plains affecting the area being platted, and detail plans for reducing or eliminating the boundary. 25. Assessment fees for water and sewer service will be determined during the building plan review process. Adopt the Recommendations of the Ada County Highway District (ACRD) submitted in revised form and received February 22, 2001, as follows: 26. Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Meridian Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. 27. Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Ustick Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. 28. Locate any existing or proposed irrigation facilities on Ustick Road and Meridian Road outside of the new right-of-way. 29. The two main entrances on Meridian Road located 270 -feet north of the south property line, and 300 -feet south of the north property line, are approved with this application. The entrances shall be designed with two outbound lanes and one inbound lane on either side of a center median, within 64 -feet of right-of-way. The median shall be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. 30. Construct center turn lanes on Meridian Road for the main entrance intersections. The turn lanes shall be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lanes with District staff. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 7 PRELIMINARY PLAT - CEDAR SPRINGS SUBDIVISION �► M 31. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Meridian Road abutting the entire parcel, located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way. Coordinate the location and elevation of the sidewalk with District staff. 32. Construct a center turn lane on Usticic Road for the main entrance intersection. The turn lane shall be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 33. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Usticic Road abutting the entire parcel, located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way. Coordinate the location and elevation of the sidewalk with District staff. 34. Construct a segment of Ashton Drive from Meridian Road to Ashby Drive as a residential collector street with no front -on housing. Construct the street as a 36 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 - foot wide concrete sidewalks within 58 -feet of right-of-way. Parking shall be prohibited on this street segment. Coordinate the signage plan with District staff. The access restrictions for this street segment shall be stated on the final plat. 35. Construct the segment of Ashby Drive from Meridian Road to the west property line of the office/commercial lot as a 40 -foot street section within 58 -feet of right-of-way. Parking shall be prohibited on this segment of Ashby Drive. Coordinate the signage plan with District staff. The access restrictions for this street segment shall be stated on the final plat. 36. Construct three stub streets to the north, located as proposed: • Between Lot 1, Block 15 and Lot 11, Block 18 • Between Lot 11, Block 15 and Lot 1, Block 13 • Between Lot 8, Block 13 and Lot 2, Block 10 Install signs at the termini of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUThRE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub streets with District staff. 37. Construct Ashton Lane to the west property line, as proposed. Install a RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 8 PRELIMINARY PLAT - CEDAR SPRINGS SUBDIVISION sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. 38. One driveway on Ashby Drive shall be approved for the proposed office/commercial lot. The driveway shall be located a minimum of 100 - feet west of Meridian Road and constructed 24 to 30 -feet wide. ACHD will review the office/commercial site as a separate application in the future. 39. One driveway on Venable Lane shall be approved for the proposed office/commercial/multi-family lot. Driveways shall be located a minimum of 100 -feet north of Usticic Road and constructed 24 to 30 - feet wide. ACHD will review the office/multi-family site as a separate application in the future. 40. Construct Venable Lane at the west property line from Usticic Road to the north property line of the school lot as one half of a 40 -foot street section plus 12 -feet of additional pavement, with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk within 42 -feet of right-of-way. To the north of the school site, construct Venable Lane one half of a 36 -foot street section plus 12 -feet of additional pavement within 42 -feet of right-of- way. 41. ACHD will review the school site as a separate application in the future. 42. Any proposed landscape islands/medians within the public right-of-way dedicated by this plat shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this should be required on the final plat. 43. Unless otherwise specified, construct all public roads within the subdivision as 36 -foot street sections with curb, gutter, and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of-way. 44. The public streets within the subdivision shall be located to align or offset a minimum of 125-feet(centerline to centerline). 45. The turnarounds shall be constructed to provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet. 46. Provide a $30,000 deposit to the Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund for RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 9 PRELIMINARY PLAT - CEDAR SPRINGS SUBDIVISION 0 the cost of one-quarter of a traffic signal at the intersection of Usticic Road and Meridian Road. 47. Other than the proposed public streets, direct lot or parcel access to Usticic Road and Meridian Road is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. Adopt the Recommendations of the Central District Health Department as follows: 48. The Applicant's central sewage and central water plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality. 49. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 50. Stormwater shall be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality. 51. The Engineers and architects involved with the design of the subject project shall obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that prevents groundwater and surface water degradation. ZAWork\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Recommendations\PP018CedarSprings.wpd RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 10 PRELIMINARY PLAT - CEDAR SPRINGS SUBDIVISION 9 0 WHITE PETERSON WHITE, PETERSON, MORROW, GIGRAY, ROSSMAN, NYE & ROSSMAN, P.A. KEVIN E. DEVILS CHRISTOPHER S. NYE JULIE KLEIN Ftsc"ER PHILIP A. PFIERSON Wm. F. GIGRAY, III ERIC S. RossMAN BRENr J. JOHNSON TODD A. ROSSMAN D. SAMUEL JOHNSON DAVID M. SwARTLEY LARRY D. MOORE TERRENCE R WFETE** WILLIAM A. MORROW NICHOLAS L. WOLLEN WILLIAM F. NICHOLS* *Also admitted in OR -'� ALSO admired In To: Staff Applicant Affected Property Owner(s) Re: Application Case No. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 EAST CARLTON AVE., SUITE 31 POST OFFICE Box1150 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150 TEL (208)288-2499 FAX (208) 288*2501 E-MAIL:IbwPPMG.COM April 2, 2001 PP -00-018 NAMPA OFFICE 5700 6 FRANKLIN RD.. sm 200 NAMPA. IDAHO 83687-8402 TEL. (208) 466-9272 FAX (208) 4664405 PLEASE REPLY TO MERIDIAN OFFICE RECEIVED APR - 2 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Staff, Applicant and/or Affected Property Owner(s): Please note that these Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be presented to the 'City Council at the public hearing on the above referenced matter by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Due to the volume of matters which the City Council must decide, and to insure your position is understood and clear, it is important to have a consistent format by which matters are presented at the public hearings before the City Council. The City Council strongly recommends: That you take time to carefully review the Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and be prepared to state your position on this application by addressing the Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission; and 2. That you carefully complete (be sure it is le 'ble) the Position Statement if You disagree with the Findings and�ecommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Position Statement form for this application is available at the City Clerk's office. It is recommended that you pprepare a Position Statement and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to the hearing, if possible. If that is notpossible, please present your Position Statement to the City Council at the hearing, along with eight (8) copies. The coppies will be Cresented to the Mayor, Council, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Public WorZcs and the ity Attorney. If you are a part of a group, it is strongly recommended that one Position Statement be filled out for the group, which can be signed by the representative for the group. Very truly yours, City Attorney's Office Iy/ �— J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS - PLANNERS 250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709-0944 FAX: 208/323-9336 208/376-7330 TELECOMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL TO: _ Will Berg, City Clerk COMPANY: City of Meridian FAX NUMBER: 887-4813 FROM: Matt Schultz SUBJECT: Date: 4/12/01 Time: Pages (including this page): 2 J -U -B Project No. If you do not receive all of the pages, please call 208/376-7330, or notify by FAX: 208/323-9336. APR 12 '01 11 50 208 323 9336 PAGE.01 • 0 April 13, 2001 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 17, 2001 APPLICANT J -U -B Engineers ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval for 268 building lots and 27 other lots on 99.83 acres for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision - n/o Ustick Road and w/o Meridian Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: Contacted: Nancy Taylor COMMENTS See P & Z Item Packet See attached Recommendations Date: 4/13/01 Phone: 376-7330 Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. AMeridian Parks & Recreation Memo To: Mayor Corrie and Council From Tom Kuntz I < V CC: Shari Stiles, P&R Commission Date: 04/13/2001 Re: Cedar Springs — Single loaded street RECEIVED APR 13 2001 CI'T'Y OF MZERIDIArt The Parks and Recreation Commission and staff do not agree with the Planning and Zoning Commissions approval of the Cedar Springs Subdivision without resolving the single loaded street issue. Our recommendation on this issue was outlined in a memo dated February/ 14, 2001, and a follow up memo was distributed on March 14, 2001 outlining our attempt to reach a compromise with the developer. (see March 14th memo attached) Staff and commission consider it essential that a single loaded street (no yard backing up to the park) be required on the southern boundary of the Cedar Springs Subdivision. The single loaded street will provide access and visibility into the secluded back comer of the 58 Acre park for our Police Officers. The skate park is a good example of the current emphasis the Council has placed on safety related to visibility into parks. This is the first park of this size to be developed in Meridian and we appreciate your support in resolving this issue. Memo RECEIVED A R 13 2UO1 CITY OF MERIDiA�i To: Planning and Zoning Commission, Mayor Corrie, City Council, Parks and Recreation Commission From: Tom Kuntz Date: 03-14-01 Re: Negotiation of single loaded street in Cedar Springs Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction At the Feb__ nazr 15 Planning and Zoning meeting, the Commission recommended the City Parks Department meet with the developer of Cedar Springs Subdivision to resolve the single loaded street issue. On February 22, the Parks staff met with representatives from JUB and the developer to discuss possible solutions to the street issue. At the conclusion of the meeting, two options were left on the table without a viable compromise. The Parks Staff recommends the developer combine eight to ten existing lots into one common lot along the northwest park boundary (see attachment A). This common lot would help the developer meet the 5% open space requirement, and address the Parks Department's concerns about visibility and safety in the park. The developer did not support this recommendation due to traffic concerns. The Parks staff believes the developers concerns about increased traffic could be mitigated by prohibiting on street parking on the south side of Alexis Drive. In exchange for a single loaded street, the developer offered to construct a road from the North Venable Lane into the northwest comer of the park. The Paris staff does not support this option for three reasons; (1) the building lots on Alexis Drive would be bordered on two sides by a street or parking lot (attachment b). This is prohibited by City Ordinance #12-4-5 (which states all blocks shall be two-tier, i.e. no double frontages). (2) This would invite more traffic than the single loaded street. (3) It would not meet the original purpose of a single loaded street which was to provide law enforcement the opportunity to perform `drive by views' from an adjacent public street into the northwest comer of the park. * Page 1 The developer declined— to resolve this issue. Without an acceptable compromise to the single loaded street issue, the Paries and Recreation staff recommends denial of the Cedar Springs subdivision application for annexation and preliminary plat. 0 Page 2 N301S37d SON t j 1A Win 1 • Zai � - � I; �;i i I•' is li . i •i •t ., w7. 171 w • I 71 •� n I OL • � 't• •i wl wt ' � '` 1 � w � �Z I •� •� �•+ i I zw j � i A � :1 • i i< I — • i • iE' ilii .o � �� w ^ Vw w li �—��■ i l� i' w i w w I • w w w ir all �[ �i� _i • ,'ii'i ,moi • �� I 1 117 •i •t ■t o, i • !� �-i . i �'.. els s i �� "11W aq NOfS?,KMSMWQ3J1N34IS3i! SflMtldS .0 �» •,,,• �� t f �a<�¢ f• 6'� i r• �, tt � ;{ �,}�# ilii !!,� z j 1 Y s I w• II� .� A I =Q i • ■ � � / � � • , ' •. it �]I s � ' / .ter •` �/ - , .� � .� 2. /� • i l ■ l , .tel i l • '� ,� I zt 71 all l r J w I1� , - i • 11 i ,-,i.• �. i _ Arm Leine__-- � ��-i.-i ;� i . ii � i I .moi .moi. ice• —a+— �C� � I .� . .0 Akvft Jew A i 1 7171 7 i 8-1 6 1 A I w i■ i i ' 3Auuw _ ' �, I "i l'� a lrJ-U-B-1 April 12, 2001 Will Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Dear Mr. Berg: .J -U -B ENGINEERS, Mc. ' NGINEERS • SURVEYORS - PLANNERS Regional Office 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709-0944 208-376-7330 Fax: 208-323-9336 RECEIVED APR 12 2001 CITY OF MERID:[AN Cedar Springs Residential Subdivision Annexation and Preliminary Plat Applications On behalf of my client, Kevin Howell Development, we are requesting a continuance for the annexation and preliminary plat applications scheduled at Meridian City Council on April 17, 2001. We Anll require time to discuss some issues recently brought to our attention by staff. Please continue these items to the June 5, 2001 City Council meeting. Contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc:. r Matthew B. Schultz, P. . Project Engineer MBS:Ihc cc: Kevin Howell, Kevin Howell Development f:\pr0jects\11644\admin\continue request.doc APR 12 '01 11:50 �:)Aca z")z gzZa oonc n-) April 12, 2001 Wilt Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Dear Mr. Berg: J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. RECEIVED ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS • PLANNERS APR 13 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN Regional Office 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709-0944 208-376-7330 Fax: 208-323-9336 Cedar Springs Residential Subdivision Annexation and Preliminary Plat Appiications On behalf of my client, Kevin Howell Development, we are requesting a continuance for the annexation and preliminary plat applications scheduled at Meridian City Council on April 17, 2001. We will require time to discuss some issues recently brought to our attention by staff. Please continue these items to the June 5, 2001 City Council meeting. Contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. Matthew B. Schultz, U, . Project Engineer MBS:lhc cc: Kevin Howell, Kevin Howell Development fApr0jects\11644\admin\continue request.doc MAYOR so Robert D. Corrie HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY ft Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT A X208) 288-2499 • Fax 788-2501 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS 'CITY OF MERIDWC 9D C WORKS B DEPARTbtENT Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO (203) 887-2211 • Fax 387-1297 Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83643 _ OSI) Tammy deWeerd (308) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 _t �L PLANNING AND ZONING Cherie McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 CITY (- M E }� I I �ARTMENT CITY CLERK b P*18( 'Fax 388-6351 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: October 2, 2000 Transmittal Date: i ('ll t) Hearing Date: October 10, 2000 File No.: PP -00-018 Request: Preliminary Plat of 333 building lots and 25 other lots on 99.83 acres for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision By: Kevin Howell Location of Property or Project Sally Norton, P/Z Bill Nary, P/Z Thomas Barbeiro, P/Z Richard Hatcher, P/7_ Keith Borup, P/Z Robert Corrie, Mayor Ron Anderson, C/C Tammy deWeerd, CIC Keith Bird, C/C Cherie McCandless, C/C Water Department Sewer Department Sanitary Service northwest of Meridian Road and Ustick Roads Building Department Your Concise Remarks: Fire Department /4 co Yv\e Police Department 1_ City Attorney &Q;q S W i City Engineer 4ti D 27 City Planner 'p - Parks Department (Residential Applications niy) Gen - 26 PP/FP/PFP - 30 AZ - 27 Meridian School District Meridian Post Office (FP/PP) Ada County Highway District Community Planning Assoc. Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP) U.S. West (FPI'PP) Intermountain Gas (FP/PP) Ada County (Annexation) Idaho Transportation Department L.5 4 s iu L la. to _?,3,e- a d N 3-fr_ 4 c -C /,`t m ,2 S t N S ax_ .f/S f y/1 -r k -r l int" iss S-tA'- •cam f, s MAYOR Robert D. Corric CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Ron Anderson Keith Bird Tammy dcWccrd Cherie McCandlcss • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) SSS -4433 - F•ax (208) 887-1813 Cay Clcrk Office Fax (208) 888-4213 00, SZ dEs LEGAL DEPARTMENT (203)238-2499 -Fax 238.2501 PUBLIC CORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 857.2211 • Fax S81-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 384-5533 - Fax 888.6854 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: October 2, 2000 Transmittal Date: p -. j 9(X�() Hearing Date: October 10, 2000 File No.: PP -00-018 Request: Preliminary Plat of 333 building lots and 25 other lots on 99.83 acres for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision By: Kevin Howell Location of Property or Project: northwest of Meridian Road and Ustick Roads Sally Norton, P/Z Bill Nary, P/Z Thomas Barbeiro, P/Z Richard Hatcher, P/Z Keith Borup, P/Z Robert Corrie, Mayor Ron Anderson, C/C Tammy deWeerd, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Cherie McCandless, CIC Water Department Sewer Department Sanitary Service Building Department Fire Department Police Department City Attorney City Engineer City Planner Parks Department (Reside, Gen - 26 PPIFPIPFP - 30 AL - 27 Meridian School District Meridian Post Office (FP/PP) Ada County Highway District Community Planning Assoc. Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irhg. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP) U.S. West (FP/PP) Intermountain Gas (FP/PP) Ada County (Annexation) Idaho Transportation Department iCENTRAL DISTRICT CEN L DISTRICT HEALTH DIORTMENT • X1HEALTH Environmental Health Division DEPARTMENT T?B lyF,Tx7ED Rezone # E = 2 6 %GCC Conditi nal Use #Cj'j'y �F y RTPTA Preliminary Final / Short Plat Return to: ❑ Boise ❑ Eagle ❑ Garden City Meridian ❑ Kuna ❑ ACZ ❑ Star ❑ 1. We have No Objections to this Proposal. ❑ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. ❑ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ❑ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ❑ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ❑ high seasonal ground water ❑ waste flow characteristics ❑ or bedrock from original grade ❑ other ❑ 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or surface waters. ❑ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. A8'. After writtgn,,approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: Central sewage ❑ community sewage system ❑ community water well ❑ interim sewage Acentral 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 Evironmental Duality: central sewage ❑ community sewage system Z) community water ❑ sewage dry lines central water 10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ❑ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ❑ 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ❑ food establishment ❑ swimming pools or spas ❑ child care center ❑ beverage establishment ❑ grocery store 14.1 /� �s� � � i �y � ✓ � � � 7 Date: /2Z. / CJ G �H-riv�'j4Ti��vS Reviewed By:���� - Review Sheet CENTRAL • R !' • • DISTRICT ;i't"HEALTH DEPARTMENT MAIN OFFICE • 707N.ARNISTRGNGPI. • 'KISE. 108370d-0825-(208)375•:;ii ro prevent and treat disease and disability; to protrrote ltealtlty tifestyles; and to protect and prorrrote the health card quality of orrr wn-rrorrrrtent STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RECON[MENDATXONS it is recommended that storm water be pre-treated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to ground water and surface water quality. The engineers and architects involved with the design of this project should obtain current best management practices for storm water disposal and design a storm water management system that is Manuals that could preventing groundwater and surface water degradation be used for guidance are: State of Idaho Catalog of Stormwater Best Management Practices For Idaho Cities and Counties. Prepared by the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, July 1997. Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidebook. Prepared by City of Boise Public Works Department, January 1997. Serving Valley, Elmore, Boise, and Ada Counties Ada / Boise County OffiCe Ada -WIC Satellite Office Elmore County Office volley County Office 7017 NI Armsrong PI. 1506 RCcerr St. 520 E. 31M S,reer?l. 703 N. I,t 5rr=_: 30ae. 10 837G4 Boise. 10 83705 Mountain Home, 10 43647 PO' Sox I::48 MCCall. 10 :nvv0. F.ecfm: 327-7490 Ph, 334-3355 Enviro. Heclrh: W-7225 Ph. 634-719,1 F ,,mih/ Plcnrnng: 327.7400 PAX: 334.3355 Family Health: 587.4407 FAX 634.217,1 m^mun zahons: 327.7450 wIC: 581.4400 3,--r,Or Nurnbon: 327.7460 FAX: 587.3521 wiC :127.7,188 I . 0 MAYOR HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Robert D. Come A Good Place to Live �■� LEGAL DEPARTMENT CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MERIDIAN (Zo$) S 8-r50l MEMBERS PUBLICWORKS Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 387-2211 - Fax 887.1297 Tammy deWeerd (208) 888-4433 - Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING Cherie McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 - Fax 888-6854 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: October 2, 2000 Transmittal Date:`�� 0 f7 Hearing Date: October 1 Q, 2000 File No.: PP -00-018 Request: Preliminary Plat of 333 building lots and 25 other lots on 99.83 acres for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision By: Kevin Howell Location of Property or Project: northwest of Meridian Road and Ustick Roads Sally Norton. P/Z Bill Nary, P/Z Thomas Barbeiro, P/Z Richard Hatcher, PIZ Keith Borup, P/Z Robert Corrie, Mayor Ron Anderson, C/C Tammy deWeerd, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Cherie McCandless, C/C Water Department Sewer Department Sanitary Service Building Department Fire Department _ Police Department City Attorney City Engineer Meridian School District Meridian Post Office (FP/PP) Ada County Highway District Community Planning Assoc. Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP) U.S. West (FP/PP) Intermountain Gas (FP/PP) Ada County (Annexation) Idaho Transportation Department City Planner Paries Department (Residential Applications only) Gen • 18 PP/FPIPFP - 30 AZ . ZT SEP 29 '00 15:2? REc��D S E P 2 9 2000 CITY OF NIER,IDIAN 2oeeeSS052 PAGE.05 SUPERINTENDENT Christine H. Donnell September 22, 2000 0 • w Joint School District No. 2 911 Meridian Street • Meridian, Idaho 83642 • (208) 888-6701 • Fax (208) 888-6700 City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Councilmen: SEP 2 6 2000 CITY OF MiFRIDUN Enclosed for your review is general information relative to schools located in the proposed project area. If you have any questions, please contact Wendel Bigham at 888-6701. Reference: Cedar Springs Subdivision Elementary School: Andrus Elementary School Middle School: Meridian Middle School High School: Eagle High School Comments and/or Recommendations: Andrus Elementary School is over capacity. The school district is currently busing students from new developments to schools outside Andrus Elementary's attendance boundary. Eagle Middle School is at capacity. Eagle High School is at capacity. We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house one hundred thirteen (113) elementary aged children, eighty-one (81) middle school aged children, and seventy-six (76) senior high aged students. The Meridian School District is not opposed to growth in our district, however this subdivision will cause increased overcrowding in all three schools. Before we could support this subdivision, we would need land dedicated to the district or at least made available at a minimum price for a school site in this area. The site would need water and sewer service available. Sincerely, Wendel Bigham, Supervisor of Facilities and Construction • 26 September 2000 Matthew B. Schultz J -U -B Engineers, Inc. 250 S. Beechwood Avenue Boise, ID 83709 • 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 RE: Land Use Change Application — Cedar Springs Subdivision �Z -00 - 0 l9l AP - 00-01 g Dear Mr. Schultz: Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation District for its review on the above -referenced development. If this development is under a "rush" to be finalized, I would recommend that you submit a cashiers check, money order or cash as payment of the fees in order to speed the process up. If you submit a company or personal check, it must clear the bank before processing the application. Should this development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be owned, operated and maintained by the Irrigation District, I strongly urge you to coordinate with John P. Anderson, Water Superintendent for the Irrigation District, concerning the installation of the pressure system. Enclosed is a questionnaire that you must fill out and return in order to initiate the process of contractual agreements between the owner or developer and the Irrigation District for the ownership, operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call on me at the District's office, or John P. Anderson, at the District's shop. Sincerely, ,(Q C aA-e,— Donna N. Moore, Assistant Secretary/Treasurer cc: File Water Superintendent Kevin Howell Development - Leslie Family Trust/Moore Family Trust City of Meridian enc. APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 eCEP*VrED SEP 2 9 2,900 CITY OF :MERIDIAN 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 Phones: Area Code 208 September 25, 2000 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Will Berg, City Clerk Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 Re: AZ -00-019 / PP -00-018 Proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision Dear Commissioners: The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires that a Land Use Change/Site Development application be filed for review prior to final platting. Contact Donna Moore at 466-7861 for further information. The District has no comment regarding the annexation and zoning on the proposed project. 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. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Sincerely, �` Bilon, Asst. Water Superintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT Cc: File — Shop File - Office Water Superintendent APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 0 October 6, 2000 • "111 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 10, 2000 APPLICANT Kevin Howell ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 333 building lots and 25 other lots on 99.33 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision - NW of Meridian Road and Ustick Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SEWER DEPARTMENT ADA, COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: See Attached COMMENTS la See attached comments No Comments See attached No Remarks See attached No Comment See attached Contacted: AlC� � �/�! Date: %//D Phone: 37� r 7?, Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 100 too -----I I--� - _- ----------i -- i ___ oo--------------- 11930 � v� 1 T 900 I I I O I 4 w_ASI-iBY STREET p I 1760 INTERNAL ADT CEDAR SPRINGS PREDICTIONS RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION FIGURE 4 r U-B,k ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS - PLANNERS October 10, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Meridian 200 E. Carlton, Suite 400 Meridian, 10 83642 i Ak'. ENG 40 25 1 _ (o iCE'VED ocl 10 ?Mn. City of Vkr than City C RE: Cedar Springs Subdivision - AZ-00-019/PP-00-018 Members of the Commission: On behalf of our client Kevin Howell, we request that the Commission table the above noted applications to the November 14, 2000 public hearing. By that time the Ada County Highway District will have taken an action on the application and any required changes to the proposed preliminary plat will be a matter of the public record. Thank you in advance for your consideration and attention to this matter. Sincerely, J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. aggx) Daren Fluke, AICP Planning Associate - cc: Gary A Lee, P. E. / L. S Kevin Howell OCT 10 '00 12:31 208 323 9336 PAGE.02 We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATIONS SUMMARY The subject applications propose to annex and plat approximately 100 acres consisting of 333 single-family buildable lots and 25 common lots at a gross density of 3.34 dwelling units per acre. The subdivision would surround the future 56 -acre City park at the northwest corner of Meridian/Ustick on the north and west sides. The preliminary plat proposes two new access roads onto Meridian Road and one new access road onto Ustick Road. A pre -application meeting was held with the applicant and his representatives on 7/18/00, wherein it was stressed that the proposed development needed to complement the park and provide additional amenities (i.e., pathways, etc.), that higher densities were desirable adjacent to the park, and that the City would need to make a determination that annexation of their development is in the best interest of the City. The applicant proposes two pedestrian/bicycle micropath connections from the subdivision to the park, one on the north side of the park and one on the west. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES North — Agricultural land and use, zoned RUT (Ada County) South — Existing agricultural; proposed City Park, zoned Limited Office (Meridian). East — Agricultural land and use, zoned RUT (Ada County) West — Rural residential homes on parcels ranging from 4-10 acres in size, zoned RUT (Ada County) AZ -00-019, PP -00-018 Cedar Springs.az.pp HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY ` LLI.YOR A Good Place to Live i LEGAL DEP_1 M,fEN] Robert D. Corrie CITY OF MERIDIAN (308) 288-3499 • Fax .x,88 -?501 CM COUNCIL btFMBERS 33 EAST IDAHO PUBLIC "G'ORIS BCJILDNG DEPARTititENT Ronudeon As (208) 887-2211 - Fax 887-1297 Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83612 Taming deWeerd (308) 888-4433 - FAX (208) 887-4813 PLANK NG AND ZONING City Gerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARni IEN Qviie NkCandless (308) 88.1-5533 - FAX 888-6854 MEMORANDUM: October 6, 2000 RECEIVE' To: Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer Brad Hawkins Planner /��� CITY OF MERIDIAN -Clark, C I TY CLERK OFFICE Re: CEDAR SPRINGS SUBDIVISION - Request for Annexation and Zoning of 100.71 Acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 for Cedar Springs Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction (File #AZ -00- 019) - Request for Preliminary Plat of 99.83 Acres for 358 Lots by Kevin Howell Construction for a Residential Subdivision in a Proposed R-4 Zone (File #PP -00- 018) We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATIONS SUMMARY The subject applications propose to annex and plat approximately 100 acres consisting of 333 single-family buildable lots and 25 common lots at a gross density of 3.34 dwelling units per acre. The subdivision would surround the future 56 -acre City park at the northwest corner of Meridian/Ustick on the north and west sides. The preliminary plat proposes two new access roads onto Meridian Road and one new access road onto Ustick Road. A pre -application meeting was held with the applicant and his representatives on 7/18/00, wherein it was stressed that the proposed development needed to complement the park and provide additional amenities (i.e., pathways, etc.), that higher densities were desirable adjacent to the park, and that the City would need to make a determination that annexation of their development is in the best interest of the City. The applicant proposes two pedestrian/bicycle micropath connections from the subdivision to the park, one on the north side of the park and one on the west. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES North — Agricultural land and use, zoned RUT (Ada County) South — Existing agricultural; proposed City Park, zoned Limited Office (Meridian). East — Agricultural land and use, zoned RUT (Ada County) West — Rural residential homes on parcels ranging from 4-10 acres in size, zoned RUT (Ada County) AZ -00-019, PP -00-018 Cedar Springs.az.pp Mayor, Council and PO 40 October 6, 2000 Page 2 CURRENT OWNERS OF RECORD The Leslie Family Trust and the Moore Family Trust are the current property owners and have submitted consent for both applications. ANNEXATION AND ZONING GENERAL COMMENTS Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, states that both the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment." In other words, there must be ample evidence supporting the necessity for the City to expand its annexed area before the Commission and/or Council approves an annexation request. Specifically, Ordinance 11-15-11 lists the following questions (shown in bold) that must be adequately answered for each property. Staffs analysis of each required finding is below each item (shown in italics): A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; There are several Comprehensive Plan policies that both support and do not support this proposed annexation. Since the preliminary plat was submitted with the annexation, Staff considered both the annexation request and the plat together in this analysis. Comprehensive Plan policies that support the annexation/plat are: • The subject property is designated as Single Family Residential on the Land Use Map of the current Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant is requesting an R-4 zone, which complies with the single family designation. • "Encourage new development... of higher -density development within the Old Town area and lower -density development in outlying areas. " (Land Use Chapter, 1.4I]) • "Encourage residential developments to provide adequate easements for future pathways. "(Transportation Chapter, 1.919 • "Link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities. " (Parks Chapter, 3.1. e) • "Through subdivision review, annexation and zoning, emphasize the establishment of connecting trails and open space networks. " (Parks Chapter, 3.4&9 • "Encourage landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors. " (Community Design Chapter, 4.4U) Comprehensive Plan policies that do not support the annexation/plat are: • "School sites should be reserved for future acquisition in advance of development of planned land use. Approval of subdivision plats may be withheld if adequate school facilities or sites are not available to serve the proposed subdivision. " (Schools Chapter, 3.3) AZ -00-019, PP -00-018 Cedar Springs.az.pp Mayor, Council and P&Z October 6, 2000 Page 3 • "Support a variety of residential categories ... for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities. " (Land Use Chapter, 2.1 Q • "Although it is recognized that urbanized development does exist within the rural areas of the Area of City Impact, the rural lands should be kept in agricultural production as long as possible until urban services (municipal sewer and water facilities and other essential services) can be provided" (Land Use Chapter, 6.3). • "All development in the USPA shall be required to connect to the municipal sewer system. " (Public Services Chapter, 5.5) • "Police protection within the city limits ... should be maintained according to the recommended service ratio of 1.6 to 1.8 police officers per 1,000 persons. " (Public Services Chapter, 6.8) • "Maintain a five-minute or less response time goal to all fire, police, and medical emergencies within the City. " (Public Service Chapter, 6.9U) • "The City of Meridian intends to provide a wide diversity of housing types and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development. " (Housing Chapter, 1.1) • "Housing proposals shall be phased with ... public service and facility plans, which will maximize benefits to the residents, minimize conflicts and provide a tie-in between new residential areas and service needs. " (Housing Chapter, 1.6) • "Residential developments shall be phased in accordance with their connection to the municipal sewer system. " (Housing Chapter, 1.7) • "High-density development, where possible, should be located near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, and near major access thoroughfares. " (Housing Chapter, 1.19) B. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area; The Parks Department has completed a master plan for the 56 -acre park southeast of the subject parcels, so the City anticipates an imminent change of use in this general vicinity from the existing dominant agricultural uses. Rezoning of land in this area is certainly feasible. A residential zone adjacent to the park is also feasible. However, Staff feel the last Housing policy cited above (1.19) which encourages higher density housing immediately adjacent to open spaces would be more suitable than the proposed single family homes that put their rear lots up to the park with very limited access into the park C. Will the proposed uses 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 not change the essential character of the same area; AZ -00-019, PP -00-018 Cedar Springs.az.pp 0 Mayor, Council and P October 6, 2000 Page 4 Staff recognizes that the "essential character of the area" will change in the near future and that the change will involve some form of residential development. As noted above and as noted by the Applicant, housing is certainly compatible with the park use. D. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; Single family housing would not be hazardous or disturbing to the future park users or to the rural residences to the west. The only possible disturbance may be with the agricultural uses to the north, which could be adequately addressed through the Right -to - Farm clause in Idaho State Code. E. Will the area 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 zoning amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services; Sewer Facilities: The Public Facilities Plan shows that the proposed subdivision would be sewered via the new White Drain Trunk, which is being designed at this time. The Trunk alignment is totally dependent on whether or not the subdivision layout of the future Bridgetower Subdivision on the east side of Ten Mile, north of Ustick, is satisfactory to the City, ACRD, the irrigation district and other agencies. If this future phase of Bridgetower is approved (which has not even been submitted to the City yet), the Public Works Department would probably proceed with surveying and easements along the proposed route. They would probably require 3 to 4 months of design time followed by 6 or so months of construction. The Public Works Department anticipates the trunk being completed by the end of 2001, assuming a relatively smooth approval process. Since the Bridgetower Subdivision layout is so critical to the future White Trunk, and given the City has not received a formal application on the subdivision yet, Staff feels it is pre- mature to annex the proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision until the White Trunk alignment is better known and easements have been obtained by the City. None of the proposed subdivision can be sewered into existing sewer. All of it, along with the park, must be sewered to the White Trunk. School Facilities: The Generalized Land Use Map in the 1993 Comprehensive Plan shows a school symbol on the parcel immediately west of the subject parcel. Staff's interpretation of the symbols for parks and schools on the map has been they should ultimately be located somewhere in the vicinity in order to serve a square mile radius. In other words, they serve as indicators/reminders to begin discussions and/or negotiations for specific school sites in that Section and general area when the population growth demands it. AZ -00-019, PP -00-018 Cedar Springs.az pp Mayor, Council and P&Z October 6, 2000 Page 5 Policy 3.3, pg. 14, of the School Facilities Chapter states, "School sites should be reserved for future acquisition in advance of development of planned land use. Approval of subdivision plats may be withheld if adequate school facilities or sites are not available to serve the proposed subdivision. " In their September 22, 2000 comment letter regarding Cedar Springs Subdivision, Wendel Bigham of the School District states that Andrus Elementary School is over capacity and both Meridian Middle School and Eagle High School are at capacity. He also states that before the District could support this subdivision, they would need land dedicated or made available to the District. To Staff's understanding, the Applicant has not negotiated such agreements with the School District. The District's estimate is that, at build -out, Cedar Springs would add approximately 270 total students to the district's schools. Some evidence should be presented to the City that the Applicant and the District have some agreements in place to address this issue. Roadway Capacity: Per the Applicant's traffic study, by 2005 (the project's horizon year), this subdivision added to projected growth in the area is estimated to deteriorate the intersection at Meridian Ustick Roads to a Level of Service "E. " With growth only (not considering the subdivision), the LOS is projected to be "C. " Neither Meridian Road or Ustick Road are in the ACHD Five-year Work Program for improvements or widening. Also, neither arterial is listed in the draft Destination 2020 Plan for widening through the year 2020. Also, the traffic study uses an annual growth rate of 3.36%. However, the City's comprehensive plan consultant (Dale Rosebrock) estimates Meridian's annual growth rate over the next 5 years to be approximately 5.1 %. Given the pending construction of the White Drain trunk line, Staff feels the 3.36% figure is probably low and, therefore, even more traffic could be seen along the arterials north of Ustick, between Ten Mile and Locust Grove. Fire and Emergency Medical Services: Policy 6.9U, pg. 42, of the Public Services Chapter, states "Maintain a five-minute or less response time goal to all fire, police, and medical emergencies within the City. " Staff questions if this goal can be achieved for paramedics originating from St. Luke's Hospital or for the Fire Department until the Fire Department until the new substation on Ten Mile Road is constructed. F. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; The proposed subdivision would certainly not. create any more additional requirements or demands to the City than other residential uses. The primary question is one of timing. Until the White Drain Trunk is constructed, sanitary sewer service is not available for this development. G. Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; AZ -00-019, PP -00-018 Cedar Springs.az pp Mayor, Council and P October 6, 2000 Page 6 The additional traffic contributed by a 333 -house subdivision would certainly add to the adjacent roadway's congestion. However, there would also be a potential reduction in daily trips for recreation purposes given the close proximity of the City park It would not likely be any more "excessive" than other residential uses or densities. H. Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; Until the City receives a report from ACHD, this finding is difficult to calculate. The ACHD Commission's hearing date on Cedar Springs has, of this report, not been scheduled. Staff recommends any decision on this application be tabled until a final ACHD report is available. I. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance; and None foreseeable. J. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. (Ord. 592,11-17-1992) As noted above, Housing Diversity and Affordability are two issues addressed consistently in the Comprehensive Plan. The average lot size in the proposed subdivision is 8,961 sf., which is a typical average lot size in other R-4 zoned subdivisions in Meridian. Ashford Greens is 9,105 sf. The average lot size in Turnberry Subdivision is 8,668 sf.. The average proposed lot size in Autumn Faire is 9,132 sf. The dominant zoning (greater than 90%) in Sections 1, 2 and 3 of Township 3N, Range 1 W is R4 (minimum 8, 000 sf. lot sizes). Also, the value range of the houses in Cedar Springs is $125, 000 to $175, 000, which is within the general range of single family housing stock in Meridian. Staff does not believe the goals of housing diversity and providing housing that meets the needs of all economic levels would be achieved through annexation of this parcel, especially with a straight R-4 zone. Greater choices between housing types (i.e. offering a mix of duplexes, townhomes and single family) is necessary, especially in this northern area of the City. Additionally, the proposed development does not offer any features to complement the future City park and does not comply with the proposed landscape ordinance, which will require that a minimum of five percent of the gross land area be designated as open space. As the applicant is requesting annexation, the City is free to impose additional standards as a condition of annexation. Annexation Recommendation Arguments can be made on both sides regarding annexation of this parcel. It meets the essential requirements of contiguity and is in the Urban Service Planning Area. It's important to point out that the above findings and policies carry different weight and should not be viewed solely on the basis of the number of policies that support or don't support. However, StafPs interpretation of AZ -00-019, PP -00-018 Cedar Springs.az pp Mayor, Council and P&Z • October 6, 2000 Page 7 the Land Use Planning Act, Comprehensive Plan policies and required findings of the Zoning & Development Ordinance is that the size and scope of this annexation request does not fulfill the intent of these guiding policies and the annexation should not be granted at this time. Should the Commission and/or Council choose to annex, Staff recommends that, at a minimum, a cost benefit analysis be prepared by the Applicant detailing the overall projected costs to the City to serve the new homes and how this subdivision benefits the community as a whole if it were annexed. (Comp Plan policy #1.9U of the Housing Chapter states that the City will consider areas for annexation when it is demonstrated through such studies that the City will benefit.) PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL COMMENTS Since Staff is recommending denial of the annexation request, no comments are provided on the preliminary plat application at this time other than those comprehensive plan policies that pertain to plats and subdivisions cited above. Preliminary Plat Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the preliminary plat application. AZ -00-019, PP -00-018 Cedar Springs.azpp Kristy Vigil From: Shelby Ugarriza Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 7:32 AM To: Kristy Vigil Subject: FW: Cedar Springs Annexation & Preliminary Plat `rte '1 _9 Kristy, this e-mail needs to be printed and copied for the Commission for December's Meeting. Thanks. —Original Message From: Shari Stiles rmaiIto: stiles s(a�ci.meridian.id.usl Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 12:41 PM To: Steve; Brad H -C; Bruce F.; Gary; William G. Berg Jr. (E-mail); Shelby Ugarriz (E-mail) Subject: FW: Cedar Springs Annexation & Preliminary Plat —Original Message From: Gary Lee fmailto:GAL(ai)JUB.coml Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 10:59 AM To: 'stiless@ci.meddian.id.us' Cc: Ismithg@ci.meddian.id.us'; Matt Schultz; 'khinvest@aol.com' Subject: Cedar Springs Annexation & Preliminary Plat Shari: This project is up for P&Z Commission meeting next Tuesday (12/12/00). We have not yet completed the site plan revisions to incorporate the school site and other mixed uses. Also, I have been waiting on a response from Gary Smith to see if the City will let us proceed with the annexation and preliminary plat in light of the fact that the White Sewer trunk is not yet constructed through Kevin's property. Kevin has willing to risk the timing on the trunk line vs. starting his project. If the construction of the trunk line does not happen within a timely manner, it would simply mean that his preliminary plat would expire, or, be subject to a time extension. We would therefore like to request that this item be tabled until the Jan. 9, 2001 planning & zoning meeting. We will make an attempt to submit the revised plan to staff for review within the next few days. Please call me to discuss, if you have concerns. Gary A. Lee, P.E.,LS. J -U -B Engineers, Inc. 208-376-7330 rJ-U-B,A October 26, 2000 Will Berg, City Clerk Planning and Zoning Commission/City Council City of Meridian 200 E. Carlton, Suite 400 Meridian, ID 83642 %J -U-13 ENGINEERS, Ihc. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83709-0944 RE: Response to Staff Report dated October 9, 2000 Cedar Springs Subdivision Members of the Commission and Council: 208-376-7330 FAX: 208-323-9336 RECEIVETI CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE We are in receipt of the staff report for Cedar Springs Subdivision and offer the following responses to the issues raised therein: ANNEXATION AND ZONING GENERAL COMMENTS A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment? While we concur with the staff analysis of the various Comprehensive Plan provisions supporting approval of Cedar Springs, we believe that the provisions allegedly supporting denial are either taken out of context or simply do not apply. In that regard we offer the following analysis of each of the provisions characterized as not supporting annexation: ❑ "School sites should be reserved for future acquisition in advance of development of planned land use. Approval of subdivision plats may be withheld if adequate school facilities or sites are not available to serve the proposed subdivision." (Schools Chapter, 3.3) We certainly agree that the availability of school capacity is an important consideration in the approval -of any residential development. Unfortunately, the Meridian School District does not have a future acquisitions map nor a facility plan to help in the planning and location of both school facilities and residential developments. The developer recognizes the importance of schools and is actively working with the School District to help provide solutions to the overcrowding issues in this area. ❑ "Support a variety of residential categories ... for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." (Land Use Chapter, 2.1U) It is not readily apparent why this particular provision supports a denial of the application. It basically states that the City's zoning ordinance should make provisions for urban, rural, single-family, multi -family, etc. to serve a population with diverse needs and housing requirements. It does not require each and every distinct development to provide multiple housing types within the development. l City of Meridian Engineers Surveyors Planners October 26, 2000 Page 2 ❑ "Although it is recognized that urbanized development does exist within the rural areas of the Area of City Impact, the rural lands should be kept in agricultural production as long as possible until urban services (municipal sewer and water facilities and other essential services) can be provided" (Land Use Chapter, 6.3). This provision actually supports approval. This parcel is contiguous with the existing City Limits, adjoins a public park site with a recently completed master plan, has water available, and is serviceable by the White Trunk line which is currently in the planning stages for extension by the City. ❑ "All development in the USPA shall be required to connect to the municipal sewer system." (Public Services Chapter, 5.5) This is simply a matter of timing. The City of Meridian intends to build the White Trunk line and we intend to connect as soon as it is available. We are amenable to a condition of approval limiting sewer service for this project to the future White Trunk Line. ❑ "Police protection within the city limits ... should be maintained according to the recommended service ratio of 1.6 to 1.8 police officers per 1,000 persons." (Public Services Chapter, 6.8) Nothing in the public record indicates that approval of this development will cause the City to exceed the service ratio targets for police protection. In fact, the City Police Department chose not even to respond to the transmittal. Further, the additional tax revenues from this development will allow the City to hire additional officers if the City finds that necessary in the future. ❑ "Maintain a five-minute or less response time goal to all fire, police, and medical emergencies within the City." (Public Service Chapter, 6.9U) There is nothing in the public record indicating that this development will not be within a five-minute response time for fire, police, and emergency medical service providers. In fact, the City Police Department chose not to comment on the development and the City Fire Department identified no particular concerns including response time. ❑ 'The City of Meridian intends to provide a wide diversity of housing types and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development." (Housing Chapter, 1.1) The City of Meridian should be commended for recognizing that healthy communities are composed of a variety of housing types. However, this provision does not mean that each and every development that is approved should include a diversity of housing types. In fact, the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance make it almost impossible to mix product types within a given development. If the City intended for a mix of residential types in this area the Comprehensive Plan would have designated the parcel as Mixed Residential rather than as Single Family Residential. SWE f'J-U-B City of Meridian Engineers Surveyors Planners October 26, 2000 Page 3 ❑ "Housing proposals shall be phased with ...public service and facility plans, which will maximize benefits to the residents, minimize conflicts and provide a tie-in between new residential areas and service needs." (Housing Chapter, 1.6) The City of Meridian is spending a large sum of money to extend the White Trunk Line to this and other parcels in the area. It is in the best interest of Meridian taxpayers to bring the line into service and encourage public extensions and connections as soon as possible. This spreads the costs over a larger population base and makes more efficient use of this expensive public service. We would like to have our approval in place and be ready to connect just as soon as the line becomes available. "Residential developments shall be phased in accordance with their connection to the municipal sewer system." (Housing Chapter, 1.7) The development, if approved, will necessarily be phased with the provision of sewer. If sewer does not become available the final plat will not be approved by either the Central District Health Department or the City of Meridian. ❑ "High-density development, where possible, should be located near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, and near major access thoroughfares." (Housing Chapter, 1.19) This provision has been taken out of context. It is meant to act as a guide for the location of projects including high density housing. While it is certainly desirable to have open space within or near higher densities, it does not necessarily follow that high density housing should be located adjacent to every city park. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan designates the parcel for single family residential - not multi -family residential. B. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area? As was discussed above, Policy 1.19 of the Housing Chapter encourages high density development next to open space where possible. It is unreasonable to infer that this policy was intended to require higher density housing next to every public park or dedicated open space within the City. As to the limited access to the park, the original design for Cedar Springs included six separate paths to the park site from our development. The layout was redesigned based upon the comments of the City's Parks Director who indicated that the recently completed park master plan did not support that many connections. Interestingly, in approving Cedar Springs on October 26, 2000, the ACHD Commission made a special recommendation to the City of Meridian to include additional pathways into the park. We would be happy to include additional paths if the City so desires. E. Will the area 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 zoning amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services? City of Meridian Engem neers Surveyors Planners October 26, 2000 Page 4 Sewer Staff concerns over the ultimate alignment of the White Trunk have little or no impact on this project. Ultimately, the White Trunk will pass near or through this parcel, and is required for approval of the final plat. If the trunk is never built then the project never goes to final plat. If and when it is, the City will immediately begin to recoup the construction costs through hook-up fees from this development. We agree with the staff comment that this is basically a matter of timing. The Developer is convinced that the City will build the trunk and is willing to accept the risk that the City will not build the line within a time frame that is most convenient for the developer. Schools The developer is currently working with the Meridian School District to find a mutually agreeable solution to reduce the overcrowding problem. Roadway Capacity While we appreciate staff's opinion on this matter, we remain confident that the conclusions of the traffic study are valid and well founded. The ACHD Commission accepted the conclusions of the traffic study and approved Cedar Springs on October 25. The City should note that the Highway District is requiring a deposit of $30,000 from the developer for the future construction of a signal at the Meridian Road/Ustick Road intersection. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Nothing in the public record indicates that the service providers cannot meet the five- minute response time goal of the Comprehensive Plan and the Fire Department explicitly indicated no concerns with the development. We believe that this is not a significant issue facing the project. J. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian? We obviously believe that this development is in the best interest of the City. It is consistent with the Land Use Map of the adopted Comprehensive Plan as well as the policies applicable tc►esidentiai deveiopments. We are unsure as to what features can be offered to complement the future park other than the planned pathway connections. It is patently unfair to saddle future homeowners in this development with monthly fees for the upkeep of private pocket parks when there is a public park next door that will be developed and maintained with their tax dollars. Finally, the City's proposed landscape has not been adopted and does not yet have the force of law. How can we be expected to comply with an ordinance that has not been adopted and will likely change any number of times before it is adopted? Of course, we will fully comply with all adopted ordinances and will make every effort to comply with the spirit and intent of the proposed ordinance as well. J City of Meridian Engineers Surveyors Planners October 26, 2000 Page 5 Conclusion We firmly believe that our submitted application will be a positive addition to the neighborhood and the City of Meridian. We request that the planning staff provide the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council with a full evaluation of the proposed preliminary plat. A significant amount of time, effort and money have been spent designing a project that complies with the adopted plans and ordinances of the City of Meridian, not to mention the cost and effort of preparing preliminary engineering designs and a traffic study. Basic fairness dictates that a full evaluation be provided to the decision makers. We believe that the issues raised by staff are valid and deserving of a full analysis, but we also believe that none of the issues are insurmountable or deserving of denial of the project. We are very interested in working with the staff to craft a mutually agreeable resolution for all parties. In that regard, we request a meeting with the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to the December 14 public hearing to work on the issues raised in the staff report. Please determine an acceptable time and date and we will be there. Sincerely, J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. Daren S. Fluke, AICP Planning Associate DSF: the cc: Shari Stites/Brad Hawkins -Clark Gary Smith/Bruce Freckleton Kevin Howell U:\dsf\cedarsprings\cedarspringsresponse.doc NED OCT 17 2000 SUBDIVISION EVALUATION SHEET City of Meridin- it Proposed Development Name Cedar Springs Residential Subdivision File No. PP -00-018 Date Reviewed 10/5/00 Preliminary Stage X Final Engineer/Developer J -U -B Engineers Inc/Kevin Howell 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 Ada County Street Name Ordinance. The following existing street names shall appear on the plat: _"N. MERIDIAN ROAD" "W. USTICK ROAD" "N. VENABLE LANE" The following streets names are not approved because they are duplicates or sound alike "W. WALLIS COURT" "N. ROSS AVENUE" "W. MONTROSE STREET" "N. MARLOWE AVENUE" "N. CHURCHILL AVENUE" "N. ADDISON AVENUE" "W. SOMERSET STREET' "N. LOCKSLEY AVENUE" The following street names are approve for this plat: "N. GREENWICH WAY" "N. PRICE AVENUE" "N. ELSINORE AVENUE" "N. BYRON PLACE" "N. BRETON PLACE" "W. ASHBY DRIVE" "W. ALEXIS DRIVE" "W. FRANDON COURT' "W. 13LAKE STREET" "W. THAIN STREET" "W. ALESTER STREET" "W. ANTON STREET" "W. ASHTON DRIVE" "N. BARRON WAY" "W. STAUNTON COURT" "W. WELCH STREET" "W. CORNELL COURT" "N. RHODES AVENUE" "N. STANFORD AVENUE" and "N. PORTAGE AVENUE" Please submit five (5) more names for this plat Page 1 of 2 0 • 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, AGEN DESIGNEES �1 Ada County Engineer John Priester Community Planning Assoc. Linda City of Meridian Cheryl Sable REPRESENTATIVES OR Date �J Dated Date /v 1 � U Meridian Fire Dept. Representative,�,� 4V��_ Date 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 4N 1W 36 Section NUMBERING OF LOTS AND BLOCKS TR\SUMSmall Cibes.FRM Page 2 of 2 January 16, 2001 go * Ci-tit.p of MCP Kri sty Vigil Meridian City Clerks Office 200 E. Carlton, Suite 400 Meridian, ID 83642 By Fax: 887-4813 RE: Cedar Springs Subdivision Dear Kristy: "J -U-13 ENGINEERS, inc. NGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709-0944 208/376-7330 FAX: 208/323-9336 As the representative of Kevin Howell, please consider this letter an official request for the tabling of the Cedar Springs Subdivision applications (AZ -00-019 & AZ -00-018). The applications are currently scheduled for the January 18, 2001 public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. We respectfully request that the Commission table the items to their February 1, 2001, public hearing to allow additional time to work on various issues related to the preliminary plat. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. Daren S. Fluke, AICP Planning Associate DSF:Ihc cc: Brad Hawkins -Clark by email Bruce Freckleton by email Kevin Howell by email U:\dsf\cedarsprings\1-16table.doc Prep ring 0 Today s i' Students For I N1 Tomorrcw's \ Challenges. , %moo i TO 0(\ . M \ / SUPERINTENDENT Christine H. Donnell August 24, 2001 0 Joint School District No. 2 911 titeridian Street • ,Meridian, Idaho 83642 • (208) 888-6:01 • Fax (208) 888-6700 City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Planners: RECEIVED AUG 2 7 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN Enclosed for your review is general information relative to schools located in the proposed project area. If you have any questions, please contact Wendel Bigham at 888-6701. Reference: Elementary School: Middle School: High School Cedar Springs Subdivision Andrus Elementary School Eagle Middle School Eagle High School Comments and/or Recommendations: Andrus Elementary School is over capacity. The school district is currently busing students from new developments to schools outside Andrus Elementary's attendance boundary. Eagle Middle School is at capacity. At this point the school district is dealing with growth by providing portable classrooms. Eagle High School is over capacity, but with the passage of the General Obligation Bond Election on September 19`h a new high school will soon be under construction. We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house one hundred thirteen (113) elementary aged children, eighty-one (8 1) middle school aged children, and seventy six (76) senior high aged students. Sincerely, Wendel Bigham, Supervisor of Facilities & Construction ILayne a Dodson IDAHO POWER COMPANY Community Relations Representative ��PO. BOX 70 office (los) 388-6907 BOISE, IDAHO 83707 Fax (208) 388-6907 Cell. (208) 880-4373 August 24, 2001 Will Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 Re: PP -00-018 Cedar Springs Dear Will, RECEIVED AUG 2 7 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN Idaho Power Company currently has limited electrical capacity available in the area of this request and will need to upgrade the distribution facilities to serve this application. The applicant should contact the local Idaho Power Company Operations Center for details. The engineering and construction contact for this project would be the Meridian Team at 388-2021. Sincerely45( Layne Dodson 0 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN C/C 06-05-01 IN THE MATTER OF THE REMAND } CASE NO. PP -00-018 TO PLANNING AND ZONING FOR ) THE APPLICATION OF CEDAR SPRINGS) ORDER OF LOCATED NORTHWEST OF MERIDIAN) REMAND TO AND USTICK ROADS ) PLANNING AND BY: J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC. ) ZONING This matter having come before the City Council on April 17, 2001 and continued until June 5, 2001, at the hour of 6:30 o'clock p.m., at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, and the Council having received the Recommendations from Planning and Zoning, correspondence from Berry Peters, J - U -B Engineers, Parks and Recreation Commission and Staff, Chief William Gordon, and Fire Chief Kenny Bowers, and additionally having heard testimony at the June 5, 2001 meeting from Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Tom Kuntz, Parks and Recreation Director, Fire Chief Kenny Bowers, and the testimony from Matt Schultz and Gary Lee both from J -U -B Engineers, and John Kennedy, owner of property adjacent to the northwest corner of the proposed Cedar Springs, and due to inconsistencies in the preliminary plat, and being fully advised in the premises issues the following Decision and Order. ORDER GRANTING REMAND TO PLANNING AND ZONING PP -00-018 • 0 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING ORDER OF REMAND TO PLANNING AND ZONING Based upon the above and foregoing correspondence, testimony, and inconsistencies in the preliminary plat, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER THAT: The decision of the City Council is based upon the grounds there are inconsistencies in the preliminary plat, and such plat shall require the following: 1.1 Applicant shall be required to supply access for John Kennedy's property, the neighbor to the west, and note said access by the applicable stub street on the plat. 1.2 Applicant shall remove from the plat the future L -O and multi -family references if they are not intended to be planned development. 1.3 Applicant shall design a new single loaded street along the park on the southern boundary of the proposed subdivision, and additionally it shall address any safety issues within the plat. 1.4 Applicant shall design the lots to be of various sizes to add diversity within the subdivision. 1.5 Venerable Lane shall be vacated on the latest plat, and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall address what they want covered and what they want done with this lane. 2. This matter is remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further action in accordance with this decision. ORDER GRANTING REMAND TO PLANNING AND ZONING PP -00-018 E NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Please take notice that this a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the remand of the preliminary plat may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the� day of 2 00 1. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN ANDERSON Voted�R. COUNCILMAN BIRD Voted COUNCILWOMAN DEWEERD Voted_ A'� COUNCILWOMAN MCCANDLESS Voted_$Gc MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (Tie Breaker) Voted DATED: 16—M-191 MOTION: APPROVED. ORDER GRANTING REMAND TO PLANNING AND ZONING PP -00-018 DISAPPROVED: 3 Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department and the City Attorney.,,r,,,,,,,,,�'� BY' Dated: »Cj � City Clerk V 7 Z:\Work%lvl\,M cridianllvleridian 15360M\Ccdar Spgs PP00 018 Remand PP back to P & Z\OrderRemandinN FS 0! 8.doc ORDER GRANTING REMAND TO PLANNING AND ZONING PP -00-018 4 SEP 18 '01 10:54 FR CITY OF MERIDIAN 208 888 4218 TO P—AND—Z P.01i01 •w�•-•M �w nod wr 1Mono` r� �-wn ew ae. aa., 'wo �!ww .a �N; waraovnaa HaoaY�na,now x+ saw N■°° -N3 NOISmicans 1VUN3aIS3y SONIdd6 8VO30 Ind A8vNIV4115Hd I a S i a {11 ! jai f (i JIM' e� ,p* � • .1 �� �; ,t t �1 � g a � Irl j� �J! oil } I r -- �_ __•oaav nA�.cuow r . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAr,F. Al ** ---------- � II II ii � r ! Li i`""�.00 a�: • � ,a,oi �,;; t � '$ ;�'�"C.; r s� "r��! �� ' �� ' I; s I! 1 _ i am ----- +ro,—^s•,or� ree.ar -------- a � fir+ � �� � 'J �j° � jt\-�' I a • 'W J e _1 11��`. - o3 D I 1 iSOC'5r'23'w-zmw --� - _ M. YO.pAY ■Ow0 - �_ - _ _� - fit ;sai It i d 1 ' $ � i � � — Is ---+--z t ; _ } if . � c �' € {�'° `!{ �`�€ A"r4tc gqf'i r d `tTfit IV �� G� tiff 't €€� ii {Te .fieri°fit a! a ►{i €: ! An. iiii Y f r I• -R , PREUMINARYPIAT =Fy CEDAR SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION '����ENGINEERS1— m roup cn� .vpua C �,' (•�p!yF F NOT FOR NOWELL.MUR000N DEVELOPMENT CORP. RIG r°■LCONSTFUCnON aYw arrs'ar l jj I MERIDLW AOA COUNTY. IDAHO rp.•uYar Ul/UJ Ul Vy:lb U LUb JLJ yJJb J -L -b t:\b GENERAL IIF 1 2 3 12 5 Name of Address, Owner(s' Address: Telephor Applicar .Address: Telephone: - Fax: Eneineer: Tcl�-ph'7,r[ lls►�_l —F_`. _� '9?�? E-ira�1: N.un an_1 :iJ, i t._, rccclve Cir� Address ZAbfX/j_ Tclenh.on 40 CITY OF MERIDIANT 4 Planning & Zoning Department ^nr, E. Carlton Avenue, Suite 201, Meridian, ID 33642 (208) 884-5533 Phone / (204) 888-6854 Fax REQUEST FOR SUBDIVJSJON APPROVAL 0-/ A ,09 PRELIMINARY PLAT �'•����� 7 (RE: Meridian Subdivision Ordinance - 12-3-1 thou 12-3-6) fie Q E-mail: Firm: -A -ib_t5 PRELIMINARY PLAT FEATURES 1. Acres: 99.2-75 2- Number of building lots: 3. Number of other lots: 617 �'. Gross density per acre: Net density per acrf: 6 Zoninn DiSn-ict(S). E -_fisting: �.-a i. Does the -lat border a potential ;reen be'* or pathw2O NQ Have recreational easements been provided for? 1�0 4. Are there pronoscd recreational amenities to the City, Explain 1 Are there proposed dedications of common areas? t,)Q - -Explain For future park:,?_Explain 1 l . What school(s) service the area? me >a Do you propose aa�, agreenient. for fuu_re school sire:.. (� 1=, -.plain Cr [ 81 12. Are q -i r noosed. amen ties to the City' xp'ain - 13. Type of building (residential, commercial.., industrial, office or combination): 1 4. "type of dv.elling(s) (single family, duplexes, multiplexes, other): tSjj4qk +5 1 Rev. 10126100 JP', L__ -,1 2=: 2= 208 323 9335 =�;_. ='2 r I ' n -- - I .111L it t ■ !y It- t tI tI It It It It t v ■I tt It t �F It It It ZZ ... �. 1 . v ■ I 'gyp _----_----- �W ----_ r-)-cd, r— i if mill 1• s ��Eil� s >i{Its tE( ° [. ■ }g� ilt ��l t�:i roll!$ r 1 � ■ � � 1111+ �� � i � . t3 rr�� � t �➢ s " e �.•. !F� 1 1! f rte , g j t 4' r �. z�►1 sit i 6 s E . p qt + aa ■o�awer PRELIMINARY PLAT Zvi a v- CEDAR SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION �. e �..,. ,.•., � ` z•d TOSS-BGB(BOZ) U014"Joad/s�{Ued UeiPIJaW dTT:ZO TO ST Jew v � II II JI i •• •,•••••.. uu•. _ — J — ——S007T4Y•M 2657_x1 C9_ I tM tt7 I' S' '�� JI t � tt• I N0115'10•E eee.eY A .. i Ac ma e I n D t ., t ! r A Ivt ° f° t G r O � tlt It ; t !I MINOR R e� � ��•� a I f y i °°�° IMVM HOWML CCNSTRUCNON Rr Y o °^• MERIDN%ADA =M . C&HO I•�t4sl eyel,- a' � �.. r *R isao�rzr• zaaeu t R t R � • : V.. � , � E ' 4 - F— I 18A Fret tg, t . i t ... .w n, • • p . i � tlt It ; t !I t� R e� � ��•� a I f y i °°�° IMVM HOWML CCNSTRUCNON Rr Y o °^• MERIDN%ADA =M . C&HO I•�t4sl eyel,- a' � �.. r *R isao�rzr• zaaeu t R t R � • : V.. � , � E ' 4 - F— I 18A Fret tg, t . i t ... .w n, • • p . i a F f f ii (�4 t ii ti tt t3 �� I4 lit 4iiii si fi 9li�gzr ieii �� f f 6 f f f 01 3 tlt tg "�' •tea..,.. PRELIMINARY PLAT CEDAR SPRINGS RESIDENTWL SUBDIVISION •WB ENGINEERS Inc 4i f .... «. C� 1$ IMVM HOWML CCNSTRUCNON • +i MERIDN%ADA =M . C&HO ru mriry \1{yWN .1 � Jp 6iY • ( .,( tr !r � ! . ( At,'•Vr.rr.r!•—r, 2~ I I r !I I � . � •r r fV f r v � v � y �`• !r v `• r r l I •_ Or w �• • ! • r Id YYYy • �' ( r • v go Q> tit � ! .' Q � • I• r r v It • / \ r r J . ' f r t Y ~' ' 1•• � � _may -- r �• � t t� r• 1 t i s � t •(�(lrtt . t r•t• � t r• r !' 1 I 1 • ' 1 f• • irk JIM � !jI �[ ..1 •[ +� I� t[i�l i tJrr ;N r 3 cic��tt 'ti' }( �� � • ' r t� [t�� � �t pift� �" i � x -�- .. �J. ► � i r � >� f � r JJ� s � � file tit ; c 0 ! rle f ' } '� yJ •r CFDM3PRWRE1.1MINAHYPUT yyytr�o�r� OS RESIOENTLLL SUMMON �'d TOSS-BGB(BOZ) uotgeajoadrs,>jued ueipivaW dST=2T i0 91 udd MAYOR Robert D. Corrie CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Ron Anderson Keith Bird Tammy deWeerd Cherie McCandless NUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO NIERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 - Fax (208) 887-4813 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208)_88-2199 - Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208)887-2211 - Fax 887-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208)884-5533 - Fax 888-6854 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: October 2, 2000 Transmittal Date: - j () Hearing Date: File No.: PP -00-018 October 10, 2000 Request: Preliminary Plat of 333 building lots and 25 other lots on 99.83 acres for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision By: Kevin Howell Location of Property or Project Sally Norton, P/Z Bill Nary, P/Z Thomas Barbeiro, P/Z Richard Hatcher, P/Z Keith Borup, P/Z Robert Corrie, Mayor Ron Anderson, C/C Tammy deWeerd, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Cherie McCandless, C/C Water Department Sewer Department Sanitary Service Building Department Fire Department �—Police Department City Attorney City Engineer City Planner Parks Department (Residential Applications only) northwest of Meridian Road and Ustick Roads Meridian School District Meridian Post Office (FP/PP) Ada County Highway District Community Planning Assoc. Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP) U.S. West (FP/PP) Intermountain Gas (FP/PP) Ada County (Annexation) Idaho Transportation Department Gen - 26 PPJFP(PFP - 30 AZ - 27 RECEIVED SEP z c z000 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE i r9 o A if ��• ' W' rt tr tr tr r v • Y • tr tr r t.tt. I t• A. t y r r r t =, t trf tr t�_ h •!_ � v � • I � � • h ! y • V r � r ,'mow -------- -------- ---�--=--'�-�--�sx�r---- • t EE i � c I I� Fe° r s ; 1 ,11r���f•�„€j ,'t„�,t'rfll...1.� I � 1 � t �,r�,i , l i fit � ►c�'�! 1+ �! �_ �� ��j f���l �f� �'� � 'I' ' •�� ' . t �Ir j.r �t ,� � 1 �t ►► f 1���� � ��; f r � � � �; ' tcccir 1�i' jl �� � ' ' �� It f' �►t t gftfl� � ! rFillltt t r I Hill I j- Ic z 11 ='x , � sPRl� R"�� SUBOnaSIO N S'd TOSS-666(BOZ) uoi-4eauoadrs-jjed ueipTiew Y I V !• 1 • 1 0 l� CIS T:ZT TO 9T udd 11. Are there proposed dedications of common areas? No Explain Homeowners Association will own/maintain common areas. For future parks? No Explain City park immediately adjacent to site. 12. What school(s) service the area? Meridian Do you propose any agreements for future school sites? No Explain The school district has -adpgsaate school sites in the area. 13. Are there any other proposed amenities to the City? Explain Bike path 14. Type of Building (Residential, Commercial, Industrial or combination): Residential 15. Type of Dwelling(s) (Single Family, Duplexes, Multiplexes, other): S.F. 16. Proposed Development features: a. Minimum square footage of lot(s): 8,000 SF b. Minimum square footage of structure(s): 1401 SF C. Are garages provided for? Yes Square footage: 300 I SF d. Has landscaping been provided for? Yes Describe: At entryways, common areas, detention basins and public accesses to park. e. Will trees be provided for? Yes Will trees be maintained? Yes f. Are sprinkler systems provided for? Yes g. Are there multiple units? No Type: NA Remarks. NA h. Are there special set back requirements? No Explain: NA i. Has off street parking been provided for? Yes Explain: Residential driveways -- j. Value range of property: L71;5741, k. Type of financing for development: Conventional 1. Were protective covenants submitted? Yes Date: 17. Does the proposal land lock other property? No Does it create Enclaves? No STATEMENTS OF COMPLIANCE: 1. Streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks are to be constructed to standards as required by Ada County Highway District and Meridian Ordinance. Dimensions will be determined by the City Engineer. All sidewalks will be five (5) feet in width. 2. Proposed use is in conformance with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 3. Development will connect to City services. 4. Development will comply with City Ordinances. 5. Preliminary Plat will include all appropriate easements. 6. Street names must not conflict with City grid system. 9-604 B PRE -APPLICATION MEETING The developer shall meet with the Administrator prior to the submission of the Preliminary Development Plan. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss early and informally the purpose and effects of this Ordinance and the criteria and standards contained herein, and to familiarize the developer with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and such other plans and ordinances as deemed l rJ-U '7neers Surveyors Planners yro�na. Plat q01.&2) ac - Project: 11644 Date: July 19, 2000 KEVIN HOWELL - MERIDIAN PROPERTY PARCEL 2 AND A PORTION OF PARCEL 1 (COMBINED) (Revised Per a Fence Line Adjustment) Parcels of land being portions of the SE 1/4, Section 36, T.4N., RAW., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a found 1/2" iron pin marking the Southwest corner of said SE Y, Section 36 (South 1/4 corner), THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 89019'43" East 462.63 feet (formerly South 89 ° 20' 51 " East), along the Southerly line of said SE 1/4, Section 36, and along the center line of Ustick Road, to a set 5/8" iron pin and cap marking the most Southwesterly corner of those lands excepted from Parcel 1, as it is described in Quitclaim Deed Instrument No. 99123670, Records of Ada County, Idaho, from which corner a found 3-'/4" Ada County Engineer Aluminum Cap, monumenting the Southeast corner of said Section 36 bears South 89019'43" East, 2,199.57 feet, as shown on that certain Record of Survey No. 4958, recorded April 21, 2000, as Instrument No. 100030102, Records of Ada County, Idaho; thence leaving said Southerly tine and said center tine North 00028'24" East, 258.01 feet along the Southerly extension of a an existing North-South fence line, to a slight angle point in said fence line; thence North 01018'10" East, 105.78 feet along said fence line; thence North 01°59'18" East, 79.41 feet to an angle point in said fence; thence South 88035'37" East, 4.11 feet along an East-West fence line to a found 5/8 inch iron pin and cap PLS 8248, being an angle point in the Westerly boundary of said excepted lands from Parcel 1 of Instrument No. 99123670: thence continuing South 88035'37" East, 129.61 feet along a jog in said Westerly boundary of those excepted lands, to a found 1/2" iron pin; thence North 01 025'10" East, 886.69 feet (formerly North 01 '24'08 " East, 886.62 feet), along said Westerly line of those excepted lands, to a set 5/8" iron pin and cap, marking the Northwest corner of said excepted lands, being a point on the Southerly tine of the N'/i , SE 1/4, Section 36, from which point a found''/2" iron pin marking the SE 1 /16 corner of said Section 36, bears South 89014'39" East, 52.99 feet (formerly South 89.15'45" East); thence South 89°14'39" East, 1,596.37 feet (formerly South 89° 15'45" East 1,596.29 feet), along said Southerly tine, to a found 5/8" iron pin marking the Northeast corner of a parcel of land, as it is described in Book 181 of Deeds at page 67, Records of Ada County, Idaho; thence South 00051'23" West, 200.59 feet (formerly South 00°50'16" West), to a found 5/8" iron pin marking the Southeast corner of said parcel of land Book 181, page 67; tJ Parcels 1 li 2 (Combined) r -- neers Surveyors Planners July 19, 2000 Page 2 thence South 89010'45" East, 435.10 feet (formerly South 89° 12'23" East, 435.18 feet), to a found 5/8" iron pin marking a point on the Westerly right-of-way of Meridian Road; thence North 00051'23" East, 1,526.17 feet (formerly North 00°50116" East) along said Westerly right-of-way, parallel with and 25.00 feet distant from the Easterly line of said SE 1/4, Section 36, to a set 5/8" iron pin and cap marking a point on the Northerly line of said SE 1/4, Section 36, from which point a found 5/8" iron pin and cap marking the Northeast corner of said SE 1/4, Section 36 (East 1/4 corner) bears South 89009'38" East, 25.00 feet; thence North 89°09'38" West, 2,655.40 feet (formerly North 89°10'42" West), along said Northerly line, to the Northwest corner of said SE 1/4, Section 36 (Center 1/4 corner), from which corner a set 5/8" iron pin and cap (a witness corner), bears South 00027'49" West, 15.00 feet; thence South 00027'49" West, 2,657.96 feet (formerly South 00"26'40" West), along the Westerly line of said SE Y4, Section 36 to THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; Containing an area of 99.83 acres, more or less. END OF DESCRIPTION Prepared by: J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. pL UN4 G\ FS 77 Rc 7 -(`j -Ova \0 F 4UL GO JPG:gar John P. Gnipp, P.L.S. F:\projects\11644\legals\parcell-2 revised.doc I N 11 ( 1 _ N.2 ' - ell ' x763 d2.4 x64.2 z x93.1 4 93I z 7 --- -------- _._. .. Ci87 39.3 ' 61.7 ' .76.T x 791 .9 813 70 4 x ice 67.6 90.9 ka/(G� ` 4 �� • - 12C ,. e x601 67.7 x x791 Y x8.17 x64.7 xffi.. 771.2 79.8 `11N�V/K.aZ2 x97.0 76 - x80.6 • - 7 - - .35.., _ x 823 79.7 84.8 ! 80.8 x 82-7 N.1 xd4.9 _ x87.0 •0 762 ._ __ __ __ - x x82-7 _ x77• ` Ms-,-..., x x m3 x93.0 841 x 85 x 82+ x64.1 732 80.3 ' 81.7 • 93.4 x 77.1 �3 .. 828 912 . x89.8 :. x8717 79.9 ._. 921 0 x 79.7 - - x628 79.8 9a 1 9,1 x81.1 ` / x9 68 a x�4 x �., '°° x 79.6 .' 90.3 - x673 x813 x827 x ' $1.4 x 8i2 x 932 A x x842 x x63.4 x$&a YY, r_ x L 7 xee.J xuj x910 9 3 93.6 x9,.9 x 62.9 ' 79. -- e1.I x e,.e . .8j., 828 es.S x es.I x e3I mi1 ` ,�, ' 79. x 80.9 x602 x 912 x931 x91.7 903 Q-xa�a �V +" �.1{/J -�L 971 x x84.9 3 a 1 J? x884 xn.e - - .801 - - x818 619 662 0 � j aaJ MI TICK i a RD -'----------- -- �1� -7- -1 /H 0 a QUITCLAIM DEED For Value Received Moore or Les, Inc., an Idaho Corporation 0 do hereby convey, release, remiee and forever quit claim unto The Leslie 'Family Trust dated 11/17/92 and the Moore Faddy T!rizt dated 11/17/92 whose current address is 1185 Osprey Ridge Rd. Fagle, Idaho 83616 the following described premises, to -wit: see attached Exhibit "A" ADA C1V 0 NAVARROER �rnsE.IDAHO 1999 DE 30 Ph T 42 together with their appurtenances. Dated: December 30, 1999 '�+loore Or Les, Inc., Tfrr Vm&wmrR Red an an e000rmlodetlon t rdVy K h- nal Wen sawnRwd m to Re wcudon. hmurr blltb or d[tfl t ort Ilk RECOROEO-REOUEST OF FEE_J�—OEPU 99123610 AMEFICAN LAND TITLE CQ STATE OF IDAHO co[7NTY OFLd,4_ } ::. : C .4 SSl� ,< In the year l9 , on gills day or before Inc. a No/ ry Public to and tar said 'talc, personally a C b�known to ese I l O t>n9danl of the aapmsllon wlthie iu:mtnstu tr %' P Li g on behalf of csid onrparatioa• and ackeoWledgod m `9 .40 eae[uial the insnurtleu Q such enrporsitoa eaeeuW4 the sante- � TE o Irl W,,Ng43 wgEREOP. r have hereunto ret my hand uld'trued my afitci:l the day and year in thu certiFcnte fins:Dove k�_� ^ A r1i 4wary Publie /Y! V' Residing at Idaho. C,prvyc 1f1 GXp�- W O Z ul to 0 CL 600/T00 z 3SIOg '9u3 q -11-I' 9CC6 CZC 9ONS 36:CT 00/ZT/60 LEGAL DESCRIPTION - (continued) PILE NO: 51842 EXHIBIT A PARCEL I: THE WEST 1/2 WEST 1/2 SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLCWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY, TO -NIT: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE I WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE NORTH 69°59'48" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 36 A DISTANCE OF 462.63 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OP 59CINNINGI THENCE NORTH 00"47'56" EAST A DISTANCE OF 443.16 FEST; THENCE SOUTH 89°13'40, CAST A DISTANCE OF 129.98 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00111'56" WEST A DISTANCE OF 443.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89"59'48" WEST A DISTANCE OF 134.62 FEET TO THE REAS, POINT OF BEGINNING, AND EXCEPT A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHVEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOBS MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT AN ALUMINUM CAP HAAXING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 36, ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE OF USTICK ROAD, NORTH 89°20'51" WEST 1996.65 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID SECTION LINE, NORTH 0032'33" EAST 25.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID USTICX ROAD, ALSO BEING THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCS ALONG SAID NORTH RICHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89120'51" WEST 60.13 FEET TO AN IRON PIM; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 0°47'44" EAST 416.52 PEET TO AN IRON PIN; THENCE NORTH 1°24'08" EAST 686.62 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH 1/16 SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE ALONC SAID SOUTH 1/16 SECTION LINE SOUTH 89"15'45" CAST 52.99 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH 1/16 SECTION LINE SOUTH 0"32'33" WEST 1302.98 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEOINNING. AND EXCEPT ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR UST:CX ROAD. PARCEL II: THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER AND THE EAST RALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 NEST, BOISE MERIDIAN ALSO (CONTINUED) t00/Z00 [n 3SIOH '9H3 H -R -f 9M CZC 9092 96 -CT 00/ZT/60 rte" LEGAL DESCRIPTION - Icontinusd) FILZ NO: 51842 BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 36, TC'WNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE I WEST, BOISE MERIDIANI THENCE WEST 743 FEST/ THENCE SOUTH 201 FEST; THENCE EAST 743 FEET; THENCE NORTH 201 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING - EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE ABOVE'DESCRIRED PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN BOOK 181 OF DEEDS AT PAGE 67, RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO. AND EXCEPT ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY SOR MERIDIAN ROAD. PARCEL III: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH. RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, AOA COUNTY, IDAHOI MOP2 PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT AN IRON PIN MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 36, ALSO BEING THE CENTER LINE OF USTICK ROAD, SOUTH 88144'00" BAST 2662.19 FEET TO AN IRON PIN HARKING THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH SECTION LINE, AND ALONG THE NORTH -SOUTH CENTER QUART2R SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 36, NORTH 026'40" BAST 25.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID USTICX ROAD, ALSO BEING THE REAL POINT 07 BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -HAY LINE, AND CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH -SOUTH CENTER QUARTER SECTION LINE, NORTH 0'26'40" EAST 639.49 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH -SOUTH CENTER QUARTER SECTION LINE, NORTH RB°50'42" WEST 84.71 FEET TO AN IRON PINI THENCE SOUTH 1.31'09" HEST 639.26 FEET TO AN IRON PIN ON THE SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SOUTH 88°44'00" EAST 96.71 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING - PARCEL IV: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUAR'T'ER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; MCRZ PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT AN IRON PIN MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANCE 1 WEST, BOISE HSRIOIAN; THENCE ALONG SHS SOUTH SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 26, SOUTH 88.44'001 EAST 2662.19 FEET TO AN IRON PIN MARKING THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH SECTION LINE, AND ALONG THE NORTH -SOUTH CENTER QUARTER SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 36, NORTH 0.26.40" EAST 1328.96 FEET TO A POINT, BEING THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH -SOUTH CENTER QUARTER SECTION LINE NORTH 0126'40" EAST 664.49 FEET TO A POINT; (CONTINUED) 600/coot 3SIOH 'ONH H -II -C 9M M 80Z.Q 66:CT 00/ZT/60 LEGAL DESCRIPTION - (continued) PILE NO: 51842 E THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH -SOUTH CENTER QUARTER SECTION LINE, NORTH 89°04.03" NEST 59.79 FEST TO AN IRON PINS THENCE SOUTH 1.31'09" WEST 664.36 FEET TO AN IRON PINI THENCE SOUTH 88'57'23" HAST 72.24 VERT TO TWE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. 600/600(2] HIM '9Na S -ll -f 9CC6 CZC 902.9 66:CT 00/ZT/60 SUBDIVISION EVALUATION SHEET Proposed Development Name Cedar Springs Residential Subdivision File No. PP -00-018 Date Reviewed 1/11/01 Preliminary Stage XX Final Engineer/Developer J -U -B Engineers, Inc/Kevin Howell 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 Ada County Street Name Ordinance. The followina street names shall appear on the plat: " N. MERIDIAN ROAD " " W. USTICK ROAD " " N. VENABLE LANE " The following street names are approved for this plat: " N. GREENWICH WAY " " N. PRICE WAY " " N. ELSINORE WAY " " N. BYRON PLACE " " N. STANFORD AVENUE " " W. ASHBY DRIVE " " W. ALEXIS DRIVE " " N. FRANDON AVENUE " " W. BLAKE STREET " " N. THAIN AVENUE " W GT. "-t-d1:'ALESTER f��E " " W. ANTON DRIVE " " W. ASHTON DRIVE " " N. BARRON WAY " N 1 PL—. "-W. STAUNTON leOURT " " W. WELCH STREET " " W. CORNELL COURT " " N. RHODES AVENUE " and " N. PORTAG%VENUE " 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,G 7,t SENTATIVES OR DESIGNEES Ada County Engineer John PriesterDate % / Community Planning Assoc. Sherri Pillow4?� [-/ZDate City of Meridian Cheryl Sable ( , Date Meridian Fire Dept. Representative L! L T Date l — /S' 0 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 !!!! Subindex Street Index 4N 1W 36 Section NUMBERING OF LOTS AND BLOCKS TRISUBS1Small Cities.PRM REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Sep f PRELIMINARY PLAT AND/OR FINAL PLAT it of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION les TIME TABLE FOR SUBMISSION: A request for preliminary plat approval must be in the City Clerk's possession no later than three days following the regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hear the request at the monthly meeting following the month that the request was made. After a proposal enters the process it may be acted upon at subsequent monthly meetings provided the necessary procedures and documentation are received before 5:00 P. M., Thursday following the Planning and Zoning Commission action. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name of Annexation and Subdivision: Cedar Springs 2. General Location: Northwest of N. Meridian Rd. /West Ustick Rd. 3. Owners of Record: Leslie Family Trus t/Moore Family Trust Address: 1185 Osprey Ridge Rd., Eagle, c.ip 83616 Telephone 383-4302 4. Applicant: Kevin Howell Development Address: 1087 W. River St.. #250._ BoisZip aUL2 Telephone .383-4302 5. Engineer:_ Matthew B. Schultz Firm: J -U -B FNFNGINEERS Inc 6. Name and address to receive City billings- Name: Kevin Howell Address 1087 W. River St., #250, Boise, 83702 Telephone 383-4302 PRELIMINARY PLAT CHECKLIST: Subdivision Features 1. Acres: 99.83 2. Number of building lots: 333 3. Number of other lots: 25 4. Gross density per acre: 3.34 5. Net density per acre: 4.48 6. Zoning Classification(s): R4 7. If the proposed subdivision is outside the Meridian City Limits but within the jurisdictional mile, what is the existing zoning classification? RUT 8. Does the plat border a potential green belt? No 9. Have recreational easements been provided for? Yes - Homeowner Open Spaces 10. Are there proposed recreational amenities to the City? No Explain pita ,c Adiacent to future city park. • rA 0 0 LO le 0 0 O 0 0 M Cl O O M O O O N O O O N O O O T- O O O r O O LO O O O O 10/10/00 08:38 %2208 323 9336 J—U—B ENG. BOISEyE,, Z002/003 ...rm wrw. 7Mr mom. r maw s , of )J ■,}� sssti syta � Js! � - � ;i 4i!`' �: i �{�i �ra• $� � � �� � �J311'�I � t � tlilji i � ti fill 1 ■ '■ a n' a' ' i —� ) ' j t .1 71 -1)^) . i n ■coo[ :.ci.leooc •�1 4 i ■J '• ) ..a)r )'7) a a, cc •` ■ a Zm y a � •.. �) ra y i r e� �, i i ) h a ■) ..N ° e -'ate •■i .i )..•) - - as ... -. � : )tE, f0 I I� im•;--"` p)�t'r)):)I '_))•`)i a•o,� 't i�pti ■) ■i ■a '''Ba �1A�° I i 1 _ ■LS01 Nl9ti ■ � ) I �) �y a ^• I • � �) Y � �• / i01J110N 7 �[ ■LOON i-' � � N , �'J ■ � ■ i ■ a ] / ■ � � � •_) .� ' -rte. I_ � I � /w+ ..�� ` S' ` "i : a I .�) �) I o. ot-., I • a ' i ) -e a • a ■ a '�o j)~i �i '% a !! j9t■)). i� ))•ajp ))�)jj •))�)��aa ra ala I) � Ai '� '� ■j •sV•a �i I ~� ■ , j,�� �� � � �) ~)i•` ) I� "'))'") j' �) '", Ili~) - a pa�a (`�; ))' ) j . ))•) I) a)'�a j ))�� °_ 10/10/00 08:38 $208 023 9036 J -U -B ENG. BOISE 0003/003 SN3NNrld • S80A3AMAS - ssamt!w lb' -1d k Jb"NIW1c\Ad SONIJdS 2Jda:13 �y >iadd Aiio 2?tinln.-� .: (C b o� op- co O PAID OUT ry m D O r P < j CITY OF MERIDIAN "Hub of Treasure Valley" 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 888-4433 r O (C _ SOLD BY co O PAID OUT m D O < 0Mm n I n:Z 8901 cn Ln I I W N ] O I I V N = O Gc r 2 a n \\ w o m O I L,m� O c m W I a �] Ln i i I All claims and returned goods MUST be accompanied by this bin. W 0 N ■ A 0 012 3 5 7 Byceived &==_TOTAL' m ru V u+ a w - C F to 7' C n 0 j L f I\ k-usLomer s Order No. Date O Name Address Phone: SOLD BY CASH C.O.D. CHARGE I ON ACCT. MDSE. RETD. PAID OUT I I v �t7 8901 I I I I I /� Q� � ` I SS 0 1 '] I I I I I I I i I All claims and returned goods MUST be accompanied by this bin. TAX I 0 012 3 5 7 Byceived &==_TOTAL' GS -202.2 ' PRINTED IN U.S.A. SOY INK 6LU CITY OF MERIDIAN "Hub of Treasure Valley" 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 888-4433 Customers Order No. Date—ter Name (:�pg inC'C%rpD '-lr/1C . Address 'Oda -e n Phone: 3�p —723cl SOLD BY �£ C.O.D. CHARGE ON ACCT. MDSE. RETD PAID OUT cN/!f' c�� DESCRIPTION • m o z CL c O in O to c L I C m Z N o P 0 � i Z m m I Z n > O O CD 3 (6D I 00 O O I o 0 I I A I I 00 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I All claims and returned goods MUST be accompanied by this bill. TAX I 001-935 9 Byceive �f TOTAL GS -202-2 PRINTED IN US A O r r ry W r O W .�3 r u r Ln W W O O O 03 T3 r In i 49 000{ o = mm KN�C� m0D22� D n Z O D O 0 w ? Z D - N Z N � 0 m 0 D —I m Z PW N (T O O c U) C m m _ m 0 o0 ,3- o • m o z CL c O in O to c L o m o 0 0 C m Z N o P 0 � i Z m m W V co a a Z n 00 mm cc � D nyi DOC m m ZZD w mmx Om Z w � U) CD > O O CD 3 (6D v m 00 O O o 0 A 00 Discussion "DRAFT" DECLARATION OF COVENANTS CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR AMHERST CREEK SUBDIVISION ( NO. 1 ) THIS DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS for Amherst Creek Subdivision No. 1 is made effective as of the day of , 2000, by Kevin A. Howell, a single man, (hereinafter "Grantor" or "Declarant") whose address is 1087 W. River Street Suite 250, Boise, Idaho 83702. ARTICLE 1: RECITALS 1.1 Property Covered. The property subject to this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (hereinafter referred to as "Declaration" or "CC&R's") for Amherst Creek Subdivision No. 1 is that property in Ada County contained in that portion of Amherst Creek Subdivision No. 1 which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto, together with any additions or annexations as may hereinafter be brought within the jurisdiction of these CC&R's and the Amherst Creek Neighborhood Association (the homeowners association). [Lots and —in Block _ of Amherst Creek Subdivision No. 1 are not part of these CC&R's. There are separate CC&R's for these four lots which are not residential lots.] 1.2 Purpose of Declaration . That portion of Amherst Creek Subdivision No. 1 legally described on Exhibit A is a residential development, which Grantor intends to develop in accordance with governmental approvals. The purpose of this Declaration is to set forth the basic restrictions, covenants, limitations, easements, conditions and equitable servitudes that will apply to the development and use of the Property. This Declaration is designed to preserve AMHERST CREEK RESIDENTIAL CC&R'S • • the Property's value, desirability and attractiveness, and to guarantee adequate maintenance of the Common Area, and any Improvements located thereon. ARTICLE 2: DECLARATION 2.1 Grantor Declaration. Grantor declares that all the Property shall be held, sold, transferred, encumbered, leased, used, occupied and improved subject to these CC&R's. Each owner accepting a deed to any of the property agrees that these CC&R's are for the protection, maintenance, improvement and enhancement of the Property. 2.2 Runs With The Land. These CC&R's shall run with the land described on Exhibit A and shall be binding upon all persons with any right, title or interest in the land. They are for the benefit of all the property and bind all successors. 2.3 Enforcement. These CC&R's may be enforced by Grantor, any Owner or by the Association. 2.4 Grantor's Rights. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no provision of this Declaration shall be construed as to prevent or limit Grantor's right to complete development of the Property and to construct improvements thereon, nor Grantor's right to maintain model homes, construction, sales or leasing offices or similar facilities on any portion of the Property, including the Common Area or any public right-of-way, nor Grantor's right to post signs incidental to construction, sales or leasing. ARTICLE 3: DEFINITIONS 3.1 "Articles" shall mean the Articles of Incorporation of the Association or other organizational or charter documents of the Association. 3.2 "Amherst Creek Subdivision No. 1 " shall mean the Property described on Exhibit A, (together with any future additions or annexations). 3.3 "Assessments" shall mean those payments required of Class A Owners and Association Members (excluding Declarant) and include but are not limited to all Assessments (whether regular, Start-up, special or limited), late charges, attorneys' fees, interest, and other charges set out in these CC&R's. 3.4 "Association" shall mean Amherst Creek Neighborhood Association, Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho, its AMHERST CREEK RESIDENTIAL CC&R'S 0 successors and assigns. 3.5 "Board" shall mean the Board of Directors or other governing board or individual, if applicable, of the Association and includes its authorized agents and representatives. 3.6 "Building Lot" shall mean one or more lots as specified or shown on any Plat upon which Improvements may be constructed. The term "Building Lot" shall not include any Common Area, any area dedicated to the public, or any lots deeded to an irrigation entity for an irrigation pump facility. 3.7 "By-laws" shall mean the By-laws of the Association (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B). 3.8 "Common Area" shall mean all lots of Amherst Creek Subdivision No. 1 that are designated herein or on the Plat as common areas including, but not limited to, the following parcels which Declarant shall deed to the Amherst Creek Neighborhood Association: [To be identified after plat approved] The Association shall own, manage, maintain and operate these Common Area lots as provided in this Declaration. 3.9 "Declaration" shall mean this Declaration as it may be amended from time to time. 3.10 "Grantor" shall mean Kevin Howell and any successor in interest, or any person or entity to whom the rights under this Declaration are expressly transferred by grantor or its successor. Grantor may also be referred to as the "Declarant". 3.11 "Improvement" shall mean any improvement or object, whether permanent or temporary, which is erected, constructed or placed upon, under or in any portion of the Property, including but not limited to buildings, fences, driveways, landscaping, signs, lights, mail boxes, recreational facilities, and fixtures of any kind. 3.12 "Limited Assessment" shall mean a charge against a particular Owner and such Owner's Building Lot, directly attributable to the Owner, equal to the cost (plus a management fee equal to 10% of the cost) incurred by the Grantor or the Association for corrective action performed pursuant to the provisions of this Declaration. (See Corrective Action, Section 9.1 .1 below.) 3.13 "Member" shall mean each person or entity holding a membership in the Association. 3.14 "Owner" shall mean the person or other legal entity, including Grantor, holding fee simple interest of record to a Building Lot which is a part of the Property, but excludes those having an interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. "Class A" Owner shall be any owner of a building lot other than Grantor. 3.15 "Person" shall mean any individual, partnership, corporation or other legal entity. 3.16 "Plat" shall mean any subdivision plat covering any portion of the Property as recorded at the office of the County Recorder. 3.17 "Property" shall mean all of the Property described in Exhibit A including each lot or portion thereof, including all water rights associated with or appurtenant to such property. 3.18 "Regular Assessment" shall mean the regular assessments assessed against all Class A Owners to defray the cost of maintaining, improving, repairing, managing and operating the Common Areas and all Improvements located thereon, and the other costs and expenses of the Association. 3.19 "Start-up Assessment" shall mean that initial fee payable to the Association to Start-up the Association. This one time Start-up fee is assessed against the buyer of each lot upon the first purchase of each lot. 3.20 "Special Short Fall Assessment" shall mean the portion of the costs of the capital improvements or replacements, equipment purchases and replacements or short falls in Regular Assessments. 3.21 "Transfer Special Assessment" shall mean that transfer fee assessed against each lot transferred, to be paid to the Association on each transfer of legal title and recording of a deed to a lot in this subdivision. ARTICLE 4: GENERAL AND SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS 4.1 Prior Plan Approval. No improvement or obstruction shall be placed or permitted to remain upon any part of the property unless a written request for approval, containing the plans, specifications, and exterior color scheme, has been approved by the Board or a person designated by the Board to approve same. (See Article 6 below.) The approval of the Board will not be unreasonably withheld if the plans and specifications comply with these CC&R's, government ordinances, and are in general in harmony with the existing structures located in this Subdivision. 4.2 Government Rules. In the event any of these CC&R's are less restrictive than any governmental rules, regulations or ordinances, then the more restrictive governmental rule, regulation or ordinance shall apply. 4.3. Use, Size and Height; Basements. All Building Lots shall be used exclusively for one or two-story single-family homes. Split entry homes are prohibited. The minimum floor area square footage (excluding the area of the eaves, steps, open porches, car ports, garages, and patios) shall be as follows: 0 0 (per final Meridian City requirements) 4.3.1 Basements. While basements are allowed, they are discouraged. In order to construct a basement each builder or owner must first secure a certification from a licensed engineer that the water table and soil conditions are proper for a basement. Declarant and its agents, officers and shareholders shall have no liability of any kind for any basements which are constructed. Each builder and owner builds and owns their basement at their own risk. 4.4 Accessory Structures . There shall be no metal or wood storage attachments to any home except as approved by the Board. Storage sheds attached to the residential structure, and patio covers, shall be constructed of, and roofed with, the same materials, and with similar colors and design, as the residential structure on the applicable Building Lot. Only one outbuilding per lot shall be allowed, and it shall be a) constructed of quality material; b) completed, finished and painted in the same general color as the main house; c) generally screened from public view; and d) approved by the board. 4.5 Setbacks. All setbacks shall comply with the pertinent local government Ordinances. 4.6 Garages. All residential homes shall have an attached enclosed garage which holds no less than two cars and no more than three and shall be constructed of the same materials and colors as the main building or as approved by the Board. 4.7 Exterior; Appearance No vinyl or metal siding shall be allowed for the exterior of any dwelling. Bay windows, broken roof lines, gables, hip roofs, etc. are strongly encouraged 4.7.1 Thirty (30%) Percent Brick Stone, Stucco on Front Exposure. The front exposure of the dwelling shall be covered by brick, stone or stucco over at least thirty (30%) percent of the total square footage of the area of the "front exposure" of the dwelling. The "front exposure" area shall be that area from the eaves to the ground and from the side corner to the opposite side corner on the exterior of the dwelling generally parallel with the street and which contains the main entrance doorway. (Dwellings on a corner lot need have only one "front exposure"). The Architectural Control Board may approve a different percentage. 0 • To compute the thirty (30%) percent of the front exposure, windows and garage doors shall be excluded. (For example, if the front exposure of the dwelling is a total of 600 square feet and the windows and garage doors are 200 square feet, then at least thirty (30%) percent of the remaining 400 square feet would be covered by brick, stone or stucco). 4.8 Roofs. Roofs must be of at least 5 in 12 pitch. No gravel roofs are allowed. Roofing materials shall be composition shingles. 4.9 (Intentionally omitted) 4.10 Driveways. All Lots shall have a concrete paved driveway and a minimum of two concrete paved car parking spaces within the boundaries of each Lot. No driveway or parking area shall be dirt, rock, gravel or asphalt. 4.11 Colors. Exterior colors of earth tones or light blues or greys shall be encouraged for the body of the house. Bright, bold or very dark body colors shall be discouraged. Dark roof colors shall be encouraged. Approval of exterior colors must be obtained from the Board, and any future changes to colors or exterior must be approved by the Board. 4.12 Pole Lights. Each home, within 30 days of occupancy, will have a photo -sensitive pole light installed in the front yard, with a minimum bulb power of 40 watts, designed to switch on automatically at sunset and off at sunrise. Installation is the specific responsibility of the lot Owner. 4.13 Landscaping. Berms and sculptured planting areas are encouraged. Landscaping of the front yard shall be completed within thirty (30) days of occupancy of the home and shall be the responsibility of each respective Owner of the lot. The "front yard" shall be defined as that portion of the Building Lot from one side lot line to the opposite side lot line lying in front of the front exposure of the structure. For Building Lots on corners the "front yard" shall also include that portion of the Building Lot from the front of the structure to the rear of the structure to the side street (i.e., the side yard next to the side street). Landscaping, at a minimum, shall include; sod (or professionally installed hydro seed if approved by the Board) in the front yard; two trees of at least 2" caliper in the front yard; one tree of at least 2" caliper in the side yard for corner lots; and at least 5 one gallon shrubs or plants. Grass shall be planted or sodded in the back yard within one year of occupancy. Weed Control: Prior to the planting of grass it shall be the responsibility of the builder and/or the Owner to keep all weeds on the lot under control and periodically cut so they remain less that 6" tall. Neglected weeds may be cut by the Association without notice and the bill therefor shall be paid by the lot Owner as a Limited Assessment. 4.14 Fences. 4.14.1 Subdivision Perimeter Fences. Grantor may construct a perimeter fence around portions of the exterior of this subdivision property (except for entrance or exit roadways or waterway crossings). After Grantor has transferred title to any lot which contains a portion of this perimeter fence it shall be the responsibility thereafter of the Owner of that lot to maintain, repair and/or replace as needed that portion of the perimeter fence on that Owner's lot. The maintenance, repairs and/or replacement shall be performed so as to keep the perimeter fencing uniform, attractive and harmonious. The Association may, in it's sole discretion, maintain some or all of the perimeter fencing as a Common Area expense. 4.14.2 Other Owner Fences. Other Owner fences are not required. If a fence is desired, plans for it shall be approved by the Board prior to construction. Fences shall be of good quality and workmanship and shall be properly finished and maintained. Fences may be built of wood, such as a 6 -foot, dog-eared cedar. Chain link fences are not allowed except along ditches or water retention areas and then only after approved by the Board. Fences shall not be built closer to the front of the lot than even with the front corner of the home, nor within 20 feet of any street rights of way. 4.15 Construction. No pre-existing or prefabricated home shall be moved onto any lot. All homes in this Subdivision must be constructed on the lot. Once construction has begun, completion of each building or other improvement shall be diligently pursued and completed within 12 months. 4.16 Sewer. All bathroom, sink and toilet facilities shall be located inside the home, and connected underground to wet line sewer. 4.17 No Further Subdivision . No Building Lot may be split or subdivided without the prior written approval of the Board. 4.18 Nuisances . No rubbish or debris shall be placed on or allowed to accumulate anywhere on the Property, including Common Areas or vacant Building Lots. No unsanitary, unsightly, or offensive conditions shall be permitted to exist on any part of the Property. Noise or other nuisances in violation of local ordinances are prohibited. No Owner shall permit any noise, party or other 0 activity in the Common Area which unreasonably interfere with the peace and quiet of the other Owners or occupants. The use of fireworks, firecrackers and any type of firearms on the Property is strictly prohibited. 4.19 Exterior Maintenance; Owner's obligations . All Improvements, especially the exterior appearance of the home, lawn, trees, fencing and landscaping shall be kept in good condition and repair. In the event an Owner permits an Improvement to fall into disrepair, or to create a dangerous, unsafe, hazardous, unsightly or unattractive condition, then the Board or Grantor, after thirty (30) days prior written notice to the offending Owner, shall have the right to enter upon that Owner's property to correct such condition. Owner shall be obligated to reimburse the Board or Grantor for all of the costs of the corrective action as set out in Article 8 and 9 below. 4.20 Unsightly Articles. No unsightly articles shall be permitted to remain on any property so as to be visible from any other Owner's property. Trash is to be kept in containers and areas approved by the Board. Clothing or fabrics are not to be hung or aired in such a way as to be visible to other property. No equipment, heat pumps, compressors, containers, lumber, firewood, grass, shrub or tree clippings, metals, bulk material, disabled vehicles, or scrap shall be kept, stored or allowed to accumulate on any property except within an enclosed structure or screened from view. Vacant residential structures shall not be used for storage. 4.21 No Temporary Structures . No house trailer, mobile home, tent, shack or other temporary building, improvement or structure shall be placed upon any portion of the Property or on any streets. Temporary construction structures are permitted during the time of construction. 4.22 No Unscreened Boats Campers and Other Vehicles. No boats, trailers, campers, all -terrain vehicles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, bicycles; dilapidated or unrepaired and unsightly vehicles or similar equipment shall be placed upon any portion of the Property (including, without limitation, streets, parking areas, yards and driveways) unless enclosed by a concealing structure approved by the Board. No vehicles (including sail boats with masts) taller than nine feet or longer than 25 feet shall be allowed to be stored on any portion of the property. If a stored item is taller than the front screening fence, then the item must be parked two feet away from the fence for every one foot it is taller than the fence. (For example, a nine foot tall motor home would be required to be parked six feet away from the front fence if that fence were six feet tall and eight feet back if the fence was five feet tall.) Notwithstanding anything contained herein, a boat, camper, trailer or motor home may be parked in a 0 0 driveway or in the street in front of the Owners lot (if permitted by local ordinances) for a temporary time not to exceed three days. 4.22.1 Removal of Vehicles; Warning; Costs. The Board or its representatives may remove any vehicles in violation of this section at any time after giving the owner fifteen (15) days written notice of its intent to do so. For any such vehicles removed, the Owner shall reimburse the Board, as a limited assessment, the costs thereof plus a management fee equal to ten percent (10%) of the costs. (See Article 9 below) 4.23 Animals/Pets . No farm animals, animals creating a nuisance, or animals in violation of governmental ordinances shall be kept on any Property. Chronic dog barking shall be considered a nuisance. No more than two domestic cats and no more than two domestic dogs shall be allowed to inhabit any one lot. All dogs outside the home or outside the lot fence must be leashed. Pets shall not be allowed in the Common Areas. Any kennel or dog run must be screened, placed inside the lot fences, and approved by the Board. 4.24 Signs. No sign shall be displayed to public view without the approval of the Board except: (1) signs used by Grantor in connection with the development and sale of the Property; (2) signs identifying the development; (3) informational signs by the Board displayed on Common Areas; (4) one sign of less than 12 square feet displayed by an Owner (tither than Grantor) on that Owner's property advertising the home for sale or lease; and (5) signs required by the governing authorities. No signs other than Grantor's shall be placed in the Common Area without the written approval of the Board. 4.25 Lot Grading and Drainage Requirements Each lot owner shall grade and maintain the grade on their individual lot to direct water away from the foundation and to prevent the runoff of storm water and irrigation water onto adjacent owner's lots. 4.26 Additional Easements. In addition to the easements shown on the recorded plat, an easement is further reserved and each Lot shall be subject to an easement five (5) feet on each side of all other lot lines for installation and maintenance of utilities, irrigation and drainage. 4.27 Exemption of Grantor . Nothing contained in these CC&R's shall limit the right of Grantor; to subdivide or re -subdivide any portion of the Property owned by Grantor; to grant easements, licenses, or to reserve rights-of-way with respect to Common Areas; to complete excavation, grading and construction of any portion of the Common Areas, or Property owned by Grantor; to alter construction plans and designs; to construct additional Improvements; to erect, construct and maintain structures and displays as necessary for the conduct of Grantor's business. Prior to transferring title to a Building Lot Grantor shall have the right to grant, establish and/or reserve on that Building Lot additional licenses, reservations and rights-of-way to Grantor, to utility companies, or to others. Grantor may use any structures owned by Grantor on the Property as model home complexes or real estate sales or leasing offices. The rights of Grantor may be assigned by Grantor to any successor in interest by a written assignment recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. 4.28 Water; Water Rights. Each party accepting and recording'a deed to any property in this Subdivision or occupying any property in this Subdivision acknowledges and understands and agrees to the following: a) that such property is in an irrigation district, including but not limited to Settler's Irrigation District; b) that the water in said district has not been transferred from this property; c) that each Owner of any Lot is subject to all assessments levied by any irrigation district or water supplier and/or the Association; d) that each Lot Owner shall be responsible to pay any levies of the irrigation entity or the Association or the water supplier attributable to that Lot; e) that these assessments are a lien upon the Lot. Each owner or occupant of any Lot in Amherst Creek Subdivisions specifically releases and waives any and all claims of any kind against Declarant, its agents, employees, officers and directors relating to water irrigation water in Amherst Creek Subdivisiotis. 4.29 Micro -Path Lots and Easement Areas: [per final Meridian City Requirements] 4.29.1 No Liability. Each lot owner by accepting a deed to a lot in Amherst Creek and each occupant by occupying a lot in Amherst Creek and each user of the Micro -Path specifically agrees that the Declarant, its agents, officers, employees and shareholders shall have no liability of any kind whatsoever relating in any way to the use of the Micro -Path including, but not limited to, any accidents or bodily injuries which result from the use of the Micro -Path. Nor shall the Association, its officers, agents, or employees have any such liability. All lot owners, occupants and users of the Micro -Path specifically assume the risk and waive any and all claims relating to the use of this Micro -Path. 4.30 Laws; Ordinances. These CC&R's are subject to all rules, 0 9 regulations, laws and ordinances of all applicable governmental bodies. In the event a governmental rule, regulation, law or ordinance would render a part of these CC&R's unlawful, then in such event that portion shall be deemed to be amended to comply with the applicable rule, regulation, law or ordinance. 4.31 Easement to ACHD for Maintenance. ACHD is hereby granted an easement as shown on the face of the Plat over Lot _ Block _, Lots _ and _ Block —and Lot _ Block _ for maintenance of the seepage trenches by ACHD. These seepage trenches are to be maintained by ACHD. In the event that these seepage trenches are not maintained by ACHD, then they shall be maintained by the Association. No permanent structures or improvements shall be erected on any of these lots. 4.32 Pressurized Irrigation System. Irrigation water, when seasonally available, will be supplied through Karn's Lateral Water Users Association, (a division of Settler's Irrigation District) via a pressurized underground irrigation system constructed for Amherst Creek Subdivisions. This system shall be owned by the Association. All main lines, pumping works and the like shall be maintained and operated by the Association and each lot owner shall pay pro -rata for all of the costs associated with the maintenance and operation of the pressurized irrigation system. Each lot owner shall be responsible for his or her own irrigation sprinkler system on the lot. An Owner shall be responsible for any damage done to the main system by that owner or that owner's agent or contractors. 4.32.1 Water Costs. All irrigation water costs shall be paid by the Class A lot owners either from individual assessments against each Class A lot by Settler's Irrigation District or other water suppliers; or, if the water supplier provides one billing to the Association for all of Amherst Creek Subdivisions, then the water costs shall be paid as part of the Association's pro -rata regular assessments to Class A lot owners. Each such lot owner shall pay an equal pro -rata share (as set out in 4.33 below) of all the commonly billed water costs regardless of actual water used. Each lot owner shall use all reasonable efforts to conserve and not waste irrigation water. 4.32.2 Rotation; Rules. The Association Board may establish a water rotation schedule for all lots and common areas in Amherst Creek Subdivisions and general rules for the times and use of irrigation water. All lot owners and occupants shall follow said water rotation schedules and any rules promulgated relative to the use of irrigation water. Failure to adhere to the rotation schedule or rules may, following notice from the Board, result in suspension of the right to use the pressurized system and irrigation water. 4.32.3 Supplemental Water. Supplemental water (in addition to the irrigation water from Karn's Lateral Water Users Association) for the irrigation system may be supplied by another entity or from another source. The costs of this supplemental water shall be paid pro -rata the same as the other irrigation waters set out herein. 4.32.4 No Liability. Neither Declarant, its agents, employees, officers, directors, or shareholders, nor the Association or its officers, directors, employees or agents shall have any liability of any kind whatsoever to any owner or occupant for any claims or losses of any kind due to a failure of the water system or shortage of water for any reason. All such claims are specifically waived by any owner, occupant and any party recording a deed to a lot in Amherst Creek Subdivisions. 4.32.5 Pressurized Irrigation System Ownership; Easements, Warranty. Grantor will construct the pumping station and pressurized irrigation system for the Subdivision and any subsequent Phases of the Subdivision which are annexed into these CC&R's. Following completion of each portion of the irrigation system Grantor shall transfer title and ownership of that completed portion of the system to the Association. A perpetual easement as necessary for access to repair and maintain the common pressurized irrigation system and common irrigation lines is reserved on each Lot in the Subdivision. Grantor warrants to all Lot Owners that each portion of the system as it is completed will be free of defects, including workmanship, for one full year following the date that construction of each portion of the system is completed. In the event a defect is discovered in that portion of the system where construction was completed during the prior year, Grantor will, at Grantor's expense, repair or remedy that defect. One year after completion of the construction of any portion of the system there shall be no further warranties by Grantor as to that portion of the system. Any further necessary repairs thereafter shall be the responsibility solely of the Association and Grantor shall have no further liability relating thereto. After Grantor has transferred ownership of any portion of the common pressurized irrigation system to the Association, the routine maintenance and repair of the system shall be the 0 • responsibility of the Association as a Common Area expense. 4.33 Cooperative Water Use And Maintenance Agreement Each lot in this subdivision is subject to that "Cooperative Water Use and Maintenance Agreement" entered into between the Amherst Creek Neighborhood Association, the Amherst Creek Professional Center Association, and Declarant, which is attached hereto as Exhibit D. ARTICLE 5: AMHERST CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. 5.1 Organization of Amherst Creek Neighborhood Association Inc Amherst Creek Neighborhood Association, Inc. (the "Association") shall be initially organized by Grantor as an Idaho non-profit corporation under the provisions of the Idaho Code relating to general non-profit corporations and shall be charged with the duties and invested with the powers prescribed by law and set forth in the Articles, Bylaws (attached hereto as Exhibit B) and this Declaration. Neither the Articles nor the Bylaws shall be amended or otherwise changed or interpreted so as to be inconsistent with this Declaration. 5.2 Membership . Each Owner of a lot subject to assessment, (including contract sellers), by virtue of being an Owner, and for so long as such ownership is maintained, shall be a Member of the Association. The memberships in the Association shall not be transferred, pledged, assigned or alienated except upon the transfer of Owner's title the transferee of such title. Any prohibited membership transfer shall be void and will not be reflected on the books of the Association. 5.3 Voting . Voting in the Association shall be carried out by Members (including Grantor) who shall cast the votes attributable to the Building Lots which they own. The number of votes any Member may cast on any issue is determined by the number of Building Lots owned. When more than one person holds an interest in any Building Lot, all such persons shall be Members but shall share the vote attributable to the Building Lot. One lot, one vote. For voting purposes, the Association shall have two (2) classes of Members: 5.3.1 Class A Members . Owners other than Grantor shall be Class A Members. Each Class A Member shall be entitled to cast one (1) vote for each Building Lot owned by such Class A Member(s) on the day of the vote. One lot, one vote. 5.3.2 Class B Member . The Grantor shall be the Class B Member, and shall be entitled to three (3) votes for each Building Lot owned by Grantor. The Class B Member shall cease to be a voting Member in the Association on the happening of either of the following events, whichever occurs first: (a) when seventy- five (75%) percent of the Building Lots have been sold to Owners other than Grantor; or, (b) on December 31, 2005. 5.3.3 No Fractional Votes or Severance from Land. Fractional votes are not allowed. If joint Owners cannot agree how their vote will be cast, they lose their right to vote on the matter being Put to a vote. A vote cast will be conclusive for all purposes that the Owner had authority and consent of all joint Owners. Votes may not be severed from the Building Lot. However, an Owner may give a revocable proxy, or assign the Owner's right to vote to a lessee, mortgagee, beneficiary or contract purchaser of the Building Lot concerned, for the term of the lease, mortgage, deed of trust or contract. Any sale, transfer or conveyance of a Building Lot to a new Owner automatically transfers the voting right to the new Owner. 5.4 Board of Directors and Officers. The affairs of the Association shall be managed by a Board of Directors ("Board") and such officers or agents as the Board may elect or appoint as provided in the Bylaws. The Board shall be elected in accordance with the Bylaws. 5.5 Power and Duties of the Association . The Association shall have all the powers of a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho subject only to the limitations set forth in the Articles, Bylaws, and this Declaration. The Association shall have the power to appoint representatives and the power to perform all acts which may be necessary or incidental to discharge it's duties and responsibilities and to manage and operate the Association's Common Areas and assets. The Association's powers include, but are not limited to, the following: 5.5.1 Assessments . The power to levy Assessments on any Class A Owner as set out herein and to force payment as provided in this Declaration. 5.5.2 Enforcement . The power and authority in its own name, or on behalf of any Owner who consents, to file and maintain actions and suits to restrain and enjoin any breach or threatened breach of this Declaration, the Articles or the Bylaws; and to file and maintain any action to enforce the terms thereof. 5.5.3 Emergency Powers . The power to enter upon any property (but not inside any building) in any emergency where there is potential danger to life or property or when necessary to protect or maintain Improvements for which the Association is responsible. The Association may also enter upon any property to prevent the waste of irrigation water. Such entry shall be made with as little inconvenience to the Owner as practicable. Any damage caused by the Association shall be repaired by the Association. 5.5.4 Licenses, Easements and Rights -of -Way ; Cooperative Agreements. The Association shall have the power to enter into any cooperative or license agreements regarding water or irrigation systems. The Association shall have the power to grant and convey to any third party licenses, easements and rights-of-way in, on or under the Common Area or in any easement areas of any Lots as may be necessary or appropriate for the orderly maintenance, preservation and enjoyment of the Property and Common Area, and for the preservation of the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the Owners. The right to grant such licenses, easements and rights-of-way are hereby expressly reserved to the Association and may be granted at any time prior to twenty-one (21) years from the date of recording of these CC&R's. 5.6. Duties of the Association. In addition to duties necessary and proper to carry out the powers delegated to the Association by this Declaration, the Articles and Bylaws, the Association shall have the authority to perform, without limitation, each of the following duties: 5.6.1 Operation and Maintenance Operate, maintain, and otherwise manage or provide for the operation, maintenance and management of the Common Area, and, at the discretion of the Board, provide for: a) the cleaning and sweeping of the streets in the subdivision to keep construction mud and debris to a minimum; b) mowing the vacant lots and maintaining right of way areas in or adjacent to the subdivision to keep the subdivision as a whole as aesthetically pleasing as possible. 5.6.2 Taxes and Assessments . Pay all real and personal property taxes and assessments including but not limited to water costs separately levied against the Common Area or against the Association and/or any other property in this Subdivision owned or managed by the Association. Taxes, assessments and water costs may be contested or compromised by the Association and the costs are a Common Area expense. The Association shall pay any applicable federal, state or local taxes levied against the Association. 5.6.3 Water and Other Utilities . Acquire, provide and pay for water, utilities, maintenance, operations costs, and other necessary services for the Common Areas or any pressurized urban irrigation system. 5.6.4 Insurance . Acquire insurance coverage as the Board deems necessary or advisable, from insurance companies authorized to do business in the State of Idaho, and maintain any insurance policies including, but not limited to the following: (1) Comprehensive public liability insurance insuring the Board, the Association, the Grantor and/or the individual grantees and agents and employees of each against any liability incident to the ownership and/or use of the Common Area; (2) Directors' and officers' liability Insurance; (3) Motor vehicle insurance and Workmen's Compensation insurance; (4) Performance, fidelity and other bonds the Board deems necessary to carry out the Association functions or to insure the Association against any loss from malfeasance or dishonesty of any employee or other person charged with the management or possession of Association funds or other property. The Association shall be deemed trustee of the interests of all Owners in connection with any insurance proceeds paid to the Association under such policies, and shall have full power to receive the Owner's interests in such proceeds. All proceeds shall be used for Association purposes. Insurance premiums for the above insurance coverage shall be a common expense to be included in the Regular Assessments levied by the Association. 5.6.5 Enforcement of Restrictions and Rules . Perform such other acts, whether or not expressly authorized by this Declaration, as may be reasonably advisable or necessary to 0 enforce any of the provisions of this Declaration, the Articles or the Bylaws. 5.7 No Liability . No Board member, committee member, Association officer, Grantor or its officers, directors or shareholders (collectively herein "Grantor") shall be personally liable to any Owner, or any other party, including the Association, for any damage, loss or prejudice suffered or claimed on the account of any act, omission, error or negligence of that person provided that the person has acted in good faith and without gross, willful or intentional misconduct. 5.8. Budgets; Operating Statement• Balance Sheet; Inspection Within sixty (60) days after the close of each calender year, the Association shall cause to be prepared and shall make available for inspection by any Owner; (1) a balance sheet as of the last day of the Association's calender year; (2) an annual operating statement reflecting the income and expenditures of the Association for its last calender year; and (3) a proposed budget and schedule of Assessments for the current year. Notice of scheduled Assessments due shall be given at least once a year. 5.9 Meetings of Association; Notice of Meeting and Assessments . Each year the Association shall hold at least one annual meeting of the Members on April 30, or some other date set by the board between April 15 and May 31 . If any meeting date falls on a weekend or holiday then the meeting shall be on the next following business day. Notice of such meeting shall be given at least 10 and no more than 30 days prior to the meeting and such notice may include notice of the Assessments scheduled due for the coming year. Only Members or their proxies shall be entitled to attend Association meetings. All other persons may be excluded. Notice for all Association meetings, regular or special, shall be given by regular mail to all Members, at the address for the lot in the subdivision or the address supplied in writing to the Association. This notice shall set forth the place, date and hour of the meeting and the nature of the business to be conducted. All meetings shall be held within the Property, or as close thereto as practical, at a reasonable place selected by the Board. The presence at any meeting of the Class B Member (or representative) where there is such a Member, and of Class A Members representing Owners holding at least ten percent (10%) of the total votes of all Class A Members, shall constitute a quorum. If any meeting cannot be held because a quorum is not present, the Members present may adjourn the meeting to another time not more than thirty (30) days from the time the original meeting was scheduled. If the rescheduled meeting is more than 30 days then additional notice of the next meeting shall be given. At any subsequent meeting properly called, the presence of any Member 0 • shall constitute a quorum. ARTICLE 6: ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL No building, structure, fence, wall, hedge, landscaping, painting, obstruction, berm, driveway, or Improvement shall be placed on, under, over or across any part of Amherst Creek Subdivision No. 1 unless a written request (given to one of the Board of Directors of the Association or a person designated by the Board) for approval thereof containing the plans and specifications therefor, including exterior color scheme, has been approved, in writing, by a member of the Board or any person designated by the Board. The initial Board is as follows: Kevin Howell, Dave Williams and Don Minegar, whose business address is 1087 W. River St. Suite 250, Boise, Idaho 83702. In the event the Board fails to approve or disapprove such request within thirty (30) days after such request has been submitted in writing, approval shall not be required and this Article will be deemed to have been complied with. ARTICLE 7: RIGHTS TO COMMON AREAS 7.1 Use of Common Area . Every Owner shall have the equal right to enjoy the use of those Common Areas or common facilities which are designed and built for such use. The Association may make reasonable rules governing use of the Common Areas and facilities. All common areas and facilities shall be owned by the Association. The Association shall have the power to suspend the use of all common areas to Members who are in arrears for non-payment of Assessments. However the Association may not suspend street or sidewalk access to a members lot or home. The Association may dedicate or transfer all or any part of the Common Area to any public agency, authority or utility for such purposes agreed to by the Members. No dedication, mortgage or transfer of said Common Area shall be effective unless an instrument agreeing to such dedication or transfer is signed by the Grantor (if Grantor still owns any of the Building Lots), and two-thirds (2/3) of the Class A Members. Transfer must also be approved by any local government having jurisdiction over the transfer. Said transfer shall become effective when the instrument is recorded. In the event that an Owner's access to his lot is over any Common Area, then any transfer of that Common Area shall be subject to an easement for the access of the owner. 7.2 Damages . Any Owner shall be liable for damage to any Common Area which may be sustained by reason of the negligence or willful misconduct of the Owner, the Owner's tenant, or the Owner's family, guests, agents, contractors or invitees. In the case of joint ownership the liability of such Owners shall be joint and several. The cost of correcting the damage shall be treated as a Limited Assessment against the Owner and Building Lot and may be collected as provided herein. No Owner shall be liable for any amounts greater than is legally allowable under Idaho law. ARTICLE 8: ASSESSMENTS 8.1 Covenant to Pay Assessments. By acceptance of a deed to any property in Amherst Creek Subdivision No. 1, each Class A Owner hereby covenants and agrees to pay, when due, all Assessments or charges made by the Association pursuant to this Declaration. In the event this subdivision is developed in phases, the lots in uncompleted phases shall not be assessed until they become Class A Owner's lots. Declarant shall not pay any Assessments for lots owned by Declarant. No Mortgagee shall be required to collect any assessments. 8.1.1 Assessment Constitutes Lien. Such Assessments and charges set out herein, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees which may be incurred in collecting the same, shall be a continuing lien upon the property against which each such Assessment or charge is made. 8.1.2 Assessment Personal Obligation . Each Assessment obligation set out herein which accrues during the time of ownership shall also be the personal obligation of the Owner beginning the time the Assessment falls due. This personal obligation for Assessments shall remain Owner's personal obligation regardless of whether he remains an Owner. Notwithstanding anything contained herein, the failure to pay assessments does not constitute a default on an owner's federally insured mortgage. 8.2 Regular Assessments . All Class A Owners are obligated to pay Regular Assessments to the Association on a schedule of payments established by the Board. 8.2.1 Initial Regular Assessment: The initial Regular Assessment for the first calendar year (1998) is to be one hundred twenty dollars ($120) per year per lot. This initial assessment is due upon sale of a lot from Grantor and shall be prorated on a calendar year basis based on the date of closing and shall be paid to the Association by the Buyer upon closing of the first transfer of the lot from the Declarant to the Buyer. 8.2.2 Regular Assessments . The proceeds from Regular (and other) Assessments are to be used to pay for all costs and expenses incurred by the Association, including but not limited to; (1) legal, accounting, management, and professional fees; (2) the costs and expenses of construction, improvement, protection, maintenance, repair, management and operation of the Common Area and common facilities; (3) an amount allocated to an adequate reserve fund, established by the Board, for repairs, replacement, maintenance and improvement of those elements of the Common Area, or other property of the Association that must be replaced and maintained; (4) the cleaning and sweeping of the streets in the subdivision to keep construction mud and debris to a minimum; and (5) mowing the vacant lots and maintaining right of way areas in or adjacent to the subdivision to keep the subdivision as a whole aesthetically pleasing. 8.2.3 Computation of Regular Assessments . The Association shall compute the amount of its Expenses on an annual calendar basis and shall Assess each Class A Owner's lot equally for all Assessments (except the Limited Assessments which are on a lot by lot basis). Regular Assessments for the calender year shall be pro -rated as of the date of closing. 8.2.4 Amounts Paid by Owners. The Board can require, in its discretion payment of Regular Assessments in monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual installments. The Regular Assessment to be paid by any particular Owner for any given calender year shall be computed by dividing the Association's total advance estimate of expenses by the total number of Class A Building Lots in the Property (i.e, each Class A Owner of a Building Lot shall pay an equal share of Regular Assessments). 8.3 Special Assessments . 8.3.1 Transfer Special Assessment. Upon each transfer of any lot in the subdivision and the recording of the deed each Buyer at closing shall pay to the Association a special transfer assessment of Twenty -Five ($25.00) Dollars which shall be used for general Association purposes. 8.3.2 Start-up Assessment: Upon the first sale of each lot in this subdivision from the Declarant, the Buyer shall pay to the Association at closing an initial Association Start-up fee equal to one hundred and fifty ($150) Dollars to be used for general Association purposes. This fee shall be a one time initial Start- up fee, and shall not be prorated for any time left in the calendar year. This Start-up fee assessment shall be paid in full regardless of the time of year of the closing but shall only be paid once per lot. 8.3.3 Special Short Fall Assessments. In the event that the Board shall determine that its respective Regular Assessment for a given calendar year is or will be short to meet the Expenses of the Association for any reason, including but not limited to costs of construction, reconstruction, unexpected repairs or replacement of capital improvements upon the Common Area, attorney's fees and/or litigation costs, other professional fees, the Board shall determine the approximate amount necessary to defray such expenses and levy an Excess or Special Assessment equally to all Class A Owners. No such Assessment shall be levied which exceeds thirty-five percent (35%) of the budgeted expenses of the Association for that calendar year, without the vote or written assent of 2/3 of the Class A Owners. The Board shall, in its discretion, determine the schedule under which such Special Assessment will be paid. 8.4 Limited Assessments . Notwithstanding the above provisions with respect to Regular and Special Assessments, the Board may levy a Limited Assessment against a Building Lot and the Owner thereof personally as a remedy to reimburse the Association for costs (together with the 10% management fee, interest and attorneys fees as provided in Article 9 below) incurred in bringing the Owner and/or such Owner's Building Lot into compliance with the provisions of these CC&R's. 8.5 Notice and Assessment Due Date . Except for the Special Transfer Assessment, the Start-up Assessment and initial prorated Regular Assessment, written notice of all other assessments shall be given to the Owner at the property address in the property covered by this Declaration or to such other address as the Owner supplies in writing to the Board. Such notice shall set out the amounts due and the date(s) due. Each installment of Assessments shall become delinquent if not paid within ten (10) days after the levy and notice thereof. The Association may bring an action against the delinquent Owner and may foreclose the lien against such Owner's Building Lot as more fully provided herein. 8.6 Late_ Fees; Interest on Past Due Assessments: Assessments of any kind which are not paid within ten (10) days of the due date shall be assessed an additional late charge of $25.00. In addition, interest shall be paid on the unpaid assessment at the rate of one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) per month from the date the assessment was due until the date of payment. 8.7 Estoppel Certificate . The Association, upon at least twenty (20) days prior written request, shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to the party making such request, a statement in writing stating whether or not, to the knowledge of the Association, a particular Building Lot Owner is in default under the provisions of this Declaration, and further stating the dates to which any Assessments have been paid by the Owner. Any such certificate delivered pursuant to this paragraph may be relied upon by any prospective purchaser or Mortgagee of the Owner's Building Lot. Reliance on such Certificate may not extend to any default as to which the signor shall have had no actual knowledge. ARTICLE 9: ENFORCEMENT OF COVENANTS AND ASSESSMENTS; LIENS 9.1 Right to Enforce; Attorneys Fees . The Association has the right to enforce these covenants and to collect and enforce its Assessments. Each Owner of a Building Lot, by accepting a deed to a Building Lot, covenants and agrees to comply with the terms, covenants, conditions and restrictions contained herein and to pay each Assessment provided for in this Declaration and agrees to the enforcement of all covenants and Assessments in the manner herein specified and/or by law. In the event an attorney or attorneys are employed for the enforcement of any covenants or the collection of any Assessment, whether by suit or otherwise, or to enforce compliance with or specific performance of the terms and conditions of this Declaration, each Owner agrees to pay reasonable attorney's fees in addition to any other relief or remedy against such Owner. The Board or its authorized representative may enforce these covenants or the obligations of the Owner hereunder by: (1) direct corrective action against the Owner or the offending violation; (2) litigation at law or in equity; (3) foreclosure of the liens created herein; (4) expenditure of funds to remedy any violations; and/or (5) any other lawful action. 9.1.1 Corrective Action. In the event an Owner fails to comply with any provisions of these Declarations, the Board shall have authority to take appropriate corrective action against said Owner. Each Owner who is the subject of such corrective action agrees to and shall pay all the costs of said corrective action, plus interest on all expended funds from the date of expenditure at the rate of 1-1/2% per month, plus a management fee equal to ten percent (10%) of all the costs expended for the corrective action, and all attorneys fees incurred. Such shall be a Limited Assessment against that Lot and that Lot Owner and shall create a lien enforceable in the same manner as other assessments set forth in these CC&R's. If such an assessment is not paid within ten (10) days of notice of the limited assessment, the Owner shall also be subject to late fees set out herein. 9.1.2 Notice of Corrective Action: Prior to taking corrective action the Board, or its authorized representative, shall give notice to the Owner of the violation of these Declarations, the remedy necessary and the date by which the remedy must be completed. In the event the Owner has not remedied the violation by the time set out in the notice the Owner consents to corrective action by the Board or its representatives and shall pay all the costs of such corrective 'action as set out in this Declaration. 9.2 Assessment Liens . There is hereby created a lien with power of sale on each and every Building Lot to secure payment of any and all Assessments levied against such Building Lot together with other charges as provided in this Declaration. All sums assessed in accordance with the provisions of this Declaration shall constitute a lien on such respective Building Lots upon recording of a claim of lien with the County Recorder. Such lien shall be prior and superior to all other liens or claims created subsequent to the recording of the claim of lien except for tax liens for real property taxes on any Building Lot and Assessments on any Building Lot in favor of any municipal or other governmental assessing body which, by law, would be superior thereto. 9.2.1 Claim of Lien . Upon default of any Owner in the payment of any Assessment, the Association may cause to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder a claim of lien. The claim of lien shall state the amount of such delinquent sums and other authorized charges (including the cost of recording), a sufficient legal description of the Building Lot(s) against which the same have been assessed, and the name of the record Owner (or reputed Owner) thereof. Each default shall constitute a separate basis for a claim of lien, but any number of defaults may be included within a single claim of lien. Upon payment to the Association of all Assessments and all other charges of any kind set out in this Declaration or other satisfaction thereof, the Association shall cause to be recorded a notice releasing the lien. The Association may demand and receive the cost of preparing and recording such release before recording the same. 9.3 Method of Foreclosure . The lien may be foreclosed like a mortgage; ; foreclosed by power of sale; foreclosed pursuant to Idaho Code 45- 507; or foreclosed by any other appropriate action in court. The Owner shall pay all of the Association's attorneys fees and costs of the action if the Association prevails. Any sale shall be conducted in accordance with Idaho law applicable to the exercise of powers of sale. The Board is authorized to appoint its attorney, any officer or director of the Association, or any title company authorized to do business in Idaho as trustee for the purpose of conducting such power of sale or foreclosure to the extent allowed by law. 9.4 Action at Law. The Association may, in it's discretion, elect not to foreclose the lien and simply file an action at law against the Owner for the monies due. The Owner shall pay all of the Association's attorneys fees and costs of the action if the Association prevails. 9.5 Required Notice . Any claim of lien shall be recorded with the County Recorder. In the event that the Association elects to file a lien and foreclose pursuant to Idaho Code 45-507 then the Association shall serve the copy of the recorded lien on the Owner within 24 hours of the recording of the lien as required by 45-507. No foreclosure action may be brought to foreclose the lien, whether judicially, by power of sale or otherwise, until the expiration of thirty (30) days after a copy of such claim of lien has been deposited in the United States mail, certified or registered, postage prepaid, to the Owner of the Building Lot(s) described in the claim of lien, and to the person in possession of such Building Lot(s). No prior notice to the Owner is required for the Association to file an action at law for the monies due; provided, however, that no action at law can be filed until an Assessment is more than 60 days in default. 9.6 Subordination to Certain Trust Deeds . The lien for the Assessments provided for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of any first deed • 0 of trust or first mortgage given and made in good faith and for value that is of record as an encumbrance against such Building Lot prior to the recording of a claim of lien for the Assessments. The transfer of any lot pursuant to a foreclosure of a first: deed of trust or mortgage shall extinguish the lien of the Assessments which came due before the foreclosure. Otherwise, the sale or transfer of any Building Lot shall not affect any liens or lien rights that Association has in this Declaration. Nor shall such sale or transfer diminish or defeat the personal obligation of any Owner for Assessments. 9.7 Rights of Mortgagees . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Declaration, no amendment of this Declaration shall operate to defeat the rights of the Beneficiary under any deed of trust upon a Building Lot made in good faith and for value, and recorded prior to the recording of such amendment, provided that after the foreclosure of any such deed of trust such Building Lot shall remain subject to this Declaration as amended. ARTICLE 10: EASEMENTS 10.1 Easements of Access . Grantor expressly reserves for the benefit of all the Property and Owners reciprocal easements of access, ingress and egress to and from their respective Building Lots. These reserved easements are for; (1) installation and repair of utility services in the easement areas identified on the plat; (2) drainage of water (by buried pipe and not by flooding) across and under adjacent Building Lots and Common Areas in the drainage easement areas shown on the plat; (3) reasonable and necessary access by adjacent Owners for the maintenance and repair of fencing, retaining walls, lighting facilities, mailboxes, sidewalk abutments, trees, landscaping and the like. Such easements may also be used as necessary by Grantor and the Association. 10.2 Utility Easements . This Declaration is subject to all easements granted by Grantor before or after this Declaration for the installation and maintenance of utilities, drainage facilities, sewer, water, irrigation systems and the like that are required for the development of the Property. Grantor reserves, for the benefit of the Association, the right to grant additional easements and rights-of-way over the Property to utility companies and public agencies as necessary or expedient for the proper development of the Property. No permanent structures or Improvements shall be constructed on any drainage or utility easement areas which would interfere with or prevent the easement from being used for it's intended purpose. Landscaping and fences in these easement areas are permitted in this Declaration if they do not interfere with the use of the easement. ARTICLE 11: MISCELLANEOUS 1 11.1 Term . The easements granted in this Declaration shall be perpetual and shall not be dissolved without the express prior written permission of the City of Boise. These CC&R's shall run with the land, and remain in effect, until December 31, 2025, unless amended as provided. After December 31, 2025, these CC&R's shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years each, unless amended or terminated by a recorded instrument executed by Members holding at least three-fourths (3/4) of the voting power of the Association. The Association shall not be dissolved without the express prior written permission of the City of Boise. 11.2 Amendment By Grantor. Until the recording of the first deed to a Building Lot, the provisions of this Declaration may be amended, modified, clarified, supplemented, added to or terminated by Grantor alone by recording a written instrument setting forth such amendment or termination. 11.3 Amendment By Owners . Any amendment to this Declaration, shall be by an instrument in writing signed and acknowledged by the President and Secretary of the Association certifying and attesting that such amendment has been approved by the vote, or written consent, representing two thirds (2/3) or more of the votes in the Association. Any amendment shall be effective upon recording with the County Recorder of such amendment. 11.4 Effect of Amendment . Any amendment of this Declaration approved in the manner specified above shall be binding on all Owners and all Property, notwithstanding that some Owners may not have voted for or consented to such amendment. Amendments may add to and increase the covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements applicable to the Property but no amendment shall prohibit or unreasonably interfere with the allowed uses of any Owner's property which existed prior to the said amendment. 11.5 Annexation of Additional Area. Declarant shall have the right to annex and include additional areas owned by Declarant into these Declarations and to make these additional areas subject to the jurisdiction of these CC&R's and the Association. Declarant may annex these additional areas by recording a "Notice of Annexation" with the County Recorder describing the additional property to be annexed and referring to these Declarations and specifically stating in the notice any other or modified or additional restrictions that apply to the additional lands. Upon recording of the Notice of Annexation, these CC&R's shall apply to the additional lands (as added to or modified by the Notice of Annexation) as if the additional land were originally covered by this Declaration. V 0 Thereafter, the rights, privileges, duties and liabilities of all parties with respect to the additional lands and the lands described in this Declaration will be governed by these Declarations and the Notice of Annexation as if all had been done together originally. The Association shall manage all the lands together. 11.6 Mortgage Protection . No amendment of this Declaration shall operate to defeat or render invalid the rights of the beneficiary under any first deed of trust made in good faith and for value, and recorded prior to the recording of such amendment, provided that after foreclosure of any first deed of trust such Building Lot shall remain subject to this Declaration, as amended. 11.7 Notices . Any notices required by these CC&R's shall be in writing and may be delivered either personally, by mail, or by overnight courier. Delivery shall be complete when served personally, posted prepaid at the Post Office or delivered prepaid to the overnight courier. Notices shall be sent to Owners at the address of the property or if the Owner has given a different address to the Association in writing then notices shall be given to that address. Such address may be changed from time to time by notice in writing to the Association. Notices to the Grantor and to the Association shall be given to that address of Grantor on Page One until Owners are given notice in writing of another address for notice. 11.8 Enforcement and Non -Waiver . These CC&R's may be enforced by Declarant, the Board, the Association or any Owner. Failure to enforce any of the terms of this Declaration at any time shall not be a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as an obligation of the Declarant, Board, or Amherst Creek Neighborhood Association to enforce any of these CC&R's. Neither Declarant, Board nor Amherst Creek Neighborhood Association shall have any liability of any kind to any person or Lot Owner for failing to enforce any of these CC&R's. 11.9 Successors and Assigns. All references herein to Declarant, Owners, the Association or person shall be construed to include all heirs, successors, assigns, partners and authorized agents of such Grantor, Owners, Association or person. DATED THIS day of , 1998. Kevin A. Howell STATE OF IDAHO, ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ADA, ) On this day of , 19_, before me, the undersigned a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Kevin A. Howell known or identified to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing in Idaho My Commission Expires: SUBDIVISION EVALUATION SHEET Proposed Development Name Cedar Springs Residential Subdivision File No. PP -00-018 Date Reviewed 10/5/00 Preliminary Stage X Final Engineer/Developer J -U -B Engineers Inc/Kevin Howell 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 Ada County Street Name Ordinance. The followinq existing street names shall appear on the plat: "N. MERIDIAN ROAD" "W. USTICK ROAD" "N. VENABLE LANE" The following streets names are not approved because they are duplicates or sound alike. "W. WALLIS COURT" "N. ROSS AVENUE" "W. MONTROSE STREET" "N. MARLOWE AVENUE" "N. CHURCHILL AVENUE" "N. ADDISON AVENUE" "W. SOMERSET STREET' "N. LOCKSLEY AVENUE" The following street names are approve for this plat: "N. GREENWICH WAY" "N. PRICE AVENUE" "N. ELSINORE AVENUE" "N. BYRON PLACE" "N. BRETON PLACE" "W. ASHBY DRIVE" "W. ALEXIS DRIVE" "W. FRANDON COURT' "W. BLAKE STREET' "W. THAIN STREET' "W. ALESTER STREET' "W. ANTON STREET' "W. ASHTON DRIVE" "N. BARRON WAY' "W. STAUNTON COURT' "W. WELCH STREET' "W. CORNELL COURT' "N. RHODES AVENUE" "N. STANFORD AVENUE" and "N. PORTAGE AVENUE" Please submit five (5) more names for this plat Page 1 of 2 0 • 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, AGENC_( REPRESENTATIVES OR DESIGNEES � J Ada County Engineer John Priester f Date iL S Community Planning Assoc. Linda Rit r Date 5 City of MeridianCheryl Sable Date /v 1 Meridian Fire Dept. Representative v% Date 16 " O 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 !III Sub Index Street Index 4N 1W 36 Section NUMBERING OF LOTS AND BLOCKS No ^ / TR\SUBS\Small Cities.FRM Page 2 of 2