The URL can be used to link to this page

Aspen Grove AZ CUP PP • • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY OFFICIALS A Good Place to Live COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., Clty Clerk MAX YERRINGTON W CITY OF MERIDIAN ROBERT D. CORRIE eer GARY D. SM TH, P.E. City Eng WALT W. MORROW BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. 33 EAST IDAHO WAYNE S. FORREY, AICP JOHN T. SHAWCROF7, waste water supt. Planner a£ zoning Administrator KENNY W. BOWERS, Flre Chlet A~RIDIAN, IDAHO $3642 W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief JIM JOHNSON WAYNE G. GROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Phone (208) 888.4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Chairman -Planning 8 Zoning Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission, may we have your answer by: March 3. 1994 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 2/15/94 HEARING DATE: 3/8/94 REQUEST: Annexation/zoning with a Conditional Use Permit for Aspen Grove Est. BY: Shekinah Ind and Power Engineers LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SW corrner of Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z TIM HEPPER, P/Z GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) _ C~CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: • APPLIATION FOR ANNEXATION APPROVAL & ZONING OR REZONE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FILING INFORMATION I. GENERAL INFORMATION A sP~i.~ ~ eo(~~' ~ sTA-T~s F~..,~ww~ D~~i~~,~~ry~ (PROPOSED NAME OF Co~D~T~ONAL)!~(S ~ ~\~I Coe 1~~z o~ ~~An~~urJ ~ ~c,uS7 cn e~v~ ~D~.D~ (GENERAL LOCATION) ~}T~c,N- ~ (LEGAL DESCRIPTION - ATTACH IF LENGTHY) SEA i NPR ~ I~OT~izI~~D ~}l~T~l~ IAA-T/OIUS (OWNER(S} oE` RECORD) (NAME) (TELEPHONE N0.) (ADDRESS) D ~ IG.H~4EL. ~rD~ (APPLICANT) (NAME) (TELEPHONE NO.) (ADDRESS) (ENGINEER, SURVE OR OR PLANNER) NAME) ~ (TELEPHONE N0.) _ ~ ~ o liU yyl A P(~ Cv i~C~ ~ I~a~ I~o ~ S ~ ~ b . ~f 3 7Q 4- (ADDRESS) ~IT~ o~ ~y-~~n~,~ (JURISDICTION(S) REQUIRING APPROVAL) P c~ ~ nr~~ ~ ~l L) / _ ~Go rtil M ~s,~r ~ 4 ~ :b! y4N Iy ED .fJsC~~LQP, (TYPE OF SUBDIVISI N - RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL) +50 ~ ~~~ ACRES OF LAND IN CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP. (ACCEPTED BY:) (FEE) ~~l' • • CITY OF MERIDIAN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NAME: ADDRESS: PHONES?~~z 1047 ~e$5, GENERAL LOCATION : ~ W Cow o~ ~P~}p ~.L~1.JVJ ~ ~USr ~ F.DU~ ~A-p s DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: ~3~ I~I1,4YVU ~~TL(Q~D -~-~ti~~~ ~~~ ~-r ~~- ~a - ~~ ~ Amu. Lr p~-z~s £~e ~-ac~s~-~+~n ~ti wi-r~F 3, 7 ~~e~s o ~ Go~r~~p~~~-t-~ls~, ZONING CLASSIFICATION: -' ~S( ~S //~ F~~- yVlI1C~b PUD.) PLAN: A plan of the proposed site for the conditional use showing the location of all buildings, parking and loading areas, traffic access and traffic circulation, open spaces, landscaping, refuse and service areas, utilities, signs and yards. LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to established procedure, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a Public Hearing in the Meridian City Hall on at The purpose of the Hearing is to consider a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT submitted by ~,~~~l~ttTt In 1 ~~'~~~~ 1 U~~" . for the property generally described ro ~ Wq~DS as 1 ocated at -~ !~ ~ Co ~~. o~ ~~A-~ l~L~l~l ~~ Sr TO BLOCK LOT NUMBER ~. -.~ ,, ~ • • PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS 290 North Maple Grove Road Boise, ID 83704 (208) 378-6380 FAX (208) 378-0025 PROJECT: 143081 REVISED: February 10, 1994 DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED ASPEN GROVE ESTATES A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 18 T. 3N., R.lE., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A parcel of land being a portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, Section 18, T. 3N., R. lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows; Beginning at a point marking the Northeast corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18, T.3N., R. lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho said point also being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the Northerly boundary of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18, also said Northerly boundary being the Centerline of Franklin Road South 89°46' 18" West 1327.20 feet to a point marking the Northwest corner of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18; thence leaving said Northerly boundary and along the Westerly boundary of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18 South 00°29'39" West 1332.06 feet to a point marking the Southwest corner of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18; thence leaving said Westerly boundary and along the Southerly boundary of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18 North 89°39'31" East 1326.57 feet to a point marking the Southeast corner of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18; thence leaving said Southerly boundary and along the Easterly boundary of the Northeast 1/4 of said Northeast 1/4 Section 18 also said Easterly boundary being the centerline of Locust Grove Road North 00°31'23" East 149.00 feet to a point; thence leaving said Easterly boundary South 89°39'31" West 436.37 feet to a point; thence North O1°22'31" East 371.55 feet to a point; thence North 19°11'29" West 135.60 feet to a point; thence North 02°24'06" East 115.82 feet to a point; thence North 89°42'53" East 472.78 feet to a point said point marking a point on the Easterly boundary of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18 also said Easterly boundary being the Centerline of Locust Grove Road; thence along said Easterly boundary and centerline North 00°31'23" East 565.45 feet to the point of beginning, comprising of 34.24 acres, more of less. Pacific Land Surveyors, a division of POWER Engineers, Inc., an Idaho Corporation T • SUBJECT TO: All existing easements and road rights-of--way of record or appearing on the above-described parcel of land. JTE:EDM Prepared by: PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS ~' ,, 4,~b ~J' ~ F 1~ t ~ ~ rT Cif 7~-~~~ ~ John T. (Tom) Eddy, P.L.S. _. I . - ~ I~ ^~ r A"" ~ ice- ; ~ ~ J ~. _ 1~ - -- - ~ oa znao^r __ , ~-- o~ ~ _ _ ~ (Q~ -____~ n i s ~ ~-7 ~.,~.. ~ ~ C~MNE iV FL I ,.er t a JJ J _~ /- _ ~ , 1 ~ ~ I / ~~ • s' ~e = ' ~ i ~ f - a a~ k .> - ~ • ~S I, ' _/ _' l~/~ ~ _. II '~ s IJ F ~ -~- ~ ~ ~ -. s I~ ,~ ~ ~ ;, .; f ry Et ~ ~ - ~ (~~~ Q , ~-v - - v" `MJC -~ ~t ~ - ~ 1 ~' -' ~~ ~ ~ ~ h5° I' ' ~ i ~ --- 6 1 poi • 1 _ - -~ j • ~. !`~+ • 1 ,N • • N' • ~ _ i a~ ~~, ; _ . • ~ ~ ,; ~ i ~~ ~~ ,~~ i ~ - ¢ ~' ,• ~ _ ~ ~• ~ ~~• . I~ _ ,; / ~ ~ •~~~ ~_ ~, ~i - ,i ~ C 3 R ~ 9 L~ x ~w ~ + ~ I~.P', ~. I~i~ y Q 7 a i i y aC; ,.seee~9 ~ ~~~es~6~d ~~,~ ii~ieal~'~bi~9 ~' ~ _ !--off _~~ ~ iii ~ . ',-re1Vp aw..a:.a aoq~.'h~ a..:j I ~A • ~~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ e 4, ® S Z ~ C ' ~_ J ~ ® ~ ~-~ ® J 9 $ 4 ~ __ ¢a~l e '~ ~ e ~ ai dnlo~ ; -' W ~ ® ~ ~r ~ ~.~ ~~ yy ] ss On S9'~- " Q ~ `s :. ® Y -~ ~ ® ~~~ m p ~~ -,® e~'~~~-. _' ~ N _ ~' ili ,S. S dd- ~i ~ •~ . ~ I ~ ~~ ~ i ~ ~ ~., e ~" as ~ ~2 ~ .1y11713~~ r ~I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I: ~•6 I'. I / d90 • 4 _ T=: '1 I ~~ ~~ . ~ • Shekinah Industries, Inc. 420 Bitteroot Drive, Boise, Idaho 83709 (208) 375-2647 February 11, 1994 City of Meridian Planning Administrator 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Administrator: This application is for Aspen Grove Estates, a Planned Residential and Commercial Planned Development. The project consists of 33.1 acres of property located at the southwest corner of Locust Grove and Franklin Roads. The current property is zoned R-T and currently lies within Ada County but is adjacent to Meridian on the North side. Please consider this application as a multifaceted document which requests the City of Meridian's consideration on annexation into the City of Meridian with a Mixed PUD Zone along with approval of a Conditional Use Permit for 139 fully landscaped homes with 2 car carports or garages on rented or leased lots and 3.7 acres of commercial development. The commercial development consists of a gasoline/mini-mart/carwash facility, 8,250 SF of professional offices, and 33,000 SF of neighborhood commercial uses with a total of 76 parking spaces. Private street approval is also requested as a part of this application. The 33.1 acre project is currently owned by three separate entities. They are: Ivadco, Inc., Monte McClure, and Norm Brown. Attached to this application you will find all three owners notarized authorization to this request and their individual legal descriptions. I have signed earnest money, Purchase and Sale Agreements with each of these people and have enclosed a copy of all these documents for your files. Also attached is a composite legal description of the entire project. The properties' current uses include a private residence, barn and pasture on Mr. Brown's 3.69 acre property which he uses for his home and pasture for several of his horses. Mr. McClure also has his home on his 5.52 acres. The majority of this property is pastui-e which he rents out. The Ivadco, Inc. property is approximately 23.87 acres. This property has a mobile home site and several outbuildings but is mainly pastui-e land which is also rented out. The properties Planning Administrator February 11, 1994 Page 2 lie within a mixed use area of Industrial, scattered Residential, Commercial, and Agricultural areas. The Idaho State Police training facility is located to the southwest of this property, while the Builder's Marketplace, Inc. factory and warehouse is located along the northerly edge of this property. The Meridian Business and Industrial Park is located at the northwest corner of this property. Due to the diversity of the surrounding uses and the fact that the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan proposes a Mixed Use designation for this property, the proposed use I have selected will flt in with all the varied neighbors. A current need in Meridian is to provide high quality, residential neighborhoods that will supply affordable housing to starter home families while at the same time appeal to adult and retired couples as a secure area with good access to services and a place that will not tie them down if they travel. Because of the surrounding commercial and industrial uses, it is mandatory to control the interior aesthetic quality of the entire development such as landscaping, unsightly parked cars and exterior maintenance to attract these buyers. For this reason singe ownership of all grounds and facilities allows better control of quality and aesthetics. Strict rental agreements will require all homeowners to keep their areas up for the benei~t of all residents. Maintenance Agreements will be provided for all residences who don't care to - or can't maintain -their yard areas. Each home site will have a large storage area built into the carport or will have an oversized garage. This is to encourage home shops and hobby areas for added appeal. Another very important feature of this project is the carefully planned outside privacy areas that encourage outside living in the summer. Carports, landscaping, and privacy fencing will secure an appealing private courtyard for every home. Please note on the Concept Plan that each home is located off the streets approximately 30 feet which will allow for excellent street scaping in the front yards. In order to encourage the City of Meridian's approval of this much needed project that speaks to the desire of more affordable housing, the taxable base of this project will be substantially higher than the many residential projects that are prevalent in Meridian today. These homes will probably have a combined taxable value of $75,000-$80,000, while other developments probably average $90,000. The average density of normal projects with 6,000-7,000 square foot lots are 3.5 homes per acre, while this project is 4.76 homes per acre. The value of these projects equate to $315,000 per acre for standard subdivisions, while Aspen Grove Estates equates to $357,00-$380,000 per acre of assessed values respectively. In addition, since the sewer lines, water lines, drainage system, irrigation system, and street systems are private and do not have to be maintained in the future by the public, future maintenance costs will be avoided or reduced. The commercial project will add tremendously to the taxable value . ~ ~ Plaruzing Administrator February 11, 1994 Page 3 of this project over standard projects. Recreational opportunities have been provided within the development which encourage residents to mix and get to know one another better than typical developments do. I will have a resident manager that will also act as a social director to initiate neighborhood activities. We want Aspen Grove Estates to become a very desirable area of Meridian in which to live. In order to maintain the existing neighbors' privacy from this development, a 6' solid cedar fence will be constructed between their homes and ours. We want to be good neighbors to the $ve adjacent residents. The Aspen Grove Estates Plaiuied Development is ideally suited to its mixed use neighborhood as is required by the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and will provide affordable housing to the Meridian area while maintaining a superior tax base. Your positive consideration of this annexation and rezone request, Conditional Use Permit for 139 homes and 3.7 acre commercial development and approval of private streets will be greatly appreciated. All required fees and documents are herein respectfully submitted. If you have any questions please call me at 375-2647. Sincerely yours, S HINAH INDUSTRIE C. D. Michael Preston President i - - - - - - - ~ __--- ~----~-._..~- _-- j -~------_~-_- E fi - __ . _.~__ ~ ----_.1~.~-~~.~L.._____a8 ,. ~.~~r~~.~o_-•--- _._.-_. _. i __ ___ ~~ r - ---.. -- -~-'s _--_ -__._ ._ ._.._------. ..-. _. --_ ._. __ [ ,. l ... _ _ . - _- -.. _.._ _-- _ - - - ---- -____._ _.... __ _ ..__ _~ z[~ ~ ~ r~~~a ~--~-~- ~. ~ ~ I L1~v rn ~ /~~ ~~.~,~~ am an owner or legal representative of a portion of the Aspen Grove Estates property. I reside at /4~ 7~~ F .~..vi~~~1 1~~~ Meridian, Idaho 83642. Please accept this document as my request and authorization of annexing and rezoning my property as applied for by D. Michael Preston in the Aspen Grove Estates PUD. I hereby grant my approval of the stated annexation and rezone request. DECEIVED FEB111994 CITY (~~ NI~RIDIAN STATE OF IDAHO ) County of Ada ) Pro erty Owner On this f ~ 7`~` day of , -~,1 r ,~ ,before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said Stat personally appeared 7~ c,~~ ~ _ ~TY 1 c ~-- ,known or identified to me to be the owner of a portion of the proposed Aspen Grove Estates project located at the southwest corner of Franklin and Locust Grove Roads, whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he execute 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. `.~\1 i t '• ~, ` .l, ~ ' Notary Public for Idaho ~ ~ ~ !, ; i ~ , ~ Residing at Boise, Idaho .~~; My Commission Expires: ~Q - '' ~~ ~ K =-~- .~ • _ Order Nn.: ST-88015770 SR/SA EXHIBIT "A" /~~~ ~rZ~ ~ 7~,cr THAT PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY THE NORTH LINE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN WARRANTY DEED_N0. 700676, BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY THE £A'~`$KI;4"~`I;~NE °'OF 'THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: BEGIN?~ING AT A POINT ON THE CENTER LINE OF FRANKLIN ROAD AND THE NORTH SIDE OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1_ EAST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, WHICH POINT IS SOUTH 89 DEGREES 18' WEST, 480.7 FEET ALONG THE SECTION LINE FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 18; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 18' WEST, 183.1 FEET TO A POINT, THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 18; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES O1' EAST, 1330.7 FEET TO A STEEL PIN, THE SOUTH~NEST CORNER OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST l'4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION,18; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 12' EAST, 224.7 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF-THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 18 TO A STEEL PIN; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 55' EAST, 520.6 FEET TO A STEEL PIN; THENCE NORTH 19 DEGREES 39' WEST, 135.6 FEET TO A STEEL PIN; THENCE NORTH () DEGREES 31' EAST, 494.5 FEET TO A STEEL PIN; THENCE NORTH 2 DEGREES 43' WEST, 187.4 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, BOUNDED UN THE NORTH BY THE NORTH SECTION LINE, AND BOUNDED UN THE EAST BY THE EAST SECTION LINE. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTH 48.5 FEET THEREOF, AS. ME~ISUHED ALONG THE EAST SECTION LINE. EXCEPTING THAT PORTION FOR ROAD AND DITCH RIGHTS-OF-WAY. '"~^~" ~~~-r~a~.L'AIHIC.fUHI.ffN:~l_HI'VU;:~/ALL/il.rt-_L.IuYL_IVIAIVUItY_i.1.ll-'11~,ilYli~lll~l.:.,llV,l)1~1..,y~ THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, READ THE ENIIHE UgcuMr.-d r, 1NCa Uu1NG Y71L GENERAL. PIUN rl. a 1•In)vR.urnti UN IIIL' IILVI: HLI, i•IUC ~, AND ANY ATTACHMC•NTS, CAREFULL PURE SIUNINO. II YOU IIAVL ANY UUL 8I IUNB, CUNL)UL I YOl1H A I tU11NLY UEI UNE YIUNINU. ~. IMPORTANT -AGENCY DISCLOSURE.e tide of sioninp~apr®emtu~-the agent working with the l~roprosentod -~-~ and th,e agent working with the seller represented .Each party slgnmg this document confirms that prior written discbsure of agency wrs provided to hirtVher in this IransacUon. Each party to this trensoclion has road and ~nderelands the contents of Uto eg xy dlsLaosure b pure previously rgoelved. ~ID# .236956 a ~ ,9~" (hereinafter called " u e agr to pu e, th unde signs a er agrees t II a lot owing describe real est to erelnafter re erred to as re lses' commonly known as Clty L of , Id o legal) described as: (A ULL ND COMPLETE LEGAL DESC ION MUST BE SERTED OR ATTACHED PRIOR TO EXECUTION BY SELL R. Buyer hereby a orizes broker to insert over his signature the correct legal description of the premises if unavailable at the time of signing, or to correct t legal description previously entered if erroneous or incomplete.) 2. EARf~E T MONEY. ~~ (a) B e ereb~posits as earnest money and a rec ip s hereby acknowledged of ~ ~doliars ($ )evidenced by: ^ Cash Personal Check ^Cashiers Check ^ Note Due ^ r (b) Earnest Money to be deposited in trust account u cceptance by all parties and shall h I by: ^L' Ing r r ^Sel ng Broker ^Other ror the benefit of the parties hereto, and (Broker) shall hold the completely executed broker's copy of this agreement and is responsible for the closing. (c) If all conditions have been met by Buyer, Buypr and Seller agree that the earnest money (less credit report fees, and any oth Buyer's costs) shall be refunded to Buyer in the event Buyer or Seller cannot con a the sale due to circumstances beyond their control. (d) The parties agree that Title Company shall provide title policy and preliminary report of commitment and the "closing agency" for this transactions e . If long-term escrow /collection is involved, then the escrow holder shall be 3. TOTAL PU SE P EIS r DOLLARS ($ . r. Payable as i I ~~ f ,G ~~ (a) $ ~~/lr ash down, including abo a Ea est Closing c is ar addit~i~ al). (b) $ al nce of the purchase price (M.I.P. no included). 4. FINANCING. This agreement is contingent u 1 t e of owing linancing: ^ FHA, ^ VA, ^ Conv, ^ IRA, ^ FmHA, ^ Assumption of existing loan(s).^Other. (a) ^ NEW FINANCING. Purchase loan bat nc as led abo for a period of-years at_% per annum. (Ii FHA or VA loan is sought, read the applicable provisions on the reverse side hereof.) Buyer shall pay no more than points plus origination tee ii any. Seller to pay only the discount points necessary in order to obtain above described linancing but not to exceed points. Any reduction in points shall firs) accrue to the benefit of the: ^ Buyer ^Seller ^ Divided Equally. (b) ^ ASSUMPTION. Buyer to ASSUME and ^ will or ^will not be required to quality for an EXISTING LOAN(S) of approximately $ at no more than % with monthly payments of approximately $ Including ^ P ^ I ^ T ^ I. This agreement ^ does ^ does not require Lender to release Seller's liability. Type of loan Buyer shall apply for such loan or assumption within three (3) banking days after Seller's acceptance of this agreement. If an appraisal is required under Buyer's financing contingency, premises~~mrtu apprai eat qqo less than purchase p ce. ) 5. OTHER FIN,~-NCING, BERMS AND(OR CONDITIONS: Jc~~tl/ ~rrrhu iSdr~tS ~ ~,NeMI- -,~,,. ~l r.,.ar i l~ 6. SELLER'S RIGHT TO CONTINUE TO MARKET THE PREMISES AND ACCEPT OTHER OFFERS. This agreement provides for the Seller to continue to market the premises and accept other offers subject to Buyer's right to waive or remove the following contingencies. Any waiver or removal of any contingency as set forth in Paragraph q5 will be a waiver or removal of all contingencies in Paragraph N5. (a) ^ Closing of on or before listed with Upon waver or removal of s contingency Buyer warrants that adequate unds n eded to close will be available nd that Buyer's a ity to obtain financing is not conditioned upon sale a r closing y props ~ f (b) ^ Other (specify) IF THIS AGREEMENT IS SUBJECT TO Seller's right to Conlin a to market the premises and accept er offers as specified in P graph 115, Seller shat eve the right to continue to offer the herein premises for sale and to accept offers until such time as said contingencies have been waived or removed by Buyer. Should Seller receive another acceptable oiler to purchase, Seller shall give Buyer calendar days written notice of such offer. In the event the Buyer does not waive or remove the contingencies in writing within the set calendar days noted above, then this Agreement shall be terminated and all deposits returned to Buyer less expenses incurred to date of termination. In the event the Buyer does waive or remove the contingencies, the uyer proceed to purchase the premises under the remaining terms and conditions of this agreement notwithstanding that the terms of the new offer may be more or I la rabl Notice shall be considered given on the earlier of either personal delivery of notice to the Buyer or their representative or two calendar days following the dat o ilin vi nce by certification of the postmark on the envelope containing such notice All not es shall be sent to the addresses shown on this agreement. ~~~~' f/'u / r 7. ITE S S CIFICALLY,INCLUDED IN T S ALE FHA / vA fine a item t7 o averse side)- 2YfYJ9~/~-ING ~~ C -~ 8. ITEMS SPECI CALLY EXCLUD D N HIS SALE: /' 9. COSTS PAID BY: Costs in addition to those listed below may be incurred by Buyer and Seller. Unl ss oth ise agreed herein, or provided by law or required by lender, Buyer shall purchase Seller's reserve account it loan assumption. ~ / A ^ Yes ^ No Purchaser's Extended Coverage Title Policy requested. Additional oremium oaid by /V /~T coo ;,a,,, >! ~n ,,...e.•e.~e ~,a„ If requested by lender or otherwise stated herein, the below costs will be paid as indicated. , Costa Loan Well Pump/Inspect. Code Inspect. LeCd~a CODoCl~imenda TeX A ant 8 L Escrow Paid By Apprelsel Assumpt. Inspect. Septic h Required Re ire p Service ~ F BUYER N/A SELLER SHARE EQUALLY B 9 10 11 12 13 1a 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 so s1 s2 63 64 65 66 Cost of lender or code repairs of exceed $ ~ S~~ I 10. CLOSING. On or belor 1 e c 6 jn date, Buyer and alter shall eposit with the closing agency all funds and instruments necessary t co plate the sale. The c g be no later than ~ ~ ~ ~t9~~ 9 11. POSSESSION. Buyer hat be entitled to possession osing other 70 'Closing' means the ate on which all documents are eilh corded or accepted by an escrow agent and the sale proceeds are available to Seller. Taxes and water assessments 71 (using the last a 'I le meet as a basis), rents, interest and reserves, liens, encumbrances or obligations assumed and u lilies hall be pro-rated as of 72 .Buyer shall pay for fuel in tank, amount to be determined by the supplier at el ex nse. 73 12. ACCEPTAN E, uyer' offer i5 mad@ ~Nl~j~~l 19 lhg ~4GepI~fIG6 01 SeUef Oil Of belOfe 12;00 O'c~ocK mid~i9hi ~ ?~ _ ~=_ AP'oENDUM # ~_. (~, 2, s, et~.)r-• n®~ 1 THIS IS AN ADDENDUM TO A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT. READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, CAREFULLY, 3 BEFORE SIGNING. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONSULT YOUR ATTORNEY BEFORE SIGNING. This is an ADDENDUM to the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement and Receipt for 4 Earnest Money Dated: - > 19 -- iD # ~~-+~-~-~a S .~ ' ADDRESS: ~ ~~~'~ - s BUYER (S) ~" 7 SELLER ($) ~ / ~(. % ~ ~~:.. t~5r.-,.,cro/ ci 1T' ~~ t~s~!.~! ~. 8 Th/e und!e'r~signed Parties hereby agr~ as fottow~ . 9 !/ .~/~r~~ii~ .j1/r/mar -,~(XX,? 10 /_ s ., 24 25 26 ` 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 41 r a • • I ~~j~,~i~E rL C~ ~i2v~ am an owner or legal representative of a portion of the Aspen Grove Estates property. I reside at ~ ~ s " S: ~o ~ xr ~ 6.~ Meridian, Idaho 83642. Please accept this document as my request and authorization of annexing and rezoning my property as applied for by D. Michael Preston in the Aspen Grove Estates PUD. I hereby grant my approval of the stated annexation and rezone request. RE~~z'~IED F E B 1 1 1994 Cf°I"Y i~w ~~~1~11~1~AN STATE OF IDAHO ) County of Ada ) Prope Owner On this // day of ~~ , ~~ before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ~(~ 2 /Yl ~1 n (,() , ~,~ d ~y N ,known or identii3ed to me to be the owner of a portion of the proposed Aspen Grove Estates project located at the southwest comer of Franklin and Locust Grove Roads, whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he execute the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and ai~xed my official seal, the day and year in this certificate $rst above written. ~+0,~at ~~ 8~` 7~'1 B Ad ~ ~» ~ ~ ~~~ ~ 1/~ `.. . Notary Public r Idaho Residing at , ldah~ My Comtniss n expire. rn -~ 5 -q7 87010164-KP ~~ WARRANTY DEED FOR VALUE RECEIVED 8~'~3Ei~8 DELBERT D. HURST AND JEAN L. HURST, husband and wife GRANTOR(s), does(do) hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY unto NORMAN 1:"IALLACE BROWN, AN UNMARRIED PERSON GRANTEE(S), whose current address is: 38~ South the following described real property in more particularly described as follows, to wit: Locust Grove, ~~teridian, Idaho 83642 Ada County, State of Idaho, PARCEL I: Beginning at a point on the North side of Section 18, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as more particularly set forth in legal descriPtion~attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference marked as Exhibit A and comprising 1 page. PARCEL II: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as more particularly set forth in legal description attached hereto and made a Hart hereof by reference, marked as Exhibit A and comprising 1 page. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the said Grantee(s), and Grantee(s) heirs and assigns forever. And the said Grantor(s) does(do) hereby covenant to and with the said Grantees}, that Grantor(s) is/are the owner(s) in fee simple of said premises; that said premises are free from all encumbrances, EXCEPT those to which this conveyance is expressly made subject and those made, suffered or done by the Grantee(s); and subject to reservations, restrictions, dedications, easements, rights of way and agreements, (if any) of record, and general taxes and assessments, (including irrigation and utility assessments, if any) for the current year, which are not yet due and payable, and that Grantor(s) will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever. Dated: March !/ , 19 8 7 ~ 9 ~~,, D RT D . HUR _ OFFICiAL,S`'-~~ DELTA M MgNNING NOTARY tiUBIIC • CALIFORNIA My comma explros MAR 31, 1989 STATE OF CALIFORNIACountyot _~'~~1y C"•- ~i ;% ' . On this ~ day of MARCH in the year o(__ 19 8 __, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personal)y ap eared DELBERT D . AP1D JEAN ~ . H R nown or i entified to me to be the person- whose name STATE OF IDAHO, COUNTY OF ~iC~ I hereby Certify that this instrument was filed for record at the re- quest of $>~WaaT 1111.E _---- at ~J minu es past ~ o'clock m.,. . this /_ ~~ day of 19 ~'~n my oftice, and duly recorded in Book r~ PARCEL I: BEGINNING at a point on the north side of Section ltd, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, oti the centerline of Franklin Road, which point is South 89°18' West 480.7 feet along the Section 11-ic; lrum the Northeast corner of said Section 18; thence South 89°18' West 183.1 feet to a point, the Nurtl-w~~,~t corner of the East 1/2 Northeast 1/4 Northeast 1/4 of said ;;u~~Cion 18; thence South 0°O1' East 890.1 feet along the West edge ~~f tl<<~ East 1/2 of the Northest 1/4 Northeast 1/4 of said Section 18, 'tq~E g~,L POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 89°12' East 231.9 feet to a steel pin; thence South 0°55' East 440.6 feet to a steel pin; thence North 89°12' West 224.7 feet along the South side of the East 1/Z Northeast 1/4 Northeast 1/4 of said Section 18 t~~ a steel pin; thence North 0°55' East a distance of 440.6 feet to the K1sAl, POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL II: BEGINNING at the Southeast corner of the Northeast i//~ Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise M~~rldian, Ada County, Idaho, which is South along the East side of said Suction 18 and along the center line of Locust Grove Road, 1329.2 feet fruiu a bronze cap marking the Northeast corner of said Section 18; tlici,~,e South 89°11 1/2' West along the South side of the Northeast 1/4 Northeast 1/4 of said Section 18 a distance of 438.7 feet to a steel pin; thence North 0°55' East 149.0 feet to a steel pin; thence North 89°11 1/2' East 436.3 feet to a steel pin; the~i~~e South 149.0 feet along the East side of said Section t.8 to THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. N~L]® REAL ESTATE PURC~SE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND R .THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRAC AD THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE GENER~IN Op pgpVIRS ON8 ONnTHOE REVERSE SID ~'~• !-ND ANY ATTACHMENTS, CAREFUL ,BEFORE SIGNING. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CG. JLT YOUR ATTORNEY BEFORE SIGNING. '---1 • IMPORTANT -AGENCY DISCLOSURE. At the tirnr~~ pI,~L~nmy this agreement the agent workiny with the buyer represented ~~ and the agent working with the seller represented-_ leliA agency~}was provided to him/her in this transaction. Each party to this transaction has read and understands he contents of h'e agency d sclosu a brhochure p evtiously rceceivad t I D /, 2 3 ~, l 3 3 ~~ ~~~, ~ ~~~ ,Idaho p~ 8 19 ~ (hereinafter rauad "a..„o."~ ~.,.e.,,..,.....__~_-- _ . . known as 3S5 $:~ ~~'°'a"~~ ~cuei ayrees to seil [he following Qe drove ( rnnrr>z,..9te11- 3.69 acres) City of t County of 11d~ ,Idaho, legally described as: Hl~ X11 7 or a,nA aa.i._.L _ y as ' (A FULL AND COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION MUST BE INSERTED OR ATTACHED PRIOR TO EXECUTION BY SELLER. Buyer hereby authorizes broker to insert over his signature the correct legal description of the premises if unavailable at the time of signing, or to correct the legal description previously entered if erroneous or incomplete.) 2. ,EARNEST MONEY. !/ (a) Buyer hereby deposits as earnest money and a recei t is hereby acknowledged of [fr~ia r,,, a„d ~++.a . ~ lpp dollars ($-I~~QQ )evidenced by: ^ Cash Personal Check ^Cashiers Check ^ Note Due ^ or (b) Earnest Money ~aII be held by: ^Listing Broker ^Selling Broker, Other ~t ls;~^ %~ for the benefit of the parties hereto, and-- Nl~ ~,,.,u ti,.~., ,., . ~.,..,,.... r (c) If all conditions have been met by Buyer,~Buyer and Seller agree that the earnest fnoney'(less credit report fees; and any other Buyer's costs) shall hefefunded to E3uyer in the eveft Buyer or Seller cannot consummate the sale due to dreumstances beyond their control. (d) The parties agree that PiO~rar Title Company shall provide title policy and preliminary report of commitment and the "closing agengy"Jsr this transaction shall be D180~ ]~upq~ holder shall be i/A If a long-term escrow /collection is involved, then the escrow 3. TOTAL PUR^""cr ^^~^~ "^ ° ^.nrrac rn~i.r r~ wsa rs~aisa runty rnf'1»cn~..r ~ , DOLLARS ($ A'WF11Uf1.fJ0 - -- - - ' "~"~" Payable as follows: (a) $ all Calah Cash down, including above Earnest Money (Closing costs are additional)iQf- (b) $ ~ ~~ Balance of the purchase price (M.I.P. not included). 4. FINANCING. This agreement is contingent upon the Buyer securing the following financing: ^ FHA, ^ VA, ^ Conv, ^ IHA, ^ FmHA, ^ Assumption of existing loan(s). ^Other. (a) ^ NEW FINANCING. Purchase loan balance as noted above for a period of-years at_% per annum. (If FHA or VA loan is sought, read the applicable provisions on the reverse side hereof.) Buyer shall pay no more than points plus origination fee if any. Seller to pay only the discount points necessary in order to obtain above described financing but not to exceed points. Any reduction in points shall first accrue to the benefit of the: ^ Buyer ^Seller ^ Divide~d~Equally. (b) Q ASSUMPTION. Buyer to ASSUME and (~ will or ^will not be.required to qualify for an EXISTING LOAN(S) of approximately $_,~,~e~OO at no more than 8 5 /with monthly payments of approximately $ 031 Including m P ~ I ~] T j] I. This agreement ~ does ^ does not require Lender to release Seller's liability. Type of loan FHA Buyer shall apply for such loan or assumption within three (3) banking days after Seller's acceptance of this agreement. 5. OTHER FINANCING, TERMS AND/OR CONDITIONS: _ a 7. 8. 9. continue to market the premises and accept other offers subject to Buyer's right to waive or remove the following contingencies. Any waiver or removal of any con as set forth in Paragraph #5 will be a waiver or removal of atl contingencies in Paragraph #5. (a) ^ Closing of on or before listed wit Upon waiver or removal of this contingency Buyer warrants that adequa~e funds-deeded to .close will be av and that Buyer's ability t0 obtain financing is not conditioned upon sale and/or closing of any property. ~ t (b) ^ Other (specify) IF THIS AGREEMENT IS SUBJECT TO Seller's right to continue to market t ses and accept other offers as specified in Paragraph #5, Seller shall have the. right to continue to offer the herein premises for sale and to accept offe such time as said contingencies have been waived or removed by Buyer. Should Seller receive another acceptable offer to purchase, Seller shall&iy~'~~calendar days written notice of such offer. In the event the Buyer does not waive or remove the contingencies in writing within the set cale s noted above, then this Agreement shall be terminated and all deposits returned to Buyer less expenses incurred to date of termination. In the event th does waive or remove the contingencies, the Buyer shall proceed to purchase the premises under the remaining terms and conditions of this agreement n~'~"thStanding that the terms of the new offer may be more or less favorable. Notice shall be considered given on the earlier of either personal delivery of notice t ue'S yen or their representative or two calendar days following the date of mailing evidenced by certification of the postmark on the envelope containing such ITEMS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDEDIN THIS SALE (it FHA / VA financing is sought see i~ # 17 on~.versde~ul pt~pe~tY attaaL®d to the premises and ncrt e~cclti><d®d ender ap11 ITEMS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED IN THIS SALE: gee a,~o»a.,.~ COSTS PAID BY: Costs in addition to those listed below may be incurred by Buyer and Seller. Unless otherwise agreed herein, or provided by law or required by lender, Buyer shall purchase Seller's reserve account if loan assumption. ^ Yes [~No Purchaser's Extended Coverage Title Policy requested. Additional premium oaid by See item tt 2n nn reverse sides If requested by lender or otherwise stated herein, the below costs will be paid as indicated. Costs Lpan , ~ Well Pumpflnspect. Code Inspect. Lender or Contract anNor Tax Closing Long Tenn Appraisal Code Document A ent's Escrow ~ Paid By g /4ssun)pt Inspect. Septic H Required R it p Service F F BUYER Z N/A SELLER SNARE EWALLY 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 s1 s2 63 sa 65 66 Cost of lender or code repairs not to exceed $ ~~ 67 1 ~. CLOSING. On or before the closing date, Buyer and Seller shall deposit with the closing agency all funds and instruments necessary to complete the sale. The dosing date shall 68 be no later than_j~~ 7 T 19~ 69 11. POSSESSION. Buyer shall be entitled to possession on C~3 closingother r • 7n - -- 'Closing" means the date on which all documents are either recorded or accepted by an a crow agent and the sale proceeds are available to Seller. Taues,ant( water ~_ 71 (using the last available assessment as a basis), rents, interest and reserves, liens, encumbrances or obligations assumed and utilities shall be pro-rated as of ~~~ ~ 7P C~1STtR[_ .Buyer shall pay for fuel in tank, amount to be determined by the supplier at Seller's expense. 73 12. ACCEPTANCE. Buyer's offer is made subject to the acceptance of Seller on or before 12:00 o'clock midnight of 74 • • ADDENDUM TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT Dated February 8, 1994 between Norm Brown as Seller and Shekinah Industries and/or Mike Preston as Buyer 1. Natural Gas Conversion. Seller to convert heating and water heater to natural gas on or before ~,'~ 1 , 1994. Buyer has inspected the premises and hereby accepts the premises in its "as-is" condition and acknowledges that Seller is not obligated hereunder to remodel or change the premises in any way whatsoever, excepting only the natural gas conversion mentioned above. Buyer specifically acknowledges that the dishwasher is inoperable at this time. 2. Buyer Access. Buyer shall have the right, which is hereby granted by Seller, to enter upon the premises, excluding the residence thereon, between the date hereof and the closing date for the purposes of inspecting the premises and conducting and preparing engineering and planning studies, drawings and surveys. Seller agrees to enter into and execute any documents and/or agreements reasonably necessary for Buyer to obtain governmental approvals for use of a portion of the premises for Buyer's intended use as a manufactured housing project, provided that any such documents and/or agreements shall not obligate Seller to perform any work or dedicate any land to governmental or quasi-governmental authorities or otherwise bind the premises in the event the sale herein contemplated fails to close. ' 3. Financing and Governmental Approvals. Buyer's obligation to close the sale herein contemplated is subject to Buyer's obtaining financing and governmental approvals for Buyer's intended manufactured housing project on a portion of the premises. 4. Assumption of Seller FHA Loan. In the event that Buyer elects to assume Seller's loan, all of the costs of any such assumption shall be paid by Seller, notwithstanding any indicated allocation of costs, or lack thereof, in Section 9 hereof. 5. Items Specifically Excluded in this Sale. Seller's personal property, portable chain link fence for dog kennel area, irrigation siphon tubes, irrigation pump and horse watering facility and related equipment. 6. Residence Lease. Upon closing, Buyer (as Landlord) and Seller (as Tenant) shall enter into a lease agreement on the residence and the approximately 1.69 acres associated therewith (the "Homestead") for a period of one year from the date of closing, which lease shall contain the following provisions, and other mutually agreeable terms: (i) Tenant may terminate the lease at any time upon thirty (30) calendar days' written notice to Landlord. (ii) Rent shall be $400.00/month, payable monthly in advance of the first day of each month. No securit or other deposit or prepaid rent shall be required. /~ , INITIALS: Buyer: Seller: ~_ i .. ~~ • • - _.., (iii) Tenant shall have the right to pasture horses and keep dogs and other household pets on the Homestead without obtaining Landlord's further permission. (iv) Tenant, at Tenant's cost, shall provide renter's insurance coverage for Tenant's personal property and public liability. 7. Survival of Terms. The terms and provisions hereof, and all documents being executed hereunder, shall survive the Closing and the transfer of title to Buyer and shall remain in full force and effect thereafter until the termination of the Homestead lease contemplated hereby. INITIALS: Buyer: Seller: _._ .. ~~'~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 117 4 . SHEKINAH INDUSTRIES, INC. ; , ~ =, ;, `~ 1050 FRANKLIN RD. 887-4833 ~~ ' R MERIDIAN, ID 83642 ~ 155/1241 19~'~ ' ti' ~~~ PAY TO THE ~ .~ •.... ORDER OF ~ ' { $ ., /~ .off r ! , DOLLARS Key Benk of Idaho V „ Capitol Center Ollice sy~ P.O. Box 2800 BANK Bolte, Idaho 8370, FOR ,,~~y„jj' II'OO1L7411' ~:i24LOL55 ~:0~ L 48B2 611'.. ~; :~ "~S,}~ h. . ~~:, ~iv~. ,p •~, _ 1::,1- ~;:~ :w s ., d0.• .y i ;, }~ `, .... ~~~ ~• ~ ~ • • ~ON~` •I~C~Lc~.G~., 1255/~7~tNT I o~ ~'Vi~~ ~ ~'.,yc arri an owner or legal representative of a portion of the Aspen Grove Estates property. I reside at - ~~~7~ ~ • ~~•+:~,~~ iv l2~ Meridian, Idaho 83642. Please accept this document as my request and authorization of annexing and rezoning my property as applied for by D. Michael Preston in the Aspen Grove Estates PUD. I hereby grant my approval of the stated annexation and rezone request. .~ V/~D ~ Div c _ D c sC.FS/I~ Prope Owner STATE OF IDAHO ) County of Ada ) On this f n~` day of q~ ,before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said S e, personally appeared ~' on~ ~ . ~~c C~v~-F-- ,known or identified to me to be the owner of a portion of the proposed Aspen Grove Estates project located at the southwest corner of Franklin and Locust Grove Roads, whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he execute the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and afi3xed my official seal, the day and, year in this certificate first above written. ,~ '~.>"~ ~ . ,, R~~~IVED ~ ' Notary Public for Idaho ' " ~ '~ 'a` FEB 1 1.1994 Residing at Boise, Idaho ~ `;~ ~M%~ ~ •i' CITY OF MERI©lAN My Commission Expires: /D - ~'~ `~ ~ ` ' '',,.~ . _ ~ • Lawyers title jnsurance Corporation A STOCK COMPANY Home Office-Richmond, Virginia SCHEDULE A-CONTD. 4. The land referred to in this wmmitment is described as follows: Pare At ti~tlt q~' the ~~ Quarter e!' tZie Mortbsaa~ Qlaartier ~ , geetl0® 1~8, ~Or~p ~ ~~, Y met, ~eis~ Neridlaa, Idaho, =t4ept the right-bl-~y- Par Pnn~tlia lioiad a],o~ iortlrr~r toss~darir thereat. wntinwd en rider attsa3sted•.. . -_ SCHEDULE B-Section 2 i Exceptions ~: 1. ~1e1~a1 ~aZea t'#1' the , Pit dope aad ~ab-3.+e a 3'•, i~h are liM~s, are sot . 1 2. Luna and asaess~alta bt tl~e C l~latote>flaelea . Distri+at, aad tht rights and Dotr iii ~ distrie as ~ lsr P1'm~-3ededj s;id ataeaaaeell~ts ~i~! N11 .. '~ ~M ~~ ~. Lieas aid aasests ! tea Tire ~teetiva D~iatriot, atsd t.~ rl~ta P~~ di+itriot se ]ttl- Provided j said aassa are sotto ed Frith the ge>tiera~l roues. 4. Liens and to s iu~eaata thi -~leridias Irrigations dlistriat, aad the a, easesssants s! raid district as Der la~lr prorided. 1W lea appear is tLs Couelt~ lteoorder a atliae. 5 e ~t rot -+-a~- for the ~stsr Lateral and ruts o! aoasss thereto.. 6. Purer Lice Baseaent araaitec! by ~- 0, lrroat aad l~ilir !`relst, hia rite to IdaLo Potter Cos>kpar>~r, a oorporatien, r+aoc~rded wngast 16, 1965 ~e reaordsr a tee IM. 1891, rovor~s of Ada Ce~ty, Idalrrs, ,. 7. .'title and Est of aarr6+ld !t. ~-` hssbandand titife* allsd !a=tl L, Edell Belli ~r and •. ~iiaa ~-~*- Jwaila L. ~de13, ~arabaad ied .. _ rite, coder ss laaid Gale eoi>atrast oz rtAerriat.. The polky or i s '.ill ALSO wnfain exceptions to the following unless the some are disposed of to tha saHsfodion of the Company: ~ ~\\~ . _ 1. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse doims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public record: or attaching subsequent to the effedivs dote hereof but prr~or4O Mee dote th• proposed inwred acquires (or value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. ` ~.., 2 Taxes or assessmenh which are not shown os existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies faxes or assessments on real property or by public repo s. ,~~. 3. Any Each, rights, interesh, or doims which ore not shown by fhs public rewrds but which could be oacertoined by on inspadion of said land or by making inquiry ertpu in f~sd' ston Iherswf. A. Easements, doims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. ~ 5. Disaepandes, conflicts in boundary Ilnes, shortage In area, sncroochmenls, or any other facts which o wrrect wrvey would disclose, and which are not shofarn,by Ili pblk recolli~ 6. Unpafenled mining doims; reservollons or exceptions In patents or in Ads authorising the issuance thereof; wafer rights, doims or title fo wafer. ~ <~ ~• - Schedule B-Section 2-Page 1-No. ~ ~~ ~~ ~. RSA ~, '~~ 1 .~ ~S form No. 91-Btl><(REV, 771) COPY .,~ • • Lawyers Title jnsurance ~irporation A Stock Company Home Uffice -- Richmond ,Virginia SCHEDULE A contd. Parcel Bs Beginning at a point on the North aide of 3iction 18, toxnahip 3 N, Rss~e 1 Bast on the centerline of Franklia~Road, rhiah point is S. 89 18' W X80.7 feet from the Northeast corner oP said section 18; thence S . ~' ~8' 11.183.1 feet tv a point, the Northeeat Qoricier of the S NE N8~ of said Seatio~ ~,~ -. t nae 3.0' fli' E.890.1 ! ~-~^<~ ~~~---'~-. a of the E } NS~ NE~ of said section 18 to'a st~~ 1 thence N.89' 12' E.231.~:;t~ _ ~~:. } ~.~_ ; ._, thence N.O' 55' E.?9.9 f~~ #-a , ;' ~ ~.: ~ ,:z. . ~ ~ ~s thence N.1g' 39' W.135.6` eel thence N.fl' 31' E.~94.5 ~~ thence N.2' ~3' i1. ~. fast~~ Except the right f -gray `! Said Parcels A b located .~~ ~~~; gi'n'. i ', =~o~iA~.~of bagtnning. ~` _.~ - Road among Northerly bogy. Ada County, "-State of Idaho . Schedule-~-Poge 2 N,, ~- ~814~8 cure ~ ~~nv J 1 .~ ieY ~ - ~ • Lawyers Ttle jnsurance ~rporation A Stock Company Home Uffice ~- Richmond .Virginia SCHEDULE_~cont'd. 8. IInrsaordad Contrast of Sale betxein the parties named herein. ~.1~ 1` ~~ ~_ . -~ ~~'' y Y' 6 s ~ ', jli ';~ '~, ~ ___I. "- f A f t~~ _ Schedule~_Page~_No. $~ ~1~~ «M u.s~ ~v~w ~ wASV _. __ -~ _, / -.--. 1. ,,. ,~r~.<m® REAL ESTATE PURC E AND SALE AGREEMENT AND REC ~ FOR EARNEST MONEY ~" THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRAC>D THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE GENER~INTED PROVISIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS, CAREFUL ,BEFORE SIGNING. IF, YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONSULT YOUR ATTORNEY BEFORE SIGNING. IMPORTANT -AGENCY DISCLOSURE. At the time of signing this agreement the agent working with the buyer represented ~ `~ and the agent working with the seller represented i' y f~ .Each party signing this document confirms that prior written disclosure of agency~.}Jw-.as provided to him/her in this transaction. Each party to this transaction has read and understands the contents of the agency disclosure brochure previously received. ID7T ~~~~ ~0~36 ,Idaho 1217 ts93 - -~°•••~ ~• wa~w, ieyairy aeSCfIDeO aS: Ai+t.W l~h F\l~ !o Gi u i enin'2 n ~foi CTG r ~~ ~ ~ ~~un~ DESCRIPTION MUST BE INSERTED OR ATTACHED PRIOR TO EXECUTION BY SELLER. Buyer hereby authorizes broker to insert over his signature the correct legal description of the premises if unavailable at the time of signing, or to correct the legal description previously entered if erroneous or incomplete.) 2. EARNEST MONEY. (a) Buy r,,~~ii~~((ep~~y sits as earnest money and a r ipt is hereby acknowledged of ~'~Y d ~10 i1811i1(,~ 811t:~ ~fj~ ~ O~Q....._,.,.. ($---~IUUU • UU ~ dollars. )evidenced by: ^ Cash Personal Check ^Cashiers Check ^ Note Due ^ or b arnest Mgne to,7be posited1'n tryst account,up.Qn acceptance by all parties and shall L ng ~Q Iy-~l i Broker ^ Other -~~88'r~i.1R"y~l" ~T'uFiL A~~'tt1~~r}ehtofthepartieshereto,and ~~~~g~ r • "~~'"'~~J (Broker) shall hold the completely executed broker's copy of this agreement and is responsible for the closing. (c) If all conditions have been met by Buyer, Buyer and Seller agree that the earnest money (less credit report fees, and any other Buyer's costs) shall be refunded to Buyer in the event Buyer or Seller can onsummate th s.~ du to c cumstances beyond their control. (d) The parties agree that ~~ 0119 8I' ~ L~ Fi~ E~ ~ Title Company shall provide title policy and preliminary report of commitment and the "closing agency" for this tratfsac~je}ryspa be p~ o n ~ P. r . If a long-term escrow /collection is involved, then the escrow holder shall be t "'.'~ ~ ~ 3. TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE IS+~+~''~~-r ~u d~`r~'~'r~21~ • DOLLARS ($ :, , ... ~{~._ ~/ Z ~~~ :; ~ - 'L; , •I ~ j' :~I(iYY~/~ '~~~ 1/~~ Payable o ow~,` / ~t r' (a) $ ~ ~ l7itf~ +OQ CYt 8 t1 rX t C Y O8 ~ ri ~' Cash down, including above Earnest Money (Closing costs are additional). lb) $ ` ' ~ ° ~~ Balance of the purchase price (M.LP. not included). 4. FINA CING. his agreement is coritipgen u on the Buyer securing the following financing: ^ FHA, ^ VA, ^ Conv, ^ IHA, ^ FmHA, ^ Assumption of existing loan(s).^Other. (a) ^ NEW FINANCING. Purchase loan balance as noted above for a period of-years at_% per annum. (If FHA or VA loan is sought, read the applicable provisions on the reverse side hereof.) Buyer shall pay no more than points plus origination fee if any. Seller to pay only the discount points necessary in order to obtain above described financing but not to exceed points. Any reduction in points shall first accrue to the benefit of the: ^ Buyer ^ Seller ^ Divided Equally. (b) ^ ASSUMPTION. Buyer to ASSUME and ^ will or ^ will not be required to qualify for an EXISTING LOAN(S) of approximately $ at no more than % with monthly payments of approximately $ Including ^ P ^ I ^ T ^ I. This agreement ^ does ^ does not require Lender to release Seller's liability. Type of loan Buyer shall apply for such loan or assumption within three (3) banking days after Seller's acceptance of this agreement. If an appraisal is required under Buyer's financing contingency, premises must appraise at no less than purchase price. 5. OTHER FINANCING, TERMS AND/OR CONDITIONS: • r ~ 6. SELLER'S RIGHT TO CONTINUE TO MARKET THE PREMISES AND ACCEPT OTHER OFFERS. This agreement provides for the Seller to continue to market the premises and accept other offers subject to Buyer's right to waive or remove the following contingencies. Any waiver or removal of any contingency as set forth in Paragrapl~tl5/u~yill be a waiver or removal o(, all contingencies in Paragraph #5. ~. f ~ (a) ^ Closing of Y / t~ on or before ! listed with_~~ 6 Upon waiver or removal of this contingency Buyer'~varrants that adequate funds Headed to close will be available and that Buyer's ability to obtain financing is not conditioned upon sale and/or c~QS~ng of any property (b)^Other(specify) t`1QE-gs 2'6~9P t.O 8.~.'tPiC1:0iX ~dd~nduffi IF THIS AGREEMENT IS SUBJECT TO Seller's right to continue to market the premises and accept other offers as specified in Paragraph #5, Seller shall have the right to continue to offer the herein premises for sale and to accept offs gtil such time as said contingencies have been waived or removed by Buyer. Should Seller receive another acceptable offer to purchase, Seller shall give Buyer calendar days written notice of such offer. In the event the Buyer does not waive or remove the contingencies in writing within the set calendar days noted above, then this Agreement shall be terminated and all deposits returned to Buyer less expenses incurred to date of termination. In the event the Buyer does waive or remove the contingencies, the Buyer shall proceed to purchase the premises under the remaining terms and conditions of this agreement notwithstanding that the terms of the new offer may be more or less favorable. Notice shall be considered given on the earlier of either personal delivery of notice to the Buyer or their representative or two calendar days following the date of mailing evidenced by certification of the postmark on the envelope containing such notice. All notices shall be sent to the addresses shown on this agreement. 7. ITEMS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THIS SALE (it FHA / vA financing is sought see item # 17 on reverse side) l~ ~ ~ 8. ITEMS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED IN THIS SALE: 9. COSTS PAID BY: Costs in addition to those listed below may be incurred by Buyer and Seller. Unless otherwise agreed herein, or provided by law or required by lender, Buyer shall purchase Seller's reserve account if loan assumption. , ^ Yes ^ No Purchaser's Extended Coverage Title Policy requested. Additional premium paid by ~~ / t~ .See item # 20 on reverse side. If requested by lender or otherwise stated herein, the below costs will be paid as indicated. Costs PP Loan Well Pumpllnapect. Code Inspect. Cod or 0opt~ A ralsal mem sr Tax oeWm al e~~~ 8 L E c u Paid B Assum t. Ins ect. Se Uc ~ M R wired Y P P P e4 Service r e ~ Re ire P ~ F BUYER WA v k. SELLER SHAAEEOUALLY 1 I II y NI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s 26 27- 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 so s1 s2 63 64 65 66 -~ ENDUM # ~ (1, 2, s, etc. '`~ ~ ® , N• nf~UOAm THIS IS AN ADDENDUM TO A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT. READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, CAREFULLY, 2 BEFORE 81GNING.IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONSULT YOUR ATTORNEY BEFORE BIGNINQ. 3 This is an ADDENDUM to the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement and Receipt for a Earnest Money Dated: 12 / 17 , 19 9 3 ID # 2 3 6 9 51 ' S ADDRESS: Legal to be attached ,6 BUYER(S) Shekinah Industries Inc. SELLER (S) 8 The undersigned Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. This offer to purchase is co>~tingent upon the following items: 9 a{1 The subject property being rezoned to R8 and a conditional use permit being granted for a mobile home park. 11 b) This off®r is also aubje3ct to the Buyer securing financing 12 to consummate the close of escrow. 13 1a 2, Should tho Buver fail to obtain financing, all rezoning platting 15 and approvals shall be executed to the Seller at no coat. 1s _3. Euver agrees to secure nn liens or encumbrances against the aubje c~ property until after close of escrow. ~, Should all final approvals not be obtained by May 1,1994 the 18 Seller hereby agrees to extend this offer andadditional 30 days. 1s 20 The Buyer shall tender an additional $2000.00 earnest money on 1`iay 1,1994 should this agreement be extended. 21 22 5. Seller, hereby grants totalright of ingress and agrees to the 23 subject property to the Buyer for the purpose of any and all 2a en~;insering to approvo said development. 2s 2s 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 rl 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 fhe Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on July 19, 1994, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Shekinah Industries for annexation and zoning of approximately 34.24 acres of land located in the NE 1/4 of Section 18, T.3N, R.1E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located at the SW corner of Franklin and Locust Grove Roads. The Application requests annexation with zoning of C-N and R-15. Further Applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval of the parcel of land above described for 131 Residential lots and 3 Commercial lots for Preston's Aspen Grove Estates. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 27th day of June 1994. ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., ITY CLERK r ' i I i 1 ~" _ - a~QZr_ `... ~; : ,~- N '~e~_•• J ~noa~ shao-7 °~ ~'~'~ ~~ -: _ _.. . _' -- --- •p ~ - __ _ - anon ~ %~ ,_____ --- ,. '+ a ~_ .b...~n -..-_ ~-----_... r' Q. rr~ ~~ 9 - w+~y~ 1 • ~' i ~ mil liJ / CrP~ Id~ Q E ,-® ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ i _ ' ~~~ - , o /•-~S a ~. o •o'e a ;e ® ~•9 1~~ d '~ ~I ~ lAa7S1 * - e ~.I~ rr L ~~. F K~I 11r ®~ • i ® • 'Nt 1 11.Q n~ ~ ~/ r 6~ ® ~ r i~ r i i O~ 9 ® ,, O I B ~ ~ 1 ~ ~r 9 ~~o t~ F- ~ o o . ~ i ., ~ Q L i 7 16 ~M ~ ~ -' ; -- ~ • `' ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ pT ~ ~~ 1 Op i ~ ~ ~ ~ • /, ~ ~ ~" ' i ~ o ~ ~ ac ~ ' '~ ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ _ •••• • • :- NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian,ldaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on March 8, 1994, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Shekinah Industries for annexation and zoning of approximately 33.1 acres of land located in the NE 1/4 of Section 18, T. 3N, R. 1 W, Boise-Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located on the SW corner of Franklin and Locust Grove roads. The Application requests annexation with zoning of Mixed PUD Zone. Further Applicant requests Conditional Use Permit approval of the parcel of land above described for 139 Manuafactured homes with family and adult parks and Club House with 3.7 acres of Commercial use for Aspen Grove Estates Planned Development. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 15th day of February 1994. WILLIAM G. BERG, J ., CITY CLERK ~~ • • RECEIVED Shekinah Industries, Inc. APR 1 2 1994 420 Bitteroot Drive, Boise, Idaho 83709 (208) 375-2647 C1~~'r ~ e~ ~~..y~.~~0e1~1~ Apri16, 1994 Ms. Shari Stiles City of Meridian Plaru~ig Administrator 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Aspen Grove Estates Dear Ms. Stiles: As you know, in my February submittal of Aspen Grove Estates, I requested annexation to the City of Meridian, rezone to a Mixed PUD Zone, and a Conditional Use Permit for a Manufactured Housing Planned Development. Please accept the following modifications to the February application. First the rezone request for a mixed PUD Zone is not a zone that exists at this time, so I would request an R-15 zone, which would allow the proposed density of 4.76 units per acre. The 3.7 acre commercial area seems best suited for a C-N Zone, which would require a Conditional Use Permit for each of the proposed commercial uses. Therefore, my revised request is for R-15 and C-N Zoning after being annexed to the City of Meridian. Please do not act on the requested Conditional Use Permit. I have decided to revise my request because of neighborhood input. I will submit a preliminary plat request that will provide public streets, sewer and water systems conforming to all City of Meridian requirements. Each plat will be sold to the homeowner. I am also providing the 35 foot landscaped buffer along Franklin Road that you requested, along with a 25 foot buffer along the westerly side of my four neighbors. I am in hopes with these revisions the adjacent u Shari Stiles Apri16, 1994 Page 2 ~J owners will be less resistant to the project, and it will be one that the P & Z Commission and City Council can endorse. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Your consideration of these revisions is appreciated. Sincerely, EHINAH INDUSTRIES, INC. D. Michael Preston President RECEIVED "' ~~~ ~ ~~~ y R 0 8 1994 ~~ ~ , t CITY 01: ~iEf~l~IAN r 4' ~ ~ ~ ;,u ~~; ~ ~ . ~ ~~ ~~, ,. i ~ ~~ G/G/L~ r - p ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ,, s~ ~ ~~ ', ~/y//J,~ ' / r ~ ~fL« / C~C/d~ ~l~ti G ~ Q' 6 _. `. _. .~ f~ ~~ ~~ Z r t- ~2 GG-~t~/ li~Z~ II ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ %~~~ ~~ ~~ -~•~ ~~~~ ~~ • March 3, 1994 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN ID 83642 Commission Members: s . ~ `,; ~~1; ~,, ~-d,, ` .~ We, Morgan and Marilyn Plant, are expressing our strong opposition to the application of Shekinah Industries for annexation and zoning of the 33.1 acres of land covered in your February 15 letter concerning this public hearing. Our opposition is based on the following reasons: 1. This type of zoning and use would severely lower current values on surrounding residential property. 2. The City of Meridian needs to continue to attract quality residential developments.. .This development would not be an asset to our neighborhood or the city of Meridian. 3. This development would greatly increase the already existing traffic problems on South Locust Grove Road and Franklin Road. 4. This type of development would add greatly to the already grossly overburdened educational facilities of the Meridian School District. 5. This development would accelerate the pollution of the groundwater system in this area. 6. This development would severely disrupt the surface irrigation systems that have been in place for some 60-70 years. 7. This development would destroy the quality and life style of the neighborhood that has been established over the past 20 years. 8. This development would violate the covenants established when Harry Frost subdivided the. property. 9. It would set a precedent .for development of the "open" ground surrounding this immediate area, and we are adamantly opposed to the creation of a "Little Hollywood" high volume, high impact housing development. We encourage you to reject this application. Sincerely Morgan and Marilyn Plant • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY OFFICIALS A Good Place to Live COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk S n y CITY OF MERIDIAN RONALD R. TOLSMA OBERT D.ICORRIE GAFlY D. SM TH P.E City Eng ear WALT W. MORROW BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. 33 EAST IDAHO WAYNE S. FORREY, AICP KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief " 1VIERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Planner & Zoning Administrator GORDON, Police Chief W.L. "BILL JIM JOHNSON WAYNE G. GROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Phone 208) 888-0433 • FAX 208) 887813 ( ( Chairman -Planning & Zoning Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission, may we have your answer by: March 3. 1994 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 2/15/94 HEARING DATE: 3/8/94 REQUEST: Annexation/zoning with a Conditional Use Permit for Aspen Grove Est. BY: Shekinah Ind. and Power Engineers LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SW cornier of Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P2 CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z TIM HEPPER, P2 GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C1C -BOB CORRIE, C/C -WALT MORROW, C/C -MAX YERRINGTON, C!C -WATER DEPARTMENT -SEWER DEPARTMENT -BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT -CITY ATTORNEY -CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: ~.,r.~-_p~~J~ YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: ~ ~ F€? 1 ~~ Ct't`Y' OF MERIDIAN BUR t7F TREASURE VALLEY ~- 4 OFFICIALS COUNCIL MEMBERS A Good I~~lace to Live WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., Clty Clerk RONALD R. TOLSMA JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer CITY ®~ ~/IERID MAX YERRINGTON GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer ROBERT D. CORRIE BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. - (~ ~ n ~ ® WALT W. MORROW JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, waste water supt. 33 EAST IDAHO U v WAYNE S. FORREY, AICP KENNY W. BOWERS, Flre Chief RECEIVhIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Planner & Zoning Adminlstrator W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief ~ ~ ~~~ 1®Q~ JIM JOHNSON WAYNE G. GROOKSTON, JR., Attorney MAR 1 ~@ P,r~o2o8' 888j1433 • FAX (208) 887813 Chairman -Planning & Zoning b9k9 ks/Building Department (208) 887-2 NT P. KINGSFORD ~~~ CITY O~ 1~~~~~~~'M' Mayor 1 0 ~ M~4R ~~:<: ~~. TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON ME~Ioi~N ~~~P1Ti~`rPROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning Sz Zoning Commission, may we have your answer by: March 3. 1994 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 2/15/94 HEARING DATE: 318194 REQUEST: Annexation/zoning with a Conditional Use Permit for Asaen Grove Est BY: 3hekinah Ind. and Power Engineers LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SW corrner of Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) JIM SHEARER, P2 ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION TIM HEPPER, P/Z CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR ~NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT RONALD TOLSMA, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT BOB CORRIE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) WALT MORROW, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELlM & FINAL PLAT) MAX YERRINGTON, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) SEWER DEPARTMENT CITY FILES BUILDING DEPARTMENT OTHER: FIRE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: Nampa &Meridian Irrigation POLICE DEPARTMENT District's Fivemile Drain courses through the northeast CITY ATTORNEY corner of the protect. The right-of-way of the Fivemile CITY ENGINEER Drain is 60 feet : 30 feet from the center each wav This CITY PLANNER District's Hunter Lateral courses along the western boundary of the proiect. The right-of-way of the Hunter Lateral ; 40 f t• 20 feet from the center each way. See Idaho Code 42-1206--RIGHTS-OF-WAY NOT SUBJECT TO ADVERSE POSSESSION. The developer must contact Jo`~n Anderson or Bill Henson at_466-0663 or 345-2431 for approval before Land Use Change/Site Development application be filed for review prior to final platti Contact Donna Moore at 343-]884 or 466-7861 for further information. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. Municipal surface drainage must be retained on site If any surface drainage leaves the site, Nampa &Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within 1Vam~M idian Irrigation District. (~,(~~ c Bill enson, Foreman, Nampa &Meridian Irrigation District • 1.J ~~~~~~a 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-888-6201 Tom Eddy Power Engineers 290 North Maple Grove Road Boise, ID 83704 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Boise 343-1884 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Boise 345-2431 - - R~: -Land Use Change.Applicaton-for Astien Grove EstatPQ Dear Mr. Eddy: 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. You were previously sent a complete packet of information concerning Land Use Change, urban irrigation, and exclusion. If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call on Donna Moore at the District's office or John Anderson, the District's Water Superintendent at the District's shop. Sincerely, DAREN R. COON, SECRETARY/TREASURER NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT DRC/dnm cc: File Water Superintendent D. Michael Preston, Shekinah Industries Meridian Planning and Zoning enc. _ APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 9 March 1994 • `,. ,. . 1 +~'. K' ~4.~ I ~~. ~ ,~{r Y~Ri~~i ~+lt ,~.. , ~;; ~r.t t„~ a; ~ ©~~~ ~~~~ =-~ ~. ,, r CENTRAL •• DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT Rezone # REVIEW SHEET ~ECEIV'EI~ Environmental Health Division Return to: MAR 1 0 1994 CI'TY~ fir s%~~i~~~iit~~ Conditional Use # Preliminary /Final /Short Plat 14".S/~~aJ G>toy~ ~ S7~rr'L S .SvB~/c/iS~o~ ^ Boise ^ Eagle ^ Garden city Meridian ^ Kuna ^ Acz ^ I. We have 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 ^ solid lava from original grade ^ 6. We can Approve this Proposal for individual sewage disposal to be located above solid lava layers: ^ 2 feet ^ 4 feet 7. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: t~ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water well ^ interim sewage central water ^ individual sewage ^ individual water ®, 8. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water ^ sewage dry lines central water 9. Street Runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ^ 10. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ^ I I . If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ^ 12. 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 13. q ~®/~/`lGy~-i~~`7~ ~i1ri~f~'~ ~1~I+i% S~i.4a~ ~c ~-~5~~~~Date: ~ l 7 // '~ ~~"-Pr/~ ~y~d~-Y~ 6/~x~-7~ ~'pr~+'%79i°f/i/~-i7o~.1 Reviewed By: [~OC~/Nt~T~7?tf7onl Sf4.~1-1~ TJGMoi.l577~ 7ffl s . ~/2, cad ~-L9 /1/s~ rr/ ~'1i/S Db-5~6..~ . [DHD 10/91 rcb, rev. I I/93 jll . • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY OFFICIALS A Good Place to Live COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., Clty Clerk JANICE L. GASS, Clty Treasurer ITY OF M RONALD R. TOLSMA I GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer ERIDIAN OBERT D. CORR E BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. WgIT W. MORROW JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, waste weters~pt. 33 EAST IDAHO WAYNE S. FORREY, AICP KENNY W. BOWERS, FireChlef W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Pollce Chlef MERIDIAN IDAH083642 Planner8zoningAdminlatrator WAYNE G. GROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887813 Public Wo k /B ildi D ~ JIM JOHNSON leaning &Zoning RECEi r s u n e artment 208 887-2211 B P ( ) ~I GRANT P. KINGSFORD Ma or C C D ~ 7 ~nn~ y r C U / JJ CITY Q~ NII~~I~-Y/~~Y TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning &Zoning Commission, may we have your answer by: March 3. 1994 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 2/15/94 HEARING DATE: 3/8/94 REQUEST: Annexation/zoning with a Conditional Use Permit for Aspen Grove Est BY:_Shekinah Ind. and Power Engineers LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SW corrner of Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z TIM HEPPER, P/Z GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT AFIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES r~ / ` OTHER: C~/ ~ / ` ~'7 YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: i s t..._9.' LL ~t1..e i f'~1 4~ a I~.ez ~p~ _ i ~ ~ ~uQ ~{~ /U .a2 iQ ~ 3 c.a ~ Gyi Q w p,- SAO ~ ~O CA.-t^r • SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Bob L. Haley ~QR EXCEL` DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT ~ 8y Dan Mabe, Finance & Administration ~- DIRECTORS ~ Sheryl Belknap, Elementary ~ Jim Carberry, Secondary a Christine Donnell, Personnel ~ Doug Rutan, Special Services JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0.2 911 MERIDIAN STREET MERIDIAN, IDAH083642 PHONE (208) 888-6701 February 16, 1994 ~~~~~~~~ City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: Aspen Grove Subdivision Dear Councilmen: I have reviewed the application Subdivision and find that it includes the median value of $75,000. We also is located in census tract 103.12 and Chief Joseph Elementary, Meridian Midd School. FE ~ 2 3 194 C~7'Y Ofi A~E~It~l~.l~ for Aspen Grove Estates approximately 139 homes at find that this subdivision in the attendance zone for le School and Meridian High Using the above information we can predict that these homes, when completed, will house 43 elementary aged children, 54 middle school aged children, and 21 senior high aged students. At the present time Chief Joseph Elementary is at 114 of capacity, Meridian Middle School is at 126$ of capacity and Meridian High School is at 123 of capacity. The Meridian School District is not opposed to growth in our district, however this subdivision will cause increased over- crowding in all three schools. There is little opportunity to shift attendance boundaries since the surrounding schools are also well over capacity. 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. In addition we would need to pass another bond issue for the construction of schools. The cost per student for newly constructed schools, excluding site purchase price and offsite improvements, exceeds $5,000 per elementary student and $10,000 per middle or high school student. • n We are in a difficult position and need your help in dealing with the impact of growth on schools. Sincerely, ~( ~~`r' Dan Mabe Deputy Superintendent DM:gr ~~~~~ FE B 2 3 X994 J • RECEIVED SUBDIVISION EVALUATION SHEET MAR - ~ ~~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN Proposed Development Name ASPEN GROVE ESTATES NtOhrLc NerrC i~a,Z~L City MERIDIAN Date Reviewed 01/27/94 Preliminary Stage XXXX Final Engineer/Developer Power Enar. / Shekinah Industries Date Sent The following SUBDIVISION NAME is approved by the Ada County Engineer or his designee per the requirements of the IDAHO STATE CODE.. /kS('cN 6~L/c ES~c cS Mb~iLE }.~yl9c i4g,Q~~ Date 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 Meridian City Street Name Ordinance. The followinc existing street names shall appear on the plat as• "E. FRANKLIN ROAD" "S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD" The followinc new street name is approved and shall avpear on the vlat as• "E. RAVENNA LANE" "S. LOTHAIR LANE" "E. ADAIR LANE" "E. KUTTAWA LANE" "S. ALLEGRE LANE" "S. BRACKEN LANE" "LATONIA" is too similar to "LATANA" and therefore cannot be used. Please choose another name and have it approved by the street name committee. __ 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. ADII COUI~I'1'Y STREET NA1~ CODIIlITTE1 Ada County Sngineer John Priests Ada Planning Assoc. Terri Raynor Meridian Fire Dept. DSSIGNSSS Date Date _~~/~~~~ / ~ Representati~C Date / HOTS: A copy of this evaluation sheet must be presented to the Ada County Sngineer at the time of signing the "final plat", otherwise the plat will not ba signed !!!! Sub Index Street Index NUMBERING OF LOTS AND BLOCKS OK • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., Clty Clerk JANICE L. GASS, Clly Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. Clty Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Weter Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. KENNY W. BOWERS, Flre Chlef W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Pollce Chlef WAYNE G. GROOKSTON, JR., Attorney GRANT P. KINGSFORD p~ p Mayor !"!f~.~ - ~ ~~9/f COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW WAYNE S. FORREY, AICP Planner ti Zoning Adminlatrator JIM JOHNSON Chelrman - Plenning &Zoning C~1'Y ®F ~(EI~IDIAI~ TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission, may we have your answer by: March 3 1994 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 2115194 HEARING DATE: 318194 REQUEST: Annexation/zoning with a Conditional Use Permit for Asaen Grove Est. BY: Shekinah Ind and Power Engineers LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SW corrner of Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z TIM HEPPER, P/Z GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8~ .FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOl )R CONCISE REMARKS: We require a permanent 10-foot wide public utilities easement along all lots adjacent to a road right-of-way dedicated to public or private use. ~S Tim Adams T~~~~ Idaho Power 3.3' 322-2047 A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 ~~,~~~~~~ I~ECEI~,IEI) -MAR-31994 Cl'I'Y OF A~FRlD1AN - ~ - ~„ --~- ~~ p-~`_' ~.~ura/,ene ~' ~ene ~xe~l0~ i'~ cep"/ V ` ~ V U. ~~ d a ~~ ~ C~ ~ ®~'~ ' ~" ~~`-~~ o ~ ~ °~ - ~'' ~ ~~ ..~ ~ ~~~ o~~- ~~, ~ o U a ~~~ 6 /G~'V ~~~~ ~~~~~ , d ..~_ v D v . 'CU i~ilv~c.r ~ ~~.~c~~Q'J C~ a ~ _ ~~ ,_ , ,~'S5 ~a. ~xo~ue ~idlia~e., ~da~a .J6.(~.t ~f ~ ~ T~ D y • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY. OFFICIALS A Good Place to Live COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., Clty Clerk RONALD R. TOLSMA R I CITY OF MERIDIA GARY D. SM THS P.E. City Engineer D. CORRIE N OBERT BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. WALT W. MORROW JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, waste water supt. 33 EAST IDAHO SHARI STILES KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief " " MERIDIAN IDAHO 83()42 Planner 8 zoning Administrator BILL GORDON, Police Chief W.L. , JIM JOHNSON WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887813 Chairman ~ Planning 6 Zoning Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor RECEIVED MAR 0 7 1994 . CITY ~F M~~~~~p~ MEMORANDUM TD: Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council FROM: Shari Stiles, Planning 8 Zoning Administrator D DATE: March 4, 1994 SUBJECT: Aspen Grove Estates - Annexation/Zoning for Mixed PUD w/Conditional Use each commercial This request for annexation and zoning for Mixed PUD with conditional use is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan's goals of providing affordable housing and neighborhood convenience shopping in the area of Locust Grove/Franklin Road. A development agreement, would be necessary prior to annexation of the proposed project, with Conditional Use Permits required for use. The current City Zoning & Development Ordinance is in the process of being updated to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. This area of the Comprehensive Plan describes Mixed Planned Use Development and Conditional Use Permit processing. In order to comply with the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant has applied for Mixed PUD zoning (MPUD) and has filed a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 139-unit rental housing project.. Staff expects the revised Zoning and Development Ordinance to be presented to the Commission within 30 days. As a service to property owners who desire to develop property at this time, the City is processing development requests even though we are in the final stages of revising our Zoning & Development Ordinance. It is my feeling that this revised Ordinance will be adopted prior to final action on this specific annexation request. If the Ordinance is not adopted before this project reaches the City Council, then I will instruct the City Clerk to schedule this item for tabling with the City Council until such time as our Zoning & Development Ordinance is amended. Our new Zoning & Development Ordinance will include an additional zoning designation titled "MPUD," which will be appropriate for this project. • • P&Z, Mayor & Council March 4, 1994 Page 2 This site is adjacent to and nearly surrounds (except for Locust Grove Road portion) an area approximately 600' x 450' which contains 4 separate homesites. Particular attention should be paid'to buffering and screening the adjacent residential areas from commercial and higher density land use, as well as buffering the proposed PUD against adjacent industrial uses. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan encourages a 35-foot landscape area along entrance corridors to the City. Franklin Road is an entrance corridor to the City of Meridian. This Comprehensive Plan policy applies to this project. Also, the Applicant needs to be aware that Franklin Road is scheduled for widening to five lanes. The Applicant must dedicate sufficient right-of-way to ACRD for this project. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 6.8U calls for screening and transitional densities with larger, more comparable sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities. If the adjacent residential owners intend to develop their property, then this transition would not be necessary and the density proposed would be acceptable. If these rural parcels will remain as residences, then the Applicant should redesign to provide a workable solution in cooperation with the property owners. A stub street to the south should be provided for pedestrian access and linkage with future developments. This area will see greatly increased traffic and development upon completion of the I-84 overpass which is planned for Locust Grove. As a condition of annexation approval, the developer/owner must enter into a Development Agreement addressing subdivision access linkage, screening, buffering, land uses and other appropriate items as determined by the Commission and Council. This agreement must be approved by the City prior to annexation approval. The applicant will need to submit detailed commercial development plans to determine compliance with landscape, screening, drainage and other improvement requirements as part of the Conditional Use Permit process. As site improvement plans are prepared and submitted, City staff will review and approve as necessary to achieve a high quality project as called for in the Comprehensive Plan. This project will be subject to development review and Zoning Administrator and Building Inspector Checklists (being developed). If the above conditions can be met and addressed in a development agreement, I recommend approval of the annexation at this time. • • l~C~l~ The Honorable Mayor and City Council '~~~ ~ a ~ City of Meridian ~~ (» ~~~~U~ JULY 8, 1994 In the matter of Preston Aspen Grove Estates, petition far annexation and rezoning. We are the affected residents immediately adjoining the development, on the east. Our names, signatures, and ascriptions of property conclude this testimony. We oppose this development, and ask it be disapproved. Our understanding from the Planning and Zoning hearings is that the c~veloper has said our opposition is the loss of view, and change of lifestyle. Actually, the view lost is the Meridian watertank and fast fwd signs. We do not lament this loss. Nor, with responsible development, ~ we anticipate significant lifestyle changes. Indeed, we have never raised either concern among the 21 pages of written comment previously submitted to planning and zoning. Our concerns were limited exclusively to matters of law, density, transition, irrigation loss, and encro~hment on domestic water right. For the March 8 Planning and Zoning Meeting, the developer provided the Commission and public with significantly different plats. He provided an incorrect legal description, and requesting PUD zoning which Meridian des not have. Due to the incorr~t zoning, he was required to amend the application, a functional restart. For the May 10 Planning and Zoning Meeting, now for R 15 zoning, he provided the same plat to the Commission and affected parties, but this plat contained no structures -except commercial buildings which he said at both meetings he did not intend to build. This application presented the correct legal ascription but misrepresented the affected schools. In the dictum, but not substance, of the ~veloper's testimony, he stated he would make the stuctures adjoining our properties "stick built" rather than manufactured homes (with no reference to change in c~nsity). Therefore, the actual plat and written application now disagree with the oral proposal. On both applications, the developer has denied cutting off our irrigation water. Yet on both plats, the public ditch servicing our properties has been filled in and fenced off. On both applications the developer has insisted that the minimum taxable value of the smallest lot, with a manufactured home, is $80,000, and the largest, also a manuf~tur~ home (per the written application), would be $150,000: These values far exceed the actual ad valorum values of the ajjoining ~ry,~ our actual values are declared on our property ascriptions for contrast. For the affected parties, this process has been mayhem. We have been required to comment on ever- changing proposals, given incorr~t facts, have the developer try to misconstue our concerns, and left to guess his intent. We do not believe any of this has been accidental. And this is not a singular event. To wit, we are informed by the Irri~tion District that this developer has previously fouled that agency by filling a public ditch. And this developer has also attracted media attention for: bulldozing eagle habitat on the Boise River; and attempting force entry to the small sewer system at Meridian Heights. He stated in ~~ March 8 testimony that another of his developments in this area has had serious problems because of covanents. But, so far, he has evaded submitting any convanents with his applications for Aspen Grove. It is our experience of five months, then, that this developer is careless in planning, impulsive in conduct, prone to ex~gerate or distort fact, and deliberately vague on intent. We make credibility an issue because the application before you is for the approval of a concept - a blank subdivision. And this approval is sought wholly on ,the basis of the developer's word and intent. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission is to be commended. They have attempted to sort through the vaguarities, and control the "concept" with no more information than the affected parties. Most of our concerns have been. addressed by the Findings of Fact, and we concur inmost part. However, there are some issues outside of planning and zoning which will affect Council if annexation occurs. And there are some findings which, we believe, are understated. We ask that if the application for Preston's Aspen Grove is not disapproved, that the following information be considered by Council in addition to the Findings of Fact, And based upon the reasons given, that the annexation include the conditions set forth. 1. THE DEVELOPER MAY DISTORT CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION Further to char~tor grievance, the.~veloper has failed to disclose, and in fact platted units over (the first plat to Planning and Zoning, the only plat to ever show housing) the existance of public irrigation ditchs and easements, and lines and easements of Intermountain Gas which will impede, or preclude, development. Too, he has included water and sewer easements within his lot square footage, seriously overstating true resi~ntial size. It is evident to us that the developer intends to play fast and loose with any conditions impost for annexation. This is precedented in the public comment process. We believe he intends to readily agree to conditions, then distort, lower, ignore, or misconstrue them, and litigate against the city when it attempts to withdraw zoning. We ~ not want this development in the first instance; we want a partially complete, contested development even less as, due to property values and proximity, we would be ford into these disputes. Moreover, the developer is in a hurry. An existing home has already been moved off of the property, precursory to development. And the leaseholder on the pasture informs us he is to vacate in July to enable development. There can be no doubt the t~tic will be to ~ things, then fight about them later. Consequently, it is within reason for the affected parties to demand that conditions be strin~nt, explicit and unequivocal, written, and allowing no variance. It is also within reason for the affected parties to demand the developer post a performance bond, capable of purchasing back all property and dwellings sold, and returning the property to its present use as pasture. 2. THE DEVELOPER CANNOT COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF TILING Ignored by the proposals is half a mile of irrigation ditch which must be maintained for the current waterusers. Water use is flood irrigation and cannotbe pressurized. This ditch, and easement, is a public way, owned by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and not the developer. The ditch is concrete, at • • three foot width and two foot depth, designed only for syphon delivery. It is already located on the highest ground to maintain flow and cannot, therefore, be rerouted or deepened. This ditch is drawn on the plat, Appendix 1. . The developer cannot built over this ditch. The easement, amounting to the functional width of a backhoe with working clearances, cannot have structures on it, and the ditch must be accessible for maintenance. This eliminates all the units planned on the southern edge of the development, and a significant number on the east edc,~. He is, however, still required to the this ditch by zoning ordinance. This creates aparadox - a ditch which cannot be rerouted, but cannot be built over; a ditch which ordinance requires. be closed in, but irrigation law r~uires be left open. Pressurized irrigation cannot be substituted as it cannot deliver the needed cubic fcet per second rate. Fled irrigation could be maintained, using a very expensive system of (approximately 14) sealed screw valves -box and slides will not work because they will leak and create property damage. But to maintain a half mile of buried culvert would require a culvert four feetin diameter. This ditch frequently fills with debris, including animal carcasses, brought in from the main, At less than four feet diameter, it would be impossible for pimple to work on the interior of the pipe for routine maintenance of debris and this type of clearage cannot be done from the outside of a pipe through access ports (and even then, two hundred access ports would be required at 10 foot intervals). Therefore, despite his assurances, we believe the ~veloper simply intends to bury the ditch, as he attempted to do elsewhere, then put the burden on the waterusers and District to dispute. Irrigation water is not the domain of Council. The only conditions which can be imposed for annexation is that the ditch be tiled, and mandate the condition of Irrigation District License. However, in this instance the Council is now aware that the condition cannot be met for annexation. Thereby Council becomes a potential party in litigation by waterusers of the Irri~tion District. Furthermore, if annexation is approved, then the affected parties must reasonably demand the explicit condition that the development be held liable for all maintenance to the ditch, as all changes in ditch maintenance result from the development. 3. THE DEVELOPMENT ENDANGERS POTABLE WATER Also unstated in the proposal is that the development will sit squarely over the domestic water supply of all the affected resic~nts, and the Meridian Cemetary District. The for scribed hold patented water right to this pool, and are entitles to the existing quantity and quality of the water therein. Both quantity and quality are jeaprodized by the development. It can be legally established that part of this water supply is percolation from irrigation water, as is currently applied to this property as pasture. As flood irrigation will cease, the watertable will be diminished. The condition of quantity (recharge) is violated. The second issue is that manure, an organic contaminent, from the pasture seeps to subsurface water. Seep~e and contamination are empirically establishes from subsurface water discharge, which is a frequent problem on our properties. Soil composition here is sod, then sand, then river gravel -the property now desired as Aspen Grove has previously seen annexation r~uests as a gravel pit. Be aware, then, that the soil is porous, the water table only 10 to 1 S feet below the surface in some parts, and the • table is susceptible to easy contamination. However, organic contamination from this source is naturally filtered before entering the drinking water. if development proceeds, then it can be reasonably foreseen that nonorganic contamination (motor oil, herbicides, pesticides, detergents, fertilizers et. al. associated with development) will not be filtered before reaching the pool. This potential, likewise, violates the existing water rights on the issue of quality. At risk of depleting supply and/or chemical contamination, and holding legal right on the quantity and quality of this water source, we will enjoin development. Quality and quantity, however, would be moot by eliminating dependence: by connection to city water. If the affected parties decline connection, they have elected to continue at risk and tort has been satisfied on the conditions:. that all expense of connection be born by the development and; that the water bill for the residence be paid by the development for so long as the residence is owned by the same owner as at the time of annexation. The president is that the affected parties have no need for conversion except for the actions of the developer. It is within reason for the affects parties to demand that a condition of annexation be that city water will be supplied to the affected parties at the expense of the developer, and that the development pay for the affected parties' city water use. As with irrigation water, by this knowledge of risk resulting from annexation, the Council may now be subject to litigation. 4. THE DEVELOPMENT'S IMPACT IS UNDERSTATED It was established in the Findings of Fact that the Meridian School District estimates the school impact would be 42 elementary students, 32 middle school students, and 29 high school students. This is a total of only 103 stuc~nts in this development, or less than one stunt per household. We strongly believe this understates actual impact on the district; this m~ei assumes a conventional subdivision. The propsal is not a conventional subdivision. But the application, and the developer's testimony, the units are targetted for `starter homes' and lower income families. These tart groups would be younger heads of households than the district-wide avera~, with both parents working. Using 1990 census date, by ~ of head of household, there is an average of more than two children per family in this age group. This would mean, at a minimum, 262 children introduced to the district by the development -most elementary school aged. And because that is an avera~, rounding up the `partial child' in the average would mean as many as 390 children, most elementary aid, in this development. The developer has testified that the schools weren't his problem, and that the District should simply pass another bond issue. it must also be noted that, assuming two adults per household, the number of people in this development could be as many as 652. And being `starter' and lower income housing, therefore both adults working 4 • • and needing two cars per household, there would be a minimum of 262 automobiles. And, assuming at least one cat or dog per household, there would be a minimum of 131 animals atlarge -the proposed lots are too small to fence. 5. THE DEVELOPMENT CREATES AN ENCLAVE Among the criteria for Planning and Zoning is.whether or not the development would create an enclave - an area which cues not blend with the surrounding area. Among the adjoining properties, the density is four acres oer oerson; this reduces to approximately 10 gyres per person if all affected properties are included. In contrast, the proposal seeks to put, in round figures (excluding overstatement for utility easements included) five houses per acres -approximately 25 oeoole oer acre. This, to us, seems to bean enclave. Whether or not the development is an enclave, per se, if this development proceeds, THE AFFECTED PROPERTIES WILL BECOME AN ENCLAVE, PER SE. ' If the recommendations of the Findings of Fact are followed, there would be some transition: three houses per acre abutting our properties, more dense moving away. However, this is a numeric plan. Physically, our houses were al l located at the very back on long properties because of water and septic problems. That puts all open pasturage to the front of the house, rather than the back. If three house per acre were allowed, that would form a dense cluster of houses including ours. That, in turn, would look ridiculously out of place with the transition to the more dense housing. Even then, the open area created by the irri~tion ditch ea~ment would make this cluster choppy unless there is a clear demarcation. The nature of this development is still high ~nsity. The more open homes on our boundary are a concession for transition. However, these will still be wholly different in appearance, traffic, landscaping and density from the adjoining areas. Therefore, it is within reason that the affected parties demand two conditions. First that the development be bermed, on the entire eastern sick, and capped with a masonry fence: the berm starting at a point 10 feet west of the irrigation ditch (that width includes ditch maintenance easement, whether tiled or not), and that the berm, in keeping with other developments in the area, he at least a height of six feet, and the masonry five, far a berm width of 12 fit and total screen height of 1 t feet. This wall of demarcation, in turn, would look obscene from Franklin Road. Therefore, this condition must extend to the same type of berm and masonry along Franklin Road. Second, that the number of houses per acre on the eastern side of the development not exceed two house per acre, not three. 6. THE DEVELOPMENT WILL RESULT IN STRUCTURAL DAMAGE In the initial proposal, no screening was offered except a common wooden fence. I n the second, a screen was offered, being a wooden fence and 25 foot setback put in trees. The fence, however, would still be on property line, effecting no ~tual setback. We have dressed the matter of screening, above. However, it need be pointed out that, in our written comment we have stated trees and bushes cannot be planted for screening. • • One reason is obvious -much of the area is the ditch easement and cannot be planted. Too, only select varieties of trees and bushes will not undermine or crack ditches, whether the ditch is open or tiled, with thei r roots. The other reason is hidden. Because of the large amount of subsurface water, our properties are subject to flooding -all basements and crawl spaces are damp. To reduce property damage, all the adjoining properties have built underground sumps to catch subsurface water, drainfields using perforated pipe that channel subsurface water around the structures. If trees or bushes are planted, these will foul the perforations, and result in structural damage from flooding. Now, knowledgable of this risk, as with the other water problems above, the city now may be party to property damage if flooding occurs from trees planted by the developer to gain annexation. It is within reason for the affected parties to demand that the berm be put in natural grass. However, because this grassland would become a fire hazard with the loss of irrigation and grazing, we request the further condition that the the development maintain this grassland to include watering and mowing, at their expense. And it must conditioned that this open land, being easement and berm, is a screen and cannot be used as, or counted as set-aside recreational area for the development. 7. THE DEVELOPMENT MAY BE ESTOPPED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The Findings of Fact address the issue of the Five Mile Creek floodplain, and the Developer has stated he will, as we understand it, get the Corps of Engineers to chant the area designation. We must point out that the designation was made by the Federal Emer~ncy Management A~ncy, not the Corps; the Corps is only the Boise River Yacuation Plan administrator and is not authorized to make variance. Therefore, the developer's assurances are, not surprisingly, bluff and must be held for naught. Moot in the Findings of Fact are two other feral agencies. First, the runoff ditch the developer intends to channel, culvert, and on `Browder Lane' actually close, is public wetland -this is obvious and falls within the watercourse definition of the Environmental Protection Agency. Second, the j unction of this drain and Five Mile Creek is feeding habitat for Blue Heron. Destruction of this habitat will invoke the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Given this developer's behavior on the Boise River, we ~ubt his concern in these matters, bringing on a federal suit; or several feral suits, in which the City of Meridian by annexation, would become party. 8. THE DEVELOPMENT WILL MAKE THE CEMETARY A PLAYGROUND In the Findings of Fact, we see no mention of this development bordering on the Meridian Cemetery. Whether the very high density proposed by the developer, or the mixed density sug~sted by Planning and Zoning, a cemetery is an allurement for children - and is also directly on what will eventuate as a natural pathway to Storey Park. Vandalism is inevitable, particularly where the target group is lower income, and unsupervised children with both parents working. Moreso, given the dense living environment. Moreso, as the developer targets the lower income socioeconomic group, frequently associated with vandalism. • • The affected parties are also taxpayers in the Meridian Cemetery District. As such, it is within reason to demand a berm and masonry fence be built around the entire ~velopment - not j ust on the east and Franklin Road sides, as is needed for our properties and the City's gateway. A berm will not keep children out of the cemetery but can physically channel child foot and bicycle traffic. So deposed, the affected parties making joint submission: We are Archie T, and Ernestine M. Roberson, property owners of 185 South Locust Grove Road, and we have lived at this ration for 24 years. This property is two acres, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The residence is serviced by domestic well, with a patented water right on the pal, as defined by the Department of Water Resources, extending from South Lust Orove Road to the Meridian Cemetery. Ad valorum appraisal for 1994 is $101,500, being a one story, brick structure with an expos basement. We are James N. and Ann C. Withereli, property owners of 215 South Locust Grove Road, and we have lived at this location for 16 years. This property is one ire, depen~nt upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian I rri~tion District. The residence is serviced by domestic well, with a patented water right on the pool, as define by the Department of Water Resources, extending from South Locust Grove Road to the Meridian Cemetery. Ad valorum appraisal for 1994 is $79,500, being a two story, frame structure with no basement. We are Gene and Yernadene Pressley, property owners of 255 South Lust Grove Ro~i and we have lived at this location for 27 years. This property is one acre, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The residence is serviced by domestic well, with a patented water right on the pool, as defined by the Department of Water Resources, extending from South Locust Grove Road to the Meridian Cemetery. Ad valorum appraisal for 1994 is $81,500, being a one story, frame structure with a full basement. We are Robert R. and Jeri Smith, property owners of 355 South Locust Grove Road, and we have lived at this location for 28 years. This property is 2.5 acres, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The residence is serviced by domestic well, with a patented water right on the padol, as defined by the Department of Water Resources, extending from South Locust Grove Road to the Meridian Cemetery. Ad valorum appraisal for 1994 is $144,550, being a one story, brick structure with a partially exposed basement. So identified, we advise that our t~nclusions and in part derival from discussions, separate from research of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, with: Ada Gounty Development, Ada Planning Association, Nampa Meridian I rrigation District, Central District Health, Ada County Highway District, the Idaho Department of Water Resources, the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, the Bureau of Reclamation, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the I ntermountain Gas Company, and the A~ County Sheriff's Office. • The aforesaid we believe to be the true representation of fact, and our opinion in this matter: ,~~L%9 LT ' . .. ,. /'~~ ~. _ > 6 ~. ~ ~ APPENDIX 1_ - Public Irr~tion Ditch ' • •~~• _ 3 ~' , ' ~ ~ i ~ D A 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ , ? '' ~ I r ' 4 a ., -. ~ ~~~ ~~' ~~ -~ ~ n V' /~ No a~ r e J 6~ ti~ .. _ . • ~'• •w •, ,~/ ...:' ~;,~ ~ _ / ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ti: 1 W~ • . Y , /-- -- 47.9 ~ ~ i y ~ ~ a• ' ~~ _ - i u,.-- ~ w~ g ' .~•~ at cs _ ~ v -i +' O I •e _ e Ilr ~ m ~ • 4 i 44t • I ~ ,~; i+~ • a o 0 i ~ • O ~- rr~Il;fL ~ ~` O •'. 9 1 O1~ I ® ~ y ~! $~~ ~ / ..i s ~ ~~ ~ .~o ~~~ . ~ - p~,..a,..-~ ~~ ' I _ ~ -~ , ~. .- ~ _ - LOCUS e.0 U E •. •-ROAD J -~ /1rl ~- ,, v ~ ~ ' ~ v ~i ~I HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY • OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., Clty Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. KENNY W. BOWERS, Flre Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-221 l COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW SHARI STILES Planner d Zoning Administrator JIM JOHNSON Chairman -Planning & Zoning GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor MEMORANDUM To: Mayor, City Council, Pl ning & Zoning Commission From: Gary D. Smith, PE , Date: March 2, 1994 RE: ASPEN GROVE ESTATES (P.D.) (Annexation, Zoning, Conditional Use Permit) I have reviewed this application and have the following comments for your information and or use as conditions of the applicant during the hearing process: 1. The boundary description provided for annexation does include the adjacent half of the public right of way known as Overland Road and Locust Grove Road. 2. The described parcel is contiguous to existing city limit boundaries established by Ordinance No. 312. 3. Domestic water is presently located in Franklin Road approximately 3,150 feet west of Locust Grove road. City policy requires extension of city utility lines to and through a development. Therefore, a 12" diameter water line will need to be built in Franklin Road, from its point of connection to existing water, east to Locust Grove road and south along the length of this property's Locust Grove Road frontage. 4. Sewer service will need to connect to the Five Mile creek trunk. Reportedly, this sewer trunk will be built by St. Lukes Hospital by fall 1994. This property could be assessed late-comer fees if the trunk is constructed by others. If the trunk is not built by St. Lukes, sewer service to this area is not available. 5. The proposal for private sewer lines doesn't cause me any real concerns. However, materials and construction methods need to comply with our Standard Specifications to protect our system from infiltration. We would also need to perform periodic observation of the construction to verify compliance with our standards. • u 6. The proposal for private water lines needs to be more fully discussed with the applicant. How will fire protection (hydrants) be provided and how will the water be metered to the various home sites? Again, if this system is private all materials and construction methods will need to comply with our Standard Specifications to protect our system from loss through leakage. We would also need to perform construction observation to verify compliance with our standards. 7: Private streets are proposed. The street section should be such. to provide adequate support and width for fire, construction and residential traffic. Several short dead end streets appear to be narrow for fire or garbage truck access and have no culdesac at their ends. The access points onto Overland and Locust Grove need to be approved by the ACRD. The requested commercial area, occupied by the car wash and professional office, appears to be in the 100 year flood plain as determined for Ada County by FEMA's FIRM dated December 17, 1991. The car wash facility as shown is in a "floodway" in which building is prohibited by our Ordinance. This floodplain floodway issue needs to be addressed by the applicant. • MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: MARCH 8. 1994 APPLICANT: SHEKINAH INDUSTIRES AND AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:. ~ N POWER ENGINEERS REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASPEN GROVE ESTATES. AGE Y CITY CLERK: CITY EINGINEER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: "REVIEWED" CITY FIRE DEPT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: COMMENTS ~~a~"~ nJ ~"~ I~ P~ ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: See a~4C.hecJ- ~,pw,,.,.,e-.~S CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: "~'~~ ~t~~ ~~, ~ ~ OTHER: ~ .. Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 42 Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Wasden: Just as a clarification on the park, we were contributing part of the park the other part was to come from the neighboring developer is that your understanding. From listening I got the feeling you though we were contributing the whole park. Morrow: That is what I was searching for. Wasden: Right and I never clarified that. As I understand it is a 5 acre park that the City is looking for of which we have been asked for 2 acres. That is the commitment we made of 2 acres and we weren't committed to develop that but to donate the property. We have just been asked to donate the area not develop it. Morrow: It would appear that is a grey area, probably in terms of us if I understand what we have done with the findings of fact and conclusions by approving them the development agreement would be subject to negotiation between our staff. Wasden: I just want to get an understanding on the record. ITEM #19: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES BY SHEKINAH INDUSTRIES: Tolsma: I will open the public hearing and ask the developer to step forward. Mike Preston, 420 Bitterroot Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Preston: Mr. Chairman, in relation to our meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission essentially the findings of fact and conclusions of law they recommended on the annexation, rezone and preliminary plat that I have submitted on this project require me to down zone the R-15 to R-8 and R-4 and change things about a bit, hold off the annexation and then go through a new process. If I am willing to do that they would approve a development of this site if I am not they recommend you deny this. I would like to, I was surprised to get this type of response was not discussed at the hearings it was issued after the fact. It kind of took me back and surprised me for several reasons. The property that I am proposing here, I think you have seen the development layout is located at Franklin Road and Locust Grove. It is 40 acres with the exception of 4 residences that take up about 6 or 7 acres out of that. It goes right up Franklin Road and Locust Grove on the southwest corner of that intersection. I am proposing 131 units, single family ~~ Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 43 residential units on this property and about a little over 3 acres of commercial at the intersection. Now, the intersection, the prime reason I propose the Commercial zoning is because that is going to be a major intersection fairly soon. Right now it carries a lot of traffic but some time in the future Locust Grove goes over the freeway, possibly is extended straight north, I get 2 stories on that whether it is going to be or not. I think it is going to be, I think Meridian wants it to be. It is going to be a fairly major intersection so commercial zoning would definitely be appropriate for that. Now, in essence the prime reason for the request of down zoning is because there is a statement that I have not met all the conditions required for an R-15 zone. And those conditions are that they either be located on a public or have access to a public corridor to a public park. Now first of all this is the second proposal that I have gone through. I delayed myself several months to reissue to provide everything I thought was necessary from a preliminary hearing on another project that had more units, none public streets, non public water and sewer and so forth. This subdivision plat is a standard subdivision plat meeting all conditions of the City of Meridian including house size and the whole bit, it is on Ada County Streets, curb, gutter, sidewalks the whole bit. Now, in relation to the R-15 zone, that theoretically allows those up to 15 units per acres. The density that I am proposing here is 4.39, I have a development plan to go along with that zoning request that is asking for 4.39 units per acre not 15 or 8 or anything else. I need R-15 zone because I have some narrower lots. And that is the prime reason and also for the square foot. An R-8 requires 6500, probably 60 - 70% of my lots are a little smaller than the 6500 down to about 5800 - 5900. My minimum width is about 52 or 53 feet and R-15 allows 50 whereas an R-8 is 65. So primarily because of my lot sizes I needed an R-15 zone but I am not developing this property to an R-15 zone density. I would be very happy in the development agreement to stipulate as part of it that this plan be built to nothing more than 4.39 units per acre. Now, with that in mind the condition that an R-15 needs to be on a park or have a public corridor to a park I redesigned this on Franklin Road to give that screening easement between Franklin that your comprehensive Plan requires and to me I believe that would be considered the corridor to the existing park a half mile away. And it won't go anywhere now but as -the property between here and the park develops than everybody else will have to do the same thing I did because of your plan. So I believe I provided that corridor and I will be required to put in a sidewalk in that area at least in front of my property. So, number 1 I do believe that I met the (inaudible) by providing that corridor to a park to have another city park this close to the existing city park wouldn't in my opinion for this small unit wouldn't be a very good use of the land. The main point that I want to make is that even though I am asking for an R-15 zone it is because of the lot widths not the density, I am not even close to the density allowed for an R-15 zone. I would stipulate that I would not go over 4.39. Now, the question is can I develop this back up and resubmit on an R-4 type zone which is what they are suggesting here because of the other 4 units that are on larger lots in the area, my neighbors are very concerned. They have large lots, these are very small lots in relation to theirs. l can certainly understand their concerns. The reason I proposed • • Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 44 what I did is these are definitely affordable housing units, they are not high end housing units and the reason I did this was because it was a mixed PUD use on your comprehensive Plan. Now, what is a mixed PUD use mean, I didn't know so I went and talked to Mr. Forrey. The intent of the Mixed PUD use zone that are in various sections of your city are put in there because currently there exists a conglomerate of uses that is not all residential or industrial or commercial or whatever. It combines several of them so the mixed PUD use is intended to allow the developer to come in and with these varied uses provide something that is compatible with as many as possible. It definitely alludes in my opinion to a higher density. Now 4.39 is not a high density, 15 is higher definitely, 4.39 is not a high density. In relation to my neighbors here, we have 4 on the east side right adjacent to me and I am trying to ~fo~itRel$ once I dohthat buffer beyond that has between they and I. But whether we go R very little impact to them. These units, the 4 units right here and the units over in here whether that is an R~ zone or R-8 or R-15 in relation to these lot sizes is totally immaterial to the impact on these units. We are trying to work a buffer here and I believe in relation to the development agreement process (inaudible) work out with the city and with these neighbors to put a buffer and a screen and fbi ct do that andrwe can def ntely do it isBu these people. I have always been agrees to reduce the zoning which increases the lot size which increases the housing cost in an area that is primarily industrial it will not work in this area. We need to keep these affordable housing units or it is not a feasible type of thing in this area of town. Now the main concern was that R-15 this far from town was too high a density, but in relation to the fact that I am only doing it for lot standard sizes I am not using that density out here at all and I am willing to limit myself in the development agreement to a lower density the one that I propose on the plans I believe will con ceens.a I amonottgoing to gobthrough thatan report wrote a very long letter with many detail, but they had some very legitimate concerns if I were there. They are concerned that I am going to take their irrigation water away, just for the record one more time. There is a ditch that they take out of right along this property line between us. I will not in anyway disturb that ditch because they use ciphon tubes out of it. I am not going to pipe that, if I have to I will fence this side of it so however they have gotten their water in the past there will be absolutely no change whatsoever. Now, they have indicated that I built units over the ditch so I am going to totally change their irrigation rights. Well, I may pipe the ditch from here along this back line, I have to because of your ordinances but I will put them on an easement so that they can be maintained. I will put in a pipe big enough so it does not change in any way their irrigation rights. And then from this point to at least the subdivisions I will pipe it an redo it but it will still leave and they won't know any difference up here where they are irrigating. So, I have to get it out from under the houses certainly so I will do it in accordance with your irrigation requirements. I realize gentlemen that Planning & Zoning Commission has recommten eoftbefore I everhooked at this property I comprehensive plan that I explored the in Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 45 believe I have totally met the intent of the Comprehensive Plan with this type of a layout. We cannot put the same type of subdivision the ~R-4 in this type of an area. It is has the block factory just to the north of it, it has the commercial police training range right behind it. And scattered residential here and there. No, the main difference between the existing users and todays use is that I have to provide sewer and water. And it is way off site so it is going to cost a lot of money to get it here if we do this project. Once you do that than you have to have a higher density than what was required when they first moved on many years ago. I guess gentlemen, the P & Z is requested that I step back and resubmit and I just want to say that I believe that I am fulling meeting your ordinance in all respects. I am not exceeding any density for this type of area for the intent of the comprehensive plan. And I would strongly request that you approve it subject to the development agreement working a suitable arrangement between the neighbors and I for the buffer and also secondly if there is any problem with the commercial let's just hold off on the commercial. If you don't like the~commercial that is fine, I was kind of told that I needed to put it there. I testified all the way through that I have no intention myself of developing the commercial therefore I requested a commercial zone that would require a conditional use permit on anything that went in there which would require a public hearing once they knew what was going to be built. My layout shows something that at least at this time would be the best, something that might go there. I was just guessing to give everybody and idea of what might be an appropriate use. I am not saying that is what it is but whatever it will be will have to come before this body and all the homeowners for that final approval. That is why I requested that particular commercial zone. If you want to hold off on the commercial area the 3.7 acres that is fine. We have lots of time but I would request annexation, R-15 rezone and preliminary plat approval subject to the conditions that I stated at this time. Thank you. Yerrington:. I have a question, what is the width of your proposed streets? Preston: 50 and 60 feet, giving the rights of way for the street. Yerrington: Sidewalks? Preston: Yes, 5 foot sidewalks to meet Meridian standards. The entryway will be a 60 foot road which 41 foot of pavement, 5 foot sidewalks. All residential sidewalks the 50 foot streets will be 36 foot back to back with the 5 foot sidewalks. Yerrington: Are you proposing pressurized irrigation? Preston: Yes sir Yerrington: Those are all my questions. • • Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 46 Preston: I don't have any problems with any of the additions Mr. Smith imposed in relation to the technical requirements of the city of Meridian. Morrow: Question, you mentioned the certain size of the house, what is the minimum square footage you are proposing? Preston: I've got listed right on the plat and it meets your requirements, 50% of the houses are 1300 square foot or greater and then those 50% are smaller down to 1100 square feet I believe. That I was told was the City's requirements. Morrow: Do these all have 2 car garages? Preston: Yes sir. Corrie: Mr. President, I have a couple. questions, excuse for thinking where I am thinking here. But I sat in on an earlier preliminary that you had at one time this was going to be a mobile home park. Is this going to be a mobile home park? Preston: That was not going to be a mobile home park either, this is absolutely not going to be. Mobile home park is one that you can put the manufactured housing or mobile homes on blocks, these homes will all be on footings, some might stick built on site and some might be manufactured housing. They will all have foundations, they will all have the same size requirements as any other home in Meridian and none of them will have, they will have all the asphalt type roofs and siding just like any stick built home. They are not going to have any of the tin or anything like the image we have of a mobile home. They are manufactured housing which has siding requirements and so forth. I have some really nice views along one ridge, I've got an existing home that I had to buy for $150,000 and I will put stick built homes in that area along there or maybe the 3 unit manufactured houses which without foundation lot, garages or anything in the $70,000 to $90,000 range just for the unit itself. They are very beautiful homes. One other point before I leave is that I just want to state that the property owners that I am buying this property from did not testify against the Comprehensive Plan that was recently passed because they were in total agreement with the mixed PUD concept which allows exactly what we all thought that allows this type of a project just as I have laid it out. That is why Mr. McClure came in talked to Mr. Forrey before the public hearings totally agreed with what use was being proposed on this property because we have always thought that type of an affordable home project should be here. There is the freeway, commercial behind it, the training range and the brick factory in front of it and minimal residential homes of values that are very comparable to the new home values that I am going to put here. So, it is a perfect place for affordable housing for the community. And believe me gentlemen there is a need that is phenomenal. These kids that are graduating can't afford a $130,000 home and • Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 47 unfortunately I would like to be able to provide something less than $80,000 but I don't know how to do other than a mobile home park and that is not what this is. Tolsma: Is there anyone else that wants to testify at this public hearing? Reece McMillan. 870 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. McMillan: We went through this before with Planning and Zoning. I haven't heard anything addressed on the Highway District approval or disapproval of road accesses, there is supposedly one coming out on Locust Grove Road. One coming out on Franklin Road, I haven't heard anything discussed about that. He is talking about his buffer zone to the City park of Meridian, I doubt the dead folks in the cemetery will approve of that. There is no commercial on the south side of Franklin Road in that area at all. I own the land (inaudible) there is is gas line right on down the middle of the property to the existing house I don't know what they are going to do about that. (Inaudible) commercial area there I think is considered wetland property, so these are just some of the things that worried me on this. Excessive traffic build up on Locust Grove which is bad now so you know these are just some of the things I want clarified and see what is going on. Thank you. James Witherell, 215 South Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Withererll: I am one of the 4 affected parties which are immediately adjoining the submission the one which Mr. Preston he is attempting to work, let me point out Mr. Preston has not in any way, shape or form contacted us. He has given us the wrong legals description, he has given us different plats to work with. Mr. Preston I don't believe a thing you tell us. We would like to say, those 4 affected parties, that we concur with the findings of fact of the Planning & Zoning Commission. We have all worked very hard trying to straighten out what we are starting to refer to as the (inaudible). Gentlemen, this is an enclave, it is light industrial here, this is a cemetery here, (inaudible) this is foreign, he keeps talking about being adjoined to the police academy, it is another half a mile up the road. If this is not. an enclave than this is an enclave and that is us and you are creating one. We have submitted our testimony to Council as concurring with. Planning & Zoning and setting up the conditions which we would like to see imposed if this annexation goes ahead, but we sure would like to see it killed. We are. not opposed to development, we are asking for reasonable development. Thank you. Tolsma: Anyone else wish to testify? Elwood Rennison, 990 Mustang Street, was sworn by the City Attorney, • Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 48 • Rennison: I would like to commend the Planning Commission or the City Council here for their patience with everything you have done here tonight and you still continue to do a real good job. I would like to say Mr. President and Councilmen that I have been a Civil Engineer for a little over 30 years, I have lived around the country quite a bit. I have lived in Canada, I have lived on the east coast and the west coast and Wyoming and I have seen a town go from 45 people to 5,000 people in Julette Wyoming to 8,6000 to 22,000 people. And I have seen the growth problems that have occurred and they are much similar to what we have here. I think that you are doing a pretty good job and I really appreciated the explanation tonight because that really enlightened me on the community problems I am concerned about. I am really opposed to the subdivision that is being proposed here tonight and I am opposed because I am really disappointed in the way the developer has approached the entire presentation. I have gone to both of the sessions where he has presented his subdivision layout and he did start out with a mobile, pre- manufactured type home I believe and then it became sort of a manufactured home and every time that the planning commission requested that he provide some type of picture of what is was all about that information was not available. I felt he was very unprepared to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission at that time and present an application for annexation and rezoning. I still have never seen or heard anything, it may have been presented elsewhere but I have never seen anything regarding the stick built or manufactured homes. I have sat here tonight and I have listed to his discussion and presentation and I have listened to him switch back and forth well I am going to put stick built homes along the ridge but maybe I will put pre-manufactured homes along there. I know it costs a lot of money to sit down and plan for development, but if a person is going to do a development they need to sit down and spend the money that is part of the risk. of the whole thing. If it doesn't go through then you go onto another and hope you make up there. But I haven't seen that input put into this particular request. I have other concerns, the commercial property that is proposed to be developed later on as he is saying tonight which is at the intersection of Franklin and South Locust Grove is to be zoned commercial by your map. The problem I have is he talked about putting a store, a car wash, possibly a service station and pump there to service that area because nothing is there. However when then question came up about what are you going to do about all the run off water from the subdivision from the commercial properties, how are you going to keep that from contaminating the stream which is Five Mile Creek which is only one of 3 or 4 active streams in the Treasure Valley. The rest of them dry up during the winter because they are created by the irrigation process we have in our valley here. He said that he could take care of that but I really don't believe if you have a car wash or commercial facility there that you are going to just hose it off and have the stream right next to it. I know it would require a designer to design a culvert or a system to transfer the water past the property, that is a requirement of the County or the City here. I haven't seen anything that really has addressed that problem and to me that is a problem. I moved here with my family and gave up a lot of things in my career so that we could have a nice place to live • Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 49 and a nice community. The community is made up of the people, every place we have lived, if you back after the people leave it is not the same. The people really make the community and create the harmony and everything. I believe, I am not against the subdivision going in at the location if they are the proper types of homes that upgrade the area, the people take pride and ownership. They don't have pride and ownership if they are crammed together, and they don't have lawns that they are responsible to take care of and things like that then you get into a kind of run down situation. I would hate to see that happen in the area here. What I have done is written a letter to the Corps of Engineers and I will give you a copy of that when I am done. In that letter I have asked them to ask for an environmental impact statement for the Five Mile Creek area. That does cost a little bit of money, if the developer is sincere in developing the property than he is wiling to spend the money to do that. I have asked them to make public record what their findings are. I have also prepared a letter to the Planning Commission, I didn't realize this was a Council meeting tonight, the letter was addressed to the Planning Commission. I typed it p last night and I would like to read that if I may. At the present time a developer is planning on putting a housing development and commercial property development on the southwest corner of the intersection of Franklin Road and South Locust Grove. This intersection happens to be located where the Five Mile Creek crosses under Franklin Road. As you may or may not be aware this Greek or stream flows year round and supports wildlife and their habitats. The wildlife consists of ducks, blue heron, geese, trout and other types of wildlife. The stream is one of 3 or 4 that runs year round in the treasure valley. The developer is planning on constructing a car wash, quick stop store and possibly gas pumps at this location. The housing subdivision would consist of 6 houses per acres, this was the last time I had heard, over a approximately 40 plus or minus acres. The storm water run off from this subdivision would discharge into Five Mile Creek along with the trash,. debris and water from the commercial property. This run off can potentially contaminate Five Mile Creek and harm the wetlands and wildlife that it supports as well as the surrounding environment. The sewer discharge system from this development would have to cross Five Mile Creek per the developers plans. I am asking that your Commission review this area to see if it is recognized as falling under the Federal Wetlands Act. It is also requested that any development in this area be required to prepare an environmental impact statement for your review and public comment. The area of Five.Mile Creek is currently zoned as commercial development. It,may be necessary for the City of Meridian to consider and change their zoning based on your review and findings. A report of these findings should be made available to the public for their comment. In addition to the above this proposed development with its high density would create serious problems for the area to located within. The Meridian schools cannot handle the addition of all the children with families that would be imposed upon it. The increased automobile traffic flow this would create on Franklin (End of Tape) Road along with increased pedestrian traffic and no sidewalks could create a bad situation. This kind of -high density would -only benefit the developer and not the community. The City of • Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 50 Meridian has become known as being the fastest growing town in the State of Idaho. Let's forget about the quantity and set our goals on quality. We need to improve the quality of our community, our schools, our people and our lives. It is time that the developers began conforming to the needs of the people and the community of the City of Meridian and not their personal gain and greed. You must not forget that you and only you are responsible for the final decision and it needs to reflect that of the people of Meridian. I was really pleased with the comments that I heard tonight and that really reflects. That is pretty much all I have to say. Are there any questions. Tolsma: Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to offer testimony? Morgan Plant, 300 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Plant: I seriously request that the Council deny this application. It will very seriously damage the property values of the surrounding areas. We live across the road from this proposed development and we are sandwiched in between on 3 sides by open land currently. If this development is allowed to go through there is no reason you can deny the other 3 properties of approximately 130 acres to be denied. And Meridian certainly does not need that. We have heard a lot of words from Mr. Preston but we have not seen anything in print on all of these wonderful things he is going to propose. It really has not developed and the worst is he is not protecting, he is not considering, he is not working with his neighbors to see what impact his development is having here. Again I seriously hope you deny this application. Thank you. Tolsma: Anyone else wish to offer testimony on this project? Ann Witherell, 215 South Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Witherell: I have had to put up with a lot of the leg work we have had to do to try to figure out exactly what Mr. Preston is doing. There is a lot of stuff on here that has changed, one of the things he likes to do is make it look like he is doing something absolutely wonderful when in fact he is not. I need to borrow your plat sir, one of the changes between his first plat, which was submitted at the March meeting. He spent 2 whole months reworking it and submitted it as soon as he could for the May meeting was a nice 35 foot little easement channeling all the children down past the houses to the cemetery as a buffer because it is on the entryway to Meridian as a gateway. He is basing that I believe on a tow lane Franklin Road well it is going to go to 4 eventually. That is going to get eaten up there will be no buffer and it will take out a good portion of those units. On the issue of how close this is to the park, Mr. President there I won't allow my kids to walk down Franklin Road, you must not think much of the kids in your subdivision if you want them to go down Franklin Road. I did a little test on the odometer on my car, from the biggest Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 51 attraction in Storey Park for the children is the swimming pool Mr. Preston can't match that with anything he would develop as a playground area in any subdivision, from the door of the swimming pool to about mid point in his subdivision is between 6 and 7 tenths of a mile not exactly adjoining. There is an open area with lots of places for kids to play it is called the cemetery. The edge of the cemetery is 1 tenth of a -mile from his subdivision, I don't think he mentioned that. There is a lot he hasn't mentioned,. Thank you. Tolsma: Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony? Alan Fox, 1840 Cadillac Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Fox: Councilmen, I appreciate your time. My concerns are just south of this property that he proposes to develop within the last 2 weeks has gone up for sale, there are 20 acres there. And if you approve this subdivision tonight you are putting approximately another 86.6 houses per acre, I am figuring, those 4.39 houses per acre. On the east side of Locust Grove and just south of his subdivision there is approximately 80 acres in there. If this goes to this type of housing, I am sure that is in the near future to be sold, it has been surveyed so it could be subdivided. There were approximately 80 acres and that would give us 347.2 houses in the area. At this time down through, let's just take it from Eagle this way to Locust Grove, the houses sit on basically a one acre lot all of them through there. There are some that are on as much as 5. I propose that if you accept anything he has nothing less than or more than 2 houses per acres. That would keep in site with the area we have there, that would keep the property values up. He is proposing $80,000 to $90,000, I can tell you my tax bill came with 1 acre house I've a 1452 square foot house with a full basement, my tax bill is $97,000 is all I can for mine roughly, that is what they sold for in the subdivision where I am. He is not going to get $80,000 for a lot with apre-fab home on it, I can bet you. They are going to be awful small if he does.. Thank you for your time. Gary Oyama, 2038 Cadillac Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Oyama: My concern on this in listening to the developer is he is trying to get an R-15 rating on the land there and yet proposed to build to an R-4 rating and like the gentleman Mr. Fox indicated that all of the property in that area do have a large frontage on their property. I really feel that this will deteriorate from the other properties in the area. If he is only going to allow I forget what he said, 60 feet frontage some of them only. 40 feet it seems like a little bit of frontage for an area that has well over 80 feet on their frontage property. I live on an acre land myself in that area and I would like to see it all stay in that vicinity. The other thing I really have a concern with if you do go with an R-15 rating is that the park that is close as the lady stated, the cemetery is right there in between them Meridian Park and this proposed subdivision. And I am with here that I don't want my kids • Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 52 • walking through the cemetery and I am sure some of the people that are buried there don't want people walking through there either. I am also concerned with the Five Mile Creek, it is right in this subdivision, that is the creek that runs year round and I think it is going to have a big impact on the creek. So, I am begging you to deny this proposal and I thank you for your time. Tolsma: Anyone else from the public wish to offer testimony on this project? Richard Lee, 820 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: I would just like to re-emphasize that I just bought over in this neighborhood 2 years ago and I left from over on North Locust Grove because of the influx of the building. They just more or less run us out of the area. I moved to that area because of the openness the homes on 1 acre lots, the quality of life in that area and I feel like this so called subdivision that this gentleman has put before the Council would take away from the quality of life in that area. And I would ask the Council to deny this, thank you. Tolsma: Anyone else wish to offer testimony on this project? Preston: I particularly wanted to respond Mr. Chairman to the gentleman that was talking about the run off into Five Mile Creek, he brought up some very good points. He is correct you don't just arbitrarily discharge subdivision drainage arbitrarily into a creek like that without taking into account the damage you could do to the creek. We I show on the plans and in the package, evidently the people that come in don't see the entire package that we have to submit for a preliminary plat so I understand they have a lack of information. But on the plan here we do show that we are providing very large underground chambers to detain the water and clean it up before it is discharged into Five Mile Creek. This land has always drained into Five Mile Creek, we will continue to do so like all other subdivisions in the valley do, if they drain into a drainage area they can continue to do so. However you have to contain the water to pre-development discharge rates and clean it up because of the street run off and so forth. We have to go through that process and probably the thing that a lot of the folks don't understand is that there are numerous agencies that we have to get our plans approved through before we build these projects. Now at the preliminary plat stage I haven't done all that design, you get the preliminary work done if that is approved you go on and spend those larger dollars. In relation to there is very much confusion on my corridor to the existing park, that is not something that I particularly wanted it is your plan requires that Franklin Road is a corridor to Meridian and we have to provide this corridor. That is why I changed it to that . And I don't think that the people that are walking along Franklin are then going to get into the Cemetery, I assume someday there will be the sidewalk continued on by the cemetery and there will be a fence between the roadway and the cemetery because that is not certainly a place for the kids to play. ~J Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 53 I absolutely don't anticipate that people will be walking or that very many people will be walking from this subdivision to the park, probably a few will bike and as the people all over Meridian do now they will probably get in cars and drive to the exiting park. Because there are a lot of homes that go there from a lot further away than this development. I am just going to reiterate one more time that the Comprehensive Plan that is approved right now for this area allows Mr. McClure to do what I have proposed on this property. It will not reduce the value of the neighbors property actually it will enhance it greatly. You don't decrease value of adjoining values by having a high density you increase it. They may not want to sell their property now, and that is totally right, but if they ever do at least the 4 neighbors adjacent to me they can sell it for the price that will allow 4 or 5 units per acre and that is a lot more than one unit per 2 or 3 acres. So it will increase their property values significantly and one other comment on the type of housing I haven't, I could have brought in all types of renderings of the types of houses I propose. Quite frankly I don't know that is not a requirement of the City of Meridian to at this stage show the exact type of housing and I am not the builder so I really don't know, I can't guarantee anybody that it is going to be this and show examples. There are subdivisions in town that the P & Z quoted that are very nice homes and the people said you can't tell the difference between these and the stick built homes. Just the fact that they are built in a factory does not mean that they are mobile homes at all. They are higher standards many times than stick built., they have thicker walls, and all kinds of things. They are- doing them now to where the exterior appearances are really nice, the street appeal finally is really starting to take effect in the industry. It has been pretty poor in the past it really has but that is not, I am going to have very strict standards, until I get rid of the last lot I have to be very careful what I do. So, t am going to require everyone of the buyers to maintain real street appeal. And they can't put in used homes, they can't put in old homes they are going to put in the homes that are total standards of what you would do if you stick built it. Sheet rock completely on the inside, the whole bit. They are very high quality homes and I wish I could provide them for less than $80,000 but I can assure you I cannot. Everybody wants them to be $200,000 but I am, one gentleman stated appropriately that the develop should respond to the needs of the people. Gentlemen, your ordinance states that you encourage affordable housing, there are hundreds of people need it that can't find it. This is a development that provides it. Thank you. Morrow: One lady raised the point with respect to the buffer zone, does your buffer zone make provision for the fact that Franklin Road in the very near future will be a 5 lane road? Preston: Yes sir, the 35 foot is outside of the 90 foot that they need for that. Morrow: The same thing is true along Locust Grove because quite candidly that is going to be a 5 lane road in the future also. • Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 54 Preston: We have taken that all into account. We have to, I did a traffic and development study, I had an engineer prepare it, we met all of Ada County requirements. We did a complete study of the traffic, submitted that to them, they issued a very lengthy report and I agreed to all of their conditions and that is part of the package. They have agreed to the access that we have on Franklin Road and also on Locust Grove. We have to put up I think it is a tenth of the money needed to build a future traffic light at Franklin and Locust Grove. I have to as a part of this development put that money out as my share. Corrie: Have you checked to see if Five Mile Creek could be classified as a Federal Wetlands area? Preston: I am sure that it probably is, I am sure that the sewer there that they are extending right now to St. Luke's is already come to that conclusion. That is why I have no intent of doing anything like that to Five Mile. I am leaving Five Mile Creek alone. Tolsma: Anyone else? Rennison: One question that hasn't come up tonight it has come up in previous discussion are the covenants that would apply to this particular subdivision. I would like to get a clarification on just what the covenants would consist of if I may. Thank you. Crookston: That would come from the developer Preston: Mr. President, the covenants as I understand it need to be submitted prior to the final plat. They take into account things like you can't leave cars in your driveways, you can't fix them, fence requirements which I believe the City of Meridian already has, nuisances, all of those types of things. Some covenants in high end subdivisions say you can't leave your garage doors open for more than 15 minutes. I don't have the CC&R's, however, they will be probably equivalent to the majority of the subdivisions. They will not require garage doors be closed at all times, you have as far as I am concerned you have to weigh what you say there with the peoples rights and provide a good balance one that will create a good neighborhood but not over regulate. I think the subdivisions throughout Meridian CC&R's will be very compatible. I am going to get what has already been done and go from there, but there will be those types of things that will require people to keep up their sites very adequately. There was one indication that we wouldn't have yards and so forth, not only are we going to have yards, ,but every yard has go to be installed before the home can be sold and that will be part of the CC&R's. Tolsma: Any other questions? Anyone else? Patricia Rennison, 990 Mustang Street, was sworn by the City Attorney. • Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 55 C~ Rennison: I was really pleased to see the progress that your laws and rules and all the work you have done has made in this subdivision however, I think that we are still getting the cart before the horse. At this point. that Locust Grove and Franklin have not been expanded to carry the extra traffic. Our school is Chief Joseph school and it is at maximum capacity now. And if it is young families subdivision it is going to encourage a lot young people with children to move into that area. Until we can provide schools or at least see some way of providing schools I think our cart is before our horse. Eventually that will all be subdivided, that is true this is progress. However I think ~we need to provide for it before we okay at this point. Thank you. Tolsma: Anyone else wish to testify? Oyama: I guess what I really like the Council to do before they approve this situation here that that subdivision here that he is trying to put in here is to actually go onto South Locust Grove and get onto Franklin Road there. That South Locust Grove enters at the bottom of the hill, Franklin Road actually dips when it goes onto that South Locust Grove there. And if you are going to put a stop light there or it is proposed that he puts in a stop light you need to look at that situation there and really address it that as the cars that come over the hill see this stop light and will be stopping that the bottom of the hill actually instead in clear view of a stop light there. You ought to go look at that situation there. Tolsma: Anyone else wish to testify? Fox: While they are talking traffic, one thing that I didn't bring up is we have approximately one accident a year at Locust Grove and Franklin. The traffic speed is 35 up to Locust Grove and then it hits 50 as we pass. People come out trying to turn and the traffic is heavy. At about 6:30 in the morning, I was leaving about 6:40 I moved back to 6:30 because the traffic is so heavy you can't get out. You have to wait for it at times. Sometimes we have 2 or 3 right there are there are some bad ones when they get hit. Tolsma: Anyone else? No other testimony I will close the public hearing. Corrie: Mr. President, Counselor is there testimony that we need to evaluate? Crookston: There have been several people that have not testified and some of the testimony is a little different, I think we need to have new findings, some new issues have some up: Morrow: I think that for the record can we have Gary and Shari make a run briefly through their comments with respect to this. • Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 56 Crookston: I think it would be appropriate to re-open the hearing to have their testimony on the record. Corrie: So moved Morrow: Second Tolsma: Moved and seconded to re-open the hearing to hear the comments of the staff, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Gary Smith, 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: Can I answer any questions that the Council may have? Morrow: My questions are, I guess I am having a little trouble with this project from the standpoint that it seems to be all over the board whether it is R-8 or R-4 or R-15 or whatever the case might be and that I think your comments here as I have read them are more than specific types of comments. Do the multiple different types of proposed uses here affect the technical things that you are addressing with respect to the sewer sizes, the water sizes and so on and so forth. I think we are beginning to get to the facts where they lay but I am not totally sure here. Smith: Well, Councilman Morrow my review was based on a R-15 zoning the preliminary plated is presented for an R-15 zoning and what the ordinance requirements are for the R-15 zone designation. In terms of the lot dimensions, obviously the public streets the right of way widths, lot frontages, lot areas and to go along with that would be the minimum size of sewer which serve the project, 8 inch diameter sewer line, the water line would need to be extended on Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road as our policy dictates as a 12 inch line and then I think an 8 inch line was shown looping through the subdivision. I did have some concerns about the sewering the southeast corner of the project because of the elevation of the ground and the direction in which the sewer was proposed to flow. Morrow: As I understand it based on your May 6th letter, the sewer service here is contingent upon the St. Luke's trunk line being installed. Smith: If that line isn't installed by the St. Luke's hospital people than this applicant would have to install that line in order to provide sanitary sewer service along Five Mile Creek. Morrow: And for all practical purposes does that mean that the project is not feasible Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 57 because that is a major line is it not? Smith: Yes that is an 18 inch diameter line and I don't know in terms of feasibility, where this project would lay. I know it has a considerable amount of 12 inch water line to extend on Franklin and Locust Grove Road. And I don't know how much off site sewer line extension this project could support. Morrow: I have no more questions for Gary. Tolsma: You had questions for Shari also? Morrow: Yes, I would like to have comment on her letter as of May 9. Shari .Stiles, 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney. Morrow: I have questions with respect to item #4, says uses permitted in the flood plain district are generally associated with open space and agricultural land uses and shall not hinder the movement of flood waters. It would appear that construction is prohibited in the area shown for commercial use. No set of plans for the proposed CN zoning have been presented. Apparently as we are hearing tonight those are not going to be presented, so this comment no longer applies to the subdivision or does it apply from the standpoint that if it is zoned and annexed that there need to be specific details addressed for that commercial zoning. Stiles: Councilman Morrow, I just believe that it is not appropriate to annex or zone that until something has been presented and that those wetland problems have answered or cleared up.. Morrow: You comments at the end of the letter, in light of the unavailability of public services, the lack of detail presented and the problems with the flood plain floodway development I recommend that this preliminary plat be tabled or denied until these items are satisfactorily addressed. Although keeping with the goals of affordable housing this proposal would not be in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive to maintain and enhance quality of life for all residents, have new growth finance public services through expansion or prevent school overcrowding. Based on the testimony tonight and the change in the proposal do you still feel that is appropriate? Stiles: Yes t do. Morrow: Do you feel that there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan that we are dealing with here in terms of promoting the affordable housing, but yet according to the • Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 58 map it is a mixed use area? Stiles: I think the affordable housing needs to be presented as. I think the affordable housing and the mixed planned unit development areas should be integrated into one real plan. I don't really like all these subdivisions that are coming in and saying this is an affordable housing development, this is an exclusive development that must have 1800 square foot houses. I think there needs to be some neighborhoods that need to integrate some higher end, some lower end, a diversity of units within a development instead of saying this development is luxury homes and we don't want anything but luxury homes in this area. And this is the lower scale homes that we want concentrated in one area, I don't think that is good planning, I don't think you are going to have neighborhoods that are easily integrated with each other. There needs to be a diversity in these neighborhoods, one thing that I would have liked to see in this is to maybe have some higher end homes adjacent to the acreages, larger lots, that is what I was speaking of before when I was speaking of the transition and the buffering. Tolsma: Of all the form letter we have received from the Joint School District this is the first letter that stated that they do not recommend approval of the subdivision. Stiles: That is right, I think they did have that paragraph in one other development. Tolsma: I noticed it on your comment sheet (inaudible). Morrow: Mr. President, I think the motion is in order for preparation of findings of fact.. Tolsma: I will close the public hearing. Morrow: I would move to instruct the City Attorney to prepare new findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning Preston's Aspen Grove Estates. Yerrington: Second Tolsma:. Moved by Walt, second by Max to have the Attomey prepare new findings of fact on Preston's Aspen Grove Estates, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Tolsma: I will call a five minute break at this time. FIVE MINUTE BREAK Meridian City Council July 19, 1994 Page 59 Tolsma: Let's call the meeting back to order please. ITEM #20: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE BY BW INC. AND WAYNE STOLFUS: Tolsma: Is there a representative here. Dan Tor'fin, 250 South Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Torfin: The application before you contains a request to rezone approximately 7 tenths of an acre from L-O to C-G commercial and R-S residential. The request is based on the need to facilitate the development of a veterinarian clinic on the Fairview frontage parcel. Which is approximately a 1/3 of an acre. I would like to clarify something in the staff report regarding 2 items, one is the Jackson Drain which is stated in the staff report that it is open and must be maintained as an open ditch. It actually is piped through the side and piped all the way across Fairview Avenue. The other item is the 35 foot landscape setback which is in the staff report and was also passed through as a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Due to the irregularity of this site and the small area of the site we have met with staff and we initially talked about a 20 foot setback however we have learned we need to give up an additional 7 feet of right of way for future roadway improvements. And so we would tike to request some relief from the 35 foot landscape setback from the right of way. And request that 15 feet be acceptable. I have looked though the Meridian area and maybe the biggest setback was 20 feet, but probably it goes that there is nothing to 10 to 15 feet. When Fairview is fully developed there will be an additiona121/2 feet on the sidewalks so our 15 would become 171/2 feet. Other than that we have no other exceptions to what has been passed on as a recommendation. I would be glad to answer any questions. Tolsma: Any questions? Anyone else from the public wish to offer testimony on the rezone application by BW Inc. Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Morrow: I have a question I guess for the Counselor with respect to the 35 foot setback, it is in the decision and recommendation of P & Z is that something a variance needs to be requested here, or are we dealing with 2 different issues here? Crookston: No, not a variance, it is not required by your ordinance it is part of the new comprehensive plan, it is stated to be a condition for the rezone. It is totally up to what you want to do, it is not required by ordinance. The goal is to make Fairview meet that goal, it is being requested at the new West One facility that they are doing their rezone on, it has been asked for in several places along Cherry Lane. It is not just with this request. HUB OF 71ZEA.~ URE VALLEY OFFICIALS A Good Place to Live COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk W CITY OF MERIDIAN ROBERT D ICORR E eer GARY D. SM TH, P.E. Clty Eng WALT W. MORROW BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. w s 33 EAST IDAHO sHARI sTILEs ater upt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, waste KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief MERIDIAN, IDAHO 831542 Planner 8 Zoning Administrator W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief JIM JOHNSON WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR.; Attorney Phone (208) 888433 ~ FAX (208) 887-4813 Chairman -Planning 8, zoning Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WI~'H THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, may we have your answer by: M av 3. 1994 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 4/19/94 HEARING DATE: 5/10194 REQUEST: Annexation/ zoning with a Preliminary plat for Preston's Aspen Grove BY: Shekinah Industries LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SW corner of Locust Grove and Franklin Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z TIM HEPPER, P!Z GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRiNGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH - NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: ~~~~~~~~ APR 1 9 1994 CITY OF ~ER~~~~-1~ _ • REG~LIEST F;~R SUBDIVIEIGN APPROVAL PRELIMINARY PLAT AND/OFi' FINAL PLAT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TIME TABLE POR E[lBMISSIO~i; A request for pYel3rninar Clerks posses Y plat approval roust be iri the City regular meetir,slon na later than thrEe days folluwin 9 °= the Planning and Zoning Cornmiss g the The Plannin ton. 9 and Zoning Commission, will hear the request at the monthly meeting following the month the request was made. After a proposal enters the process it ma subseguer,t mor,tl^iiy _ procedures meetlr, ~ Y be ac±ed upon at ar,d documer,tationgar•e received beiajre ~n~OePsMrY actioraY following the Planning ar,d Zoning Cammissiorr GENERAL INFORMATION 1 • Name of Anne:.cation and .,ubdivis ' i /- ion. - $ ~~~EIUIflC~nt7~ 2• General Location, ~STA~ 3• Owne-r's of record, 8 ' ' ~ 3ss s. ~a~usT~ ~o~-M>=>` '° ~ ~ -col ~ Address, 14 7_ c~ °~~~~- SSI~ - S/ o!o ~` ~L_ L~~~n,M~p Zip g~ 7~Telephone $$~- 5467 ~. SµFIZ(I~J/~I-1 l AJb u 57l~I~ Applicant. ~I-EA~i P~~Cn 5 lac, x1 Address. ~.7~ R i77PPr~n S. Engineer, T oL s~~~ -~1CN-Q~r ~cmA`Firm ~.4~~ l IL Latin SUPt'~S Address_29d n~ ~AA~~~~y~ ~ Zip~Telephone ~ 78-~ ~ ~ 6• Name and address to -receive City billings; Name I C t-~ ~4~~ ~FCTd Address () 1~` Telephone 37.5' z ~ 4' PRELIMINARY PLAT CHECKLIST ;~c' ~ D ~ 3 7U 9 subdivision Features 1• Acres ~~ z¢ ~q,4Z COiNh'1~'2LI~ ~ L Zq, ~Z ~°SI'JG~IU ~'/~1 1• Number of lots _ 3 (` O• Lots per acre ~-- 3 ~ ~s i a~-~ur~~-L 4• Density per acre 5• Zoning Classificationcs~ _ ~ -~S • • E.. If the proposed subdivision is outside the Meridian City Limits but witt,in the jurisdictional mile, what is the existing zoning classification R- T 7. Does the plat border a potential green belt I~ D 8. Have recreational easements been provided for ~O S. Are there proposed recreational amenities to the City~_ Explain 1f0. Are there proposed dedications of common areas? 'yU Explain Far future parks?_ lU Q_ Explain Pao ~-~rz... iE~ ~. it. Wt,at school (s ) service the area ~ w~-1- ~ rr ~lo~eL" do you propane any agreements for futuree s~l sites ^lo E~tplain 12. Other prloposed amenities to the City l~ A- Water Supply ~/~ Fire Department , Other Explain 13. Type of Building (Residential, Commercial, Industrial ur combination) Ecm~Yl~}1_ On12982Ac,~~s. GowtwlEL[.fA-L OGQ~S, 14. Type of Dwelling(s) Single Family, Duplexes, Multiple:~tes, other S IWC~L~ Fi4wt i 1..~ 15. Proposed Development features: a. Minimum square f ootage of lot (s) , ~`L~ S_~' b. Minimum square f ootage of structure (s ) /DoD c. Are garages provides for, ES squ''Aa\\re footage ± .3 60 d. Are other coverings provided for YV o e. Landscaping has been provided for ~~c1 , Describe (2i . ~ • • f. Trees will be provided for ~~, Trees will be maintained g. Sprinkler systems are provided for ~~~- F~F~SU2E [R~, h. Are there multiple units 1~0 Type remarks i. Are there special set back requirements `~~-s . Explain 25~~t~u~E-Z BETI,UEE~ ~R~S ~ZL`~ ~- IyE~N~0E5 ~ j. Has off street parking been provided for~~, Explain k. Value range of property ~ $d~QdO ~ /~, ~Cj~ 1. Type of financing for development K E~ iJ~~ tU IL m. Protective covenants were submitted~~,liate le. Uoes the proposal land lock,,11other property ~~~ Does it create Enclaves N n STATEMENTS OF GOMPLIANGE: ~ 1. St-ree±s, curbs, gutters and sidewalks are tc, be constructed to standards as required by Ada County Highway Uist-rict and Meridian Ordinance. Uirner,sior,s will be dete-rmir,ed by the City Engineer. All sidewalks will be five t5i feet in width. ,/ ~'. Proposed .use is iri confurrnance with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. ~3. Uevelaprner,t will connect to City services. ~ ~. Ueveloprnent will comply with City Ordinances. `.. Pr~elirninar~y Plat will include all appropriate easements. ~. Street names must not conflict with City grid system. t3) • ,. ~ ~~ - I i~ ~ ~~ '~ ~ a~rcz~_.. -~n oa sn'~o'7 ~- - ~+-x-31 ~_. .-~ ;y--- •p~---- - rte:;, f II ~,~, t _~~,,,,s_„~„ r 1 I .. ~, ~' ~~~ ~~ ~ i ~ (r Id ' s~~° 0__ / N~ - ~ ' ~ 3 ~' ..Q w M , <. I a ~'~ • ~~~~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ J ~+I l I ~ ~ _r m r' ~ / 8 0 9 ~- J ® ~ 6 8 ® I .. ~~ ~ i -] l . ~ e Y _ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~~ ® r 3 f O~ ,~ ® ~ O I 6 t @, , ~ i r ~ ~ : ,,:~ e ,-, , ®' e ~ .~ m ~ o a~ Z , m~ n. o I. i, ,°~ ~ e ® 0 Y ~ , i ~ + ~~ . n ' • ~ ! _ .,-, ~ ~~ ~ t o L!~~~ ~- ~ ; ~ ~ ~ M ~ ._ ~ ~~ ^ 1 '~ 1 • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I , ~ 1 ' ~ ~ ~ . ~ w ~" 1 ~ m ~ _ / w ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~ • -~ ~ ~ .e ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ o ~ ~ T 1 oc 1 ~ '~ ~ v •••. ~ _, M ,. r b' . ` ~ . r,_ ~ ,:. 7 ~~ ~ Q W~ W O (~~ V ~ _ ~~ / I`'~. ~ ~ ~ 2 /~ -~~~c zu s a7' ~.~ -l ~ ;;~~ ~~ +' •.. ~~~ w 1n r ~ ~{ ~" ', 4 r' f r . ~-, r y ~' ~. ~~ ~..~._ S ~~ ~P . ~ __ __ . - '~: ~- "`- 'r. t'St _~ RY~.~ 1 d ''. ~ ~ 's V,~ ii+~~ -'7~, ~~ff A l .. ~: ~ ~$F'~ °Fg~~~~~~i#~ ~ ~- ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~± ~+ 'ter :~' ~ ~ rt''~'~~ µ'3t t i w -~.s a "i ti..r" ~,b k3 ,~ -* r.,'~ :~} ~'-`~ _ < - ~ aal'-ice «i>~.a•' i~ ~, -'`~+ar~ .-c. '~ ~' 3 _.~ .fit ^ti :r ^; ~ .s ~ , ~ _ - i r '~-.- ., i , y ~ }_~ ~-, i F ' b- ~ 1 Jul. ^:ti .,~~~-.. ~ y. ~+-~i_~:r ~.-? ,~ - ~.> ~ ~ . w ,F.- r • ~ '<d y C.y~ L ~y~j'M~ • '3. ~~F: ( w- ^~ y~ ~ .C -,Y~ ~ ~~ 9 ~? ~ y 1M ~ ~ ,g~ ~ " ~ +> ~a 4~r ~ 3; t : ~'~c- Fr + ~ ,.$?~ 3 ~. ~. ~ 1°v. ~ ~F_ a~~~ ~-. 1 ..: J 4 M ' ~~ ~~ ~ 4 ~ ~4 ~ ~:k ~ :. r .. 4~ `~ x r i .r ~ ~ ~. r ~ .~ y~ 4 t ~~~~~ ~ > r s ! ~+ ° ,+~~! ~ A. ' >'.~'~ ~ ~ ~6+. 'i~. +~r-si.1~ .F~ --~.~ ~' a i ~ e•i .K~ i '~ y.~ $~+ D4 ~ f,~;~ - ~Y r~ `r _ r ~K ~'~ .. s, ~'~ w +.4F ~ .., ~~,.:~ r ~~~. r 7 ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~y~~ ~ ! fir.--! ~3'~~/µ~«wY ~t :% ;~ NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, ~3 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on May 10, 1994, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Shekinah Industries for annexation and zoning of approximately 34.24 acres of land located in the NE 1 /4 of Section 18, T. 3N, R. 1 E, Boise-Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located on the SW corner of Franklin and Locust Grove roads. The Application requests annexation with zoning of C-N and R-15. Further Applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval of the parcel of land above described for 131 Residential lots and 3 Commercial lots for Preston's Aspen Grove Estates. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 19th day of April 1994. 4 WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK • C~ Shekinah Industries, Inc. 420 Bfiteroot Drive, Bolse, Idaho 83709 (208) 375-2647 Ms. Shari Stiles City of Meridian planning AdYninistrator 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Ms. Stiles: April 14, 1994 Re: Amended Application of Aspen Grove Estates I am hereby submitting an amended application for the Aspen Grove Estates project that I submitted in February, 1994. The amendments to the February submittal are basically revising my request of a mixed PUD zone to a hR-15 zo ~e pr ject to a standard N zone on 3.7 acres along with c anging preliminary Plat with public facilities. The legal descriptions of the areas for the two requested zones are hereby sued a plarLS, Preliminary Plat application, along with all req documents and fees are included with this amended application. It is my desire to annex the 34.24 acre parcel into the City of Meridian, with a zone of R-15 and C-N and obtain approval of a 135 lot preliminary plat. The three commercial lots ~~ Perdinit obtain a conditional use permit prior to obtaining for the exact detail of proposbed resentedhave presented only a conceptual idea of what might P the name of the project Please be advised that I am changing to "Preston's Aspen Grove Estates", since "Aspen" has already been used. The project will be marketed as "Aspen Grove Estates". • Shari Stiles April 14, 1994 Page 2 All streets will be constructed to Ada County Highway District and to the City of Meridian standards. Water and sewer service will be by the City of Meridian. Irrigation will be a pressurized system out of Nampa Meridian's irrigation supply. This project is in conformance with the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan and $ts into the surrounding mixed uses of commercial industrial and residential areas. All City of Meridian ordinances will be complied with. A 35' landscaped buffer will be provided along Franklin Road to enhance the entrance to Meridian. A 25' landscaped buffer and a 6' solid cedar fence will separate this development from the four neig~ibors on the east side. We are in hopes that this modi$cation will reduce the concerns of these neighbors. A traffic study has been completed for this development, and two copies are included as a part of this application. I am also submitting copies to ACRD, since it was orig~ially required by them. Their comments back to you will be based on this analysis. With the modi$cations to the project as shown and explained, we are hopeful that the Preston's Aspen Grove Estates will be annexed, zoned, and approved for preliminary plat by the City of Meridian. Please call if you have any questions or need .any additional information. Sincerely, HEKINAH INDUS ES, .INC. ~ D. Michael Preston President ~ ~ y AmEN.-~~ APPLIATION FOR ANNEXATION APPROVAL & ZONING OR REZONE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FILING INFORMATION I. GENERAL INFORMATION C- a 's ~ CQ~c~ s~ (PROPOSED NAME OF SUBDIVISION)- .., - ~ _ ~ r_ ~ ~_a, v ~ i Itl ~ ~ _oc ~c 5 ~ (GENERAL LOCATION) (LEGAL DESCRIPTION - ATTACH 'LF LENGTHY) (OWNER(S) OF RECORD) (NAME) (ADDRESS) (APPLICANT) (NAME) (ADDRESS) (ENGINEER, SURVEYOR OR PLANNER) (NAME) iL~'~~ 1~ ~ rrL~i,l~DT ~Q lS (ADDRESS) i vn ~~ (JURISDICTION(S) REQUIRI G APPROVAL (TELEPHONE N0.) ~~JiZ~~T (TELEPHONE N0.) (TELEPHONE N6.) ~~ 70 l (TYPE OF SUBDIVISION -.RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL) +50 ~ ACRES OF LAND IN CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP. (FEE) (ACCEPTED BY:) C • thence North 16°43'42" West 200.00 feet to a point; thence North 09°13'42" West 240.00 feet to the point of beginning, comprising 29.82 acres, more of less. SUBJECT TO: All existing easements and road rights-of--way of record or appearing on the above-described parcel of land. Prepared by: JTE:EDM PACIFIC LAND SUR John T. (Tom) Eddy, P.L.S. -, • PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS 290 North Maple Grove Road Boise, ID 83704 (208) 378-6380 FAX (208) 378-0025 PROJECT: 143081 DATE: April 14, 1994 DESCRIPTION FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES C-N ZONING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 18 T. 3N., R lE., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A parcel of land being a portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, Section 18, T. 3N., R. lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows; Beginning at a point marking the Northeast corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18, T.3N., R lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho said point also being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the Northerly boundary of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18, also said Northerly boundary being the Centerline of Franklin Road South 89°46'18" West 398.00 feet to a point; thence leaving said Northerly boundary South 09°13'42" East 240.00 feet to a point; thence South 16°43'42" East 200.00 feet to a point; thence South 03°13'42" East 137.06 feet to a point; thence North 89°42'53" East 289.06 feet to a point on the Easterly boundary of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, said Easterly boundary also being the centerline of Locust Grove Road; thence along said Easterly boundary and centerline North 00°31'23" East 565.45 feet to the point of beginning, comprising 4.42 acres, more of less. SUBJECT TO: All existing easements and road rights-of--way of record or appearing on the above-described parcel of land. Pacific Land Surveyors, a division of POWER Engineers, Inc., an Idaho Corporation • • Prepared by: LAND SURVEYORS 7 e' (j1I' L`' ~~ JTE:EDM John T. (Tom) Eddy, P.L.S. PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS 290 North Maple Grove Road Boise, ID 83704 (208) 378-6380 FAX (208) 378-0025 PROJECT: 143081 DATE: April 14, 1994 DESCRIPTION FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES R-15 ZONING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 18 T. 3N., R lE., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A parcel of land being a portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, Section 18, T. 3N., R lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows; Beginning at a point marking the Northeast corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18, T.3N., R. lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho; thence along the Northerly boundary of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18, also said Northerly boundary being the Centerline of Franklin Road South 89°46'18" West 398.00 feet to a point, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; point; thence continuing along the said Northerly boundary South 89°46' 18" West 929.20 feet to a thence leaving said Northerly boundary and centerline and along the Westerly boundary of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18 South 00°29'39" West 1332.06 feet tc a point marking the Southwest corner of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18; thence leaving said Westerly boundary and along the Southerly boundary of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18 North 89°39'31" East 1326.57 feet to a point marking the Southeast corner of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18; thence leaving said Southerly boundary and along the Easterly boundary of the Northeast 1/4 of said Northeast 1/4 Section 18 also said Easterly boundary being the centerline of Locust Grove Road North 00°31'23" East 149.00 feet to a point; thence leaving said Easterly boundary South 89°39'31" West 436.37 feet to a point; thence North O1°22'31" East 371.55 feet to a point; thence North 19°11'29" West 135.60 feet to a point; thence North 02°24'06" East 115.82 feet to a point; thence North 89°42'53" East 183.72 feet to a point; thence North 03°13'42" West 137.06 feet to a point; Pacific Land Surveyors, a division of POWER Engineers, Inc., an Idaho Corporation f • thence North 16°43'42" West 200.00 feet to a point; thence North 09°13'42" West 240.00 feet to the point of beginning, comprising 29.82 acres, more of less. SUBJECT TO: All existing easements and road rights-of--way of record or appearing on the above-described parcel of land. Prepared by: JTE:EDM John T. (Tom) Eddy, P.L.S. PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS L_J 290 North Maple Grove Road Boise, ID 83704 (208) 378-6380 FAX (208) 378-0025 PROJECT: 143081 DATE: April 14, 1994 DESCRIPTION FOR PRESTONS ASPEN GROVE ESTATES C-N ZONING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 18 T. 3N., R lE., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A parcel of land being a portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, Section 18, T. 3N., R lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows; Beginning at a point marking the Northeast corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18, T.3N., R. lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho said point also being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNIl~TG; thence along the Northerly boundary of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18, also said Northerly boundary being the Centerline of Franklin Road South 89°46'18" West 398.00 feet to a point; thence leaving said Northerly boundary South 09° 13'42" East 240.00 feet to a point; thence South 16°43'42" East 200.00 feet to a point; thence South 03°13'42" East 137.06 feet to a point; thence North 89°42'53" East 289.06 feet to a point on the Easterly boundary of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, said Easterly boundary also being the centerline of Locust Grove Road; thence along said Easterly boundary and centerline North 00°31'23" East 565.45 feet to the point of beginning, comprising 4.42 acres, more of less. SUBJECT TO: All existing easements and road rights-of--way of record or appearing on the above-described parcel of land. Pacific Land Surveyors; a division of POWER Engineers, Inc., an Idaho Corporation • • Prepared by: JTE:EDM John T. (Tom) Eddy, P.L.S. • __ ~ - ____ _ I .1.9 3. ~ z ~I i ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~I ~ ~ 70 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ v - .^ ' ~ Y ' ~ _ / Q7 U i ' ~~ ~ W, ~. 1 .. ~ ; ~ ~ ~ i V~ ' ~ ' _. ~ ~ u.C W ~ ~~ ~~ s `~ ~~N~~~~i • ~ ~ 0a ce - • +~' a ~ ~ 9 0~ t ~ - • 1 ~ `'~ ~ ~~ ~~a i- :~~A~; a _ ~ •~'_Y ~ T-y0b~ •t 111 . ~i~• ~(~ p• `~ o e ~ 4•^ a _®~ yr b~~,~ -~e~~ i~ _ O _ ri r i m ~ o e I o ~® ~ ~, I r r .~ U, ~ 0 ~ i. ~ o o' t r ~r ~ a - o •,.,~~IL ~ o ~ ~ ~ - i, -sue-. d C ~~ _ ~ --/~. .~ ~,.,e a ~, ofl'~~~ Z ~ a , o 1ST ~ ~ I,'r ~ ~ ~ • ® it o e. o s o e g1A. s.ea ` • ~ .~~ .erg t~~tD 6 ~ s - =~- -- I, ti ~ -~.. ~f ~;~ '~ I t • ~ ~ ~ g ~' I '..~ t ,~, ''`'. ,~-~ • PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS 290 North Maple Grove Road Boise, [D 83704 (208) 378-6380 FAX (208) 378-0025 PROJECT: 143081 REVISED: February 10, 1994 DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED ASPEN GROVE ESTATES A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 18 T. 3N., R1E., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A parcel of land being a portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, Section 18, T. 3N., R. lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows; Beginning at a point [narking the Northeast corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18, T.3N., R. lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho said point~also being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the Northerly boundary of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18, also said Northerly boundary being the Centerline of Franklin Road South 89°46' 18" West 1327.20 feet to a point marking the Northwest corner of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18; thence leaving said Northerly boundary and along the Westerly boundary of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18 South 00°29'39" West 1332.06 feet to a point marking the Southwest corner of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18; thence leaving s<~id Westerly boundary and along the Southerly boundary of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18 North 89°39'31" East 1326.57 feet to a point marking the Southeast corner of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18; thence leaving said Southerly boundary and along the Easterly boundary of the Northeast 1/4 of said Northeast 1/4 Section 18 also said Easterly boundary being the centerline of Locust Grove Road North 00°31'23" East 149.00 feet to a point; thence leaving said Easterly boundary South 8'9°39'31" West 436.37 feet to a point; thence North O1°22'31" East 371.55 feet to a point; thence North 19°11'29" West 135.60 feet to a point; thence North 02°24'06" East 115.82 feet to a point; thence North 89°42'53" East 472.78 feet to a point said point marking a point on the Easterly boundary of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18 also said Easterly boundary being the Centerline of Locust Grove Road; thence along said Easterly boundary and centerline North 00°31'23" East 565.45 feet to the point of beginning, comprising of 34.24 acres, more of less. Pacific Land Surveyors. a division of POWER Engineers. Inc., an Idaho Corporation • SUBJECT TO: All existing easements and road rights-of--way of record or appearing on the above-described parcel of land. Prepared by: PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS JTE:EDM John T. (Tom) Eddy, P.L.S. July 18, 1994 Meridian City Planning Commission 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Subject: Wildlife Refuge and Overdevelopment Five Mile Creek Meridian, Idaho Gentlemen: At the present time a developer is planning on putting in a housing development and some commercial property development on the southwest corner of the intersection of Franklin Road and South Locust Grove Road. This intersection happens to be located where the Five Mile Creek crosses under Franklin Road. As you may or may not be aware, this creek or stream flows year round and supports wildlife and their habitats. The wildlife consists of duck, blue heron, geese, trout and other types of wildlife. The stream is one of three (3) or four (4) that run year round in the Treasure Valley. The developer is planning on constructing a car wash, quick stop store and possibly gas pumps at this location. The housing subdivision would consist of 6 houses per acre over approximately 40 +/- acres. The storm water runoff from this subdivision would discharge into Five Mile Creek along with the trash, debris and water from the commercial property. This runoff can potentially contaminate Five Mile Creek and harm the wetlands and the wildlife that it supports as well as the surrounding environment. The sewer discharge system from this development would have to cross Five Mile Creek per the developers plans. I am asking that yo ~ commission review this area to see if it is recognized as fglling under the Federal Wetlands Act. It is also requested that any development in this area be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for your review and public comment. The area of Five Mile Creek is currently zoned as commercial development. It may be necessary for the City of Meridian to reconsider and change their zoning based on their review and findings. A report of these findings should be made available to the public for their comment. In addition to the above, this proposed development with its high density would create serious problems for the area it is to be located within. The Meridian schools cannot handle the addition of all of the families with children that would be imposed upon it. The increased automobile traffic flow that this would create on s Franklin Road, along with increased pedestrian traffic and no sidewalks could create a bad situation. This kind of high density would only benefit the developer and not the community. The City of Meridian has become known as being the fastest growing town in the state of Idaho. Lets forget about quantity and set our goals on quality. We need to improve the quality of our community, our schools, our people and our lives. It's time that the developers began conforming to the needs of the people and the community of the City of Meridian and not their personal gain and greed. You must not forget that you and only you are responsible for the final decision and it needs to reflect that of the people of Meridian. Yours truly, Elwood E. Rennison 990 Mustang Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 i July 18, 1994 Mr. Robert Flowers U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Walla Walla District Lucky Peak Dam Lucky Peak Lane Boise, Idaho Subject: Wildlife Refuge Five Mile Creek Meridian, Idaho Dear Sir: At the present time a developer is planning on putting in a housing development and some commercial property development on the southwest corner of the intersection of Franklin Road and South Locust Grove Road. This intersection happens to be located where the Five Mile Creek crosses under Franklin Road. As you may or may not be aware, this creek or stream flows year round and supports wildlife and their habitats. The wildlife consists of duck, blue heron, geese, trout and other types of wildlife. The stream is one of three (3) or four (4) that run year round in the Treasure Valley. The developer is planning on constructing a car wash, quick stop store and possibly gas pumps at this location. The housing subdivision would consist of 6 houses per acre over approximately 40 +/- acres. The storm water runoff from this subdivision would discharge into Five Mile Creek along with the trash, debris and water from the commercial property. This runoff can potentially contaminate Five Mile Creek and harm the wetlands and the wildlife that it supports as well as the surrounding environment.The sewer discharge system from this development would have to cross Five Mile Creek per the developers plans. I am asking that your agency review this area to see if it is recognized as following under the Federal Wetlands Act. It is also requested that any development in this area be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for your review and public comment. The area of Five Mile Creek is currently zoned as commercial development. It may be necessary for the City of Meridian to reconsider and change their zoning based on your findings and report. I would appreciate your early response to my letter. Thank you. Yours truly G~l.~.~71~ C~ • '7(itC~C-rte, Elwood E. Rennison 990 Mustang Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 cc: Meridian Planning Commision • The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Meridian JULY 8, 1994 In the matter of Preston Aspen Grove Estates, petition for annexation and rezoning. A~t:E[VED ~u~~a~sa. CITY OF IN~1DtAl~ We are the affected resi~nts immediately adjoining the development, on the east. Our names, signatures, and descriptions of property conclude this testimony. We oppose this development, and ask it be disapproved. Our understanding from the Planning and Zoning hearings is that the developer has said our opposition is the loss of view, and change of lifestyle, Actually, the view lost is the Meridian watertank and fast food signs. We do not lament this loss. Nor, with responsible development, do we anticipate significant lifestyle changes. Indeed, we have never raised either concern among the 21 pages of written comment previously submitted to planning and zoning. Our concerns were limited exclusively to matters of law, density, transition, irrigation loss, and encroachment on domestic water right. For the March 8 Planning and Zoning Meeting, the developer provided the Commission and public with significantly different plats. He provided an incorrect l~al description, and requesting PUD zoning which Meridian does not have. Due to the incorr~t zoning, he was required to amend the application, a functional restart, For the May 10 Planning and Zoning Meeting, now for R 15 zoning, he provided the same plat to the Commission and affected parties, but this plat contained no structures -except commercial buildings which he said at both meetings he did not intend to build. This application presented the correct legal description but misrepresented the affected schools, In the dictum, but not substance, of the developer's testimony, he stated he would make the stuctures adjoining our properties "stick built" rather than manufactured homes (with no reference to chance in density). Therefore, the actual plat and written application now disagree with the oral proposal. On both applications, the ~veloper has denied cutting off our irrigation water. Yet on both plats, the public ditch servicing our properties has been filled in and fenced off. On both applications the developer has insisted that the minimum taxable value of the smallest lot, with a manufactured home, is $80,000, and the largest, also a manufactures home (per the written application), would be $150,000: These values far exceed the actual ad valorum values of the ajjoining r~rs,• our actual values are declared on our property descriptions for contrast. For the affected parties, this process has been mayhem. We have been required to commenf on ever- changing proposals, given incorrect facts, have the developer try to misconstue our concerns, and left to guess his intent. We do not believe any of this has been accidental. And this is not a singular event, To wit, we are informed by the Irrigation District that this developer has previously fouled that agency by filling a public ditch, And this developer has also attracted media attention for: bulldozing eagle habitat on the Boise River; and attempting force entry to the small sewer system at Meridian Heights. He stated in • March 8 testimony that another of his developments in this area has had serious problems because of covanents. But, so far, he has eva~d submitting any convanents with his applications for Aspen Grove. It is our experience of five months, then, that this developer is careless in planning, impulsive in conduct, prone to exaggerate or distort fact, and deliberately vague on intent. We make credibility an issue because the application before you is for the approval of a concept - a blank subdivision. And this approval is sought wholly on the basis of the developer's word and intent. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission is to be commended. They have attempted to sort through the vaguarities, and control the "concept" with no more information than the affected parties. Most of our concerns have been addressed by the Findings of Fit, and we concur in most part. However, there are some issues outside of planning and zoning which will affect Council if annexation occurs. And there are some findings which, we believe, are understated. We ask that if the application for Preston's Aspen Grove is not disapproved, that the following information be considered by Council in edition to the Findings of Fact. And based upon the reasons given, that the annexation include the conditions set forth. 1. THE DEVELOPER MAY DISTORT CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION Further to charactor grievance, the developer has failed to disclose, and in fact platted units over (the first plat to Planning and Zoning, the only plat to ever show housing) the existance of public irrigation ditchs and easements, and lines and easements of Intermountain Gas which will impede, or preclude, development. Too, he has included water and sewer easements within his lot square footage, seriously overstating true residential size. It is evident to us that the developer intends to play fast and loose with any conditions imposes for annexation. This is precedented in the public comment process. We believe he intends to readily agree to conditions, then distort, lower, ignore, or misconstrue them, and litigate against the city when it attempts to withdraw zoning. We do not want this development in the first instance; we want a partially complete, contested development even less as, due to property values and proximity, we would be forced into these disputes. Moreover, the developer is in a hurry. An existing home has already been moved off of the property, precursory to development. And the leaseholder on the pasture informs us he is to vacate in July to enable development. There can be no doubt the tactic will be to do things, then fight about them later, Consequently, it is within reason for the affected parties to demand that conditions be stringent, explicit and unequivocal, written, and allowing no variance. It is also within reason for the affected parties to demand the developer post a performance bond, capable of purchasing back all property and dwellings sold, and returning the property to its present use as pasture. 2. THE DEVELOPER CANNOT COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF TILING Ignored by the proposals is half a mile of irrigation ditch which must be maintained for the current waterusers. Water use is flood irrigation and cannotbe pressurized. This ditch, and easement, is a public way, owned by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and not the developer. The ditch is concrete, at • • three foot width and two foot depth, designed only for syphon delivery. It is already located on the highest ground to maintain flow and cannot, therefore, be rerouted or deepened. This ditch is drawn on the plat, Appendix 1. The developer cannot built over this ditch. The easement, amounting to the functional width of a backhoe with working clearances, cannot have structures on it, and the ditch must be ~cessible for maintenance. This eliminates all the units planner on the southern edge of the development, and a significant number on the east ems. He is, however, still required to the this ditch by zoning ordinance. This creates a par~x - a ditch which cannot be rerouted, but cannot be built over; a ditch which ordinance requires be closed in, but irrigation law requires be left open. Pressurized irrigation cannot be substituted as it cannot deliver the needed cubic feet per second rate. Flood irrigation could be maintained, using a very expensive system of (approximately 14) sealed screw valves -box and slides will not work because they will leak and create property damage, But to maintain a half mile of buried culvert would require a culvert tpur ieetin diameter. This ditch frequently fills with ~bris, including animal carcasses, brought in from the main. At less than four feet diameter, it would be impossible for people to work on the interior of the pipe for routine maintenance of debris and this type of clearage cannot be done from the outside of a pipe through access ports (and even then, two hundred access ports would be required at 10 foot intervals), Therefore, despite his assurances, we believe the developer simply intends to bury the ditch, as he attempted to ~ elsewhere, then put the burn on the waterusers and District to dispute. Irrigation water is not the domain of Council. The only conditions which can be imposed for annexation is that the ditch be tiled, and mandate the condition of Irrigation District License. However, in this instance the Council is now aware that the condition cannot be met for annexation. Thereby Council becomes a potential party in litigation by waterusers of the Irrigation District. Furthermore, if annexation is approved, then the affected parties must reasonably ~mand the explicit condition that the development be held liable for all maintenance to the ditch, as all changes in ditch maintenance result from the development. 3. THE DEVELOPMENT ENDANGERS POTABLE WATER Also unstated in the proposal is that the development will sit squarely over the domestic water supply of all the affected residents, and the Meridian Cemetary District. The for scribed hold patented water right to this pal, and are entitled to the existing quantity and quality of the water therein. Both quantity and quality are jeaprodized by the ~velopment. It can be legally established that part of this water supply is percolation from irrigation water, as is currently applied to this property as pasture. As flood irrigation will cease, the watertable will be diminished. The condition of quantity (recharge) is violated, The second issue is that manure, an organic contaminent, from the pasture seeps to subsurface water. Seep~e and contamination are empirically established from subsurface water discharge, which is a frequent problem on our properties. Soil composition here is sod, then sand, then river gravel -the property now desired as Aspen Grove has previously seen annexation requests as a gravel pit. Be aware, then, that the soil is porous, the water table only 10 to 1 S feet below the surface in some parts, and the • • table is susceptible to easy contamination. However, organic contamination from this source is naturally filtered before entering the drinking water. If development proceeds, then it can be reasonably foreseen that nonorganic contamination (motor oil, herbici~s, pesticides, detergents, fertilizers et, al, assceiated with development) will not be filtered before reaching the pool. This potential, likewise, violates the existing water rights on the issue of quality. At risk of depleting supply and/or chemical contamination, and holding legal right on the quantity and quality of this water source, we will enjoin development. Quality and quantity, however, would be moot by eliminating depen~nce: by connection to city water. If the affected parties decline connection, they have elected to continue at risk and tort has been satisfied on the conditions: that all expense of connection be born by the development and; that the water bill for the residence be paid by the development for so long as the residence is owned by the same owner as at the time of annexation, The precident is that the affected parties have no need for conversion except for the actions of the developer. It is within reason for the affected parties to ~mand that a condition of annexation be that city water will be supplied to the affected parties at the expense of the developer, and that the development pay for the affected parties' city water use. As with irrigation water, by this knowled~ of risk resulting from annexation, the Council may now be subject to litigation. 4. THE DEVELOPMENT'S IMPACT IS UNDERSTATED It was established in the Findings of Fit that the Meridian Schell District estimates the school imp~t would be 42 elementary students, 32 middle school students, and 29 high school students. This is a total of only 103 stunts in this development, or less than one student per household. We strongly believe this understates actual impact on the district; this m~el assumes a conventional subdivision. The propsal is not a conventional subdivision. But the application, and the developer's testimony, the units are targetted for `starter homes' and lower income families. These tart groups would be younger heads of households than the district-wick averse, with both parents working. Using 1990 census date, by ac,~ of head of household, there is an avert of more than two children per family in this age group. This would mean, at a minimum, 262 children introduced to the district by the development -most elementary school mod. And because that is an avera~, rounding up the `partial child' in'the average would mean as many as 390 children, most elementary aged, in this development. The c~veloper has testified that the schools weren't his problem ,and that the District should simply pass another bond issue, It must also be noted that, assuming two adults per household, the number of people in this development could be as many as 652. And being `starter' and lower income housing, therefore both adults working 4 • and ne~ing two cars per household, there would be a minimum of 262 automobiles. And, assuming at least one cat or ~9 per household, there would be a minimum of 131 animals at large -the proposed lots are too small to fence. 5. THE DEVELOPMENT CREATES AN ENCLAVE Among the criteria for Planning and Zoning is whether or not the development would create an enclave - an area which does not blend with the surrounding area. Among the adjoining properties, the density is four acres oer person; this reduces to approximately t 0 acres per person if all affected properties are included. Incontrast, the proposal seeks to put, in round figures (excluding overstatement for utility easements included) five houses per acres -approximately 25 oeoQle ear acre. This, to us, seems to bean enclave. Whether or not the development is an enclave, per se, if this development proceeds, THE AFFECTED PROPERTIES WILL BECOME AN ENCLAVE, PER SE. If the recommendations of the Findings of Fact are followed, there would be some transition; three houses per acre abutting our properties, more dense moving away. However., this is a numeric plan. Physically, our houses were al l located at the very back on long properties because of water and septic problems. That puts all open pasturage to the front of the house, rather than the back. If three house per acre were allowed, that would form a tense cluster of houses including ours. That, in turn, would look ridiculously out of place with the transition to the more dense housing. Even then, the open area created by the irric,~tion ditch easement would make this cluster choppy unless there is a clear demarcation. The nature of this ~velopment is still high ~nsity, The more open homes on our boundary are a concession for transition. However, these will still be wholly different in appearance, traffic, landscaping and ~nsity from the adjoining areas. Therefore, it is within reason that the affected parties demand two conditions. First that the development be bermed, on the entire eastern sib, and capped with a masonry fence:. the berm starting at a point 10 feet west of the irrigation ditch (that width inclu~s ditch maintenance easement, whether tiled or not), and that the berm, in keeping with other developments in the area, be at least a height of six feet, and the masonry five, for a berm width of 12 feet and total screen height of 1 1 feet. This wall of demarcation, in turn, would look obscene from Franklin Road. Therefore, this condition must extend to the same type of berm and masonry along Franklin Road. Second, that the number of houses per acre on the eastern side of the development not exceed two house per acre, not three. 6. THE DEVELOPMENT WILL RESULT IN STRUCTURAL DAMAGE In the initial proposal, no screening was offered except a common woo~n fence. In the second, a screen was offered, being a wooden fence and 25 fit setback put in trees. The fence, however, would still be on property line, effecting no actual setback. We have addressed the matter of screening, above. However, it need be pointed out that, in our written comment we have stated trees and bushes cannot be planted for screening:- 5 t One reason is obvious -much of the area is the ditch easement and cannot be planted. Too, only select varieties of trees and bushes will not undermine or crack ditches, whether the ditch is open or tiled, with their rests. The other reason is hid~n. Because of the large amount of subsurface water, our properties are subject to flooding -all basements and crawl spaces are damp. To reduce property damage, all the adjoining properties have built underground sumps to catch subsurface water, drainfields using perforated pipe that channel subsurface water around the structures. If trees or bushes are planted, these will foul the perforations, and result in structural dama~ from flowing. Now, knowledgable of this risk, as with the other water problems above, the city now may be party to property dama~ if flooding occurs from trees planter by the developer to gain annexation. It is within reason for the affected parties to demand that the berm be put in natural grass. However,. because this grassland would become a fire hazard with the loss of irrigation and grazing, we request the further condition that the the development maintain this grassland to include watering and mowing, at their expense. And it must conditioned that this open land, being easement and berm, is a screen and cannot be used as, or counted as set-aside recreational area for the development. 7. THE DEVELOPMENT MAY BE ESTOPPED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The Findings of Fact address the issue of the Five Mile Creek floodplain, and the Developer has stated he will, as we understand it, get the Corps of Engineers to change the area designation. We must point out that the designation was made by the Federal Emergency Man~ment A~ncy, not the Corps; the Corps is only the Boise River Vacuation Plan administrator and is not authorized to make variance. Therefore, the developer's assurances are, not surprisingly, bluff and must be held for naught. Moot in the Findings of Fact are two other fec~ral agencies. First, the runoff ditch the developer intends to channel, culvert, and on `Browder Lane' actually close, is public wetland -this is obvious and falls within the watercourse defination of the Environmental Protection A~ncy. Second, the junction of this drain and Five Mile Creek is feeding habitat for Blue Heron. Destruction of this habitat will invoke the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Given this developer's behavior on the Boise River, we ~ubt his concern in these matters, bringing on a federal suit; or several federal suits, in which the City of Meridian by annexation, would become party. 8. THE DEVELOPMENT WILL MAKE THE CEMETARY A PLAYGROUND In the Findings of Fact, we see no mention of this development bordering on the Meridian Cemetery. Whether the very high density proposed by the developer, or the mixed density suggested by Planning and Zoning, a cemetery is an allurement for children - and is also directly on what will eventuate as a natural pathway to Storey Park. Vandalism is inevitable, particularly where the target group is lower income, and unsupervised children with both parents working. Moreso, given the dense living environment. Moreso, as the developer tarts the lower income socioeconomic group, frequently associated with vandalism. s The affected parties are also taxpayers in the Meridian Cemetary District. As such; it is within reason to demand a berm and masonry fence be built around the entire development - not j ust on the east and Franklin Road sides, as is needed for our properties and the City's gateway. A berm will not keep children out of the cemetary but can physically channel child foot and bicycle traffic. So deposed, the affected parties making joint submission: We are Archie T. and Ernestine M. Roberson, property owners of 185 South Locust Grove Rom, and we have lived at this location for 24 years. This property is two acres, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The residence is serviced by domestic well, with a patented water right on the pool, as defined by the Department of Water Resources; extending from South Lust Grove Road to the Meridian Cemetary. Ad valorum appraisal for 1994 is $101,500, being a one story, brick structure with an exposed basement. We are James N. and Ann C. Witherell, property owners of 215 South Locust Grove Road, and we have lived at this location for 16 years. This property is one acre, depen~nt upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The resi~nce is serviced by cbmestic well, with a patented water right on the pool, as Mined by the Department of Water Resources, extending from South Dust Grove Road to the Meridian Cemetary, Ad valorum appraisal for 1994 is $79,500, being a two story, frame structure with no basement. We are Gene and Yernac~ne Pressley, property owners of 255 South Locust Grove Road and we have lived at this location for 27 years. This property is one acre, ~pen~nt upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The residence is serviced by domestic well, with a patented water right on the pool, as defined by the Department of Water Resources, extending from South Locust Grove Road to the Meridian Cemetary. Ad valorum appraisal for 1994 is $81,500, being a one story, frame structure with a full basement. We are Robert R. and Jeri Smith, property owners of 355 South Locust Grove Road, and we have lived at this location for 28 years. This property is 2,5 acres, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribes to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The residence is serviced by domestic well, with a patented water right on the pool, as Mined by the Department of Water Resources, extending from South Locust Grove Road to the Meridian Cemetary. Ad valorum appraisal for 1994 is $144,550, being a one story, brick structure with a partially exposed basement, So identified, we advise that our conclusions and in part derived from discussions, separate from research of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, with: Ada County Development, Ada Planning Association, Nampa Meridian Irri~tion District, Central District Health, Ada County Highway District, the Idaho Department of Water Resources, the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, the Bureau of Reclamation, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the t ntermountain Gas Company, and the A~ County Sheriff's Office. f • The aforesaid we believe to be the true representation of fact, and our opinion in this matter: ~+ ~Pi. r'2 i g 3 ;' - i ~ ~ ~~1 I _~'' ~ ~ ~~ m~ V' O d m I~ a~ r (n s ~~ 6~ b~ . ..•~• t -;-~~ r'. J ...'. . APPENDIX 1 - Public Ir•ation Ditch - •••• • ~i~~• 3 n TM ~ ~ i' ~ ~ ~ ~r ° ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ A ~ ~ < ?~ •~- ~ ~ ~," ,~ ~ ~ ~ ap hv/ ' ~ ~_ 1 - - ~_ ~ / ~ ~4 ~/ ~~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ - 1 1I i.~- W~ j ~ g -~. •~~~ 0a ce _ . ~ .,~ 0 . • Y 9 0 ~ d I •~'~ O s • • ~' .y. a +' O ~ ~ . 0 +q ~ 0 . ~ ~ ~ s • 0 ® . t ~o ' I~ ~ x--11 ~ s 0 ~ ® 9 0 ~ ~ I4" 9 i ~ 9~~ ~.1 e e ,d ~ ~- 0 6 . _ i L ~ u g ~ o .4 : I ~ ~- • ~ 'r ,~1 D vva~~~ i / p _ ~"~ ~0 /C i ~ ~/~• , \J 0 I \ e 4,1 %p" ~• OI ~.,~• r0 Q ~ g ~ ~ O ~e1er,1 u ~; ~,~~ rv ® a: o e o s •~ ~ , b D i e ~:,1• ~~ i l l c ~ ~ -' ~ •, ~ p~.,.a,. I e +t' ~'~ - - .z.o cu s eo u E ..-~~D ~ --~,~~ ~ - ~ r- v, v I ~ iQs i~~ s .a . ATTACHMENT 1 • ! The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Meridian In the matter of Aspen Grove Estates, petition for annexation and rezoning. March 5, 1994 We, the undersigned, are the affected residents adjoining the development on the east, the holders of the domestic water right which is being impuned, and part of a Neighborhood Coalition being formed to enjoin this development. Say the undersigned: We are Archie T, and Ernestine M. Roberson, property owners of 185 South Locust Grove Road, and we have lived at this location for 23 years. This property is two acres, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. We are James N. and Ann C. Wltherell, property owners of 215 South Locust Grove Road, and we have lived at this location for 15 years. This property is one acre, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. We are Gene and Vernadene Pressley, property owners of 255 South Locust Grove Road and we have lived at this location for 26 years. This property is one acre, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. We are Robert R. and Jeri Smith, property owners of 355 South Locust Grove Road, and we have lived at this location for 27 years. This property is 2.5 acres, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. So identified, and having discussed this project with Ada County Development, Ada Planning Association, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Central District Health, Ada County Highway District, the Idaho Department of Water Resources, the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, and Bureau of Reclamation, we oppose this project. 1~ It is our opinion that this proposal 1s simply an In-Your-Face, Smash-And-Grab attempt to hide a trailer park behind the assumed naivity of the Meridian City Council; unannexed, it could not be otherwise developed. It is further our opinion that this development is intended for resale to other parties not specified in the proposal, and produce caveat emptor of conditional use through successors or assigns: Shekinah Industries, Inc., titles or registers no equipment in Idaho, nor does its owner title or register other than personal vehicles. We draw our opinion as follows: 1. THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT PROCEEDED IN GOOD FAITH 1,1 The Plat submitted to the affected parties has the wrong legal discription: it describes property approximately three miles from the actual location. This seriously handicapped the affected parties in doing research. Given other factors, we believe this was a deliberate ruse to confuse the affected parties and impede their response. 1.2 The Plat submitted to the affected parties is entirely different from that submitted to Council. The Plat given to the affected parties clearly illustrates a trailer park, with different ingress and egress, ditchwork, layout lines, and roadwork. Nor were the particulars legible. This, too, seriously handicapped the affected parties from doing research. Given other factors, we believe this was also a deliberate ruse to confuse the affected parties and impede their response. 1.3 Both Plats portray development of property not owned by the developer. This property on the east and south is bounded by an irrigation lateral owned by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. This ditch, and all receiving ditches, are shallow and designed for syphon delivery; this ditch could not be covered over. Nor can access to this ditch for present waterusers be restricted. However, the Plats show this ditch, and its easements, as housing units with all access denied to the current waterusers. This development not proceed without license from the Irrigation District. THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT HAS NOT BEEN CONTACTED FOR LICENSE - OR EVEN PROJECT FEASIBILITY - by the developer. The The Plat, therefore, is a serious distortion of fact; this ditch and easements considerably reduce the land shown as developed. ;~ ~ ~ • By this instrument, be it known to the developer that the affected parties, jolniy or severally, will not negotiate irrigation sale or access changes. The system is serviceable to the water users, as is, and any change would not benefit the users. 1.4 It is required 1n Boise, and strongly suggested by the County, that developers meet with affected parties prior to submission. Moreover, it is conventional business sense to gauge impact of development, tortious or physical, as a simple matter of project feasibility. Our first awareness of this development was the meeting notice. We were never aooroached abo t the d velo~ment nor to our knowledge was this nrnnprty ever s ~rvPyerl It is not nnv~ nor has it hPPn stakPri All aspects have been kept secret from the affected parties. We believe this was done in order for the developer to confuse and disorganize the affected parties - thereby manipulate public comment. These facts established, we quote from page 3 of the developer's proposal: "We want to be good neighbors to the five adjacent residents", This is patently false, and begs question of all statements made in the proposal. 2. NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT Let it be clear: this property can be residentially developed under current zoning. However, because of soil problems and high watertable, the area can only sustain one household per acre. Thirty one such residences could be developed at a profit by the developer, as is. The issue, then, is not development. The issue is the severity of profit the developer wants. The developer asks the City for annexation, which the city has no obligation to grant. The developer also asks for rezoning of a 3.6 acre parcel to commercial use to enable the building of a gas station/mini-mart/carwash and office complex although there is no shortage of commercial land in Meridian (indeed, there are several hundred acres available for this type of development just across the road). And there is no shortage of gas stations/mini-marts/carwashes, and office space - there is ample supply, extant. Therefore, there is no rational need for this 3 • • rezoning, or any of these services. The issue of need aside, there are problems which will be addressed in part 4, below. The developer further asks for rezoning of a 33.1 acre parcel for Planned Unit Development. A PUD customarily means an apartment complex, wherein the residents are transient (no vested interest in the property) and the landlord collects rents for the use of rooms. This contrasts to a mobile home park, wherein the residents are non-transient, the tenent owning the rooms (a vested Interest in the property) and the landlord collects rents for the use of space. A second distinction is that a PUD, as a permanent structure, aopreciates in real value and is assessed by comparable structures in the same area. In contrast, a mobile home is a temporary structure, assessed as personal property whether or ~ a Real Property Declaration has been filed (this can be rescinded by the owner at any time), and depreciates in value. The tax assessment of a mobile home is based on the owner's declaration (there are no standards among mobile homes to enable comparision), as arbitrated with the County Assessor. A third distinction is that there are major restrictions on mobile homes. To be blunt, the depreciating nature renders them ugly, they are fire hazards, and they are lower rent housing, catering to lower income tenents even if that was not the original intent. Boise City prohibits mobile home development. Ada County tightly resticts them, requiring setbacks, maximum screening, and limits density. They also require planned and aesthetic transition from high density to low density housing, and, we are informed by Ada Development, do not approve such units where there is opposition because such development, prima facia, reduces property values, and make the agency a corespondent. There are no such restrictions on Planned Unit Development, which assumes a permant, value appreciation, and regulated environment. Aspen Grove proports to be a hybrid of mobile home and planned unit development. That is, it has all the physical charactoristics of a mobile home park, and will predictably have all the social and environmental problems of a mobile home park. By the way in which the rent is transacted, it is a PUD. But like a PUD. and unlike a mobile home nark the tenents at Asaen GrnvP will have no vested interest 4 • • 2.1 ASPEN GROVE I S A MOB I LE HOME PARK The developer uses the term Manufactured Housing, apparently to infer what is arranged as a trailer park, looks like a trailer park, and will behave like a trailer park, is something else. This tact opportunlzes on the Image of other Manufactured Housing developments, such as the Biddick (Weathervane) Subdivision which is an excellent subdivision. But opportunizing fails to note that in these subdivisions the resident is also the owner (with a definite vested interest) and that these subdivisions have made clever use of doubles and triples so that they blend with the adjoining housing. Please note that nowhere in the proposal does the developer say the proposed units will either be purchased new, or that they will be other than trailers in the conventional sense. Whatever imagery, Aspen Grove is arranged as a trailer park, has freestanding carports (the size of these, and the units, are questionable as no scale is provided) like a trailer park, and there is no attempt to blend the units with the surrounding residences - like a trailer park. The density of units is extreme, like a trailer park, and on what scale can be rationalized from property boundaries, some of the units scale only 10 X 30 feet, and are scarely 10 feet apart. it is described as averaging 4.76 units per acre. Such, units are not physically divisible, for true analysis the number is S units per acre. The market is targeted at families in need of `affordable housing'. This translates to lower and per se low Incomes. Assume each family is `typically' four with both parents working and two children 1n school. Also assume the `typical' family has at least one dog or cat (assume pets are al lowed, catering to `start-up' families as the proposal calls them), and two cars (neither particularly new -the average car in Ada County is 9.1 years old, based on Idaho Transportation Department information. The density, therefore, is not simply 5 units per acre. At 130 units (reserve 9 units for `adult only' since this designation means if they aren't filled with adults then they'll be filled with families.) there would be MINIMUM of 512 people, 260 of which are school children, 130 dogs or cats, and 5 << I ,~ • • 260 aged vehicles. And at least 120 lawnmowers since the landlord will charge for lawn service in lieu. However, this minimum would also understate actual density. Most of Ada County growth is presumed the result of people migrating here from interstate. Using drivers license surrenders, data provided by the Idaho Transportation Department shows just under 1,000 drivers, meaning 500 households, moved to Meridian in 1993. The modal age group was 20 - 29 years old. The rate of growth, however, using the same source with 1991 - 1993, is declining. This age group tends to have more than two children per unit, per the 1990 census average, by age, by householder. The more probable number of children would be three children per unit. The child imoact is 390 elementary and middle schoolaged children, crammed into `4.7' ~p~ts oer acre Thi is verging on a new elemen ry schoc.~1, and prod ~rP~ a more rea ~s is total of 65n a~ults and hil~irpn in tho family' dev ent. Unfortunately, as will be obviated below, the taxes generated would probably not sustain an animal control officer, needed to deal with 130 pets much less school enhancement or additional buses, nor municipal services (mainly police) needed for any group of people crammed into small spaces. Sections 49-1 14, 49-422, 63-102, 63-1203, and 39-4105, I daho Code describe and regulate a mobile home and a manufactured home as the same thing: for purposes of taxing, for purposes of health and safety, for purposes of regulation. This applies whether the unit is on wheels, skirted, or permanently attached to a foundation - or whether it is lifted from a foundation, rewheeled, and relocated. By whatever euphemism the developer chooses, Aspen Grove is a mobile home park except for the means of collecting rents. It must be considered a mobile home park for purposes zoning. It should be recognized that the transition from dense to very sparee population is measured in inches, not half-miles or quarter miles. It sould be recognized that screening, inspite of this density, is a cedar fence -half of the cost of which will be charged to the neighbors and who also will be expected to bear half of the maintenance cost. Thank you, but the affected parties already have fences and will not be bound to any fencing costs of the developer. It must be recognized that there are no setbacks and because of the exteme density, 6 ,~ I • and impact on the established neighborhood, a berm, not a (cheap cedar) fence, would probably be required by Ada Development. This development sets a serious precident wherein every trailer park in Meridian could become a PUD, or a 'partial' PUD, and, being much cheaper to develop than a standard subdivision, the precident of Aspen Grove should attract dozens of copycat developments 2.2 ASPEN GROVE IS NOT A VIABLE TAX BASE Section 63-1203, Idaho Code.-makes the property value base for all manufactured homes, the declaration of the owner: thereafter negotiated by the Assessor (assuming the Assessor has adequate time or staff ). Not only must the units on Aspen Grove depreciate, they are for commercial use (rental) and will depreciate rapidly - in spite of all the efforts of the property manager/social director, in business, it is common practice to accelerate depreciation where the property has a limited lifespan, such as for-rent mobile homes. It would be absurd 'to assume that Aspen Grove will not accelerate depreciation - it is designed to make its profits from equipment rental. Effectively, tax assessment could turn into an annual squabble between the declared value of the owner, and the Assessor over depreciating fair market value - 139 times over. In return for annexation and rezoning, the developer implies the property will be a high property tax return for the city. It is unclear from the wording of the proposal whether: the developer considers g~ of these units, combined with the real property, will be declared at, baseline, $75;000 - $80,000 or; if all the 139 units combined will have a declared baseline value of $75,000 - $80,000. The former, the per unit value, couldn't possibly be meant since each unit would be worth almost as much as the taxable value of our permanent homes on adjoining properties. The latter, the combined value of all units, could only be meant. This makes the total, combined baseline value of all units less than one conventional or adjoining house. This is the declared value for the first year of property tax assessment. From this baseline arrplpratAri ~poreciatlgn will begjr~. • It is our opinion, based upon the developer's stated value, that the developer's intent toward the municipal taxbase 1s as sincere as his desire to be a "good neighbor". 2.3 ASPEN GROVE MUST DEVOLVE Aspen Grove has two hallmark features: it has an absentee landlord with no personal Interest in the property or community and; it has transient tenents with no personal interest in the property or community. All personal and community interest is left in the hands of a property manager social director. The manager, by whatever hat, however, is also a tenent and would be interested property, or community, by condition of employment (however long between manager turnovers.) These conditions of no vested interest by any party, along with depreciating property and profit driven maintenance, are the well documented, oft decried, sociology textbook prescription for a slum. No matter how lofty and well Intended this project might be (and given the developer's 'good neighbor' policy this intent may not be high), it will inevitably attract slum conditions This has happened everywhere else so there can be no doubt, whatsoever, that it will not happen here - the speed of decline depends only upon the selectivity of the property manager, and the maintainance allowed by the owner's profit margin. It is an established fact that property values, in proximity, will go down to the point of being unsaleable, thence degenerating to rentals and devolving to slums, themselves. Boise prohibits these conditions by prohibiting `mobile home' parks, and their reasoning is obvious. We question why Meridian should permit this type of development because the development is calling itself a PUD on a technicality. 2.4 ASPEN GROVE IS ENGINERY TO FORCE SALE In this knowledge, the developer intends to reduce surrounding land values. It then logically follows that the developer will attempt to secure the adjoining properties at a fraction of their predevelopment values. In evidence is Browder Lane.. This is a pensinsula of units. It juts out into otherwise rural land and a • • barely attaches to the main development. Browder Lane dead-ends at the house owned by Brown, one of the developers. This 'Lane' is a driveway. It is a driveway now and it will be a driveway in the future. To access the theoretical mini-mart/carwash/gas station, the residents of the part of the development will have to use South Locust Grove. Its function, therefore, in conjunction with the commercial area, is only to encircle the adjoining properties and render them salvage value. Allowed encirclement, too, would set a dangerous precldent. 3. THE DEVELOPMENT IMPERILS SURFACE AND DRINKING WATER The soil here, like most everywhere in Meridian, is four to six inches of sod, followed by six to twelve inches of river-cobble rock and clay. Thereafter, it is hardpan. And, as is also common in Meridian, the water table 1s extemely high. Accordingly, this area suffers from serious drainage and high water problems. The high ground in this area is a low ridge, sloped 10 degrees, on the west side of South Locust Grove Road. All water on this ground drains slowly, subsurface, through the adjoining properties. ,Because of the drainage problem, all adjoining properties have had to build and maintain drainfields to collect and divert the subsurface water, In some instances, two drainfields. Even then, the drainage is so severe that it leaches to the surface in the properties at 215 and 255 South Locust Grove; the fields on these properties have standing water much of the year. It is made issue here, that the planting of trees, as per the developer's landscape plan, would foul these drains with their roots, a tortious act. Central District Health has tested these sumps and found E.coli. The only source of this contamination, since this water has been channel directly from the upper ground to the lower, is manure in the upper fields. These upper fields also effect domestic water supplies. Some of this drainage percolates Into the drinking water supply and, in part, recharges it. At 215 South Locust Grove, the drinking water depth is less than 20 feet from the surface, and fluxuates with the field drainage. 9 ~~ • • The soil left as is, provides enough percolation to filter out biological contaminants from drinking water. It is on these upper fields that the developer intends to locate 134 of this 139 units. Among his features is irrigation for the development. Instead of manure, the surface and potable water supplies are threatened by sulphur leakage from the private road network, salt from de-iced roads and carports, oil washed from roads and carports, a large quantity of herbicides and chemical fertilizers, alcohol from radiator leaks, and by-products from the `home shops and hobby areas' which the developer will `encourage'. These are not organic and would not be filtered before reaching the watertable. It is empirically established that whatever goes into the ground on the upper fields comes out in the water supply of the adjoining residents. If a sewer line on the development ruptures, we and the watertable are in serous trouble -with the possibility of al groundwater contamination. It is also empirically established the the cessation of irrigation on the upper fields will alter the domestic water table on the adjoining properties. By filings in September of 1989, all of the foredescribed landowners have been awarded domestic waterright by the Department of Water Resources, It has been confirmed by that Department that the developer has not checked to ascertain any impact on domestic water. And it has been confirmed by Central District Health that, although the sewer plat was submitted, the developer has not queried the potential for contamination. ~r water is in je~~y surface and notable dir rt y affe i g~ur health and y. nd if the to le fails as the res >>t f d vPloomen~ e~post facto we are ly W1th0Ut Clty WatP~ aCCPSS with a r1P~~Qlnnmant in ~ir,~ r,,.. this rpa~nn wP s en 1 ~ inn if deV ment r~rocpp~+~ By this instrument, be it known to the developer that the affected parties, joinly or severally, will not negotiate water right sale or access changes. The system is serviceable to the residents, as is, and any change would not benefit the residents. io ,~ I -~ • • N.B. -CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH HAS ADVISED THAT SURFACE AND RUNOFF WATER STANDARDS ARE BEING CONSIDERED. 4. TECHNICAL CONCERNS to our reply, so far, we have covered the areas of most immediate concern to us. However, there are several other concerns of more general bearing which we which to address. 4.1 The office complex 1s drawn over a drainage ditch owned by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. This is wet six months of the year and in its course 1s a wetland; except in the area where the commercial area is intended and here it has been overgrazed and eroded. The current driveways crossing this ditch are 24 inch culverts, 15 feet pipe length, These culverts barely handle high water in the ditch at best, and are frequently clogged by debris and tumbleweed. Clogging is frequent and has raised dltchwater level to three feet deep flooding on the fields. When clogged, it requires two men working on both sides to free the obstruction. The office complex will require (again, without a scale to use) about 250 feet of culvert. And unless the developer can employ very small men that can hold their breath a long time, the culvert diameter will have to be four feet -for routine maintenace and to clear obstructions. This diameter may not give enough room for the building foundations of the professional complex. The developer is targeting the development to families with small children. No amount of grating 1s going to keep children out of this allurement. Llcensure by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District would be required to make this project feasible. Moreover, these ditches are. wetland, and may be legally restricted by the Environmental Protection Agency. Once more, however, the developer has not tested basic feasibility with either of these agents. By this instrument, be it known to the developer that if development proceeds, complaint will be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency to seek a determination of wetland. ,~ i • • 4.2 The gas station/mini-mart/carwash adjoin Five Mile Creek - itself a wetland had the property at this location not been overgrazed. We find no storm drainage on the Plat (commercial or residential), but we do estimate the underground storage tanks will be at or in the Five Mile watertable. We question this, and a carwash runoff Into the creek. These are major obstacles of project feasibility. However, the Division of Environmental Quality confirms no query of feasibility or prohibitions has been made by the developer. It must also be questioned whether this development would be permitted by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Five Mile Creek is part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency plan, administered by the Corps, to vacuate emergency flooding. There are prohibitions on development along these watercourses, in particular private bridgework and backwater encroachment. Permission of the Corps is basic feasibility. We cannot definatively state that the developer has made no query to the Corps; the Corps is located in Walla Walla, and there has been insufficent turnaround time for Corps' confirmation. But with the severity of shortcomings in the proposal, we can say the developer most probably has not queried the Corps. 4.3 The road network proposed, depending upon which plat you use, would carry the commercial traffic at either a 90 degree or 45 degree intersection falling on a grade, just beneath the crest of the Franklin Road hill. At either degree, exiting traffic cannot see over the crest, nor could eastbound traffic see exiting traffic until into the intersection. This is a killer intersection in the making moreso when commercial trucks servicing the facility are considered. The feasibility of this intersestion will largely govern project feasibility. Once more, however, the developer has not queried the engineering requirements with the Ada County Highway District. 4.4 We see no consideration of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The landscape plat evidences no ramps, etc. associated with public housing access. We also discern from the roofline of the `Community Center' that this structure is probably the existing residence. In view of all other errors and omissions we must question if the developer has considered the access and fire requirements, and being multi-storied an elevator, to convert this to public use. iz r • 4.5 The developer has placed the `adult park' at the front, and the 'family park' at the back. The school bus stop would be at the front, on Franklin Road. This wanton disregard of tenents' needs, other than commercial, has worn our patience. 5. CONCLUSIONS It can only concluded by the affected parties, in view of the above, that the proposal is disingenuous. Its assurances are platitudes, its sincerity is empty, its descriptions misconstrue, and its feasibility research is, obviously, none. It is our belief, therefore, that the developer is seeking annexation in order to resell the proposal, or once annexation is had to seek waivers and variances until something entirely different is built, We request, having shown there is no need or benefit to annexation: 5.1 That annexation be denied; 5.2 That if annexation is considered further, because of the known water problems, it is within reason and legal demand, that an indefinate moratorium be placed on this area until Central District Health can establish water runoff standards. In lieu, it is within reason and legal demand to place a five year moratorium on this area. 5.3 That if development is considered, because of the known water problems, it is within reason and legal demand, that any developer be required to perform a five year (five irrigation seasons) test on the long range effects on runoff and domestic water before proceeding. 5.4 That if this testing could ensure development, that suitable, transitional (non- high density, development be allowed. A trailer/mobile home/manufactured home development is not reasonable and should be prohibited by Meridian as it is in Boise. 5.5 That any housing developed in this area under the foredescribed conditions be conventional, low density owner/resident. 5,6 That any other development be prohibited, 13 C ,. ~ ; ~~ The aforesaid we believe to be the true representation of fact, and our opinion 1n this matter: Central District Health Department Bureau of Rec 1 amat i on Requested copies to: Nampa Meridian Irrigation District Ada County Highway District 14 • • ~~ ~~~~,~~ The Planning and Zoning Commission MAY - 9 i99~4 City of Meridian CrfY OF MERIDIAN In the matter of Preston Aspen Grove Estates, petition for annexation and rezoning. Apri 1 27, 1994 We, the undersigned, are the affected residents adjoining the development on the east, the holders of the domestic water right which is being impuned, and part of a Neighborhood Coalition formed to enjoin this development. Say the undersigned: We are Archie T, and Ernestine M. Roberson, property owners of 185 South Locust Grove Road, and we have lived at this location for 23 years. This property is two acres, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. We are James N. and Ann C. Witherel 1, property owners of 21 S South Locust Grove Road, and we have lived at this location for 15 years. This property is one acre, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. We are Gene and Vernadene Pressley, property owners of 255 South Locust Grove Road and we have lived at this location for 26 years. This property is one acre, dependent upon surface 1rrlgation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. We are Robert R, and Jeri Smith, property owners of 355 South Locust Grove Road, and we have lived at this location for 27 years. This property is 2.5 acres, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. So identified, we have discussed this project with Ada County Development, Ada Planning Association, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Central District Health, Ada County Hlghway Distrlct, the Idaho Department of Water Resources, the Idaho Divisiah of Environmental Quality, the Bureau of Reclamation, the US Army Corps • of Engineers, the Intermountain Gas Company, and the Ada County Sheriff's Office, and we depose as follows. Preston's Aspen Grove Estates is the slight revision of Aspen Grove Estates, a previous proposal of this developer at the same location. The Aspen Grove application was extremely vague and required the affected parties torPS.aond using assurnotion in t/~e absence or information We provided written comment on the prior proposal at the March 8 Planning and Zoning Meeting. These comments, 1n brief, prlnclpally raised concerns of malfeasance to include: contempt for due process; illegal appropriation of irrigation water and public domain; contamination of surface water; degradation in quanity and quality of domestic water; destruction of wetlands; and a complete 1 ack of research. Our conclusions were that: "the proposal is disingenuous. Its assurances are platitudes, its sincerity empty, its descriptions misconstrue, and its feasibility research is, obviously, none.," It was also our conclusion that the developer was attempting to confuse the application process to better his position. in the Commission meeting, March 8, the developer further confused the application, stating, inter olio, that the plat was conceptual: it would not be built as depicted. Furthermore, the plat for the commercial area was only hypothetical as he intended to sell the land for .~p~ commercial use. -Nor was even the concept finalized; the developer stated that the Browder Lane part was not necessary to the development and would be dropped from the development. The applicant's oral testimony consequently did not clarify any of the concerns raised by the affected parties. Rather, it resulted in greater confusion. ThereTore. the .public ryas left to even more assum,otion At the April 12 meeting, the developer withdrew his application. However, two days later the developer submitted "an amendment to the application for the Aspen Grove Estates project". Not only did this amendment still not address any issues raised by the affected public, it served to exascerbate z • • public confusion. The plat is merely lot lines with no hint as to structures or actual layout. This wanting is similar to the original, vague plat provided to the affected parties. But the original olat submitted to the Commission showed housina units and roads which did not conform to these lot lined This time; both the affected parties and the Commission must second guess what the developer intends. More confusion: the commercial development, which the developer stated he would not develop, but resell instead, 1s clearly depicted as to structures on the "amended" plat. Gentlemen of the Commission. The.oublicnasnow advanced to the third Ievel of needino to make asSumations in order to exercise their right of ~ omment Pub 1 i c comment is a legal process in which the public should not have to assume anything - it is their right to know exactly what the developer intends and how the public will be effected. In this instance, the burdens of preparations and proof have transferred from the developer to the public. Please now recall our statement that the it was the developer's intent to confuse. By his amending of a withdrawn proposal, and introduce yet another plat (the affected parties and the Commission were given very different plats on the initial application, and these both differed significantly from that displayed at the first hearing -the latest makes the fourth) he has further evidenced this intent. Because the developer has yet to answer any of the concerns raised in our March submission, those concerns st111 apply to the present application. Our comments are lengthy. Rather than restate the prior comments in full, that submission is included as Attachment l; we will summarize here for brevity, and add new concerns which have been raised by the latest submission, 1. THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT PROCEEDED IN GOOD FAITH We cited improper procedures by the developer. One was use of the wrong legal description., This has been corrected on the latest submission and we are impressed. However, we also stated that the developer was platting property which was not his. This regarded a ditch and easements, the property of the Nampa Meridian 3 • • Irrigation District and public domain, on the south and east side of the development. This d-itch cannot be rerouted or covered and would eliminate the first row of units on the south-end of the project. For clarification to the Commission, we are providing a drawing of this ditch, using the most recent plat, as Attachment 2. At the public hearing, the developer stated, under oath, that his project would not interfere with irrigation. In spite of two warnings, written and oral, the latest plat shows this ditch filled in, with housing thereon, and all access fenced. This misrepresentation can no longer be accidental and, given sworn testimony, may be perjurious. We must also raise a new issue, based on this application. it is stated on the application, a legal instrument, that the affected schools are Pioneer, Lowell Scott Middle, and Centennial High, In the present crowding of the school district, these are the schools least affected by development. This favors the developer's proposal. It would disadvantage the proposal if it involved the most affected schools in the district -Chief Joseph Elementary, Meridian Middle School, and Meridian High. Chief Joseph, Meridian Middle, and Meridian High are, of course, the schools that are affected by the development, not those stated on the application. Falsifying information on a legal document may constitute fraud. 2. NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT We have contended from the onset that Aspen Grove, thereby Preston's Aspen Grove, is a mobile home park under any guise. To emphasis this we cite Idaho Code 39 - 4105 (14): ""Manufactured home" (formerly mobile home) means a structure, constructed according to HUD/FHA mobile home construction and safety standards, transportable 1n one or more sections, which, in the traveling mode, is eight (8) body feet in width or is forty (40) body feet ar more in length, or when erected on site, is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassi s and designed to be used as a dwel 1 i ng with or w i thout a permanent foundation..." (Emphasis added). At the March public meeting, the developer also stated that the purchasers would own the units, but that he would retain ownership of the land, It is our assertion 4 • • that purchase, therefore, amounts to prepaid rent; purchasers w111 never gain real property equity and are subject to eviction rather than foreclosure. This is landlord-tenant, not owner occupier, with eviction having large scale baggage: On the first and fourth (most recent) plats, the properties are arranged as parallel, thin rectangles to maximize density. By-all descriptions, this is a patently a trailer park. It will behave like a trailer park, and i t w i 11 depreciate 1 i ke a trai 1 er park. Yet the deve 1 oiler insists that the minimum taXable value of each unit will be $~q D00 and that design and density are consistent with the surrounding properties. Gentlemen: this value exceeds the taxable value of the permanent, four bedroom, acreaged homes adjoining the development. And density in the OCCUPIED areas surrounding this development is FOUR ACRES PER PERSON. By standard modelling used by the Economics & Research Section of the Idaho Transportation Department, the density of the proposed development would be 650 people, 390 of which would be school aged children -most of which would have to be bused to Ridgewood School since Ch1ef Joseph has been forced to close new enrollments. While exaggeration breaks no laws, for the developer to continue with the assertions is simply contempt for the public reason and municipal integrety. This development must be valued and regulated as a mobile home park. The Meridian Planning Administrator raised the issue of density and transition with the first submission. In response the amendment now offers a 25 foot `screen' of bushes behind (but not beside) some (but not all) of the affected parties. We have already made clear that such vegetation will foul our subsurface drains, needed to prevent flooding and structural damage. /Moreover as much as half of this `screen' is alreadvpublic domain And although termed a `screen', the much balyhooed, cedar fence still 1s platted on the affected parties' property lines. Indeed, it appears to be sitting on the affected parties' property. Our view will be a deteriorating fence. The view from the development would be a park. By our reason, the screen benefits the development, not the affected parties. Aspen Grove, or rather Preston's Aspen Grove, is an island of high density, low cost pausing in a sea of extreme low density, average or better housing. The developer's wont is to insist that the set andnot the island' is out oi',olace. 5 • This ridiculous plant and plank barrier is not a screen, neither by function nor definition. Nor does it answer any question of density or transition. We suspect, therefore, there being no open or play areas in the development, the developer will attempt to pass these `screens' off as a recreational area. This, again, bespeaks contempt. Concerning the commercial area, the initial proposal stated a minimart, carwash, office building would be developed. This was apparantly a very loose interpretation of `neighborhood shopping' for the proposal to conform to the city's development plan. However the developer stated in public meeting that he had no use for this land, except to resell, We restate our arguement that commercial development at this location, amid rural housing,, is totally unnecessary: there are 100 acres of similarly zoned land just across the road, amid, and in keeping with, light industrial areas which aleady exist. The developer's stated need for commercial zoning was purely profit -sale of this property was necessary to finance the land for the mobile home park. hi i a personal finance roblem, not a zoninq,problem~, nor a problem of community need or betterment, We must question why the commercial development is once again platted. The application confirms his testimony that the land is i"or resale, not development. Therefore any eventual development could range from a carpark to Jurassic Park: We believe this is a deliberate attempt by the developer to portray compliance with the city development plan without actually committing thereto. Subset - ASPEN GROVE IS ENGINERY TO FORCE SALE our earlier conclusion was that the developer intends to encircle our properties, force down property values with low income and commercial development, then attempt to secure the adjoining properties at a fraction of their predevelopment values. This would enable the extention of the mobile home park. 6 • In evidence we cited Browder Lane, the isolated and detached strip of units on South Locust Grove Road. Where Aspen Grove is a malaprop island, Browder Lane is an atoll. At the public meeting, March 8, the developer admitted the Browder Cane part was leftover land, not necessary for the development. The understanding of the affected parties was that it would be dropped from the development. However, it is back on this submission, this time jutting into public easement, to be partially buried when South Locust Grove is widened. Since Browder Lane is off-again, on-again, we will now point out that there is a gasline to the house shown on the plat. The line runs exactly midfield, east to west, and all units drawn on the plat will sit directly on top of that line.. This is prohibited by federal and Intermountain Gas regulations. Certainly this line is known to the developer; a codeveloper (Brown) authorized the work and the workers installing the line informed us this was for `the trailers'. This adds to the list of of health and safety disregard, We need also report that sewage flows downhill, not uphill as platted on Browder Lane. The existing house will not be sewered, according to the plat, That will put the proposed units on, or downhill from, the septic drainfieid. 3. THE DEVELOPMENT IMPERILS SURFACE AND DRINKING WATER In our previous submission, we explained in detail the known problems with surface water, and Its effects on the drinking water supply -which is .inviolate as we are on shallow wells.. We repeat this, as this is the single largest issue, and an issue which we assure will be litigated as our personal safety and property are at risk. However, the developer once mare chooses to ignore this. And we underscore what we interpret as selective ignorance, because the developer is, in essence, asking the city for ablank -check; zoning based upon his good word and intentions, • ,4. TECHNICAL CONCERNS On previous response, we raised several technical concerns regarding wetlands, drain ditches and encroachments. Since none of the plats regard the drainage ditch in question, we provide this as Attachment 3. We now add that the wetlands the developer proports to cover. are also wildlife range and habitat, game and non-game. Development will invoke entry by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Wildlife habitat is an emerging issue: this apparantly is the same developer that is encroaching on bald eagle habitat, with a development along the Boise River (The Idaho Statesman, April 14, 1994, A1, c1-5). We obviously want more than his personal assurances that there will be no ecological impact by his development here. S. CONCLUSIONS We again can only conclude the same as before: that `the proposal is disingenuous.' we must again request: 5.1 That annexation be denied; 5.2 That if annexation is considered further, because of the known water problems, it is wlthin reason and legal demand, that an indefinite moratorium be placed on this area until Central District Health can establish water runoff standards. In lieu, it is within reason and legal demand to place a five year moratorium on this area, 5.3 That if development is considered, because of the known water problems, it is within reason and legal demand, that any developer be required to perform a five year (five irrigation seasons) test on the long range effects on runoff and domestic water before proceeding, s • The aforesaid we believe to be the true representation of fact, and our opinion in this matter: }` i~ '"r '; ~.1 ~ ' ' 1 ~) !/ ;r , 1 ATTACHI~~T 2 Nampa Me~ian delivery ditch _ -- • ~ I .~. v s. ,~ z ., ~` ~I i ~ ~ `. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a - 1 D ' < ~ ~ ., 1 __ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 ~/ M 1 - ~ W 1 1 ~! ~ ~ 1 1 -. ~ 1 W. ~ Q i ~ -- - _ -- -~9 -_ 1 ~ ~ ' 1 1 / ~ ~V ~ . 1 _,~ ~ 1 ~ - _ ~ 1J' - 1 1 ~ W~ Paz _ 1 ~ O »~: a< <. ~ r ~~ O ~o ~ ~~ • ~> 0 ® a ~ ~ 8° ~ I ply a A~ ® a . 0 e~ Ii a'- a °~ ~ c a- I _ ~I c ~ r3. ~. ' i ~._ d ~ ~ ~ ~~~• / ~ .v ~ ~ ~ , ~y \ 9 ~' ~~ ' +, 6 { ~ I~. ~n. u~~ .~ ('~ s, o c r `I i C J f /~ + 1 0 ~~ - 0 rya ~~ ~; rU1 -- -- T -_ 'QItOVQ --- -----__ C- ~ s1--~~ ` v R D. -~T .- - --- - ~ - - ' -` .' - - a...f .~.o ~u s Leo u E. ~~ n _-_- _ :-, ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~.+ • ~ I[ ~ a~' ATTACHMENT 3 Regul~d drain -, wetland ' •~~~~~ i .~ ~ • ,: •• ~ ~I ~ l ~ ~ ~ 3 _ ~ ~ v ~ - ~ D 70 2 ~ t - ' ~- ~ ~ _ , / ~ ' ~'" / ~ i ~ _ % ~ ~ 1 ~, ~ ! W+ ~ ---- -~9 --- ; 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ „,C =- ~ „ __ _. ~~~~i~ii~i~i - ~~~ B~ CR ® .s ® .® • ~a m 0 m ~ ~ f n V~ e ' ®.. a ~ a ~ ®~. ` e A ~ ~ a - ' " k s=~ .~ ~ _' ~ h~ v 1' a l ~ o a ~ o ~ a , a a i ® e e O 1 1n y ® B J A ® v s a ~_ : a ~ ` d W o - ~ .~~~ ` ~~~ !mil S S '~y ,*.Ji ~ o v --~ ~ ~ .m u r iy3r¢_ t a .li~ e _a e ~ ii'- a E• o ~ ~'~ :. ~ ~ a I - - II }} ~ ~ ,. ~ ~ (~ ~ • ~ y.. ~ .. _ ~ ' I 0 - a J Qom. ® ~ o e o _ e _~ e l s.oct a ~ !111 - - z - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-' m ~ !3 t V, e. ~ . 6~ I a_. .r ,. - ~/ . l ~ e~ . ~ ': ~~, r 0 ® I ,"IIr~ ~_" e ~.. ~ ~ e~ f * 9 { ~~~~ .., CLrf ~ u li i,.~ "4 . s?R.~ a ~ D ' I i ~ ~.~. ~ % 9_ L I +` - 1, _~~ ;1 ,~ _/ ~tlnb3 /i ~ ~..' - -. Q dqZ I ~ i CTffTTTT ~~~"~o~"7r1 T , ,It~ j,~ - _- _ . _ ~` iZD~ D f- ~ I ~~ ~~ i • HUB OF TR~~SURE VALLEY • OFFICIALS A GOOD P1aCt: LO L1V8 COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk RONALD R. TOLSMA GARY D. SM THS P.EyCity Eng Weer CITY OF MERIDIAN oBERTRD.ICORR E WALT W. MORROW BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. 33 E.~'F IDAHO SHARI STILES KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief Planner 8 Zoning Administrator W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief ~ MERIDi.P!r~, IDAHO 83642 r JIM JOHNSON WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR.; Altorr~Cj~'.~ V Phone (208) 888~d33 ~ FAX (208) 887813 Chairman - Planning s Zoning Public Works/Bm~ag Department (208) 887-2211 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R n~ MAY - 2 1994 GRAlr1TP. KINGSFORD v , Mayor CITY OF MERIDIAN 7.. 1 Aao~ 1~~4 TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DE~~~~~~~tOJECTS WITH THE CFI'Y OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the ___-_ _ _ __M~rdian-_ Planning & Zonng_Commissan, may_ we hav_eyo_ur answer by:__ __ Mai 3, 1994 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 4/19/94 HEARING DATE: 5/10/94 REQUEST: Annexation/ zoning with a Preliminary plat for Preston's Asuen Grove BY: Shekinah Industries LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SW corner of Locust Grove and Franklin Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z AAERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z MI=EE2IDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) JIM SHEARER, P/Z ACPA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION TIM HEPPER, P/Z CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR ~G NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT RONALD TOLSMA, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT BOB CORRIE, C/C IDAIFIO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) WALT MORROW, C/C U.S_ WEST(PRELIM 8t FINAL PLAT) _MAX YERRINGTON, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) `1'JATEP, DEPART"!ENT ~!lRE4l.1 OF RECLAMATlON(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT) SEWER DEPARTMENT CITY FILES BUILDING DEPARTMENT OTI~IER: FIRE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's POLICE DEPARTMENT Hunter Lateral courses along the west boundary of this project. CITY ATTORNEY The rightrof--way of the Hunter Lateral is 40 feet: 20 feet from CITY ENGINEER, the center each way. The District s Fivemile Drain courses CITY PLANNER across the northeast corner of the project See Idaho Code _ 42-1208--RIGHTS-OF-WAY NOT SUBJECT TO ADVERSE POSSESSION. The developer must contact John Anderson or Bill Henson at 466-0663 or 345-2431 for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. This District requires that a Land Use Change/Site Development application be filed for review p rior to final ylatting. Contact Donna Moore at 343-1884 or 466-7861 for further informatid!n. A11 laterals and waste ways must be protected. Municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaveG th it ~.~Vampa & Meridian Irri'ation District must revie~~ drai nave nl anc _ Tr i c rarnmmenrlerl that i rriQatlOn water be made available to all developments within this District. ~.,~ ~°`Tt'~tJr~ Bill enson, Foreman, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District ~6 The right-of-way of the Fivemile Drain is 100 feet: 50 feet from the center each way. HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY • OFFICIALS COUNCIL MEMBERS A GOOd PIaCe t0 L1Ve RONALD R. TOLSMA WILLIAM G.BERG,JR.,CIIyClerk JANICE L. GASS, Clly Treasurer CITY OF MERIDIAN MA%YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE GARY D. SMITH, P.E. Clty Engineer WALT W. MORROW BRUCE D. STUART, Waler Works Supt. wears water supt. SHAWCROFT JOHN T 33 EAST IDAHO sHARI snLEs , . KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chlet IDAHO 83642 Planner a Zoning Administrator MERIDIAN W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Pollce Chiel , RECEIVED JIM JOHNSON WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Phone (208) 888-4433 ~ FAX (208) 887813 Chairman • Planning 8 Zoning Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD MAY - 2 1994 Mayor CITY pF iv~ER1DIAN TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH. THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission, may we have your answer by: Mav 3. 1994 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 4/19/94 HEARING DATE: 5/10/94 REQUEST: Annexation/ zoning with a Preliminary plat for Preston's Aspen Grove BY: Shekinah Industries LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SW corner of Locust Grove and Franklin Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z TIM HEPPER, P/Z GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH • NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT _~IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM Bt FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8t FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: We require a permanent 10-foot wide public utilities easement along all lots adjacent to a road right-of-way dedicated to public or private use. Tim Adams S Idaho Power ~~q.l 322-2047 • HUB OFTREASURE VALLEY • OFFICIALS COUNCIL MEMBERS A Good Place to Live RONALD R. TOLSMA WILLIAMG.BERG,JR.,CilyClerk CITY OF MERIDIAN MAXYERRINGT°" JANICE L. GASS, Clty Treasurer ROBERT D. CORRIE GARY D. SMITH, P.E. Clty Engineer WALT W. MORROW BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt 33 EAST IDAHO SHARI STILES KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief MERIDIAN, IDAHO $3642 Planner 8 Zoning Administrator W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief JIM JOHNSON WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887813 Chairman -Planning 8 Zoning Public Works/Building Department (208~~}.1~~,.,.~~~~ GRANT P. KINGSFORD ((,~~~~ , Mayor AyPpR 2 9 11j99~4iA~ TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMEN~'i~N t3~"UT'IC2I!/lYT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF 11?ERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, may we have your answer by: Mav 3. 1994 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 4/19/94 HEARING DATE: 5/10/94 REQUEST: Annexation/ zoning with a Preliminary plat for Preston's Aspen Grove BY: Shekinah Industries ____LQCATION_ OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SW corner of Locust Grove and. Franklin Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z TIM HEPPER, P/Z GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH . NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ~~U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: U S WEST REQUEST A I O' EASEMENT ALONG ALL FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES, AND A 5' EASEMENT ALONG ALL SIDE LIIVES. SIGNED: . l ~~~~~~~~ S~DIVISION EVALUATIO SHEET M4Y 1 6 1994 'l:R1DIAI~ Proposed Development Name PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE City ~~ Date Reviewed 4/28/94 Preliminary Stage XXXXX Final Engineer/Developer Power Enqr / Shekinah Industries The following SUBDIVISION NAME is approved by the Ada County Engineer or his designee per the requirements of the IDAHO STATE CODE. ~is r'er ~-' is A fl,1 i ~<<~T~e-ti' ~~~~~ CAr~~z:~ ; ~~-L S PR~~iL-J ,~ CSC Vt i~ c ~ ~=` -~~ ~ Date ~~' - The Street name comments listed below are made by the members of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE (under direction of the Ada County Engineer) regarding this development in accordance with the Boise City Street Name Ordinance. The following existinq street names shall appear on the plat as: "E. FRANKLIN ROAD" "S LOCUST GROVE ROAD" The followings new street names are approved and shall appear on the plat as: "S BRACKEN WAY" "E. KUTTAWA STREET" "E. ADAIR STREET" "E TROSPER STREET" "E. RAVINA STREET" "S. ALLEGRE AVENUE" "E. BROWDER COURT" "LATONIA" sounds too much like "LATANA" and therefore cannot be used. Please choose another street name and have it approved by the street name committee. 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 mast be secured by the representative or his designee in order for the street names to be officially approved. ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMM Ada County Engineer Ada Planning Assoc. Meridian Fire District John Pries Terri Rayn VES OR DESIGNEES Date Z ~ Date ~- ~ ~" Representative ~ 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 ~~ l 75r ~ NUMBERING OF LOTS AND BLOCKS ~,-~~ ~~S < <=5~`= TR\SUBS\SM CITY.FRM ' CENTRAL •• DISTRICT RE~~~~~~ Return to: oilf HEALTH APR 2 9 1994 ^ Boise DEPARTMENT ^ Eagle REVIEW SHEET ciTY ~~ ~ti:i~il~ir;-~~ ^ Garden City ~Mer'~dian Rezone # ^ Kuna Conditional Use # ~~f~..~~~~ j~~~ ^ ACz Preliminary/Final/Short Plat ~/~~Ta~/3' ~P ~~~ ^ 1. We have no objections to this proposal. ^ 2. We recommend denial of this proposal. ^ 3. Spec'rfic 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 sewge disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of ^ high seasonal ground water ^ sol'~d lava from original grade ^ 6. We can approve this proposal for individual sewage disposal to be located above solid lava layers: ^ 2 feet ^ 4 feet 7. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: Central .sewage ^ Community sewage system ^ Community water well ^ Interim sewage .~ Central water ^ Individual sewage ^ Individual water 8. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmerrtal Quality: Central sewage ^ Community sewage system^ Community water ^ Sewage dry lines ~ Central water ,~ 9. Street runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding probelm. ^ 10. This department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined 'rf other considerations indicate approval. ^ 11. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ^ 12. We will require plans be submitted for a plan reiew for any: ^ Food establishment ^ Swimming pools or spas ^ Child Care Center ^ Beverage establishment ^ Grocery store S%o2yw.>~n /Llr9T//r6~i~-~r~ s'~i,~ll Nv % DATE: Z~/lC '~ 13. ~jC62s~z7E /.~~ Qy'~~l-' ~0e~'`~~~~~Reviewed by: ~~ ~~~ F~~jKp~/cS?y227~ //7/,S' . CDHD 10-91 rcb ~ ~ RECEYVED ~~n~ MAY111994 (~T1f OF MERIDIAN GLENN J. RHODES, President SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President JAMES E. BRUCE, Secretary T T _ ~ 1 P-~ m - ^._T T. r ~ ,~ :y t"`T~fl11R ~ T1 _ T s - 1\..~.~ ;~,T?F3.Ty(tiT; ~~i:T.1Tn?ir!`~17V PT..7~>T - AAFCT ~ C n („ , ° ~ pN ASPEN ..F,~JVE ESTATES Jile 1~.111Qi1 ir1LL lA,.?~ :.I-.LeS 1r"lu LJ- .rlgineerl'Su: ~P Ur _ ~, , l ='11.Lhae~ 1~i G-':;s i3n r S~iii^r.- c1~.C3rcS,5 } P?~EL''rglA~r,Ry '?EFOP.T - NOT ETrlAr, T*~,~~TIr A r APP O~ ED B'?"'t?E ACS CONLMISSICN ~'~cTs ~ ~zr~nT*;c~ 1. Pre=ton ~ S Aspen Grove Estates 1S ? Combined ~.'.OI"1L.^,erCj.dl ~_ ~- IrJt5} and sir~gie fartii l~~ res.~.de:ltial (1~1-iC ~.S) :S i.i; :tip. JI.S~.Oi, vl• 3 r~ . 2 1t`.rCS 1oc3ted at the soL~.thw;rst corner of Locust Crave and Frar.?~iir_ Acad. There are 6410-feet of _le[:a p~~blit streets planned. A trufLic studYT has been :~ubmittc ~ ~, },~ d o s.nd rr~=~ ~e~~~ed by ",c Di~triCt. The fallnyJ,n`~ ?"II'~T,=~re.TtleP.tS ref left rE'C^P.17ile::dut1OIIS „jade by the traffic study. ~. GEr:ERAL INFpRMAT~ON: LEAD AGENCY -- Meridian ACRES -- 34.2 ;4.4 Commercial & 29.8 Residential) FEET +~ F rIEW PLBLI C STREETS - 5 410 LETS - 3 Co:nr.:ercial 131 Residential ~prdlNG - c--N Commercial ~ R-15 Residential ESTI1!R~.ATED VEHICLE TFcIPS PER 'SAY - 3000 - Commercial '.310 - R2sideZti3l TF.AFrIC .r,NAI,YSIS `?pNE - 2$2 L.~'. GF '~R^NTAGE ©N Locust Grove Road - 655-feet MGST '~ECE.rIT TRn.FFT_C CnLTNTS •- None A~.~ailable .~''.~Tl'yCTiOP7n~ ^~r~15SIFICATION i'gAi L"ESIGNATiON _ L.-~cal AI;A C^Uri'y'Y' RIDGE-TO-RIVERS PP..'i'RWA`~ FLAN - No Pathway Shown FISTING RIruT_pg-y~pY _ 54-feet REQU'IRE~? ~?IGHT-pF°t~IAY - 90--feet_ (45--feet from •.ez~.te.rli.ne ) Locust syrove Road is a section. line .road: that is improved wit:: 24_feet t:~ pa~~ing. ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714 • Phone (208) 345-7680 . ...~T'r -^.w-r wtlr+~r T7 +,m T,J <^'T/~qT 3 .+`. :~ t~17 T? ,-•r /'1[T•~ m r~ .1~1l is L.l. i'1,11YCL'.1 C.uf'll ~:. R~.~.e. Vl{ ...~ °9 r.?ti iY ~V.: X11 Y 1. EJ 1~..? ~~prit ~Q ~. ~G4 r'TF.x9DAnD TiF^~'T~REl"~H~3TS: 1. ~ tree ~Ii~:. drainage 1.:I1prUV=lrren is .required ~n ti~~ ~i,~i;.~liC ~':ig~"it- c:f~~r+ay S~':all be d~~sZgned and C,Ollstrll^ted I.i: GOnf^:IT?anCe wwt?7 llist%ict Standards and t.olicies. ;?. Dedicated streets and drai^age systems shall ^e designed. and corstrurted ir. CrJPformance with District standards and pali- ciBS. 3. Specific~;tions, land surveys, reparts, plats, drawings, plans, design information and ~°alculations presented, to AC:-iD shall be sealed, signed and dated..by a Registered Frafessional Engineer or Profs-.ssianal Land Surveyor, ~.n compliance with Idaho Code, Section 54-121.5. ~. Provide written appru~val from the- appropriate. irriga-- :.ion/drainage district authori.zir~g storm runoff in.ta their s~~ stem . 5. Locate obstructions !utility facilitiBS, irrigation arad drain- age appurtenances, etc.) outside of the proposed street :i.m- provements. Authorization for relocations shall be obtained from the appropriate. entity. 5, ^ontinuo existing irrigatiin and drainage systems acra.7s par- cel. 1. Sllbmlt three. sets of st".reet construction pio.I'is tG th2 D'~StriGt for review anal apprapr.. late ,:~oti on ~. Submit site drainage plans and calculations ~~or review and appropriate action by ACID. The proposed drainage syst4m shall confirm to the requirements of the City ~~f. Merid.iar. ~.r:~~ shall retain all storm water on-site. Public street drainage. yacilities shall be iccated in the public r.ght-if-way or in a drainage casement set :~sidc specif- ically for that use. There shall be ne trees, fences, bushes, aheds, or at.her valuable amenities placed in said Basemen:~. Drainage easements and their use restrictions shall be noted on the plat. Provide design data far proposed access to public:. streets for review and apprapriate actiar, by ACRD. 1~. Locate driveway curb cuts a minimum of 5-feet from the ~~ide lot property .lines when the driveways are nit being shared with the adjacent property. pnE'T,Ir?I~TAR`,' FLA ~~pEcmpN ~ S ySPEN vROVE E`~Ec Wage :; '.~.. Devel,~`per shall prav~.de the District w~tr 3 GrJt 1T O~ the :L'2~n•rra_ c;C1 ~ila~ ~r.iar ~.O the 1:15 ~allatlon of S%ree?t :'7ariE° 5iyna > >tr~'..~'= :~ynS Wi1i .,Ot i`~-' Ul:dered I:.ntz1 all f['.E:`a ::r1~,'~,' ,~eC'.1 ~JGI.:L.d. aZd a copy of the reccrdod~ lat has been pro~,,i ded to ACs?D `,;tai1• The copy of the recorded plat shall show the recording .~r;format ion as ins~,:ribed :oy the Deputy County MRecordor . '2. Install a stop sign on every unsignalized approach of a project street to are .intersection in~,rolving a ccllecfor or :arterial as the cress-street. The atop sign ,hall be ii1' stalled when the project street is first accessible to the motoring public. ~-3 • z right-of-way permit. must be obtained froze AC:iD for all street and utility construction within the public right-of- way. Contact Construction Services. at 345-'166; (with zoning file numbers for details. i 4 - y :request for modification, variance or 'waiver of ar:y require- :r~ent or policy outlined heroin shall be made, :~n T~,:iting, to t~.he Manager of Engineering Services within 15 calendar days Gf tree original Commission action. The request shall include. a statement explaining why such a requirement would result in substantial hardship or inequity. S?lould you have any q;iestions or comments, please contact the uovelopment Services Division at 3~5-7662. ST,Fr SUBMITTING: Dp.TE OF CO;KMISSION ~,~'PROVAL: MAY p 4 1994 Larrti' Sale HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY • OFFICIALS A GOOd PIaCC t0 L1Ve COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., Clty Clerk W S I CITY OF MERIDIAN MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE eer P.E. City Eng Y D. SM TH GAR WALT W. MORROW BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. 33 EAST IDAHO sHARI STILES JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, waste water supt. Planner & Zoning Administrator KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief IDAHO 83642 MERIDIAN W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief , JIM JOHNSON WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR.; Attorney Phone (208) 888-4433 ~ FAX (208) 887813 Chairman ~ Planning & zoning Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-221 l GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations wil•I be considered e Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, may we have y~l~~r by: Mav 3. ~ 994 nPR 19 199 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 4/19/94 HEARING DAT~~1~ ~~/1'0794 REQUEST: Annexation/ zoning with a Preliminary plat for Preston's Aspen Grove BY: Shekinah Industries LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SW corner of Locust Grove and Franklin Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z TIM HEPPER, P/Z GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT -FIRE DEPARTMENT -POLICE DEPARTMENT -CITY ATTORNEY -CITY ENGINEER , CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8t FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL P T) BUREAU OF RE~A~QATION(PRELIM & PI CITY FILES 11 JJ ~9 ~ YOUR CONCISE ~~ • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY OFFICIALS A GOOd PIaCe t0 L1Ve COUNCIL MEMBERS ~ RONALD R. TOLSMA WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk n MAX YERRINGTON CITY OF MERIDIAN ROBERT D. CDRRIE ear GARY D. SM THS P.EYCity Eng WALT W. MORROW BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. 33 EAST IDAHO SHARI STILES JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 - n ~'+~~` ~, ]Pla n,~gr~18 Zoning Administrator ~~ ~ W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Phone (208) 888-0433 ~ FAX-(208) 887813 iJEIM JOHNSON R.• °i~ J~A Chairman ~ Planning 8 Zoning Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 ~pR ~ ~ 1994 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor RIy{~ y~ "" v C1~`li ,V~ ~~Y~~AYbb~'~1~~~ TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITII TI3E CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, may we have your answer by: Mav 3, 1994 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 4/19/94 HEARING DATE: 5/10/94 REQUEST: Annexation/ zoning with a Preliminairy slat for Preston's Aspen Grove BY: Shekinah Industries LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SW corner of Locust Grove and Franklin Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z TIM HEPPER, P/Z GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: "~~ `~ YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: CL QrK~ o A4ead' ;tL ry,~..~ CITY PLANNER Z"'o /3:e ~~.of CLe~rN ~ T~~+s ~. ~ tv~~ed), Tai ~P,E A-~E SD~1 ,~ S ~ a ~ L o i ~ 7`Ar:s ~.c Nj i y i S t o.~ o a fi C.' (fie h,e L y 0 ~(,~ .~w .e rs • ~ SUPERINTENDENTOFSCHOOLS Bob L. Haley ~~R EXCE~`~ DEP Dan Mabe, Finan eD& Administration C'! Z DIRECTORS ? ~~~\~~~ 1 ~ Sheryl Belknap, Elementary ~ ~`~~` Jim Carberry, Secondary Q Christine Donnell, Personnel ~ Doug Rutan, Special Services JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0.2 911 MERIDIAN STREET MERIDIAN,IDAH083642 PHONE(208)888-6701 April 22, 1994 City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: Preston's Aspen Grove Dear Councilmen: RECEIVED APR 2 6 1994 CITY 0~ M~:4~-~.,~~~ I have reviewed the application for Preston's Aspen Grove Subdivision find that it includes approximately 131 homes at the median value of $100,000. We also find that this subdivision is located in census tract 103.12 and in the attendance zone for Chief Joseph Elementary, Meridian Middle School and Meridian High School. Using the above information we can predict that these homes, when completed, will house 42 elementary aged children, 32 middle school aged children, and 29 senior high aged students. At the present time Chief Joseph Elementary is at 117 of capacity, Meridian Middle School is at 130 of capacity and Meridian High School is at 116 of capacity. The Meridian School District is not opposed to growth in our district, however this subdivision will cause increased over- crowding in all three schools. There is little opportunity to shift attendance boundaries since the surrounding schools are also well over capacity. 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. In addition we would need to pass another bond issue for the construction of schools. Even if we were willing to use portable classrooms for a year or two, this project would require two classroom at the elementary level, two classroom at the middle school level and one classroom at the high school level. To build portables ready to occupy by students will cost approximately $40,000 each. As you can see the total for nine portables would be $200,000. We would welcome a meeting with you to find ways of mitigating the projected costs to the school district. C~ C~ We are in a difficult position and need your help in dealing with the impact of growth on schools. Sincerely, :C,~ ~~ Dan Mabe Deputy Superintendent DM:gr 2 Q ~~ • • SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Bob L. Haley OR EXCEt`~ DEP Dan Mabe, FinanceD& Administration DIRECTORS yn Sheryl Belknap, Elementary Jim Carberry, Secondary Christine Donnell, Personnel Doug Rutan, Special Services JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0.2 911 MERIDIANSTREET MERIDIAN,IDAH083642 PHONE(208)888-6701 May 10, 1994 RECEIVED City of Meridian Mqy ~ p 1994 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Ly1'y pF MERIDIAN RE: Preston's Aspen Grove Subdivision Dear Councilmen: I have reviewed the application for Preston's Aspen Grove find that it includes approximately 131 homes at the median value of $100,000. We also find that this subdivision is located in census tract 103.12 and in the attendance zone for Chief Joseph Elementary, Meridian Middle School and Meridian High School. School is at 116 of capacity. Using the above information we can predict that these homes, when completed, will house 42 elementary aged children, 32 middle school aged children, and 29 senior high aged students. At the present time Chief Joseph Elementary is at 117 of capacity, Meridian Middle School is at 130 of capacity and Meridian High Considering these facts, Meridian School District can not recommend approval of this subdivision at this time. If and when you do, it will be a certainty that students from this subdivision will be transferred outside of Chief Joseph Elementary attendance zone. The school district will have to be allowed time to review an alternative solution to the attendance problem. The Meridian School District is not opposed to growth in our district, however this subdivision will cause increased over- crowding in all three schools. There is little opportunity to shift attendance boundaries since the surrounding schools are also well over capacity. 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. In addition we would need to pass another bond issue for the construction of schools. Even if we were willing to use portable classrooms for a year or two, this project would require two classrooms at the elementary • level, two classrooms at the middle school level and one classroom at the high school level. To build portables ready to occupy by students will cost approximately $40,000 each. As you can see the total for six portables would be $200,000. We would welcome a meeting with you to find ways of mitigating the projected costs to the school district. We are in a difficult position and need your help in dealing with the impact of growth on schools. Sincerely, ~n 7i?~n Dan Mabe Deputy Superintendent DM:gr ~ • L ~ f i`C GLENN J. RHODES, President SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President JAMES E. BRUCE, Secretary T0: SHEKINAH INDUSTRIES INC 420 BITTEROOT STREET BOISE ID 83709 FROM: Larry Sale Su r Develop t ~~C~~~~~ MAY 1 1 199 CITY OF MERIDIAN May 4, 1994 SUBJECT: PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES - PRELIMINARY PLAT On May 4, 1994, 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 uublic 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, together with payment of plan review fee. b. Execute an 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 Surety Agreement between the Developer and the District to guarantee the completion of construction of all street improvements. ~J ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714 • Phone (208) 345-7680 ~~ May 4,1994 Page 2 • ~ ~. 3. Furnish copy of Final Plat showing street names as approved by the Local Government Agency having such authority toctether with payment of fee charged for the manufacturing and installation of all street signs, as required. 4. If Public Rights-of-Way Trust Fund deposit is required, make 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 for District acceptance, certifications, and endorsement. The final plat must contain the signed endorsement of the Owner's and Land Surveyor's certification. 7. Approval of the plat is valid for one year. An extension of one year will be considered by the Commission if requested within 15-days prior to the expiration date. Please contact me at 345-7680, should you have any questions. LS cc: Development Services Chron D. MICHAEL PRESTON ~~ CIT3~ HALL MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: MAY 10 1994 APPLICANT: SHEKINAH INDUSTRIES AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 11 REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING• ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES EN Y CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: COMMENTS FORTHCOMING CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: "REVIEWED" CITY FIRE DEPT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS US WEST: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: FIB ,~ w ~~ OTHER: • r~ MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: June 14.1994 APPLICANT: SHIKINAH INDUSTRIES AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8 REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS FINDNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~G~~ ~-~ ~' ~ .} ~©~~ ~~ G/ 1? L Q ~ s~ ~ C~C~ ~~ OTHER: • • o Q BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 3HEKINAH INDUSTRIES ANNEXATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 NE 1/4, SECTION 18, T. 3N., R. lE., B.M. PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on May 10, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho. Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through Mike Preston, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for May 10, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the May 10, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 1 annexation and zing is described in the ap• ication, and b this Y reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 34.24 acres in size; the property is west of Locust Grove Road and south of Franklin Road. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as (RT) Rural Transition and the proposed use would be for R-15 Residential type development for a portion and with a portion C-N, Neighborhood Business District; the Applicant submitted a preliminary plat for approval with the application for annexation and zoning; that the Applicant states in his Subdivision application that the lots would be 5,200 square feet, that there would be 135 lots in the proposed residential subdivision and 3 commercial lots; that the commercial lots would need conditional use permits prior to obtaining building permits for the exact detail of the proposed use; that the Applicant in its subdivision application states that the minimum square footage of home would be 1,000 square feet, that there would be 4.39 residential lots per acre, that there would only be single family homes, that all streets would be constructed to Ada County Highway District and City of Meridian standards, that water and sewer will be provided by the City of Meridian, and irrigation will be provided by a pressurized system using Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District water. That the Applicant also represented in his letter to the Planning Director, Shari Stiles, sent along with his applications, that the project is in conformance with the Meridian Comprehensive ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 2 • • Plan and fits into the surrounding mixed uses of commercial, industrial and residential areas; that all of Meridian's Ordinances would be complied with; that a 35 foot landscaped buffer would be provided along Franklin Road; and that a 25 foot landscaped buffer and a 6 foot solid cedar fence would separate this development from the four neighbors on the east side. That at the public. hearing the Applicant also stated that there now would only be 131 residential lots and 3 commercial lots, all services would be underground, that he wants to work with the Corp of Engineers about the flood plain, but in any event there would be no construction in the flood way, that there would be access to park or open space, that he was proposing open space along Franklin or Locust Grove Road, that he would provide street lights, that there would both "stick" built and manufactured homes, and that he would submit covenants. 4. The property to the north .across Franklin Road is industrial zoned property; the property to the west is used for the Meridian Cemetery and a few residences; the property to the east and south is used residentially and for agriculture; that the residential property in the area is less dense than R-4 and more likely at less than one house per acre. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property, but the owners are Norman Brown, Montee McClure and Ivadco, Inc.; that the owners have submitted a request or consent to this ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 3 • • Application for annexation and zoning. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned; that the zoning request is to have 30.5 acres zoned R-15 Residential and 3.7 acres zoned C-N, Neighborhood Business District; that the present use of the property is for agriculture; that the intended development of the property is for an R-15 subdivision and C-N Commercial development. 10. That comments were received from the City Engineer, City Planning Director, Meridian Police Department, Fire Department, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Idaho Power Company, and U. S. West and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 11. The Meridian School District's comment was that the subdivision proposed for the land would mean 42 elementary aged children, 32 middle school aged children and 29 senior high aged students; that Chief Joseph Elementary School is at 117$ of capacity, Meridian Middle School at 130 of capacity and the Meridian High School at 117$ of capacity; the District went on to state as follows: "Considering these facts, Meridian School District can not ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNE]CATION FF & CL Page - 4 u • recommend approval of this subdivision at this time. If and when you do, it will be a certainty that students from this subdivision will be transferred outside of Chief Joseph Elementary attendance zone. The school district will have to be allowed time to review an. alternative solution to the attendance problem." 12. The Meridian City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented that water is approximately 3,150 feet west of Locust Grove Road; that City policy requires extension of City utility lines to and through a development; that a 12 inch diameter water line will need to be built in Franklin Road, from its point of connection to existing water, east to Locust Grove Road and south along the length of this property's Locust Grove Road frontage; that sewer will need to connect to the Five Mile Trunk; that this sewer line will be built by St. Lukes Hospital but if it is not this property will have no sewer available; he also commented that the highest seasonal groundwater level needs to be established to aid builders in setting the bottom of their house footings a minimum of one foot above that elevation. 13. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District commented that it is recommended that irrigation water be made available to development within this District. 14. Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator submitted comment stating that the property requested to be zoned C-N had no plans submitted and this area should not be annexed until satisfactory details, including floodplain and engineering studies have been completed and submitted to the City; that R-15 Districts must abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor. ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 5 • She also stated as follows: "Although keeping with the goals of affordable housing, this proposal would not be in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to maintain/enhance quality of life for all residents, have new growth finance public service expansion, or prevent school overcrowding." 15. There were people testifying at the hearing: a. Morgan Plant testified that he wanted this project to be denied; that he desires compatible housing with those already in the area; that he desired large lots with large homes and to keep the density down, which to him meant anything above 1/4 of an acre for each dwelling unit. b. Robert R. Smith testified that he wanted the project denied; that it was not compatible with the area and he desires compatible housing; that the City of Eagle is requiring larger lots and he thought that was the correct move; that he recommended that there only be three lots to the acre. c. Elwood Rennison .stated that he wants denial of the project; that the drainage would flow into Five Mile Creek which was a good enhancement for wildlife; that there was not enough information on the types of homes that were planned for the project; that there should be more input on the types of homes before the presentation is considered. d. Sherrie Wallace testified that she desired 1/2 acre properties and that she did not want commercial there. e. Alan Fox stated that he recommended that the project be denied; that the traffic on Locust Grove Road and Franklin is too much already and too many accidents. f. Reece McMillan testified that this would create too much traffic; that Locust Grove Road was to soon cross over I- 84 and that would increase the traffic even more; that the area now has one acre lots or larger; that this project should be rejected. g. Ted Hanson stated that there would be problems with access to Locust Grove Road and that he did how the commercial would work. h. Marshall Smith testified that the high density was bad and that it only lowered property values and brought in ASPEN Q~ROVE ESTATES ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 6 C~ • youth crime; that the traffic problems would be bad; that the Commission should only consider developments that were comparable to what was there now; that he desired that the Commission give the project a resounding denial. i. Mike Preston submitted rebuttal testimony which was that he did not change any entrances; that there would be a traffic light at Locust Grove Road and Franklin Road; that Locust Grove Road was an arterial road; that Franklin was planned for five lanes; that the Comprehensive Plan shows that higher density was allowed at the site; that storms water would go into Five Mile Creek; that development enhances property values; that he will screen so people would not be shut down aesthetically; that he will not build in the flood way but he desires to work with the Corp of Engineers to locate exactly the location of the flood way; that he is expecting the homes along the rim would be $125, 000.00 to $130,000.00 in value; that most of the homes would have 1,300 square feet. j. Velma McMillan testified that the Commission should go through trailer parks to get comparisons for the type of subdivision that this project was going to be. 16. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Mixed/Planned Use Development Area. 17. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Comprehensive Plan Map, it does state in various sections as follows: "The land use element is based upon these objectives: 3. Quality residential neighborhoods,. north, south, east, and west of Old Town. 7. The importance of maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life. 18. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use Goal Statement, 1. GENERAL POLICIES, it does state as follows: "1.4U Encourage new development which reinforces the City's present development patter of higher density ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 7 • development within the Old Town area and lower density development in outlying areas. 1.8U Promote the development of high quality and environmentally compatible residential area that contain the necessary parks, schools and commercial facilities to maintain and form identifiable neighborhoods." 19. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use Goal Statement, 2. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES, it does state as follows: "2.3U Protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for residents. 2.5U Encourage compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods." 20. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, RURAL AREAS, it odes state as follows: "6.7U Existing rural land uses and farms/ranches shall be buffered from urban development expanding into rural area by innovative land use planning techniques. 6.8U New urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing rural residential land uses shall provide screening and transitional densities with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities. 6.9U Proposed urban density development which abuts or is proximal to existing rural residential development shall be subject to development review committee approval. 6.10U New urban density development should provide perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown debris from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties." 21. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population Page - 8 ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL • • increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 22. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 23. That the R-15 Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 5 as follows: "(R-15) Medium High Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-15) District is to permit the establishment of medium-high density single-family attached and multi-family dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. All such districts must have direct access to a transportation arterial or collector, abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor, and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. The predominant housing types in this district will be patio homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, townhouses, apartment buildings and condominiums."; that the Neighborhood Business District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 8 as follows: "(C-N) Neighborhood Business District: The purpose of the (C- N) District is to permit the establishment of small scale convenience business uses which are intended to meet the daily needs of the residents of an immediate neighborhood (as defined by the policies of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan); to encourage clustering and strategic siting of such businesses to provide service to the neighborhood and avoid intrusion of such uses into the adjoining residential districts. All such districts shall give direct access to transportation arterials or collectors, be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute all or any part of a strip development concept." 24. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows: "Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 9 • • sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided . .' 25. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment in different applications that a determination of ground water level and subsurface soil condition's should be made; that such a comment is equally applicable to this Application. 26. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 27. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 10 C~ C~ in population is burdening the schools of 'the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide .sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 28. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 29. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 30. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 31. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of ASPEN QROVE ESTATES ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 11 the subdivision;" 32. That Section 11-9-605 R states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness,; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, .especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 33'. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicycle Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reva.ewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 34. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 12 CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice.. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, which is not the titled owner, and the annexation is not ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 13 • upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forney, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set- asides for future public service use, that a school site was not reserved; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 14 • • that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; however, the specific plan for development and the requested zoning for all of the land is not in conformance with the~Comprehensive Plan; the Meridian Comprehensive Plan does indicate that the area is a Mixed/Planned Use Development area, but that does not necessarily mean a high density area. The Comprehensive Plan also indicates in the RESIDENTIAL POLICIES that the City is to protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for residents, and encourage compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods. And' the Comprehensive Plan indicates in the RURAL AREAS that new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing rural residential land uses shall provide transitional densities with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities. 11. That it is concluded that the property requested to be zoned R-15 does not abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor; that therefore the zoning of the property as R-15 does not meet the Zoning Ordinance and such zoning would not be in ASPEN QrROVE ESTATES ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 15 • • the best interests of the City of Meridian. 12. That it is concluded that since the existing residences in the area, four of which would abut this development, including those that are east of Locust Grove Road, need to be buffered by transitional densities and larger more comparable lots, such as R- 2, R-3 or R-4 lots or lots that have less density per acre; that the property requested to be zoned C-N should not abut the single family residential property to the south and should be located more along Franklin Road rather than adjacent to the existing homes on Locust Grove Road; that the R-15 zone is too dense of a residential zone this distant from the center of town and in an area which is developed with one to five acre, or more, dwelling units per acre; that the R-8 zone would be more compatible along Franklin Road to a depth of approximately 250 to 300 feet and then have R-4, or less dense zoning southerly therefrom; that the R-4 zone should abut the single family residential property which is shown on the proposed plat to the south of the C-N property; that it is not the City's intention to plan the plat for the property but the way that it is proposed to be zoned and plated now does not fall in line with the Comprehensive Plan because the existing residential lots are not buffered and would not be in the best interests of the City of Meridian. Also, the R-15 zone requires that the R-15 property have direct access to a park or open space and this Application does not meet that requirement. 12. That it is concluded that the if the Applicant does not amend its plat, request one or more different zones, and consent to ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 16 • u a delay in the annexation process until a new plat is prepared, filed and considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission, this annexation and zoning application should be denied. 13. That it is concluded that if the Applicant does amend its plat, request one or more different zones, consent to a delay in the annexation process until a new plat is prepared, request and have new hearings on the amended plat, and if the Commission approves of the amended plat, that this property should be annexed and zoned as approved by the Commission. 14. That it is concluded that the comments of the Meridian School District must be duly considered and taken with great weight; that Applicant is informed that elementary students may be transferred outside of the Chief Joseph Elementary attendance zone by the Meridian School District due to the overcrowding that that school is experiencing; however until the Meridian School District informs the City that it can no longer accept any new students, the City has no authority to deny residential development; it is noted that there are now pending other requests for annexation of property to be developed residentially which are in the Chief Joseph attendance zone but the same type of letter as received on this application was not received in most of the other applications. It is further concluded that this Applicant did not offer a means to help the School District solve the overcrowding problem and the property is of such a size that such could have been done, or could be done. This Applicant and the School District are encouraged to meet to discuss and investigate if there ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 17 • are any possible ways for this Applicant to help the School District with its overcrowding problems. 15. That it is concluded that if the Applicant does amend its plat, request one or more different zones, consent to a delay in the annexation process until a new plat is prepared, request and have new hearings on the amended plat, and if the Commission approves of the amended plat, then the Applicant shall meet all of the conditions of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 16. That the Applicant shall meet the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, Idaho Power, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director referenced herein, shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 17. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation; that the Applicant shall be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 18. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNESATION FF & CL Page - 18 • • address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G 1, H 2, K, L; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 19. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. 20. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 21. With compliance of the conditions contained herein including an amended plat, request for one or more different zones, the consent to a delay in the annexation process until a new plat is prepared, the request for new hearings on the amended plat, and if the Commission approves of the amended plat, then the annexation and zoning would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian; that if these conditions are not met the property should not be annexed and zoned. ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNE7tATION FF & CL Pag® - 19 r~ L APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED v VOTED ~~~ A .~_ VOTED VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that with compliance of the conditions contained herein in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including an amended plat, request for one or more different zones, the consent to a delay in the annexation process until a new plat is prepared, the request for new hearings on the amended plat, and if the Commission approves of the amended plat, then the annexation and zoning would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian, and the Commission would then recommend approval of this annexation and zoning; that if these conditions are not met the property should not be annexed and zoned. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 20 OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, CityTreasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney MEMORANDUM • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY COUNCIL MEMBERS A Good Place to Live RONALD R. TOLSMA CITY OF MERIDIAN E WAL W MORROW 33 EAST IDAHO SHARI STILES IDAHO 83642 MERIDIAN Planner 8 Zoning Administrator , JIM JOHNSON Phone (208) 888-4433 ~ FAX (208) 887813 Chairman ~ Planning & Zoning Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor To: Mayor, City Council, Planning & Zoning From: Gary D. Smith, PE Date: May 6, 1994 RE: PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES (Annexation - R-15 Zoning -Preliminary Plat) I have reviewed this application and have the following comments for you information and or use as conditions of the applicant during the hearing process: 1. The boundary description provided for annexation does include the adjacent half of the public right of way known as Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. 2. The described parcel is contiguous to existing city limit boundaries established by Ordinance No. 312. 3. Domestic water is presently located in Franklin Road approximately 3,150 feet west of Locust Grove Road. City policy requires extension of city utility lines to and through a development. Therefore, a 12" diameter water line will need to be built in Franklin Road, from its point of connection to existing water, east to Locust Grove Road and south along the length of this property's Locust Grove Road frontage. 4. Sewer service will need to connect to the Five Mile Creek trunk. Reportedly, this sewer trunk will be built by St. Luke's Hospital by Fall 1994. This property could be assessed late-comer fees if the trunk is constructed by others. If the trunk is not built by St. Luke's, sewer service to this area is not available. 5. A vicinity map needs to be submitted showing the existing land use and zoning for a minimum of 1/2 mile each way from this proposal. 6. Fire hydrants need to be spaced at a maximum of 400 feet apart. Street lights are generally spaced to coincide with the fire hydrants and are located at street intersections. A 250 watt bulb is required at entrance streets into the project. ~J • 7. Proposed restrictive covenants and/ or deed restrictions need to be submitted. 8. The requested commercial area, occupied by the car wash and professional office, appears to be in the 100 year flood plain as determined for Ada County by FEMA's FIRM dated December 17, 1991. The car was facility as shown is in a "floodway" in which building is prohibited by our Ordinance. This floodplain floodway issue needs to be addressed by the applicant. 9. Submit Ada County Street Name Committee approval letter. 10. The highest seasonal groundwater level needs to be determined to assist builders in locating the bottom of footing elevation one foot above that level. 11. Sanitary sewer and domestic water lines may cross asphalted private street/ parking areas if appropriate permanent easements are provided. 12. Sanitary sewer and domestic water lines need to be located in public right of ways. Easements are not acceptable because of access problems. 13. All lots need to have a minimum 50 feet of street frontage in accordance with our Ordinance. 14. The area served by "Browden Court" should be connected to "Bracken Drive" for sewer and water access or be developed at a later time when sewer and water are available in S. Locust Grove Road. 15. Are there any irrigation/ drainage ditches crossing this property that need to be piped for continued service to or from adjacent properties? OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Su pt. KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY. A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor PIEI~RANDUM COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAXVERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW SHARI STILES Planner & Zoning Administrator JIM JOHNSON Chairman ~ Planning 8 Zoning T0: Planning & Zon~ Cco,m ~ ion, Mayor and Council FROM: Shari~=L.~es, Planning 8 Zoning Adainistrator DATE: May 9, 1994 SUBJECT: Annexation and Zoning of C-N and R-15 with a Preliminary Plat for Preston's Aspen Grove Estates This request is a resubmittal of a previously submitted request for MPUD zoning. The developer now proposes selling the lots in lieu of selling the homes only and renting the lots. The following conditions apply to this proposed subdivision: 1. Covenants must be submitted which clearly define the duties of homeowners association, especially in regard to maintenance of landscaped areas. 2. The landscaped buffers required are for the benefit of the public and as a screen for adjacent low-density residences, not the homeowners of this subdivision. This landscape screen must be outside of existing easements. Fencing would be required on the interior side of the landscaped areas. Irrigation systems would be required for the landscaping. 3. Various ditches surround this property. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District will have to approve, in writing, any rerouting or tiling of these lines. Also, Dan Caldwell, Ditchrider, and Robert R. Smith, Water User Liaison, must be contacted for requirements of downstream water users. 4. Uses permitted in the floodplain district are generally associated with open space, recreational and agricultural land uses and shall not hinder the movement of the flood waters. It would appear construction is prohibited in the areas shown for commercial use. No set plans for the proposed C-N zone have been presented; this area should not be annexed and zoned until satisfactory details, including floodplain and engineering studies, have been completed and submitted to the City. 5. Lot 4, Block 5, must have a minimum frontage of 50'. r- C~ Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council May 9, 1994 Page Two 6. Sanitary sewer alignments crossing through lots must be shown as separate lots and deeded to the City. These easements cannot be included as part of a lot. 7. The School District has asked that the City of Meridian deny further requests for subdivision approval, particularly in the Chief Joseph Elementary School area, whose enrollment has been capped due to overcrowding. Public services are not available to serve the development. 8. R-15 Districts must abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor. 9. Preliminary plat should show all easements, placing of fencing, and pedestrian access to adjacent subdivisions or future subdivisions. 10. Adequate fire hydrants and streetlights need to be shown. In light of the unavailability of public services, the .lack of detail presented, and problems with the floodplain/floodway development, I recommend that this preliminary plat be tabled or denied until these items are satisfactorily addressed. Although keeping with the goals of affordable housing, this proposal would not be in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to maintain/enhance quality of life for all residents, have new growth finance public service expansion, or prevent school overcrowding. • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: July 19 1994 APPLICANT: SHEKINAH INDUSTRIES AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 18 REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING• REQUESt FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW "REVIEWED" SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS FIB ~~ ~~~""~ "~ p~~~~ k'% ; ~ ~~~ SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS OTHER: ~; D MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: August 2.1994 APPLICANT: SHEKINAH INDUSTRIES AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 9 REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: ,- • • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL SHEKINAH INDUSTRIES ANNEXATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 NE 1/4, _ SECTION 18, T. 3N., R. lE., B.M. PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on July 19, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through Mike Preston, and having duly considered the matter, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the Findings of Facts made by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission are by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, with the facts set forth below being additions thereto and if a conflict exists, these Findings shall govern. 2. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for July 19, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the July 19, 1994, hearing; ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION COUNCIL FF & CL Page - 1 • that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 3. Mike Preston testified at .the City council hearing that development would be of 40 acres less 6 or 7 acres; that there would be 131 units and 3 acres of commercial; that it was a standard plat; there would be a density of 4.39 which was under the R-15 allowances; that he desired R-15 because of the narrower lot size;; that he would do a development agreement; that he would do a corridor to the Meridian City park but that he was too close to the park to add any park land; that he thought a Mixed PUD was appropriate because there is a conglomerate of uses in the area; that he could buffer and screen the large houses that are in the area; that he would not disturb the ditches except for piping and re-routing; that he had met the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; that he is not exceeding the density; that he was willing to hold off on the commercial if that is what the City desires; that he would install pressurized irrigation; that he would meet the City Engineer's requirements; that there would 50~ of the houses larger than 1,300 SQUARE FEET and 50~ less than that amount; and that there would be some stick built homes and some manufactured homes. That in rebuttal to the testimony presented by the people referenced below, Mr. Preston stated that Five Mile Creek would be protected; that the corridor was required in the Comprehensive Plan and was not his idea; that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan allows what he proposes and that values would be increased rather than ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNERATION COUNCIL FF & CL Page - 2 • • decreased; that he does not know the exact design of the houses; that he will have strict covenants; and that this project would provide affordable houses. 4. There were people testifying at the hearing: a. Reece McMillan testified that he had a question on road access; that a corridor was not acceptable; that there should be no commercial on the south part of Franklin Road; and that there were wet lands in the area that needed to be protected. b. James Witherell testified that he had not been contacted by Mike Preston; that he agreed with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law adopted by the Planning and Zoning commission. c. Ellwood Rennison testified that he was apposed to this subdivision; that the developer had proposed this poorly; .that the commercial property is set up to be that in the Comprehensive Plan; that he had written a letter to the Corp of Engineers and had written to the City; and that he had a question on the covenants. d. Morgan Plant testified that he wanted this project to be denied; that it would infringe on the property values in the area; that Preston was not working with the neighbors. e. Ann Witherell testified that the property is not adjoining a park. f. Allan Fox testified that the property to the south is up for sale and other property will do the same; most houses in the area are on one to five acre tracts; that R-2 would be good zone for the area; and that there were already many accidents at the intersection of Locust Grove Road and Franklin Road. g. Gregory Oyamma testified that the R-15 zone would deteriorate the other property in the area; that the Meridian cemetery is between the park and his land; that Five Mile Creek would be impacted; that it was not good to have a stop light at Franklin and Locust Grove Road. h. Richard Lee testified that the project would detract from the quality of life. i. Patricia Rennison testified that Chief Joseph Elementary ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION COUNCIL FF & CL Page - 3 • School is at maximum capacity. 5. That the City Engineer, Gary Smith, testified that sewer to this project was contingent on the St. Lukes sewer being installed to Eagle Road; that Shari .Stiles, Planning Director and Zoning Administrator, testified that it was not appropriate to annex this land until the wet lands issues were resolved. CONCLUSIONS 1. That the Conclusions of Law made by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission are by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, with the Conclusions set forth below being additions thereto and if a conflict exists, these Conclusions shall govern. 2. That it must be emphasized, as stated in the Planning and Zoning Conclusions, the Comprehensive Plan indicates in the RESIDENTIAL POLICIES that the City is to protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for residents, and encourage compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods. And the Comprehensive Plan indicates in the RURAL AREAS that new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing rural residential land uses shall provide transitional densities with larger mare comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities; it is specifically concluded by the City Council that the development proposed by the Applicant would ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION COUNCIL FF & CL Page - 4 • not meet the above goals and would not be in best interests of the City of Meridian. 3. That it is concluded that the property requested to be zoned R-15 does not abut or have direct access to a park or a sufficient open space corridor; that therefore the zoning of the property as R-15 does not meet the Zoning Ordinance and annexation and zoning would not be in the best interests of the City of Meridian. 4. That it is concluded that the existing residences in the area, four of which would abut this development, including those that are east of Locust Grove Road, need to be buffered by transitional densities and larger more comparable lots, such as R-2 or R-3 lots or lots that have less density per acre; that the property requested to be zoned C-N should not abut the single family residential property to the south and should be located more along Franklin Road rather than adjacent to the existing homes on Locust Grove Road; that the R-15 zone is too dense of a residential zone this distant from the center of town and in an area which is developed with one dwelling unit per one acre or more; that the R-8 zone would be more compatible along Franklin Road to a depth of not more than 150 feet and then have R-4, or less dense zoning southerly therefrom progressing to R-2; that the R-2 zone should abut the single family residential property which is shown on the proposed plat to the south of the proposed C-N property; that it is not the City's intention to plan the plat for the property but the way that it is proposed to be zoned and plated now does not fall in ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNE7CATION COUNCIL FF & CL Page - 5 - I • line with the Comprehensive Plan because the existing residential lots are not adequately buffered, the density is too high next to an existing very low density, there needs to be transitional densities and larger more comparable. lots, such as R-2 or R-3 lots or lots that have less density per acre, and the annexation and zoning would not be in the best interests of the City of Meridian. 5. That it is concluded that the if the Applicant does not amend its plat, request one or more different zones which require larger lots, and consent to a delay in the annexation process until a new plat is prepared, filed and considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council, this annexation and zoning application will be denied. 6. That it is concluded that if the Applicant does amend its plat, request one or more different zones which require larger lots, consent to a delay in the annexation process until a new plat is prepared, request and have new hearings on the amended plat, and if the Commission and City council approve of the amended plat, that this property could be annexed and zoned as approved. 7. That it is concluded that if the Applicant does amend its plat, request one or more different zones, consent to a delay in the annexation process until a new plat is prepared, request and have new hearings on the amended plat, and if the Commission and Council approve of the amended plat, then the Applicant shall meet all of the conditions of these, and the Commission's, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION COUNCIL FF & CL Page - 6 • • APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED VOTE MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION The Meridian City Council hereby decides that with compliance of the conditions contained herein in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including filing an amended plat, request one or more different zones which require larger lots, consent to a delay in the annexation process until a new plat is prepared, request new hearings on the amended plat, and if the Commission and City Council approve of the amended plat, then the annexation and zoning would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian, and the Council may then approve this annexation and zoning; that if these conditions are not met the property is not annexed and zoned and the Application denied. If the request for an amended plat, or a request for addition time, is not filed with the City on or ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNE%ATION COUNCIL FF & CL Page - 7 • before by October 3, 1994, the applications of ~-the Applicant, including but not limited to, those for annexation, zoning, and subdivision plat approval, shall be~deemed denied. MOTION : ~~,{~ APPROVED: ~l DENIED: ASPEN QrROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION COUNCIL FF & CL Page - 8 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: August 2.1994 APPLICANT: 3HEKINAH INDUSTRIES AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE; CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: ~' • • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 18 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES BY SHEKINAH INDUSTRIES: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is there a representative for the applicant that would like to come forward and address the Commission please do so at this time, you need to be sworn. Mike Preston, 420 Bitteroot, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Preston: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, you will recall this same application a couple of months ago and at that time I had requested the wrong zone. I don't know if you have that zone I requested at this time or not. Anyway I have come back before you with an R-15 and a CN zone in place of the mixed PUD zone that I originally requested. And because I had the delay I took the opportunity to modify the layout subject to hopefully some of the neighbors concerns about the project. I am hoping that some of the things I changed will help rectify some of their problems. Basically speaking I put the plat up before you. The streets in the original application were all private streets without curb, gutter and sidewalks. With this application it is a standard subdivision meeting all .City requirements and all streets will be public streets dedicated to Ada County Highway District and all lots will be sold to the owners of the homes. And that is a complete change from what we had before. Essentially the street patterns are very similar to the. way it was before with just minor modifications, we still have the commercial zoning at the Locust Grove and Franklin Road. One major difference is I provided landscape buffer along Franklin Road of 35 feet in conformance with your ordinance. Another change that I made is a buffer of 25 feet between my existing neighbors on the east, the 4 neighbors on the east and the lot, that is a 25 foot strip through there that will be landscaped and irrigated. Other than that it is very similar, the same layout. Before I had 139 lots, now I have 131 lots with 3 commercial lots. I decided I might as well put each one of those buildings on a separate lot so I added 3 lots there. That pretty well explains and we went through it before. All services will be public underground utilities etc. Now, I would like to very briefly comment on Ms. Stiles' staff report in relation to the conditions. Item #2, in Shari's letter of May 9, she indicates that the landscape buffers required are for the benefit of the public and as a screen for a low density residences, I agree with that, not the homeowners of this subdivision, I don't know why it wouldn't also be a benefit to the homeowners I certainly hope so, it is an extremely expensive thing and I would like to give them the advantage as well. We show that the fence along this easement is on the property line and I believe if I read the letter right that the fence requested by Shari, it should be on the opposite side of ~~ • • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 19 the easement. In other words on the other side of the property line, 25 feet. That would really create a maintenance problem I would think and I think what the buffer zone is for is to keep the houses further away from the neighbors and that is what we have accomplished regardless of where the fence is. The trees that I am going to put in here will be up above the fence and enjoyed by them and the house that we, the nearest home that we can put to their property line instead of being 15 feet will now be 40 feet because of this buffer zone. The setback is from the easement so that moves the house further away. But, I would hope to have each homeowner just maintain that landscaped area clear back to the property line. If it is, if the fence here on their property line and a fence and a long skinny easement that would be very difficult to maintain and would be non-usable essentially. So, that is a consideration I would like input on and I haven't, there may be some other thing I could work with neighbors and improve. As I stated at the earlier hearing I was totally willing to do that. I don't know what their concerns and they might have 4 different concerns. Well, we could handle it 4 different ways and I would be willing to do that. On item 4, towards the tailend of that sentence, Shari says no set plans for the proposed CN have been presented, this area should not be annexed and zoned until satisfactory details including floodplain and engineering studies have been completed and submitted to the City. Now, in relation to the floodplain, Mr. Smith also addressed that. And in relation to the Corps of Engineers map there is a floodplain you can fill, floodway. Your ordinances does not allow construction, I talked to Gary about this. By the very definition of what a floodway is, that line is wrong on their map, but I'm not asking you to accept that. I am just asking you to allow me to go work with the Corps to get them to change their line, because I know it is wrong. Because there are 2 culverts there they ignored the fact that they were there and the floodway is not where they show it to be. If they change their map that shows it is not in the floodway, it will definitely be in the floodplain but not the floodway. Then it would be allowable for me to build in, if 1 don't accomplish that then I would ask this commission and the Council to put condition on no construction in the floodway period in relation to your ordinance and can't build, if I do get it changed though I should be allowed to. It is really an error on their map, at least that is my opinion. Both Gary and Shari addressed the fact, I've got some sewer running across in an easement from one right of way to another. Gary had conditions that he requested and also Shari did too and a couple of suggestions that is very workable. I might have to modify that, I would request that you put a condition on this approval that I can't do what I show and then I will come in. That is in the second phase, it is probably a couple years away anyway. I will have time to modify that, chances are the sewer will be in Locust Grove as Gary suggested and then we can run it away and it will relieve the problem entirely where I would have the opportunity to extend it up Locust Grove and do the same thing myself. That is very solvable, it is not anything that should hold up the plat as long as the condition says I can't do it the way that • • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 21 to be at 400 foot, I assumed 500 foot so I will need to add a few. Just a note requirement that fire hydrants need to be a 400 feet and street lights at intersections will provide anything in relation to the City requirements. Now, the main thing that I wanted to discuss was the summation in Ms. Stiles report, it says I quote, "in light of the unavailability of public services," the only public service that she is talking about is schools in relation to what the school district said, "the lack of detail presented," and that is fences, pedestrian access and easements, but they are all accounted for, "and problems with the floodplain floodway development," there is no problem with the floodplain because I will fill that and be above it I will not build in the floodway so that also is not a problem, "I recommend that this preliminary plat be tabled or denied until these items are satisfactorily addressed. Although keeping with the goals of affordable housing, this proposal would not be in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to maintain/ enhance the quality of life for all residents. Have new growth finance public service expansion or prevent school overcrowding." Now in relation to not having growth finance public service expansion I would just like to comment that I have to extend about 4,000 feet of water main down someone else's property to get to this that other people will get to use and I have to pay a large assessment to get the sewer here along with the St. Lukes's hospital people. And in relation to impact fees through Ada County Highway District this project will pay in the neighborhood of 5130,000 along with all the taxes that will come from each homeowner. So, I have to disagree with that statement. I don't know what she means that the plan will not maintain and enhance the quality of life for all residents. I meet the subdivision ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan as stated in a previous recommendation so I am not sure what that means. I am not preventing school overcrowding I don't know how to do that other than like it has always been done in the past and that is pass the bond elections and have these folks pay for it. I've got to state that it is not the developer, I am providing berms and buffers and impact fees and all of that sort of thing. I have to finance that, I am not paying it, it is the homeowners that pay it. It is not me, so we need to understand that. These same homeowners are going to pay the same taxes you and I do. So, with that. Johnson: Before you move from Shari's comments, I didn't hear you address her comment regarding covenants, have you gone that far have you gotten he covenants? Preston: I assume that is a requirement of the final plat, before the final plat can be approved. Johnson: It is. Preston: We don't have any at this time. • . Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 23 valuation of S 100,000. We have a 5 acre lot right across the road which would be affected directly and indirectly and I would ~ request that the Planning & Zoning Commission reject this approval. If they would like to come back with compatible housing to fit the area then I would look at it in a different light. Thank you. Rountree: I have a question, you indicated you would be willing to look at it in a different light with compatible housing. What is that in your mind? Plant: Large footage area, individual owned lots, large lots, get the density down to the surrounding property levels. Rountree: Large lots, you are indicating 1 /2 acre, 1 acre, 2 acre, 5 acre? Plant: I am indicating anything above a 1 /4 of an acre. Build an appropriate styled house for that size of a lot. Rountree: Thank you Johnson: How many square feet in a 1 /4 of an acre, quickly? Rountree: Little over 10,000 Johnson: Anyone else from the public like to come forward? Robert Smith, 335 South Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: I would like to also recommend that the Commission deny this application. I think that our whole area is a unique area in the fact that it is already acreaged subdivisions plus acreaged homesites along Locust Grove Road. I see now that the change if I might go to the template, (inaudible) in the upper area along the back side of out lot lines, along this little barrier line here. This is also our irrigation lateral. It comes through right here where our delivery from Nampa Meridian right at this point and comes down concrete ditch and comes across the back of our lots. It goes across Locust Grove Road, or Franklin Road and serves 2 1 /2 acres that now belongs to (inaudible) he isn't here and has never testified. I would also like to point out that there is a 10 foot berm barrier along side of this person's lot. This 2 1'/2 acres is mine, I have no indication of a barrier here and there is 1,2,3, 4,5 lots indicated in this acre again. The density that has happened in Meridian right now is getting to be a crying shame. I have lived here all my life (inaudible) I think it is about time we started cutting down. Eagle is going through this same problem right now and they are starting to reduce their, increase their lot size and I think this site in Meridian • . Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 25 last presentation the gentleman he had very little information maybe a little pamphlet on the mobile type homes that would be set up there. And I think there needs to be more input put into this before the presentation is even considered. Thank you. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Rennison? Anyone else? Sherrie Wallace, 2180 Cadillac Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wallace: I moved to Cadillac 3 months shy of 2 years from Boise after living there 10 years and I live right near the developer on McMullen so I am familiar with where he lives. And I moved to Meridian for the quality of living that we have and we all basically in that that neighborhood want to have bigger properties. I would like to see if it is going to go through 1 /2 acre properties and homes like that on the property on that size lot. The last thing I saw in the mail was there was going to be a gas station and a car wash, I don't know if that has been changed or not. Right there on Locust Grove and Franklin and I could see a lot of even more traffic and problems on Locust Grove. Right now it is a nice community, there is wildlife, geese and rooster pheasants and every kind of thing you enjoy out in the country. If you add all that extra housing it is going to disappear. Johnson: Any questions? Is there someone else? Alan Fox, 1840 Cadillac Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Fox: I lived out there for approximately 20 years, there has been talk of subdividing this area. Directly south of this subdivision and to the east on the other side of Locust Grove approximately 60 acres, that has been surveyed twice in the last 2 years. That I suspect from rumors I hear they want to subdivide down the road here within the next 5 years. If you go to this type of subdivision in this small of area, 60 acres will take about 250 homes in there. And the impact is not withstanding in that area. Locust Grove and Franklin at this time has a minimum of 1 accident a year, sometimes 2. (Inaudible) Since traffic has gotten heavier on Franklin, for the first 5 to 10 years I was out there we didn't have more than 2 accidents. Now there are 2 accidents a year now on that corner. I recommend you deny the subdivision. Johnson: Thank you, any questions? Anyone else? McMillan Reece South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Reece: (Inaudible) there was a discussion on access to and from this subdivision. It was stated it would be a one out Franklin Road and also stated there would be one out South Locust Grove Road. Within the next 5 to 7 years there is going to be an • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 27 that kind of a density is going to bring on a youth crime problem. It happens anytime with that kind of a density. The traffic problerii is self-evident to all of us. We have traffic there now. But further more, we shouldn't, you shouldn't allow anyone to deprive us, 1 am a resident out there, I have lived there for 15 years I hope to live there when my toes curl up. And I don't expect you, because I have faith in you, to allow somebody to deprive me of the savings, we have our whole bundle in that property out there. And when I go I would at least like to have my widow realize some of the value of the property. It is also self-evident that these crowded developments like this drop the value of the property (inaudible). And I would highly recommend that you consider only properties or developments that are comparable in nature. (End of Tape) Now, most developers will keep coming back with a few more goodies as our present developer and applicant has. And one of them will finally be the outrage to change the CC&R's, covenants, conditions, and restrictions and they will make it really sound tasty. And one of us might get (inaudible) because us old folks, and I am one of the old folks are probably not, as troublesome, we've all blown all of our vigor earlier as a younger group of people. But, if you put and I am all for somebody living someplace and a place like this would be just dandy over in Russell Johnson's place he is selling now I understand. And there are some other folks that already do that kind of thing and there is probably not any impact at all for a place like that on that particular corner. But whatever the CC&R's are I would hope in your wisdom that you give a resounding no and put a thumbs down on this or any other applications of a like virtue or tack of virtue I might say. Thank you for listening, appreciate any questions. Johnson: Thank you Marshall, any questions for Mr. Smith? Anyone else? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. I'm sorry an opportunity for rebuttal, I did offer you that didn't I. I will re-open the public hearing so we can hear Mr. Preston. Preston: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address some of the concerns, I did leave some things out. There were numerous issues, let me start by saying that I left out the fact that we preformed a traffic study for this project. Ada County Highway District required that, I submitted a copy to Shari but it has already been through ACHD review. In relation to the commercial and traffic, the main thing I want to say is #1 this is identical of what was submitted before on all entrances. I didn't change any entrance at all. The Ada County Highway District made their recommendations and one of the requirements that I have to do that I forgot to mention is I have to put up $7,000 for future traffic light at Franklin and Locust Grove. They indicated that they were going to extend Locust Grove straight north. Now, I don't know if they are going to but that is what they told me. So that will be a cross type intersection in the future. I think everyone should realize that Locust Grove Road is truly a designated • • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 29 area, if this is approved then I will work with the Corps of Engineers. It is a very difficult thing to accomplish but I don't want to even start it until I get this approved or not. If I don't get it approved then there is no reason to even start it. If I don't get it changed then I won't build on it. A condition that I won't build in the floodway will protect the City. So I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Johnson: Any questions? Shearer: Yes, I have a question, in your last meeting you talked about manufactured housing, now as I recall you indicated the manufactured housing you are planning to use is the same ones being used across from the current high school that they are using in that subdivision. Was that right? Preston: No. I think I used that as an example as a manufactured housing subdivision. The examples that I used and brought in h®re are Golden West and I doubt there is a Golden West unit in that whole subdivision. There are various degrees and qualities of manufactured houses and Shearer: And the stick built Preston: And stick built that is correct, now I should mention in relation to that I am meeting all City standards in relation to the housing. You have standards as to the size and I am meeting those. And I have stated exactly what each lot will be or at least the minimum, they might be over but I am showing you on each lot what the minimum will be built. And most homes are, or half the homes have to 1300 square feet which puts them in the roughly in the 590,000 - $100,000 range. So, I am expecting all the homes along Franklin Road and on the rim there which will be seen by these neighbors to be in the 5125,000 range. And incidentally, I which we could go down there, they have one set up in Golden West and it is a 3 level, it is about 2200 square feet and as it is sitting there it is 580,000. It is a beautiful home, there isn't one person in this entire place that wouldn't be proud to live in it. Now, you ass the foundation, a garage, the lot, and all the utilities and so forth to go with that and that is easily 5125,000 to 5? 30,000. And those are the type of homes that I need to set next to the beautiful home that is on there. And I can do that because they have nice views. They will be lower value and smaller at the back. These neighbors won't see those. Johnson: Any other questions for Mr. Preston? Preston: Thank you Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 31 City Council? Stiles: Yes Rountree: What, describe to me the direction the Comp Plan has identified for this area, I believe it is mixed use? Stiles: Yes, it is, it addressed combinations of many different things that would be suitable for the area. Rountree: Such as? Stiles: Office, commercial, medium to high residential. Rountree: And that is for that whole quadrant? Stiles: I think it addresses this particular 40 acres, it is orange on the map. Rountree: I can see the orange, I can't read the fine print. Stiles: The main emphasis of these areas is that they be a high quality development in keeping with the goals of the City of Meridian. Rountree: Thank you Johnson: Gary Smith, you had some lengthy comments, is there anything you would like to add or do you still have some questions in your mind concerning some items. Anything you would like to offer to us, I am getting a no. What would you like to do? Shearer: You say ACHD comments are the only ones we don't have? Johnson: I believe that is true. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law when the ACRD comments come in and if they come in on time we will have it at the next meeting, if not go on to the following meeting. Johnson: Is that an acceptable motion Counsel? Crookston: Well, I would like a time period, they could come in 2 days before the next meeting and that is rather difficult, that is when I do them all. But there is Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 32 usually more than one. • - Shearer: Well, I think that the Attorney has to decide whether or not he has the time to do them. Johnson: You can word the motion to say that. So re-state your motion since I confused you. Shearer: 1 move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law when the Ada County comments are back from ACRD. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application at such time as the ACHD comments are received, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: 3 YEAS, 1 Nea (FIVE MINUTE RECESS) ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND RECORD STORAGE BY STANELY SMITH: Johnson: We are skipping item 12 because it was cancelled at the request of the applicant. ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST FROM L-O TO C-G AND R-8 BY BW INC. AND WAYNE STOLFUS: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is there someone representing the applicant please come forward now and address the Commission. Dan Torfin, 250 Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Torfin: This request by BW Inc. is to rezone 3/4 of an acre a piece of property on Fairview from Limited Office into 2 parcels of a different zoning designation. The north parcel will be designated the request if for CG commercial and then the southerly parcel is R-8 which would be pulled into the residential development of Danbury Fair subdivision. This request is to facilitate the developemnt of a veterinarian clinic construction on Fariview avenue on the northerly parcel which is Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 30 Johnson: One last request before I close the public hearing, is there anyone else? Velma McMillan, 876 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. McMillan: I would just like to say anytime that you want or are in question about a park like this or whatever he calls this subdivision take a drive and go through all the trailer home parks in Meridian. And they all start out beautiful, it doesn't matter if it is owned by the individual or if they are rented. But I want you to see after you take your drive through, see how they end up after a few years and ask him if he would like to live in one of them after it has been there for a few years. That is all I have to say. Johnson: Thank you Shearer: You know I really think .that the developer as far as the housing goes, because these are built in the factory does not mean that they are trailer houses. And I think that everybody is thinking the worst. If you go out and look at the ones across from Meridian High School I defy anybody here to tell that from a stick built house built on the site. Because they are manufactured does not mean necessarily that they are bad. These are 5100,000 homes McMillan: Well, I am not talking about the home building I am talking about the way it is run down after it is there. Shearer: People that pay 5100,000 for their house may or may not Johnson: Well, we appreciate your viewpoint from an architecturally standpoint. I will now close the public hearing. We need some action gentlemen, whatever you prefer. Do you have some questions of Shari Stiles or Gary Smith? I am particularly troubled by the fact that even with the time the application was submitted we do not have comments from ACHD. In view of Mr. Hanson's comments for example regarding the traffic access the hill problem it is certainly something we need to look at or at least be concerned about in the recommendation we make. It is up to you people what ever you do. Rountree: I would like to ask Shari a question, what is the status of our Comp Plan revision? Stiles: As far as the zoning ordinance? Rountree: As far as the Comp Plan, has it been finally approved and adopted by the • • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 28 arterial and yes it will serve that property to the south of this development and yes it will become a busy road. Franklin road is very inadequate at this time not so much because of the development but because of the commuter traffic and it it planned for 5 lanes. When that will get accomplished probably will be in concurrence with the development that I am proposing. It will take 2 to 3 years to complete this project and may improvements will be accomplished out in this neighborhood. The one thing that at least I would appreciate all the neighbors understanding because we developers do we don't come into to an area and propose housing that is totally foreign to the City. Now, it might be foreign to the neighbors, but Meridian .has a Comprehensive Plan in this area that shows higher density development than what is being requested in this hearing room. And because of that, I knew what the Comprehensive Plan said before I talked to the property owners to buy this land. And because of the price of the land you have to have density, now if you didn't extend all the utilities to it yes you could like what was developed out there, the land would be a lot less expansive and you could because of septic tanks and individual wells you could have big parcels and that is why there are big parcels there. But the Comprehensive Plan clearly shows that is not what is going to be there in the future and that is an approved plan as I understand it. And that is why I presented what I did, what I presented is in conformance. If I meet the. buffer requirements and so forth. I am willing to work with the immediate neighbors on that. But, I just wanted to explain that because it is nice but there is a lot of open space there and because it is there you might assume that it is going to remain that way, but that is a bad assumption you need to go look at the City's Comprehensive Plan to show what it is going to be in the future if development occurs. And whenever sewer and water and utilities get there then that is the time that it happens. And it is not myself that is bringing the utilities there I think it is the main reason that I can develop is because St. Luke's is getting the sewer out there, I couldn't afford to run it that far on my own. Storm water, I didn't mention that. Yes it will go into Five Mile Creek and yes t will gain all approvals necessary to accomplish that. No we will not discharge unimpeded dirty water into the creek it will have to be detained, cleaned up in accordance with specific standards. Development in contrast to what was stated does not de-value the surrounding properties it enhances it. It might de-value the quality of life for the people that live there because they have enjoyed this open space and it won't be there anymore. But it is not going to de-value their property and I want to for those immediate people screen it in a way that they wilt notice a depreciable difference in their living style. These 4 people that are my neighbors focus, they have a beautiful view to the northeast and that is the focus of their homes. They all have a beautiful view, t am not doing anything to hinder that I am building behind them. There will be an increase in noise but if I do that right I will reduce that noise level. So, I just recommend that, now one thing was stated about the floodplain, it definitely shows that a floodway exists under part of that commercial • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 26 overpass built on Locust Grove which will increase the traffic, there is no telling how many more (inaudible). (Inaudible) for all us people who have lived there all these years trying to get into our places and Franklin Road, increase in the kids, animals and everything else out there. And also the commercial property on the corner, I (inaudible) gas station on the edge of a residential area. Where everything is set up residential 1 acre or more lots. So as far as I am concerned I wish they would reject this whole proposal. Thank you Johnson: Thank you, anyone else from the public like to come forward at this time please? Ted Hanson, 1882 Bentley Avenue, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hanson: I would like to address some of the items on this plat that he talked about. He is talking about the water and the sewer and the cost of such. This is a normal occurrence that you would have as a developer and anybody that would come later on to hook onto this is also going to pay fees, and the fees go to the City or whoever is in charge of it. I would like to move over here and point to some items. Before as I remember he only had this access to South Locust Grove right here, now I see another one coming out here. The (inaudible) right just below that hill out there. And this is really getting to be a problem coming out of South Locust Grove this is 55 miles an hour and suddenly go to 35 which they don't address for .people coming westbound. And they are passing us on a double line there when we are waiting to make a left turn. He has another exit here and I don't see how his commercial proposition would work here with the (inaudible). Johnson: Thank you very much, anyone else? Marshall Smith, 398 South Locust Grove, was, sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: Mr. Chairman and the Commission I am going to start out by scolding you. I am going to scold you in the same manor that my mother used to scold me. It wasn't what I was about to do but what I might have done and she would scold me to impress my mind that she didn't want me to do it. I am scolding you not for what you have done but I'm afraid you might do which is approve this application. Now let me go further and compliment you and say that we need you. We are your neighbors and patrons. We depend upon your judgement from the input that we have put on these public hearings which whole heatedly approve of. And you protect us so we will not be hairwhipped in our property values by somebody who wants to make a quick buck and leave by high density zones and things that are deplorable to our way of life and our property values. Anybody in this room can tell you that • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 24 would be a fine site to do that. We are already into that type of development there. Now with Greenhills, Locust View Heights and the few of us that are scattered along that site. I also would like to point out on the south side is 40 acres of ground that is developable and probably will be developed in a short time. There is no cushion or barrier from that or no access allowed for that for future. So Locust Grove would be the only way to get into that. That property is owned by 2 different individuals but it is going to be developed. It is now farmland, it also borders the property that is behind us now that is where the police academy is. I think that the land that is there is really nice to be developed as Mr. Plant said at least 1 /4 acres, but recommendation would be a 1 /3 as a minimum. I thank you. Johnson: Do you have any questions of Mr. Smith? Rountree: You indicated that there is 40 acres to the south that is going to be developed, do you have any knowledge of what that development is going to be? Smith: I have heard some rumors, I think if I recall (inaudible) owns 20 of it another neighbor down the road owns 20, it is all being farmed by him at this time. It is just speculation that I am hearing. If this goes through probably the development wouldn't be very far down the road. Rountree: Do you know what type? Smith: I have no idea/ Johnson: Anyone else from the public like to come forward? Elwood Rennison, 990 Mustang Street, was sworn by the City Attorney. Rennison: Commissioners, gentlemen, I would like to recommend the Commission deny the application as being presented tonight. Meridian is being shown throughout the state as being the fastest growing town in the state. And the growth is astounding as we can see around the area here. And this subdivision really won't help that at all. Houses being so closely densified in such a small area. The storm sewer system for this property hasn't really been discussed on how it is going to discharge. It appears with the ground contours and the layout of property and lands it would discharge into the Five Mile Creek which is a continued year round flowing stream. And in the winter time it gets quite low, with all of the wash down you get from streets and driveways it will go directly into Five Mile Creek which sure isn't a very good enhancement for the wildlife that may be in place for the Federal wildlife Act for that area. The lack of information on the homes is rather disappointing,. the • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 22 Johnson: Go ahead, do you have anything else? Preston: I just want to reserve the right to come back with rebuttal if I might. Johnson: Yes, we may have some questions for you. Any questions from the Commission for Mr. Preston? Rountree: You are still proposing modular housing, or are you going to go to stick built? Preston: There is a home on the property now that was going to be converted to the office, it is a 5150,000 home and I am going to sell that home. I will probably build all the homes adjacent to it and clear it around that front end, stick built high end type homes. The homes in the back, I would like to reserve the right to be manufactured housing on footings with garages. You can't tell the difference, they are going to be all textured sheet rock inside. They are actually better built homes than most stick built homes today. They have better quality materials as I stated before. These are not mobile homes with the pre-fab panels and so forth on them. That is not what we are talking about here. You cant' tell these homes for any others, and they make them up to 2400 square feet, they are very nice homes. They cost a lot of money when they are that big. Now one thing I didn't state before Mr. Chairman was that a lot of the 4 neighbors that are adjacent to me had specific concerns and I under stand them. The majority of the people that testified were across Locust Grove in another subdivision. I just want to make it clear that I don't know what their homes are over there, they might have extremely nice homes. I think I made a comment that the homes I was providing were equal in value to the homes adjacent to me. I was referring to the 4 homes that I looked at. I don't know what is across Locust Grove, if anyone mis-understood that I apologize. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Preston before we call on the public? Gary Smith, did you have an opportunity to address the floodplain area with any other applicant on this property. Do you know anything since you made your recommendation #8 here? Anything further on that as far as your map goes, he is still in the floodplain. Anyone else like to address the commission at this time please come forward. Morgan Plant, 300 South Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Plant: I recommend that the Commission reject this subdivision and application. It still is not in compliance, it is not compatible with the properties it is surrounding or the property surrounding it. I feel that this would probably cost us property de- • • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 20 I have shown it. Item 7, that is a big concern. I read the School District's letter a few months ago and 1 read the School District's letter this time. They, I don't read that they ask for you to deny, they certainly aren't welcoming it with open arms. The schools are overcrowded. I can't solve that, there is no place for a school site on this property, I can't be responsible for providing impact fees unless all other developers do. If that is the way it works I am totally agreeable to that, but I can't understand, I mean there is no question there is a problem, but the same problem existed 2 weeks ago or 2 months ago and there was no comment, maybe you changed your policy that is entirely possible. But anyway, I can't solve the school problem, waiting a month isn't going to help. Johnson: With respect to that, before you go on further, did you read their May 10 letter? Preston: Is that the one in the packet? Johnson: Well, yes the third paragraph says considering these facts Meridian School District cannot recommend approval. Preston: I have an April 22 Johnson: This is dated May 10, which would be today. Preston: Well, in their 22nd letter they weren't recommending you approval for sure. Item 8, R-15 districts must abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor. I'm proposing an open space corridor along Franklin in compliance with your Comprehensive Plan, I assume as other parcels develop that will continue on and get it to the City park, but there is no other public facility in this area. So, there is nothing I can put an open space to and due to the fact that I changed to a subdivision with a City Park about a 1 /2 mile away I chose not to have a park in this development. In item 9, the preliminary plat should show all easements, placing of fencing and pedestrian access to adjacent subdivision or future subdivisions. On the preliminary plat I have a note that says that all easements requested by any agency will be provided. So at this time there might be some unusual ones needed so I didn't put any on, but they will all be provided at the final plat stage and the note states that. Placing of fencing, the preliminary plat also clearly shows the fence that I propose, now I may have it in the wrong location but at least I showed it. Pedestrian access to adjacent subdivisions, the only pedestrian access I am providing is along the stub street to the west. There isn't anything around me to go to so I would have absolutely no idea where to provide it. Item 10, adequate fire hydrants and street lights need to be shown, I show fire hydrants and according to Mr. Smith they need . t • • Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 6 generic, they want easements in certain locations and we understand that from doing these things for years. So, we see no real, the biggest change of course with the Highway Department we have had 2 meetings with Mr. Sale regarding the alignments and culdesacs and through streets or not through streets etc. So the agency that is most concerned with change that have been involved here has been very close contact in making those changes. And we see nothing significant enough that should warrant a tabling again. There is nothing more that we have (inaudible) impact our design. Johnson: One of the things we are trying to guard against as a Commission and it is difficult to do with so many items is not make decisions without having all the proper input. I have to rely on our administrator and she is not comfortable at this point it is not any reflection of your abilities what it is, is our workload and if we can't meet that criteria and have things on time and with time to study it in advance we are not going to be able to do the best job we can for the public. That is my personal opinion on it, it is something that you are probably going to run into more with the tack type of workload and the number of applications that we have submitted we are not going to be able to move things along as quickly as we have been able to in the past. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we table this until the staff has had time to review the recently submitted information and until the Commission gets an opportunity to review the information. Alidjani: I will second Rountree: I will amend that motion to our next regularly scheduled meeting in May 10th. Johnson: We have a motion and a second to table this item until our next regularly scheduled meeting an May 10th, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ASPEN GROVE ESTATES WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: Johnson: We are not prepared to handle that this evening because we don't have finding of fact and conclusions of law prepared, is that correct? Crookston: That is correct. The reason there are no findings of fact is because it is • Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 7 my understanding the applicant is changing the application. Johnson: That is my understanding. What action do we need to take? It wouldn't beatable would it. Rountree: It would have to be a re-hearing wouldn't it. Crookston: He is going to have to have a re-hearing on the initial on the changed application. Johnson: Is there any action we need to take on item #2? Crookston: You could deny it, you might want to hear from the applicant and see if he has any suggestions. Preston: Mr. Chairman, I guess what I am going to do is resubmit the conditional use permit as a preliminary plat request. I am changing it to a subdivision with public streets, public sewer and public water. I am taking care of many issues that. the neighbors addressed at the last hearing and hopefully it will be received a little more favorable. I don't know if we need to rehear the, well I guess we do because I requested the wrong zone. It is a zone that you don't have yet. It is in ;your future. So I am requesting an R-15 rather than that Mixed PUD zone. And I will do this. by Friday and when will that be heard then, I think it will be fair to the neighbors that are here to know when that next hearing is going to be. Johnson: Well, we have to go through our notice process again, it means the earliest we would be able to hear it would be the first meeting in May the 10th. Preston: Okay, I just wanted the neighbors to know. Johnson: We meet the second Tuesday of every month that is our regularly scheduled meeting. Preston: So, I am in favor of just deferring it for reapply. ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR MERIDIAN ENERGY WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: Johnson: These findings of fact and conclusions of law have not been prepared. We need to move this to our next meeting I would assume. Is that correct Wayne? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 14, 1994 Page 8 annexation request be passed until a development agreement including a commitment for use and development is entered into. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second for a favorable recommendation to the City Council as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: Johnson: Any discussion regarding the findings of fact? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Alidjani: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law without any changes, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Aye, Rountree -Aye, Shearer -Aye, Alidjani -Aye MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Decision or recommendation you wish to pass onto City Council. Rountree: Mr. Chairman I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that with compliance of the conditions herein of these findings of fact and conclusions of law including an amended plat request for one or more different zones, the consent of a delay in the annexation process until a new plat is prepared, the request for new hearings on the amended plat and if the Commission approves of the amended plat then the annexation and zoning would be in the best interest of the City of. Meridian and the Commission would then recommend approval of this annexation and zoning. If these conditions are not met the property should not be annexed and zoned. Alidjani: Second • Meridian Planning & Zoning June 14, 1994 Page 9 Johnson: It is moved and seconded to pass the decision or recommendation as written onto the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR BW INC. REZONE REQUEST: Johnson: Entertain a motion for approval if no one has any comments. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rountree: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Aye, Rountree -Aye, Shearer -Aye, Alidjani -Aye MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Decision or recommendation for the City Council. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the rezone requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, Nampa Meridian requirements, Ada County Highway District requirements, the Uniform Building Code, the Fire and Life Safety Codes and the other ordinances of the City of Meridian. That the applicant meet the requirements of paragraph 10 of the conclusions regarding irrigation water and that the applicant meet the 35 foot landscape setback required of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and second to pass a decision or recommendation onto the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ~~ Meridian City Council August 2, 1994 Page 16 ITEM #8: TABLED AT JULY 19, 1994 MEETING: AMENDED ORDINANCE #607 - MIDTOWN SQUARE: Kingsford: AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING AND CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN WHICH IS GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would like Ordinance #607 read in its entirety? Seeing none I would entertain a motion. Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we (End of Tape) with suspension of the rules. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve amended Ordinance #607 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Corrie -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES: Kingsford: Council members you have had those findings (inaudible). Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the Preston's Aspen Grove Estates as written. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law for Preston's Aspen Grove Estates, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Corrie -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea • Meridian City Council August 2, 1994 Page 17 Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I have one question I would like to ask the counselor if I may. On the comments that Mr. Rennison made in reference to the environmental impact statement would that come later, we discussed that on the phone that it needed to be put in there. Can it be added later? Crookston: It actually depends on what the applicant proposes to do. Kingsford: Is a representative of Mr. Preston here this evening? For the record those are public findings now, they have been approved, those findings found that the Council was opposed to the development as he proposed and thereby not allowing. At this point the next item on the agenda would be dealing with the preliminary plat. Morrow. Do we do a decision, do we do a motion on adopting the decision? Kingsford: Well, you turned the preliminary plat, you turn down the annexation based on your findings. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we disapprove or turn down the preliminary plat. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to disallow the preliminary plat, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Do we need to likewise turn down the annexation request Counselor? Crookston: No, because the findings give him an opportunity to re-plat. If he does not do so within 60 days then that failure means that all applications would be denied. ITEM #10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR SUNDANCE SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE: Kingsford: Council members reviewed those findings. I would entertain a motion for their approval if that is your desire? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I move we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for Sundance Subdivision as written. Tolsma: Second