Loading...
Timber View Subdivision AZ 00-010(208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854 TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 28, 2000 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 10, 2000 HEARING DATE: May 9, 2000 FILE NUMBER: AZ -00-010 REQUEST: 40.33 ACRES FROM RT TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION BY: VICTORY 41, LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD SALLY NORTON, P/Z KENT BROWN, P/Z THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C CHERIE McCANDLESS, CIC KEITH BIRD, C/C TAMMY de WEERD, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT SANITARY SERVICE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL) YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: MAYOR HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Cobert D. Corrie A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY OF MERIDIAN (208) PUBL C WORKSg 2501 Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 Tammy deWeerd (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING Cherie McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854 TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 28, 2000 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 10, 2000 HEARING DATE: May 9, 2000 FILE NUMBER: AZ -00-010 REQUEST: 40.33 ACRES FROM RT TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION BY: VICTORY 41, LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD SALLY NORTON, P/Z KENT BROWN, P/Z THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C CHERIE McCANDLESS, CIC KEITH BIRD, C/C TAMMY de WEERD, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT SANITARY SERVICE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL) YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: CITY OF MERIDIAN —� :y� S East Idaho Street, Meridian, ID 8364,,- Phone: 364Phone: (208) 888-4433 Fax: (208) 887-4813 APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OR REZONE PROPOSED NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Timber View Subdivision GENERAL LOCATION: SE 1/4 SW'/4 Section 19 T3N RIE. TYPE (RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL): Residential ACRES OF LAND IN PROPOSED ANNEXATION: 4 0.3 31 PRESENT LAND USE: _ Agricultural with (1) Single Family Dwelling PROPOSED LAND USE: (94) Single Family Lots PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT: RT (Rural Transition) PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT: R-4 (Low Density Residential) IDW.CR MAR 3 1 2000 CITY OF PLANNING$ ZON APPLICANT: _ Victory 41, LLC PHONE: 322-5600 ADDRESS: 6874 Fairview Boise ID 83704 ENGINEER, SURVEYOR, OR PLANNER: Briggs Engineering, Inc. PHONE: 344-9700 ADDRESS: 1800 W. Overland Road Boise Idaho 83705 OWNER(S) OF RECORD: Victory 41, LLC & Dean and Beverly Peterson PHONE: 322-5600/888-3855 ADDRESS: Victory 41, LLC -6874 Fairview Boise ID 83704 /Peterson's —780 E Victory MeridianID 83642 l� Signature of applicant 0305\annex-rezone-mer PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER AND/OR ON SEPARATE ATTACHMENTS Name, address, and phone number of applicant; Name, address, and phone number of owner of subject property and proof of title of said owner (warranty deed). Notarized request for zoning amendment from titled owner, successor of said owner, valid title option holder, or contract purchaser with consent from the titled owner if not requested by titled owner, V4. Legal description of property including all wa adjoining rights-of-way, railroads, roadways,highways highs and easements the full length of the property which is signed and stamped by a land surveyor registered in the State of Idaho; Description of present land use; Description of proposed land use; %1 Present zoning district and jurisdiction, Proposed zoning district; vvk-� A statement describing the characteristics of subject property which make the zoning amendment desirable; A statement outlining the necessity or desirability of development pertaining to the zoning amendment and its harmony with adjacent development; A statement of how the proposed zoning amendment relates to the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan; One (1) map of scale of one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet of the property concerning the zoning amendment; Thirty (30) copies of a vicinity map of a scale of one (1) inch equals three hundred (300) feet; JAI. A list of the mailing addresses of all property owners within three hundred feet (300') of the V external boundaries of the land being considered. This list can be obtained from the City of Meridian Planning & Zoning Department. Please request list seven days prior to submitting application. A fee established by the Council; (/ Less than 1 acre = $400.00. Over 1 acre = $400.00 plus $15.00 for each additional acre or portion thereof. In addition to above fee applicant shall pay cost of certified mailings at a rate of $1.67 per notice. Please double the mailing fee on this application. (All annexation & zoning or rezone applications require two public hearings — 1 before Planning & Zoning Commission and 1 before City Council). Master\Meridian\annex-zone-rezone-chkIist 16. A signed affidavit stating that the property will be posted 1 week before the public hearing. Posting must contain name of applicant, description of zoning amendment, and time and date of public hearing. Official notices are available at City Hall. 17. A signed affidavit stating the applicant has read the contents thereof and verifies that the information contained therein is true and correct. Master\Meridian\annex-zone-rezone-chkIist City of Meridian ANNEXATION/REZONE Application Checklist Applicant: �/�, LL Ci Submittal Date: �3 /3�/ by Project: �� ,, V►up Application Completion Date: 3 /3/ / ,rj Item No. Description Comments I. Completed and signed Annexation/Rezone Application 2. Warrant deed recorded - proof of title of said owner 3. Notarized consent of titled property owner 4. Legal description of subject property ,/ 5 A statement describing the characteristics which make zoning amendment desirable. ,,— A statement outlining the necessity of desirability of development 6. pertaining to the zoning amendment and harmony with adjacent development 7 A statement of how the proposed zoning amendment relates to the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan - cite policy numbers. 8 One (1) map at a scale of one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet of the property concerning the zoning amendment. One (1) copy of a vicinity map at a scale of one (1) inch equals 9. three hundred (300) feet (can be obtained from the Planning & ✓ Zoning Department). A list of the mailing addresses of property owners within three 10. hundred (300) feet, obtained from the City of Meridian Planning & Zoning. A fee: Less than 1 acre - $400.00 x/0.3 foo 1) UO 11. Over 1 acre - $400.00 + $15.00 for each addition j %P X88-� Certified Mailings - $1.73 per notice; then multi 1 b {{W,, IN 12 A signed affidavit stating that the property will be posted one (1) week before the public hearing. 13. A notarized statement that the property has been posted and the date the posting was placed. I ANNEXATION OF TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION Victory 41, LLC, 6874 Fairview, Boise, Idaho 83704 (322-5600). 2. Victory 41, LLC, 6874 Fairview, Boise, Idaho 83704 (322-5600) and Dean and Beverly Peterson, 780 E. Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (888-3855). 3. Affidavit of Legal Interest attached. 4. Legal description attached. 5. Present Land Use: The parcel is currently used for agricultural purposes with one single family dwelling and accessory buildings. 6. Proposed Lane Use: A residential development consisting of (96) single family residential lots and (10) common lots. The proposed density is 2.26 dwellings per acre. 7. Present District: The property is zoned RT (Rural Transition) and outside the City limits of Meridian. 8. Proposed District: The applicant is requesting annexation and rezone to R-4 (Low Density Residential) designation. 9. The property adjoins the City limits of Meridian along the north boundary. The adjacent Meridian Greens development is currently zoned R-4. The request for a R-4 zoning designation would be consistent and compatible with previous annexation/rezones in the vicinity (Salmon Rapids, Sportsman Point and Meridian Greens). The request for an R-4 zone is compatible and consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The subject parcel is designated single family residential on the Land Use Map. 10. The proposed development has a low density of 2.26 dwellings per acre. This density is consistent with other approved developments in the Overland / Victory Roads and Ten - Mile / Locust Grove Roads area. 11. The annexation/rezone is supported by the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The plan allows for urban development when urban services (ie. sewer and water) are available to the property. Sewer and water are accessible at the southwest corner of Meridian Greens. The requested R-4 zoning is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Map, which identifies this area as single family residential. 12. See attached map. 13. See attached 300 scale maps. 14. See attached property owner list. 15. Fees attached. ($1,101.31) 0305\annex.req 16. See attached Affidavit. 17. See attached Affidavit. 0305\annex.req DESCRIPTION FOR TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION March 30, 2000 A parcel of land being the SE'/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of the SW 1/4 (south '/4 corner) of Section 19, T. 3N., R. 1E., B.M., the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence S 89°42'45" W 1,320.43 feet to the southwest corner of the SE '/4 of the SW 1/4-1 Thence N 0°29'39" E 1,329.84 feet to the northwest corner of the SE '/4 of the SW '/4; Thence N 89044'30" E 1,322.27 feet to the northeast corner of the SE'/4 of the SW'/4; Thence S 0°34'26" W 1,329.19 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Said parcel of land contains 40.33 acres more or less. Michael E. Marks, PLS - No. 4998 III MIRIDIRN PUBLIC WORKS DIP 0305\Subd legal.des MAR 29-2000 12:17 STATE OF IDAHO COUNTY OF ADA BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. 12083452950 P 0i r� -38ss AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST I, Dean Peterson 780 E. Victory (name) (address) Meridian Idaho 83642 being first duly sworn upon (city) (state) oath, depose and say_ That I am the record owner and/or representative of the property described on the attached, and I grant my permission to Briggs Engineering Inc - 1800 W Overland Rd. Boise ID 83705 Telephone: 344-9700 FAX: 345-2950 to sign and submit the accompanying application pertaining to that property. 1_ZVArJ 2. 1 agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City of and it's employees harmless from any claim or liability resulting from any dispute as to the statements contained herein or as to the ownership of the property which is the subject of the application. Ck Dated this ,day of /,¢r �, 2000 (Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above! -written. E otari Public f aho U Residing at My Commission Expires: 03051AFFIOLEGA SVT RE ij 2 spa a���aeaaacaaa+��`5 1 TOTAL P.03 03/29/2000 13:15 2083220149 ROYAL FORK REST INC 1'IHK^L'7—E'-YJV'U LC• lb �\ K1UUb CIVU IIVGbfC IIVUe 11 V1.. AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST STATE OF IDAHO ) } COUNTY OF ADA ) PAGE 01 lcuo--je-".JV I . VC- Jerry G Jerry Caven Victory 41 LLCM 6$74 Fairview—__ (name) (address) t+e Mtcr+}+J Idaho 83744 , being first duly sworn upon (city) (state) oath, depose and say: That I am the record owner and/or representative of the property described on the attached, and I grant my permission to Briggs Engineering, Inc. - 1800 W. Overland Rd, Boise: IQ 53705 Telephone: 344-9700; FAX 345-2,950 to sign and submit the accompanying application pertaining to that property. (rlro IL�4'R► 2. I agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Boise and it's employees harmless from any claim or liability resulting from arty dispute as to the statements contained herein or as to the ownership of the property which is the subject of the application. Dated this Lq day of 2000 (Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. ��a`vm�uoaa�CIOicy a`►1s. x�~~ 0 " w Notary Public Idaho Residing at � My Commission Expires: 1Z Y vsos�F��DLcr��:rrwr��te51'_ c,. I �q�WD. hlFih—�'+—NLilt 1-3. 21 93108988 1653060890 J. DAV.'; ' ?'+:• ;n0 B01SE ID En,^c TiTI[ P, ESCROW WARRANTY DEED IU(Fi115 FOR VALUE RECEIVED DEAN E. ON an 42 12 �EVERLXKAY PETERSON, husband and wife, the G tors, dp'rant, bargain, sell and convey unto THE V _p""I,LIM1ILITY COMPANY, an Idaho limited liability c�pany, the Grantee, whose current address is 6874 Fairview Avenue, Boise, Idaho, 83704, the following described premises located in Ada County; State of Idaho, to -wit: See attached Exhibit "A" which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. TOGETHER with all and singular the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; and all estate, right, title, and interest in and to the property, as well in law as in equity, of the Grantors. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the said Grantee, its heirs and assigns forever, and the said Grantors do hereby covenant to and with the said Grantee, that they are the owners in fee simple of said premises; that said premises are free from all encumbrances and Grantors further covenant and agree that they will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever except as set forth above. DATED this oZO±t' day of )11C.c,/, _1993. 7:,E. Peterson Beverly YAY Pe rson ice/ WARRANTY DEED - 1 SEE EXHIBIT "A" The Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter. of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian, in Ada County, State of Idaho. EXCEPT Ditch and Road Rights -of -Way. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: A parcel of land located in the Southeast quarter of the,Southwest quarter of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marking the South quarter corner of said Section 19; from which the Southwest corner of said Section 19 bears South 89042'45" West, 2450.72 feet; thence North 00034126" East along the North-South Mid -Section line a distance of 288.17 feet to a point, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing North 00034126" East, 213.17 feet to a point; thei,ce North 81038129" West, 131.54 feet to a point; thence South 5022148" West, 204.24 feet to a point; thence South 78052'21" East, 149.98 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT Ditch and Road Rights -of -Way Range t East of the Boise Meridian, in Ada County, State of Idaho. This deed is given to convert separate property to Community property, TO HAVE AND TO BOLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the said Grantee , her heirs and assigns forever. and C -ie said Grantor do es hereby covenant to and with the said Grantee , that he is the owner in fee simple of said premises; that they are free from all encumbrances and that he will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever. Dated: November L, 1.968. STATE OF IDAHO, COUNTY OF ADA On this I_St day of Nov. 1`68 before me, a notan• public in and for said State, personally appeared DEAN E. PETERSON, Husband, STATE OF IDAHO, COUNTY OF 4! I hereby ce.—Ly that 'his mstrument was filed for record at :he request of - i i at minutes past o'clock /gym., this / day of 19 Z �; , in my once, and duly recorded in Dock of Deeds at page known t.dlne to be the person whose name subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to Ex-�O:ficio Reco dei me tha lie exec ed the same. �+ '..�. ut �./,; Dep y. - 1 ` \otar; Public _.. J._ I v �lE'L'iC11311 S %C F.esidi.^,g at ,Idaho Fees Mail j comm,. Ezpir>- June 15, 1969. �>t�--•----�----._. _ -13 1`50 �- WARRANTY DEED For Value Received DEAN E. PETERSON, Husband, the grantor , does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto BEVERLY KAY PETERSON; rA V_ Wife, the grantee , the following described premises, in ......... .a................County Idaho, to wit: wAn undivided one-half interest in and to the following: a IThe SE4 of the SW4 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range t East of the Boise Meridian, in Ada County, State of Idaho. This deed is given to convert separate property to Community property, TO HAVE AND TO BOLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the said Grantee , her heirs and assigns forever. and C -ie said Grantor do es hereby covenant to and with the said Grantee , that he is the owner in fee simple of said premises; that they are free from all encumbrances and that he will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever. Dated: November L, 1.968. STATE OF IDAHO, COUNTY OF ADA On this I_St day of Nov. 1`68 before me, a notan• public in and for said State, personally appeared DEAN E. PETERSON, Husband, STATE OF IDAHO, COUNTY OF 4! I hereby ce.—Ly that 'his mstrument was filed for record at :he request of - i i at minutes past o'clock /gym., this / day of 19 Z �; , in my once, and duly recorded in Dock of Deeds at page known t.dlne to be the person whose name subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to Ex-�O:ficio Reco dei me tha lie exec ed the same. �+ '..�. ut �./,; Dep y. - 1 ` \otar; Public _.. J._ I v �lE'L'iC11311 S %C F.esidi.^,g at ,Idaho Fees Mail j comm,. Ezpir>- June 15, 1969. �>t�--•----�----._. Together with all water, water rights, right of way for ditches and ditches appurtenait thereto or connected therewith. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appur,-nances unto the said Grantee , his heirs and assigns forever. And the said Grantor do es hereby covenant to and with the said Grantee , that s he is the owner in fee simple of said premises; thatthey are free from all encumbrances and that s he will warrant rA 3efend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever. Dated: Iv1a-2ch i STATE OF IDAHO, qy UNTY CF ADA On this ',7f 't day of Iviarc'19 63 before me, a notary public in and for said State, personally appeared GW"r;_�_=V P_ J. I ;�,TERSON , a widow, known to me to -be the person whose name i c subscribed to -the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that — sve ex uted the same. c _-c awl Notary Public Residing at ^' _ _ Idaho Comm. Expires STATE OF IDAHO, COUNTY OF " z I hereby certify that this instrument was filed for record at C the requost of 1J ,• F_ ', ' C at = minutes past `./ o'clock /7 m., thin / day of Nc r z 19 C , in my office, and duly recorded in Book 3 of Deeda at page I z � C1,ARENCE A. FLAP!T1Ni- i Ex -Officio Recorder �; I By / Deputy Fees t Mail to: AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF IDAHO 1 COUNTY OF ADA ) I, DONNA WILSON, (BRIGGS ENGINEERING INC.) 1800 W Overland Road (name) (address) Boise Idaho 83705 , being first duly sworn upon (city) (state) oath, depose and say: I will personally post the subject property with the hearing notice sign one week prior to the public hearing for the annexation, re -zone and preliminary plat of Timber View Subdivision. Dated this day of 2000 (Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year rst above written. y`e �r.regJ1"stf► k-.0Rll No ary Public for Id o ::,�,�' '°• Residing at R 1y1 .y tOiAJ� � Poems a �`+1 .�y22wy fid+► ��avv� 1GF 44"1411"01,00 0305\affid-posting My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT OF ACCURACY STATE OF IDAHO ) COUNTY OF ADA ) I, BECKY L. BOWCUTT, (BRIGGS ENGINEERING INC.) 1800 W Overland Road (name) (address) Boise Idaho, 83705 being first duly sworn upon (city) (state) oath, depose and say: That I prepared the attached applications and the information contained is true and correct. Dated this day of (Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. 4.• •s ? OT AR i G _• P V BLl •��.� of 19..••' 990208\afffd-accuracy otary Public for Idaho Residing at 1- O0 SQ My Commission Expires: 7 -z3 -b toft%N 69mlloy Meridian City Council Meeting August 1, 2000 Page 34 Service area (in that sentence there, delete sentence 2 and sentence 3 and keep the last sentence with the sewer manholes). On 1.18, after the sentence that ends adjacent to the existing gravel pit, add the suggested language by Shari Stiles and break out the last part of the paragraph where it begins a 20 ft. wide minimum landscape buffer as a new point. On 1.20, take out the second sentence, delete that, and delete 1.24. Anderson: I'll second that. Corrie: Motion made and seconded for the request for Preliminary Plat with corrections as stated by Council. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll -call vote, please. Roll -Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Okay, Item No. 7. Request for variance of the 1000 -foot block length for proposed for proposed Timber View Subdivision. Bird: I move that we approve the variance of the 1000 -foot block length for proposed Timber View Subdivision/Observation Point in the proposed R-4 zone - north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Bird: I move that we take a ten-minute recess. Item 8. Public Hearing: VAR 00-011 Request for variance from required pressurized irrigation to permit utilization of domestic water for landscaping for Olson & Bush Subdivision No. 2 by R2 Development — north of Franklin Road and west of Eagle Road: Corrie: Okay, we'll take until 9:40. Okay, we're back in business. Item No. 8 is a Public Hearing: Request for variance from required pressurized irrigation to permit utilization of domestic water for landscaping for Olson & Busch Subdivision No. 2. At this time I'll open the Public Hearing, staff comments first. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, would there be any objection to addressing Item 15 with this as that's the Final Plat? ACHD" Ada County Highway Hi hwa District INTER -OFFICE MEMO Right-of-ld�nY x Development Deportment P1C,Z i�fkmer7t Division ,. To: ACHD Commissioners JUN 15 2001 June 6, 2001 From: Christy Richardson/Gary Inselman/Joe Rosenlund CITY OF MERIDIAN Subject: bservation Po t Re u ' for Modification of Previous Commission Action — June 20th, 2001 reg en a On May 16, 2000, the Commission reviewed and approved a preliminary plat for Observation Point, a 91 -lot residential subdivision on Victory Road, approximately %-mile east of SH -69. This plat has been modified to reflect City of Meridian requirements and changes, and the applicant is requesting a modification of previous commission action of three site specific requirements: ACHD originally required the applicant to construct a public road over the Kennedy Lateral to access the proposed residential lots at the southwest corner of the site, in lieu of constructing a "knuckle" to serve the lots off Victory Road. The applicant has now eliminated those lots, but there is an existing single family dwelling to remain that takes access to Victory Road in that location. The applicant intends to rezone that parcel to office use in the future, and at that time would request a driveway to serve the offices. When/if that rezone request did occur; ACHD would have the opportunity to review the driveway location. Staff recommends that the requirement to construct the public road over the Kennedy Lateral be deleted, because the road would only serve one existing single-family dwelling that currently has access to Victory Road. When that parcel redevelops in the future, ACHD will review the site for a driveway location. The driveway at that time should be located in conformance with current ACHD policy. The existing driveway to the single-family dwelling should be approved in its current location. 2. The applicant is also requesting that the sidewalk requirement abutting the lot at the southwest corner of the site be eliminated because it is not being developed at this time, but it is a part of the subdivision. Staff recommends that if the parcel is to be a part of the subdivision, the applicant be required to construct sidewalk and dedicate right-of-way (including frontage abutting the canal), in accordance with District policy. If this parcel is not included in the subdivision then the requirements should be eliminated. 3. The applicant was required to construct a center turn lane on Victory Road for the main entrance intersection. The requirement for the turn lane includes pavement widening that would also require widening the bridge, unless the intersection is relocated. The applicant is requesting that the intersection be approved in its original location, and that the storage length of the center turn lane be reduced from 100 -feet to 70 -feet, citing that this would eliminate the need to widen the bridge. The applicant met with Joe Rosenlund, Traffic Services staff to discuss the options for the location of the main entrance and necessary roadway improvements. Mr. Rosenlund agreed to the reduction in storage length of the center turn lane, with a subsequent reduction in speed from 50 MPH to 45 MPH to accommodate the request. Due to existing site distance problems to the east of the site, Mr. Rosenlund did not recommend relocation of the main entrance to the east. With the proposed reduction in speed limit, and reduction in storage length, the applicant is required to have a 270 -foot long pavement taper that would extend to the west and require improvements to the bridge. Based on the submitted plans the proposed taper length is 220 - feet, approximately 50 -feet less than required. Staff has reviewed the alternatives. a. Staff does not recommend moving the entrance to the east due to safety concerns with site distance. b. Even with the reduction in speed and reduced storage length of the center turn lane, the applicant still cannot meet the requirements necessary for the taper length for the improvements without making improvements to the bridge. The required taper length should not be reduced. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a center turn lane with 70 -feet of storage, that the speed limit remain 50 MPH, and that the applicant provide sufficient taper lengths for these improvements (270 -feet). This will require the applicant to make improvements to the bridge. Attachments: 1. Applicant's letter of request 2. Revised preliminary plat 3. Staff report dated May 16, 2000 for Observation Point Subdivision MAY -18-2001 09:0& May 17, 2001 P.01 gURVI-YOi�S 1800 West Overland Road Boise, Idaho 83705 — 3142 Voice (208) 344-9700 Fax (208) 345-2950 stenm@brig9&,enginee4ng_com www. briggs-engineers ng. co m Christy Richardson, Principal Analyst Ada County Highway District 318 E. 37th Street Boise, Id. 83714 RE: Observation Point Subdivision Dear Christy, On May 10, 2000, the Commission reviewed and approved this site as Timber View Estates, a 91 -lot residential subdivision on 40.33 -acres. Since May 10, 2000, the applicant has resubmitted the plat to the City of Meridian with mi -ior modifications. The first modification is the reduction of lots from 91 to 84. The second modification is the elimination of the single family dwelling lots at the southwest corner of the site but the existing house is proposed to remain. In the future the lot which the existing house is located on will be rezoned for office use. As a condition of approval the applicant was required tc, modify access to those lots, originally proposed off Victory Road, to take access from the internal roadway network. The report states: Three residential lots within the proposed subdivision take access to Victory Road via a small cul-de-sac. District policy restricts access to arterials and collector roads. District staff recommends that the applicant redesign the site layout to access these three lots with a cul-de-sac street off Andros Way (see attached map). Due to the size of the Kennedy Lateral, the applicant will be required to build a bridge over the lateral to access these lots. The applicant has eliminated those 1 its at the southwest corner of the site with the intention of rezoning that area for future office u;5e. When the site is redeveloped access to the office site would be requested off Victory Road. If residential lots were still proposed we agree that the access should be taken off the intenial roadway but we do not believe that office traffic should be routed through the residential portion of this development. Therefore, we respectively request that the access to the existing single family dwelling be allowed to remain in its existing location and that access to this future office lot be addressed in the future upon resubmital of a specific development application for the office use. With the elimination of the lots at the southwest corner of the site we would also ask the Commission to eliminate the requirement to construct sidewalk adjacent to the undeveloped lot. Sidewalk would be completed adjacent to this lot when the lot is rezoned and redeveloped for office use - 10 1091ACAD se_ 10109/ACRD ltr MAY-18-2001 ogJi K l A As another condition of approval that we are requesting modification on is the requirement to construct a turn lane on Victory Road at the Daybreak Avenue/Victory Road intersection. The condition states: The forecast traffic volume at the main site entrance will justify the construction of a center turn lane on Victory Road. This, tum lane will require pavement widening for a distance of at least 400 -feet west of the site's main entrance intersection. This pavement widening will therefore affect the bridge and require the construction of a wider bridge. To avoid this cost, the applicant can relocate the main site entrance off Victory Road to align Daybreak Avenue approximately 300 -feet west of the east property line to avoid widening the bridge. The applicant should be required to construct a center tum lane on Victory Road for the recommended Daybreak Avenue/Victory Road intersection. The turn lane should be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the tum lane with District staff Since the time of the original submittal we have worked with traffic services on an alternative design that would allow the main site's entrance to remain at its present location. We are not asking to have the requirement to construct a center tum lane to be eliminated, just modified_ Due to the low volume of left turns fit the peak hour the center turn lane's storage could be reduced from 100 feet to 70 feet. The reduction of storage would reduce the required pavement widening which in tum would allow thq site's entrance to remain as proposed without widening the bridge. The reasons that we are requesting the entrance to remain in its present location is that if the entrance is moved further tc the east than site distance is jeopardized, and if we move it further to the west than we have to widen the bridge. Please schedule this item at the earliest possible Commission hearing. If you require additional information or if I can be of further assistance please call me at 344-9700. Sincerely; Stan McHutchison P.E. Project Manager TOTAL P.02 IN Y €l a r oaa Q 6vc4ga Wgo6 b g- s o dN o.WS a rig � J�Ym< iWta �y o y oo cgO�E duo Q E 7 m y s Q i; <jo; od �a'a"n3sh Wit 8- g gf Z �m L E- O K D F i i¢ CT i C Vii Vi 1. r 38 o oggFi gK'i 0 r �7 Q _ a _ W a .F Wa fa m �� $a a Z • o J a W¢ U N td 1 e 0 oH� x„ aN� Sa = a ;�x g a. Q a'^aW2 f� 031LVIdrvn a.� : ' it ? 65 g m u a sus q CV alIl$ N — a a� d Ii.o_m�_� .IOIiOl t Mj,("ilOt SO a7 — Smz -271, iT 333 F) 9 oD d, ,& 'o ti�V Cicn W gt��L�F qq� m En C! o U • 0 ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Planning and Development Division Development Application Report Preliminary Plat — Timber View Victory E/O Meridian 91 Residential Lots An application for a preliminary plat has been submitted to the City of Meridian for approval of a residential subdivision, Timber View. The application has been referred to ACHD by the City for review and comment. Timber View is a 91 -lot residential subdivision on 40.33 -acres. The project site is located north of Victory Road and approximately one-quarter mile east of Meridian Road (State Highway 69). This development is estimated to generate 900 additional vehicle trips per day (10 existing) based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual, Roads impacted by this development: Victory Road Meridian Road 0 Q 0 O' ACHD Commission Date — May 10, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. z Q EDMONDS of W 2 VICTORY SITE U O J TIMBERVIEW.cnrun Page I NEW slue E. VICTORY ROAD m E WHITEHALL ST MERIDIAN CITY BOUNDARY 12 Y 18 20 m' ; �lu 11 12 1800 W. OVERLAND ROAD DESIGN DRAFT 1 Z DATE DWG. NO. 3 B. OCK 2. Z , 03/29/00 990617 E. LOGGERS PASS STREET 11 O 17 21 w 9 y3 8 LOC . 5 14 2 Q Y 34 Z 16 22 co q/ , G/ 7 6 3 } LOCK 33 co 23 ' e 5 4 0 .9 15 14 24' C,S, D 25 N 32 g 13 12 E 26 2T 28, ' so 11. LOCK 29 ,31 7 . 20 19 18 10 ,c 9 8 7... 6- 6 BhOC3T 1.7 �E DRIB 5 W 4 2 16 5 S 3 15 11 Q 5 7 8 B 'OCK 6. 59 1- 9 10 � 3 Ar @JBSERVA77CZiRNE_ Q 2 ; : 5 1 BLOd. 2' C6 } 300 0 300 600 Feet BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC OIH TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION BRIGGS PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3N., R.IE., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO (208) 344-9700 1800 W. OVERLAND ROAD DESIGN DRAFT 1 SCALE DATE DWG. NO. • BOISE, IDAHO 83705 BKB 1"= 300' 03/29/00 990617 N RT REVISION SHEET 1 OF 1 A0305.ARR Facts and Findings: A. General Information Owner - Victory 41 LLC (Dean and Beverly Peterson) Applicant - Briggs Engineering, Stan McHutchinson RT - Existing zoning R-4 - Requested zoning 40.33; - Acres 91 - Proposed building lots 5,800 - Total lineal feet of proposed public streets 287 - Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Southwest Metro - Impact Fee Service Area West Ada - Impact Fee Assessment District Victory Road Minor arterial with bike lane designation Traffic count of 3,116 on 8/24/99 A -Existing Level of Service A -Existing plus project build -out Level of Service 1,320 -feet of frontage 50 -feet existing right-of-way (25 -feet from centerline) 96 -feet required right-of-way (48 -feet from centerline) Victory Road is improved with 26 -feet of pavement with with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the project site. Meridian Road Minor arterial with bike lane designation Traffic count of 16,798 on 8/24/99 C -Existing Level of Service C -Existing plus project build -out Level of Service 0 -feet of frontage Meridian Road is improved with a five -lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. This segment of Meridian Road (State Highway 69) is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department. B. On April 24, 2000, the District Planning and Development staff inspected this site and evaluated the transportation system in the vicinity. On April 28, 2000, the staff met as the District's Technical Review Committee and reviewed the impacts of this proposed development on the District's transportation system. The results of that analysis constitute the following Facts and Findings and recommended Site Specific Requirements. C. The applicant is proposing to extend the existing Andros Way stub street south into the site. Andros Way has already been constructed to the site's north property line as part of the TIMBERVIEW.cmm Page 2 0 0 development of the Meridian Greens subdivision. The developer of the Meridian Greens subdivision constructed a temporary turnaround at the south end of Andros Way, including curb, gutter and sidewalk. D. The applicant is proposing to stub Loggers Pass Street to the east property line approximately 240 -feet south of the north property line, which is approximately 130 -feet south of Lake Creek Street (as measured from centerline to centerline). Current District policy requires that the Loggers Pass Street/Lake Creek Street intersection be offset a minimum of 125 -feet. The Loggers Pass Street/Lake Creek Street intersection meets District policy. The applicant should be required to install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. E. The applicant is not proposing any stub streets to the west property line. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to provide a stub street to the west property line located 380 -feet south of the north property line. A stub street at this location will meet the required 125 -foot offset requirement from proposed streets within the subdivision while not creating long straight roadway segments that encourage speeding. The applicant should be required to install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. F. Three residential lots within the proposed subdivision take access to Victory Road via a small cul-de-sac. District policy restricts access to arterials and collector roads. District staff recommends that the applicant redesign the site layout to access these three lots with a cul-de-sac street off Andros Way (see attached map). Due to the size of the Kennedy Lateral, the applicant will be required to build a bridge over the lateral to access these lots. G. The applicant is proposing to construct Standing Timber Way as the main site access off Victory Road. The intersection is located approximately 600 -feet east of the west property line. The intersection location is 150 -feet east of the bridge where the road crosses over the Kennedy Lateral. The bridge deck is 25 -feet wide. H. The forecast traffic volume at the main site entrance will justify the construction of a center turn lane on Victory Road. This turn lane will require pavement widening for a distance of at least 400 -feet west of the site's main entrance intersection. This pavement widening will therefore affect the bridge and require the construction of a wider bridge. To avoid this cost, the applicant can relocate the main site entrance off Victory Road to align Daybreak Avenue approximately 300 -feet west of the east property line to avoid widening the bridge. The main entrance should be designed with 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center media. The median should be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. The applicant will be required to dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. TIMBERVIEW.cmin Paye 3 I. The applicant should be required to construct a center turn lane on Victory Road for the recommended Daybreak Avenue/Victory Road intersection. The turn lane should be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. The applicant is proposing to construct a small cul-de-sac on the south side of Lake Creek Street. The proposed median island should be designed with a minimum 29 -foot street section on either side of a center median. The median should be constricted a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. The applicant will be required to dedicate 54 -feet ofright- of-way plus the additional width of the median. K. District policy requires the applicant to construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Victory Road abutting the parcel (approximately 1,320 -feet) prior to District approval of a final plat. The sidewalk should be located two feet within the new right-of-way of Victory Road. Coordinate the location and elevation with District staff. L. Any proposed landscape islands/medians within the public right-of-way dedicated by this plat should be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this should be required on the final plat. M. Based on development patterns in this area and the resulting traffic generation, staff anticipates that the transportation system will be adequate to accommodate additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. The following Site Specific Requirements and Standard Requirements must be met or provided for prior to ACHD approval of the final plat: Site Specific Requirements: Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Victory Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required perniits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right- of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #193. 2 Construct a 5 -Foot wide concrete sidewalk on Victory Road abutting the parcel. The sidewalk shall be located two feet within the new right-of-way of Victory Road. Coordinate the location and elevation with District staff. Construct all public roads within the subdivision as 36 -foot street sections with curb, gutter, and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of-way. 4. Extend the existing Andros Way stub street south into the site as proposed. TIMBERVIEW.cmm Nee 5. Stub Loggers Pass Street to the -feet south of the north east property line approximately 240 a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS property line as proposed. Install IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED street with District staff. Provide a stub street to the west property line off Andros Way located 380 -feet south of the north property line. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. Extend a public street from Andros Way to provide Lots 2, 3 and 4 of Block 7 access to the public streets within the proposed subdivision. Relocate the main entrance from Victory Road or reconstruct the bridge across the Kennedy Lateral. 9. Extend Daybreak Avenue to Victory Road approximately 300 -feet west of the east property line. The main entrance shall be designed with 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center media. The median shall be constricted a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. The applicant will be required to dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. 10. Construct a center turn lane on Victory Road for the primary entrance from Victory Road intersection. The turn lane shall be constricted to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 11. Construct a cul-de-sac on the south side of Lake Creek Street. The median island shall be designed with a with 29 -foot street sections on either side of a center media. The median shall be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. The applicant will be required to dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. 12. Any proposed landscape islands/medians within the public right-of-way dedicated by this plat shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this should be required on the final plat. 13. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. 14. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, shall be placed on future development of this parcel. 15. Other than the public street intersection specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to Victory Road is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. TIMBERVIEW.cmm Pa_e 5 Standard Requirements: 1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACRD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of why such a requirement would result in a substantial hardship or inequity The wntten request shall be submitted to the District no later than 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original decision. The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #193, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and constriction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Constriction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two frill business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. TIMBERVIEW.cmm Page 6 8. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirnnation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all riles, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. Conclusion of Law: ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development Division at 387-6170. Submitted by: Commission Action: Planning and Development Staff May 10 2000 TIMBERVIEW.cmm Pace 7 Meridian City Council Agenda August 15, 2000 at 7:30 P.M. City Council Chambers Roll -Call: X Tammy deWeerd X Cherie McCandless Ron Anderson X Keith Bird X Mayor Robert Corrie Consent Agenda A. Approve minutes of July 18, 2000, City Pre -Council Meeting: Approve B. Approve minutes of July 18, 2000, City Council Meeting: Approve C. Approve minutes of August 1, 2000, City Pre -Council Meeting: Approve D. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-012 Request for annexation and zoning by Opal Farrington of 4.70 acres from R-1 to R-4 for proposed addition of a home — northwest corner of East Pine Avenue and Adkins Way: Approve with corrections from staff E. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 40.33 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Timber View Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC — north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road: Approve with corrections from staff F. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 91 building lots and 10 other lots on 40.33 acres for proposed Timber View Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC, currently in an RT zone and proposed R-4 zone — north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road: Approve with corrections from staff G. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAR 00-006 Request for variance of the 1,000 -foot block length for proposed Timber View Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC, currently in an RT zone and proposed R- 4 zone — north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road: Approve H. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAR 00-011 Request for variance from required pressurized irrigation to permit utilization of domestic water for landscaping for Olson & Bush Subdivision No. 2 by August 15, 2000 Meridian City Council Agenda Page 1 Materials presented at public meetings shag become property of the Meridian City Council. Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting August 15, 2000 The Special City Pre -Council meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D. Corrie at 6:35 p.m. on Tuesday, August 15, 2000. Members present: Robert D. Corrie, Tammy deWeerd, Cherie McCandless, Keith Bird. Others present: Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Bill Gordon, Sam McEvoy, Bill Nichols, Tom Kuntz, Will Berg. Corrie: We will have the reports and go over the Pre-Cour,_: ,ii Aenda. Council do you have any questions or whatever you need to go over, let's do that now. Bird: Can the Clerk, Shari and Gary tell us if on the Consent Agenda if everything's here, all the development agreements, everything that we need. If not, then which ones we should pull or do they not agree with. Corrie: Staff, any questions. Stiles: I have some comments on the findings. Starting with Opal Farrington, Item D. Berg: How many of these are you going to make comments on so I can refer to those? Item D. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-012 Request for annexation and zoning by Opal Farrington of 4.70 acres from R-1 to R-4 for proposed addition of a home — northwest comer of East Pine Avenue and Adkins Way: Item E. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 40.33 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Timber View Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC — north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road: Item F. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 91 building lots and 10 other lots on 40.33 acres for proposed Timber View Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC, currently in an RT zone and proposed R-4 zone — north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road: Stiles: I've got comments on D, E, and F. That's as far as I've got. On page 6, Item 18, I'm not sure if this language is dealing with the Conditional Use Permit or what it is. It's probably still okay on the second to the last line on Item 18. Should just put a period after "neighboring uses" and delete the rest of the sentence. It's talking about potential to produce excessive traffic noise, smoke, fume, glare, and odors. 1 don't know where that came from. On page 12, Paragraph 6, that should be deleted. Its talking about a Conditional Use Permit is required to construct and develop a planned commercial Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting August 15, 2000 Page 2of8 development. Page 14, Item 1.7, it is a recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission. I think that we can strike 1.7 because 1.9 takes care of that. That's all I had on that one. On Item E, page 5, Item 16.3, the last line, the 20 -foot landscape buffer must be installed as a condition of final plat approval, not must be installed prior to final plat approval. Take out prior to and put as a condition of. Page 6, Item 19, second to the last line, subject property as single family residential development instead of mixed plan use development. Page 11, Paragraph 6, should strike that. It's saying that a Conditional Use Permit is required. Page 13, Item 1.3, it's the same as previous, take out prior to on the last line and put as a condition of. Item F, preliminary plat, Page 7, Paragraph 2.16, delete the last line of the first paragraph. It's covered in the next paragraph. Page 8, Paragraph 2.20, this was from a previous, our initial comments on the project that we recommended that those three lots that were south of the Kennedy Lateral be incorporated into the park and I don't believe that's required. I guess that should be deleted, the entire thing. Page 9, Paragraph 2.29, should be deleted as they are not providing any access to that property. That's as far as I got. Did we get any request for tabling any of these, continuing of them of the public hearings? I had had someone from the Hollows request that, but I wasn't sure if they had submitted anything. I don't have any other comments on the Consent Agenda. Berg: Everything should be in order from what we received from the attorneys on the Consent Agenda. Corrie: No other changes? Okay. Item 11. Public Hearing: VAR 00-015 Request for a variance allowing applicant to lower the finish floor elevation below the Flood Plain because of the size of the site by Rod or Sheri Eisele / Eagle Concrete Pumping in an I -L zone - Baltic Place in the Meridian Business Park: Stiles: On Item 11, on the regular agenda, do we have findings on the P & Z Recommendation on that one? Did everyone else get one and I misplace mine? deWeerd: Variances don't go to P & Z. Stiles: Do we have recommendations? deWeerd: They should be covered in Steve Siddoway's comments on the Conditional Use Permit. I thought that he had covered that. Stiles: I just didn't have anything with it. The application said that it went to Planning & Zoning. I would like to see staff comments on that for the CUP thing. deWeerd: Is the CUP up tonight? Stiles: No, you said his staff comments for the CUP would have covered that. But I don't have a staff comment for that. STATE OF IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1445 North Orchard • Boise, Idaho 83706-2239 • (208) 373-0550 August 7, 2001 Mike Caven Victory 41 L.L.C. 6874 Fairview Boise, ID 83704 RECEIVED AUG - 8 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN RE: Observation Point Subdivision Lift Station, (Meridian, Ada County) (Sewer mains and pump station) Dear Mr. Caven: Dirk Kempthorne, Governor C. Stephen Allred, Director The plans and specifications for the subject project appear to meet State of Idaho standards and are approved based on the conditions listed below. We recommend that the District Health Department lift sanitary restrictions. STANDARD CONDITIONS• A. The standard conditions on the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) review stamp are part of this approval. Any supporting reports or documents are considered to be part of the approved documents. B. This approval will be voided if. 1) construction is not completed by August 7, 2002; 2) the project is improperly constructed, operated, or maintained; or 3) the project fails to function as intended. C. Per the project documents, a professional engineer or construction inspector under the supervision of a professional engineer with City of Meridian shall provide construction inspection sufficient to ensure the project is built in substantial accordance with the approved plans. DEQ approval, prior to construction, is required for any substantial deviations from the approved plans and specifications. Verbal approvals, if any, shall be documented by the professional engineer in a cover letter submitted with the project record drawings. D. Within thirty days after construction, the professional engineer with Briggs Engineering, Inc. shall provide DEQ with either: 1) as constructed plans and specifications with a cover letter as described in Item C, or 2) a letter of certification stating that the project was installed with no deviations from the approved plans. Mike Caven Observation Point Lift Station August 7, 2001 Page 2 PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS E. For ASTM D2241 pipe to be considered as water class pipe, it must have an SDR of 17 or less, and a pressure class of 250. Please delete the reference to ASTM D2241 pipe, or specify ASTM D2241, SDR 17, class 250 pipe. If you have any questions, please contact me at (208) 373-0116, or via e-mail at sharper cnor decd state id us. Sincerely, Scott Harper, E.I.T. Engineer -in -Training cc: Charles W. Ariss, P.E., Regional Manager -Engineering, Boise Regional Office Mike Reno, Central District Health Department Brad Watson, P.E., City Engineer, City of Meridian Stan McHutchison, P.E., Briggs Engineering, Inc. (w/ approved and stamped set of plans) Source File #2, Observation Point Readi[IZ File G:\Engineering\Scott\Letters\Rev iews\Subdivis ions\APR-Observation Po i ntS ubdLi ftStation. doe 'ForThe People of Idaho ti STATE TA% COMMISSION F(N) Park Blvd- Plana IV - Boise. ID 83722 July 11, 2001 William G. Berg, Jr. Meridian City Clerk 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Subject: Ordinance Nos. 01-900, 01-913, 01-914, and 01-915 Dear Mr. Berg: RECEIVED The Idaho State Tax Commission has reviewed and processed the following action(s): Ordinance Nos. 01-900, 01-913, 01-914, and 01-915 - CITY OF 1IERIDIAN When this action has been completed, any changes dictated by this action(s) will appear .$ on the year 2002 tax code area maps. Sincerely, . Craig Johnson GIS Analyst Technical Support Bureau CC: County Assessor County Clerk Equal Opportunity Employer Hearing Impaired Callers TDD 1-800-377-3529 MAYOR Robert D. Come CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Ron Anderson Keith Bird Tammy deWeerd Cherie McCandless October 25, 2000 HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 Becky Bowcutt 11283 West Hickorydale Boise, ID 83704 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854 Re: Timber View Subdivision (Observation Pointe) AZ 00-010 Development Agreement Dear Becky, Please find enclosed the original Development Agreement ready for signatures of the appropriate parties. Once these signatures are obtained, please forward to my office at the above address for placement on the next available City Council agenda for approval. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, q��� Shelby E. Ugarriza Deputy City Clerk enc. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES: 1. City of Meridian 2. Victory 41, LLC, Owner/Developer THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement"), is made and entered into this day of , 2000, by and between CITY OF MERIDIAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, hereafter called "CITY', and VICTORY 41, LLC, hereinafter called "OWNER/DEVELOPER", whose address is 6874 Fairview, Boise, Idaho 83704. 1. RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS, "Owner" is the sole owner, in law and/or equity, of certain tract of land in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, herein after referred to as the "Property"; and 1.2 WHEREAS, I.C. §67-6511A, Idaho Code, provides that cities may, by ordinance, require or permit as a condition of re -zoning that the owner or "Owner/Developer" make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject "Property"; and 1.3 WHEREAS, "City" has exercised its statutory authority by the enactment of Ordinance 11-15 -12 and 11-16-4 A, which authorizes development agreements upon the annexation and/or re -zoning of land; and 1.4 WHEREAS, "Owner/Developer" has submitted an application for annexation and zoning of the "Property"s described in Exhibit A, and has requested a designation of Low Density Residential District (R-4), (Meridian City Code §§ 11-7-2 C); and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 1 1.5 WHEREAS, "Owner/Developer" made representations at the public hearings both before the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission and before the Meridian City Council, as to how the subject "Property" will be developed and what improvements will be made; and 1.6 WHEREAS, record of the proceedings for the requested annexation and zoning designation of the subject "Property" held before the Planning &- Zoning Commission, and subsequently before the City Council, include responses of government subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, and received further testimony and comment; and 1.7 WHEREAS, City Council, the _ day of , 2000, has approved certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order, set forth in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, hereinafter referred to as (the "Findings"); and 1.8 WHEREAS, both the "Findings" require the "Owner/Developer" to enter into a development agreement before the City Council takes final action on annexation and zoning designation; and 1.9 "DEVELOPER" deems it to be in its best interest to be able to enter into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was entered into voluntarily and at its urging and requests; and 1.10 WHEREAS, "City" requires the "Owner/Developer" to enter into a development agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the "Property" is developed and the subsequent use of the "Property" is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this development agreement, herein being established as a result of evidence received by the "City" in the proceedings for annexation and zoning DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 2 designation from government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected property owners and to ensure annexation and zoning designation is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ordinance #629, January 4, 1994, and the Zoning and Development Ordinances codified in Meridian City Code Title 11 and Title 12. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 3. DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words, terms, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein provided for, unless the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise: 3.1 "CITY": means and refers to the City of Meridian, a party to this Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue of law of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 3.2 "DEVELOPER"/"OWNER": means and refers to Victory 41, LLC, whose address is 6874 Fairview Avenue, Boise, Idaho 83704, the party developing said "Property" and shall include any subsequent owner(s)/developer(s) of the "Property". 3.3 "PROPERTY": means and refers to that certain parcel(s) of "Property" located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 3 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under "City"'s Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian City Code Sections 11-7-2 C which are herein specified as follows: (R-4) Low Density Residential District: Only single- family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for planned residential development and public schools. The purpose of the R-4 District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible nonresidential uses. The R-4 District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal water and sewer systems of the City. For the construction and development of single family residential subdivision. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.A "Developer "/"Owner" shall enter into a Development Agreement, that provides in the event the conditions therein are not met by the Developer that the property shall be subject to de -annexation, with the City of Meridian which provides for the following conditions of development to -wit: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 4 5.1 A minimum 20 -foot landscape buffer beyond all right-of- way on E. Victory Road shall be required as a condition of annexation. 5.2 The 20 foot landscape buffer along the west side of the development may be waived if applicant provides proof to the Planning and Zoning Department that the commercial activity consisting of an adjacent gravel pit has ceased, is under a plan of reclamation, and is likely to be converted to residential use in the foreseeable future. In the absence of such proof, the 20 foot landscape buffer as recommended by City Staff must be installed as a condition of final plat approval. 6. COMPLIANCE PERIOD/ CONSENT TO REZONE: This Agreement and the commitments contained herein shall be terminated, and the zoning designation reversed, upon a default of the " Developer'T Owner" or "Developer"'s/"Owner's" heirs, successors, assigns, to comply with Section 5 entitled "Conditions Governing Development of subject "Property" of this agreement within two years of the date this Agreement is effective, and after the "City" has complied with the notice and hearing procedures as outlined in I.C. § 67-6509, or any subsequent amendments or recodifications thereof. 7. CONSENT TO DE -ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF ZONING DESIGNATION "Developer"/"Owner" consents upon default to the de -annexation and/or a reversal of the zoning designation of the "Property" subject to and conditioned upon the following conditions precedent to -wit: 7.1 That the "City" provide written notice of any failure to comply with this Agreement to "Developer"/" Owner" and if the "Developer"/" Owner" fails to cure such failure within six (6) months of such notice. 8. INSPECTION: " Developer'T Owner" shall, immediately upon completion of any portion or the entirety of said development of the "Property" as required by this agreement or by City ordinance or policy, notify DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 5 the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's inspections and written approval of such completed improvements or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and all other ordinances of the "City" that apply to said Development. 9. DEFAULT: 9.1 In the event "Developer"/"Owner", "Developer"'s/"Owner's" heirs, successors, assigns, or subsequent owners of the "Property" or any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property", fail to faithfully comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement in connection with the "Property", this Agreement may be modified or terminated by the "City" upon compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 9.2 A waiver by "City" of any default by "Developer"/"Owner" of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the breach and breaches waived and shall not bar any other rights or remedies of "City" or apply to any subsequent breach of any such or other covenants and conditions. 10. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: "City" shall record either a memorandum of this Agreement or this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, at "Developer"'s/"Owner's" cost, and submit proof of such recording to "Developer"/"Owner", prior to the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" by the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt the ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" contemplated hereby, the "City" shall execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement. 11. ZONING: "City" shall, following recordation of the duly approved Agreement, enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the "Property" as specified herein. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 6 are completed, unless the "City" and "Developer"/" Owner" have entered into an addendum agreement stating when the improvements will be completed in a phased developed; and in any event, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the "City". 15. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That "Developer"/"Owner" agrees to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian and the "Property" shall be subject to de -annexation if the owner or his assigns, heirs, or successors shall not meet the conditions contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this Development Agreement, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 16. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CITY: c/o City Engineer City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 with copy to: City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 OWNER/DEVELOPER: Victory 41, LLC 6874 Fairview Avenue Boise, Idaho 83704 16.1 A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 17. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 8 shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 18. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other party so failing to perform. 19. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including "City"'s corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the owner of the "Property", each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property". Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the "Property", or portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefitted and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. "City" agrees, upon written request of "Developer", to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if "City", in its sole and reasonable discretion, had determined that "Developer" has fully performed its obligations under this Agreement. 20. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. 21. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements, condition and understandings between "Owner/Developer" and "City" relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between "Owner/Developer" and "City", other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 9 alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect to "City", to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of "City". 21.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing development of the subject "Property" herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval of the City Council after the ""City" has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment. 22. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be effective on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 10 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and Made it effective as hereinabove provided. VICTORY 41, LLC Hm Attest: Managing Member BY RESOLUTION NO. Managing Member CITY OF MERIDIAN ME Attest: City Clerk BY RESOLUTION NO. Mayor Robert D. Corrie DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 11 12. REMEDIES: This Agreement shall be enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction by either "City" or "Developer"/" Owner", or by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein. 12.1 In the event of a material breach of this Agreement, the parties agree that "City" and "Developer"/"Owner" shall have thirty (30) days after delivery of notice of said breach to correct the same prior to the non -breaching party's seeking of any remedy provided for herein; provided, however, that in the case of any such default which cannot with diligence be cured within such thirty (30) day period, if the defaulting party shall commence to cure the same within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter shall prosecute the curing of same with diligence and continuity, then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and continuity. 12.2 In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder by either "Developer"/"Owner" or "City" is delayed for causes which are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. 13. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The "City" may also ^require surety bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as allowed under Meridian City Code §12-5-3, to insure that installation of the improvements, which the "Developer" agrees to provide, if required by the "City". 14. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The "Developer"/"Owner" agrees that no Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until all improvements DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 7 STATE OF IDAHO ) :ss COUNTY OF ADA ) On this day of before me, , in the year 2000, a Notary Public, personally appeared and , known or identified to me to be the Managing Members of Victory 41, LLC, who executed the instrument on behalf of said Limited Liability Corporation and acknowledged to me having executed the same. (SEAL) STATE OF IDAHO ) :ss County of Ada ) On this day of Notary Public for Idaho Commission expires:_ , in the year 2000, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Robert D. Corrie and William G. Berg, know or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument of behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. (SEAL) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 12 Notary Public for Idaho Commission expires:_ EXHIBIT A Legal Description Of Property A parcel of land being the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of the SW 1/4 (south 1/4 corner) of Section 19, T. 3N., R. IE., B.M., the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence S 89°42'45" W 1,320.43 feet to the southwest corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence N 0°29'39" E 1,329.84 feet to the northwest corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence N 89°44'30" E 1,322.27 feet to the northeast corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence S 0°34'26" W 1,329.19 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Said parcel of land contains 40.33 acres more or less. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 13 EXHIBIT B Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law/Conditions of Approval Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Victory 41 AZ PP VAR\DevelopAQr DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 14 WHITE PETERSON WHITE, PETERSON, MORROW, GIGRAY, ROSSMAN, NYE & ROSSMAN, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW JULIE KLEIN FISCHER CHRISTOPHER S. NYE WM. F. GIGRAY, III PHILIP A. PETERSON BRENT JOHNSON ERIC S. ROSSMAN D. SAMUEL JOHNSON TODD A. ROSSMAN LARRY D. MOORE DAVID M. SWARTLEY WILLIAM A. MORROW TERRENCE R. WHITE" WILLIAM F. NICHOLS* *ALSO ADMITTED IN OR •ALSO ADMITTED IN WA William G. Berg, Jr. City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE, SUITE 31 POST OFFICE BOX 1150 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150 TEL (208) 288-2499 FAX (208) 288.2501 March 22, 2001 NAMPA OFFICE 104 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH POST OFFICE BOX 247 NAMPA, IDAHO 83653-0247 TEL (208) 466-9272 FAX (208) 466.4405 RECEJET MAR 2 3 2001 City of Meridian. City Clerk Office Re: Ordinance No. 01-914, Summary of Publication Dear Will: PLEASE REPLY TO MERIDIAN OFFICE Pursuant to the direction of the Meridian City Council, this office has prepared a summarization of the ordinance providing for an annexation and zoning ordinance for Observation Point Subdivision, pursuant to the City's action. I do hereby advise the City, and make this statement, that said summary is true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public of the provisions of said ordinance. You are hereby directed to file this statement with the ordinance, pursuant to the provisions of Idaho Code § 50-901(A). Very truly yours, Wm. F. Nichols Enclosure Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Ordinances City Ha11\2001 Ordinances\BergSumOrd022201Ltr.wpd NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OR ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO 1. C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 01-914 PROVIDING FOR AN ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE An Ordinance of the City of Meridian granting annexation and zoning for land to be known as Observation Point Subdivision consisting of 40.33 acres with a zoning designation of R-4 Low Density Residential; and to provide providing for effect of invalidity; providing that all ordinances and resolutions in conflict are repealed and rescinded; and providing an effective date. Legal Description of Property A parcel of land being the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of the SW 1/4 (south 1/4 corner) of Section 19, T. 3N., R. IE., B.M., the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence S 89142'45" W 1,320.43 feet to the southwest corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence N 0°29'39" E 1,329.84 feet to the northwest corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence N 89044'30" E 1,322.27 feet to the northeast corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence S 0134'26" W 1,329.19 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Said parcel of land contains 40.33 acres more or less. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall become effective on the day of , 2001. City of Meridian Mayor and City Council By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk Z:\Worlc\History\M\Meridian\Farrington Opal AZ\SUN ANNEXZONGORD.doc ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ -00-010) - 1 -Certified Mailing Retu''s F -� File No(s) ,,� �' � Project Name- ,, - V��, WHITE, PETERSON, PRUSS, MORROW & GIGRAY, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW JuL>E K[.t+aN FiscnER 200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE Wm. F. CAGRAY, In POST OFFICE BOX 1150 BRENT J. JoHNsoN MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150 D. SAmu¢ JOHNSON Wn.L1AM A. MoRRow _ Wna,iAMF.NicHaLs TEL 208 288-2499 CHRISTOPHER S. NYE FAX (2083288-2501 Pimp A. PuE tsoN STEPHEN L. PRuss ERIC S. RossMAN ToDD A.RossMAN DAVID M. SwARTLEY TtRRENCER WHITE July 20, 2000 To: Staff Applicant Affected Property Owner(s) Re: Application Case No. A-00-010 Hearing Date: Aust 1. 2000 FAX (208) 4664405 PLEASE REPLY TO MERIDIAN OFFICE pXcF,1vED J U L 2 5 2000 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Staff, Applicant and/or Affected Property Owner(s): Please note that these Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be presented to the pity Council at the public hearing on the above referenced matter by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Due to the volume of matters which the City Council must decide, and to insure your position is understood and clear, it is important to have a consistent format by which matters are presented at the public hearings before the City Council. The City Council strongly recommends: 1. That you take time to carefully review the Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and be prepared to state your position on this application by addressing the Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission; and 2. That you carefully complete (be sure it is legible) the Position Statement if you disagree with the Findings and -Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Position Statement form for this application is available at the City Clerk's office. It is recommended that you prepare a Position Statement and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to the hearing, if possible. If that is not possible, please present your Position Statement to the City Council at the hearing, along with eight (8) copies. The copies will be presented to the Mayor, Council, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Public Works and the City Attorney. If you are a part of agroup, it is stropgl recommended that one Position Statement be filled out for the group, which can be signed by the representative for the group. Very truly urs, I N-11 City Attorney's fice Iy/ BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE ) REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION ) AND ZONING OF 40.33 ACRES ) FOR TIMBERVIEW ) SUBDIVISION ) BY VICTORY 41, LLC ) Case No. AZ -00-010 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL 1. The property is approximately 40.33 acres in size and is located at the north side of Victory Road, 1/3 mile east of Meridian Road. The property is designated as Timberview Subdivision. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Victory 41, LLC. SL Dean & Beverly Peterson, of Meridian, Idaho. 3. Applicant is Victory 41, LLC, of Boise, Idaho. 4. The property is presently zoned by Ada County as RT, and consists of agricultural land with one single family residence. 5. The Applicant requests the property be zoned as R-4 Low Density Residential. 6. The subject property is bordered to the south, east and west by Ada County and city limits of the City of Meridian are adjacent and abut to the north of the subject property. 7. The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - I ANNEXATION AND ZONING - TIMBERVIEW SUBDIVISION - VICTORY 41, LLC of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: single family residential subdivision. 10. The Applicant requests zoning of the subject real property as R-4 which is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map which designates the subject property as Single Family Residential. 12. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that affect the consideration of this application. RECOMMENDATION 1. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the requested annexation and zoning as requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application, subject to the following: Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Engineering staff as follows: 1.1 A minimum 20 -foot landscape buffer beyond all right-of-way on E. Victory Road should be required as a condition of annexation. 1.2 A Development Agreement is not required as a condition of annexation, due to the fact that conditions placed on the plat will govern development of the property. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING - TIMBERVIEW SUBDIVISION - VICTORY 41, LLC Ey/Z:\Work\MWleridian 15360M\Recommendations\AZOlOTimberview.Rec.wpd AZ 00-010 March 16, 2001 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 20, 2001 ITEM NO. 3-I APPLICANT Victory 41, LLC REQUEST D/A - AZ of 40.33 acres from RT to R-4 for proposedRoad Timber View Subdivision north of Victory Road and east of Meridian AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: COMMENTS See attached signed Development Agreement Contacted: ► YL [ k= � �' Date: 3 (�� Phone: � Q .5 - q Zf O Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. March 16, 2001 AZ 00-010 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 20, 2001 APPLICANT Victory 41, LLC ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Ordinance - AZ of 40.33 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Timber View Subdivision north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: Contacted: COMMENTS See attached Ordinance Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To: The Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor of Ada County, and The State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Cleric, of the City of Meridian, Ada County, State of Idaho, do hereby certify that the attached copy of Ordinance No.'l;'/� passed by the City Council of the City of Meridian, on the Z-Vf—% day of 2001, is a true and correct copy of the original of said document which is in the care, custody and control of the City Cleric of the City of Meridian. STATE OF County of Ada, .._ *SNIS11 On this day of OW(JI%- in the year 2001, before me, _ "yo&AVRI"� , a Notary Public, appeared WILL G. ERG, JR., known or identified to me to be the City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho that executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of the City of Meridian. •mee�ta® 1 � • U 0600 (SEAL) wti'�'�®T�,�:'" , Notary Pu 1' f r I o SF,Ai, v Commission Ex ®N; � as o a msg\Z:\Work\HistoryWM 4-44 'i�i � °AZ PP VAR\CertificationOf0erkOrd 'IL CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AZ -00-010 RECORDED - REQUEST QF AOA COUNTY RECORDER MER OM C41 -Y J. DAV!9 HAVARRO FEE � DEPUTY ,2001 NR 21 P14 1: 2 910 10 2 5 14 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. al fl� FILE COPY AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT CERTAIN LAND TO BE KNOWN AS OBSERVATION POINT SUBDMSION LIES CONTIGUOUS OR ADJACENT TO THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; AND FINDING THAT THE OWNER HAS MADE A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION IN WRITING TO THE COUNCIL; AND THAT SAID LAND BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND ZONING DESIGNATED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-4); AND DECLARING THAT SAID LAND, BY PROPER LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED BELOW, BE A PART OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ADD SAID PROPERTY TO THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO; AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE AREAS TO BE ANNEXED WITH ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AUDITOR, TREASURERAND ASSESSOR, AND TIDE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE SECTION 50-223 AND SECTION 63-2215. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. FINDINGS: That the following described land is contiguous and adjacent to the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation to the City of Meridian, Idaho, by the owner of said Property to -wit: A parcel of land being the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ -00-010) - 1 *04 Commencing at the southeast corner of the SW 1/4 (south 1/4 corner) of Section 19, T. 3N., R. 1 E., B.M., the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence S 89°42'45" W 1,320.43 feet to the southwest corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence N 0°29'39" E 1,329.84 feet to the northwest corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence N 89°44'30" E 1,322.27 feet to the northeast corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence S 0°34'26" W 1,329.19 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Said parcel of land contains 40.33 acres more or less. SECTION 2: That the above-described real property be, and the same is hereby annexed and made a part of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. SECTION 3: That the real property herein by this ordinance annexed to the City of Meridian hereinabove described shall be zoned Low Density Residential District SECTION 4: That the City.Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, comprehensive plan and all official maps depicting the boundaries of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 5: The zoning designation set forth in Section 3 of this ordinance is subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Development Agreement by and between the City of Meridian and the owner of the land described in Section 1 dated the day of , and that the uses are to be developed under the single-family residential subdivision development process and conditional use permit process. ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ -00-010) - 2 SECTION 6: All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8: The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner plainly and clearly designating the boundaries of the City of Meridian, including the lands herein annexed, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to -wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, all in compliance with Idaho Code §63-2215 and §50- 223. ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ -00-010) - 3 PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this G�'o day of , 2001. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 2os day of , 2001. ATTES CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO,) . ss. County of Ada. c OR �ti�sr,��r�,► SEAL r On this 0`N% day of , 2001, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT D. CORRIE and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the CITY of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. 01� TU'G;q ••. (S) a0 NOTARY PU &IC\f OR IDAHO RESIDIN T: '�,sj► :L�c o: • MY COMMISSION EXPIRES. '. -12ioF1 MSG\Z:\Work\History\M\Meridian\Victory 41 AZ PP VARWZOrd ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ -00-010) - 4 1 CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To: The Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor of Ada County, and The State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk, of the City of Meridian, Ada County, State of Idaho, do hereby certify that the attached copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Meridian, on the day of 2001, is a true and correct copy of the original of said document which is in the care, custody and control of they City Clerk of the City of Meridian. S � R060 7 T , . ' • STATE OF Pot �1 ��ft��il'f1i County of Ada, N. BERG, JR. On this day of {�/1GIi1(.� , in the year 2001, before me, d_ 1, , a Notary Public, appeared WILLIAM G. ERG, JR., known or identified to me to be the City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho that executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of the City of Meridian. • --OT (SEAL) 440~%'� �'�,`r'r°; Notary Pu 1' f o Commission Ex n • i a � r e ms \Z:\Work\Histo •sl•��:�/:3LIG� o �o g rY��r% +°AZ PP VAR\CertificationOf0erkOrd *am rase* CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AZ -00-010 r lct o 12f� —off KUNA - MERIDIAN RD � e 9 � NO'29'39'E 132924' a ory Na A A N + fJm N� O SO'34'26'V a.D 1329.19' �o i2 z -4 z i� Mr 0 i d r� ❑ N=Me.. -zi ty t.. y 7 N C2 N I�- M C2 mo —I n D Z � W ao Dz3 Z x- --q❑ O On d ? 1 z ^�8 - z y � f*1 ns iur ..se P ,SDA COUNTY RECORDER 11AV!,'l HAVARwp , 00IMR21 PH 1.29 CITY OF MERIDIAN ,.� R::"C0RDED-P;:eUE3T Cr MERIDM C41 Y CSC DFPUTi. 6 101'025148 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT CERTAIN LAND TO BE KNOWN AS OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION LIES CONTIGUOUS OR ADJACENT TO THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; AND FINDING THAT THE OWNER HAS MADE A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION IN WRITING TO THE COUNCIL; AND THAT SAID LAND BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND ZONING DESIGNATED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-4); AND DECLARING THAT SAID LAND, BY PROPER LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED BELOW, BE A PART OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ADD SAID PROPERTY TO THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO; AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE AREAS TO BE ANNEXED WITH ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AUDITOR, TREASURERAND ASSESSOR, AND THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE SECTION 50-223 AND SECTION 63-2215. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. FINDINGS: That the following described land is contiguous and adjacent to the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation to the City of Meridian, Idaho, by the owner of said Property to -wit: A parcel of land being the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ -00-010) - 1 Commencing at the southeast corner of the SW 1/4 (south 1/4 corner) of Section 19, T. 3N., R. 1 E., B.M., the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence S 89°42'45" W 1,320.43 feet to the southwest corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence N 0°29'39" E 1,329.84 feet to the northwest corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence N 89°44'30" E 1,322.27 feet to the northeast corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence S 0°34'26" W 1,329.19 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Said parcel of land contains 40.33 acres more or less. SECTION 2: That the above-described real property be, and the same is hereby annexed and made a part of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. SECTION 3: That the real property herein by this ordinance annexed to the City of Meridian hereinabove described shall be zoned Low Density Residential District SECTION 4: That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, comprehensive plan and all official maps depicting the boundaries of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 5: The zoning designation set forth in Section 3 of this ordinance is subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Development Agreement by and between the City of Meridian and the owner of the land described in Section 1 dated the day of , and that the uses are to be developed under the single-family residential subdivision development process and conditional use permit process. ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ -00-010) - 2 SECTION 6: All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8: The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner plainly and clearly designating the boundaries of the City of Meridian, including the lands herein annexed, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to -wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, all in compliance with Idaho Code §63-2215 and §50- 223. ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ -00-010) - 3 PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 210 day of , 2001. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this &-fA day of Md4Z A-) , 2001. c MA OR �,��,nx�►f,, ATTES ;C}}� ��� �!► � CITY CLERIC $ STATE OF IDAHO,) •a wN"►�� County of Ada. ) On this0441 day of hn0vCk\- , 2001, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT D. CORRIE and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the CITY of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. ****somata* p • :x� Ns (SEAL) ,v,, �' Rao NOTARY PU IC OR IDAHO RESIDIN T: A� �tmv ©o MY COMMISSION EXPIRES. �p -G `1op men0. mmseo MSG\Z:\Work\History\M\Meridian\Victory 41 AZ PP VAR\AZOrd ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ -00-010) - 4 FEB -15-2001 10:40 BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. 12ee3452950 P.04 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES: I . City of Meridian 2. Victory 41, LLC, Owner/Developer THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement"), is made and entered into this—da}' of �`��Gh,' , 2000, by and between CITY OF MERIDIAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, hereafter called "CITY", and VICTORY 41, LLC, hereinafter called "OWNER/DEVELOPER", whose address is 6874 FairvieNv, Boise, Idaho 83704. RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS, "Owner" is the sole owner, in law and/or equity, of certain tract of land in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, herein after referred to as the "Property"; and 1.2 WHEREAS, I.C. §67-651 IA, Idaho Code, provides that cities may, by ordinance, require or permit as a condition of re -zoning that the owner or "Owner/Developer" make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject "Property"; and 1.3 'WHEREAS, "City" has exercised its statutory authority by the enactment. of Ordinance 11-15-12 and 11-16-4 A, which authorizes development agreements upon the annexation and/or re -zoning of land; and 1.4 WHEREAS, "Owner/Developer" has submitted an application for annexation and -coning of the "Property"s described in Exhibit A, and has requested a designation of L,,, Densit. Residential District R-4 , (Meridian City Code §§ 11.7-2 C); and DEVFLQPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - I FEB -15-2001 10:40 BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. 12083452950 P.05 1.5 WHEREAS, "Owner/Developer" made representations at the public hearings both before the Meridian Planning &. Zoning Commission and before the Meridian City Council, as to how the subject "Property" will be developed and what improvements will be made; and 1.6 WHEREAS, record of the proceedings for the requested annexation and zoning designation of the subject "Property" held before the Planning & Zoning Commission, and subsequently before the City Council, include responses of government subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, and received further testimony and comment; and 1.7 WHEREAS, City Council, the _ day of , 2000, has approved certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and ]Decision and Order, set forth in Exhibit $, which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, hereinafter referred to as (the "Findings"); and 1'`8 WHEREAS, both the "Findings" require the „` -:.."Owner/Developer" to enter into a development agreement before the City Council takes final action on annexation and'zoning designation; and 1.9 ")(DEVELOPER" deems it to be in its best interest to be able to enter into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was entered into voluntarily and at its urging and requests; and l ,1.0 WHEREAS, "City" requires the "Owner/Developer" to enter into a development agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the "Property" is developed and the subsequent use of the "Property" is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this development agreement, herein being established as a result of evidence received by the "City" in the proceedings for annexation and zoning DEVELO''PMF.NT AGRL;I;MENT (AZ•00-010) -2 FEB -15-2001 10:41 BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. 12083452950 P.06 designation from government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected property owners and to ensure annexation and zoning, designation is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ordinance #629, January 4, 1994, and the Zoning and Development Ordinances codified in Meridian City Code Title I I and Title 12. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 2. INCORPORATION" OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 3- DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words, terms, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein provided for, unless the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise.: 3.1 "CITY": means and refers to the City of Meridian, a party to this Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue of law of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 Fast. Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 3.2 "DEVELOPER"/"OWNER": means and refers to Victory 41, LLC, whose address is 6874 Fairview Avenue, Boise, Idaho 83704, the party developing said "Property" and shall include any subsequentowners)/developer(s) of the "Property". 3.3 "PROPERTY": means and refers to that certain parcel(s) of "Property" located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 3 FEB -15-2001 10:41 BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. 12083452950 P.07 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under "City"'s Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian City Code Sections 11-7-2 C which are herein specified as follows: (R-4) Low Density Residential District: Only single- family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for planned residential development and public schools. The purpose of the R-4 District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible nonresidential uses. The R.-4 District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal water and sewer systems of the City. For the construction and development of single family residential subdivision. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5, CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.11 "Developer"/" O-,vner" shall enter into a Development Agreement, that provides in the event the conditions therein are not met by the Developer that the property shall be subject to de -annexation, "rith the City of Meridian which provides for the following conditions of development to -wit - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) -4 FEB -15-2001 10:42 BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. 12083452950 P.oe 5.1 A minimum 20 -foot landscape buffer beyond all right-of- way on E. Victory Road shall be required as a condition of annexation. 5.2 The 20 foot landscape buffer along the west side of the development may be waived if applicant provides proof to the Planning and Zoning Department that the commercial activity consisting of an adjacent gravel pit has ceased, is under a plan of reclamation, and is likely to be converted to residential use in the foreseeable future. In the absence of such proof, the 20 foot landscape buffer as recommended by City Staff must be installed as a condition of final plat approval. 6. COMPLIANCE PERIOD/ CONSENT TO REZONE: This Agreement and the commitments contained herein s11all be terminated, and the zoning designation reversed, upon a default of the "Developer"/"Owner" or "Developer "'s/"Owner's" heirs, successors, assigns, to comply with Section 5 entitled "Conditions Governing Development of subject "Property" of this agreement within two years of the date this Agreement is effective, and after the "City" has complied with the notice and hearing procedures as outlined in X.C. § 67-6509, or any subsequent amendments or recodifications thereof. 7. CONSENT TO DE -ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL, OF ZONING DESIGNATION "Developer"/"Owner" consents upon default to the de -annexation and/or a reversal of the zoning designation of the "Property" subject to and conditioned upon the following conditions precedent to-N,0t.: 7.1 That the "City" provide written notice of any failure to comply with this Agreement to "Developer"/"Owner" and if the "beveloper"/"Owner" fails to cure such failure within six (6) months of such notice. 8. INSPECTION: "Developer"/"Owner" shall, immediately upon completion of any portion or the entirety of said development of the "Property" as required by this agreement or by City ordinance or policy, notify DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) -5 FEB -15-2001 10:42 BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. 12083452950 P.09 the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's inspections and written approval of such completed improvements or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and all other ordinances of the "City" that apply to said Development, 9. DEFAULT: 9.1 In the event "Developer"/"Owner", "Developer '-s/"Owner's" heirs, successors, assigns, or subsequent owners of the "Property" or any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property", fail to faithfully comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement in connection with the "Property", this Agreement may be modified or terminated by the "City" upon compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, 9.2 A waiver by "City" of any default by "Developer "/"Owner" of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the breach and breaches waived and shall not bar any other rights or remedies of "City" or apply to any subsequent breach of any such or other covenants and conditions. 10. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: "City" shall record either a memorandum of this Agreement or this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, at "Developer`s/"Owner's" cost, and submit proof of such recording to "Developer"/"Owner", prior to the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" by the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt. the ordinance. in connection rvith the annexation and zoning of the "Property" Contemplated hereby, the "City" shall execute a). -td record an appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement. 11. ZONING: "City" shall, following recordation of the duly approved Agreement, enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the "Property" as specified herein. DEvELUI'MPN'r AORFF,MF,:N'1' (AZ -00-010) -6 FEB -15-2001 10:43 BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. 12083452950 P.10 12. REMEDIES: This Agreement shall be enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction by either "City" or "Developer'Y"Owner", or by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein. 12.1 In the event of a material breach of this Agreement, the parties agree that "City" and "Developer"/"Owner" shall have thirty (30) days after delivery of notice of said breach to correct the same prior to the non -breaching party's seeking of any remedy provided for herein; provided, however, that in the case of any such default which cannot with diligence be cured within such thirty (30) day period, if the defaulting party shall commence to cure the same within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter shall prosecute the curing of same with diligence and continuity, then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and continuity. 12.2 In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder by either "Developer"/"Owner" or "City" is delayed for causes which are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. 1.3. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The "City" may also require surety bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as allowed under Meridian City Code §12-5-3, to insure that. installation of the improvements, which the "Developer" agrees to provide, if required by the "City". 14. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The "Developer'T'Owner" agrees that no Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until all improvements DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 7 FEB -15-2001 10:43 BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. 12083452950 P.11 are completed, unless the "City" and "Developer"/"Owner" have entered into an addendum agreement stating when the improvements will be completed in a phased developed; and in any event, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the "City". 15. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That "Developer"/"Owner" agrees to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian and the "Property" shall be subject to de -annexation if the owner or his assigns, heirs, or successors shall not meet the conditions contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this Development. Agreement, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 16. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CITY: c/o City Engineer City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho .Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 with cop), to: City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, fD 83642 OII NER/DEVELOPER: Victory 41, LLC 6874 Fairview Avenue Boise, Idaho 83704 16.1 A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other party a written not.ifieat.ion thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 17. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party nEVF.I.OP1vIBNI" AGRL"I;MENT (AZ•00-010) -8 FEB -15-2001 10:44 BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. 12083452950 P.12 shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 1$, TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that tine is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other party so failing to perform. 19. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including "City"'s corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the owner of the "Property", each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property". Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the "Property", or portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefitted and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. "City" agrees, upon written request of "Developer", to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if "City", in its sole and reasonable discretion, had determined that "Developer" has fully performed its obligations under this Agreement. 20. INVALID PROVISION: 1f any provision of this Agreement is held not valid by a court of competent. jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. 21. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements, condition and understandings between "Cl n-ter/Developer" and "City" relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between "Owner/Developer" and "City", other than as are stated herein. Exceptas herein othemrise provided, no subsequent. T)I;vELOPMF..NT AGRF.FMFNT (AZ -00-010) -9 FEB -15-2001 10:44 BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. 12083452950 P.13 alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect to "City", to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of "City". 21.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing development of the subject "Property" herein provided for can be modified or amended withoutthe approval of the City Council after the ""City" has conducted public hearings) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment. 22. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be effective on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk. DEVEi ppMENT AGREEMENT {A7..-00-010) - 10 FEB -15-2001 10:45 BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 12083452950 P.14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and Made it effective as hereinabove provided. Attest - Managing Member BY RESOLUTION NO. VICTORY 41, LLC B' �----. Managing Member CITY OF MERIDIAN �P BY: Wayr—kRo�ert D. Come ♦•�• •w%jr'��r' Attest- City Clerk BY RESOLUTION NO.bj `' 7 Y DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (A7..-00-010) - 11 FEB -15-2001 10:45 BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. 12083452950 P.15 STATE OF IDAHO :ss COUNTY OF ADA ) f On this day of _ C , in the year 2©90, before me, a Notary Public,—personally eared P Y aPP gchfit�I () . and known or identified to me to be the Managing Members of Victory 4 1, LLC, who executed the instrument on behalf of said Limited Liability Corporation and acknowledged to me having executed the same - (SEAL) NotaoubforI aho Commission expires: ZW&-V,O STATE OF IDAHO } :ss County of Ada ) On this �/ -d- da of moo/ Y �Rrc`i , in the year �$f�6-, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Robert D. Corrie and William G. Berg, know or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument of behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. (SEAL) �* s t;OTA,p�,•.� s!3 :•AUBLIC� OF 11) �, • DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 12 No ry Public. for Idaho C mission expires:a o 010, FEB -15-2001 10:45 BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. 12083452950 P.1G EXHIBIT A Legal Des.cril2tion Of Pro ert A parcel of land being the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of the SW 1/4 (south 1/4 corner) of Section 19, T. 3N., R. 1E., B,M., the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence S 89042'45" W 1,320.43 feet to the southwest corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW I/4; Thence N 002939" E 1,329.84 feet to the northwestcorner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence N 89944'30" E 1,322.27 feet to the northeast corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence S 0°3426" W 1,329,19 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Said parcel of land contains 40.33 acres more or less. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ -00-010) - 13 FEB -15-2001 10.46 BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. EXHIBIT B 12093452950 P.17 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Conditions of Approval 7AMLprk\-M\Meridian 15360M1Victory 41 AZ PP 'VAR\Deve]aw1 &r I)H'VELOPMENTAGREEMENT(AL-00-01(i) _ 14 TOTAL P.17 RESOLUTION NO M. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, SETTING FORTH CERTAIN FINDINGS AND PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO, ON BEHALF OF SAID MUNICIPALITY, AN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT", BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND VICTORY 41, LLC. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City of Meridian to enter into an agreement with VICTORY 41, LLC, denoted as "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT", a copy of which is attached hereto marked as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, the reasons and authority for which are as set forth in said Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL as follows: 1. The Mayor and Cleric are hereby authorized to enter into and on behalf of the City of Meridian that certain agreement with VICTORY 41, LLC, entitled "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT", by and between the City of Meridian and VICTORY 41, LLC, a copy of which is attached hereto marked as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution and to bind this City to its terms and conditions. Resolution (AZ -00-010) - 1 of 2 PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this day of , 2000. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this day of ATTEST: CITY CLERIC , 2000. MAYOR msg/Z:\Worlc\M\Meridian 15360M\Victory 41 AZ PP VAR\Resolution Resolution (A7--00-010) - 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF CLERK- OF LERKOF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN I, the undersigned, do hereby certify: 1. That I am the duly appointed and elected Clerk of the City of Meridian, a duly incorporated City operating under the laws of the State of Idaho, with its principal office at 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho. 2. That as the City Clerk of this City, I am the custodian of its records and minutes and do hereby certify that on the day of , 2000, the following action has been taken and authorized: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, SETTING FORTH CERTAIN FINDINGS AND PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO, ON BEHALF OF SAID MUNICIPALITY, AN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT", BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND VICTORY 41, LLC. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City of Meridian to enter into an agreement with VICTORY 41, LLC, denoted as "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT", a copy of which is attached hereto marked as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, the reasons and. authority for which are as set forth in said Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL as follows: 1. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into and on behalf of the City of Meridian that certain agreement with VICTORY 41, LLC, entitled Certificate of Cleric (A7--00-010) - 1 of 2 "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT", by and between the City of Meridian and VICTORY 41, LLC, a copy of which is attached hereto marked as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution and to bind this City to its terms and conditions. STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada, ) WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. CITY CLERK On this day of , in the year 2000, before me, , a Notary Public, appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known or identified to me to be the City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho, that executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of the City of Meridian. ( SEAL) Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Victory 41 AZ PP VAR\certof0erk Certificate of Clerk (A7--00-010) - 2 of 2 Notary Public for Idaho Commission Expires:_ BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE ) VAR -00-006 APPLICATION OF VICTORY 41, ) LLC, FOR A VARIANCE OF THE ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND 1,000 FOOT BLOCK LENGTH ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FOR PROPOSED OBSERVATION ) ORDER OF DECISION POINT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ) GRANTING A VARIANCE NORTH OF VICTORY ROAD ) AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ) ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO ) The above entitled matter coming on regularly for public hearing before the City Council on July 18, 2000 and continued until August 1, 2000, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, appeared and testified, and no one appeared in opposition at the July 18,'2000 meeting, and appearing and testifying at the August 1, 2000, meeting were Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, and Gary Smith, Public Works Director, and appearing and testifying on behalf of the Applicant was Becky Bowcutt, and appearing and testifying with comments or concerns were: Lee Segmiller, Boris Martinez, and David Obarr, and the City Council having received the transmittal to agencies and having received the variance application, having heard the testimony presented, being fully advised in the premises does hereby make the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND -- Page 1 of 9 ORDER OF DECISION GRANTING A VARIANCE / VAR -00-006 VICTORY 41, LLC / OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION of Law and Order of Decision, as follows to -wit: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The City Council takes judicial notice of its Zoning, Subdivisions and Development Ordinances codified at Title 11 Municipal Code of the City of Meridian and all current zoning maps thereof and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993 Ordinance #629 — January 4, 1994 and Maps. 2. The requirements of Idaho Code H 67-6509, 6516 and Meridian City Code H 11-15-5 and 12-11-3 as evidenced in the record of this matter. 3. The Applicant is Victory 41, LLC, whose address is 6874 Fairview Avenue, Boise, Idaho 83704. 4. The owners of the property are Victory 41, LLC, whose address is 6874 Fairview Avenue, Boise, Idaho 83704, and Dean and Beverly Peterson, whose address is 780 E. Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 5. The location of the subject property is presently located in Ada County R- T zone, but'the Applicant is requesting zoning of Low Density Residential (R-4), in Case No. AZ -00-010, and which subject property is located at 500 and 780 E. Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho. 6. The legal description of the property appertains to the real property that is included within the Vicinity Map as appears in the record of proceeds of this matter, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND -- Page 2 of 9 ORDER OF DECISION GRANTING A VARIANCE / VAR -00-006 VICTORY 41, LLC / OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION and is described as follows: A parcel of land being the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of the SW 1/4 (south 1/4 corner) of Section 19, T. 3N., R. IE., B.M., the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence S 89°42'45" W 1,320.43 feet to the southwest corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence N 0°29'39" E 1,329.84 feet to the northwest comer of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence N 89°44'30" E 1,322.27 feet to the northeast corner of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence S 0°34'26" W 1,329.19 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Said parcel of land contains 40.33 acres more or less. 7. The present land use of subject property is presently zoned as Ada County R -T, but the Applicant is requesting zoning of Low Density Residential (R-4), in Case No. AZ -00-010, which subject property is presently developed with one single family dwelling and accessory buildings. 8. The proposed land use of subject property is to develop the subject property in the following manner: A 91 lot single-family residential development. 9. That a vicinity map, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", consisting of one page, of the proposed scale approved by the City Council showing property lines, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND -- Page 3 of 9 ORDER OF DECISION GRANTING A VARIANCE / VAR -00-006 VICTORY 41, LLC / OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION existing streets, proposed district and such other items as required have been furnished. 10. The Applicant seeks a variance of the following provision of the Meridian City Code, § 12-4-5, BLOCIGS, and in the R-4 zone if granted the re -zone, which provides as follows: 12-4-5 BLOCIGS: Every block shall be so designed as to provide two (2) tiers of lots, except where lots back onto an arterial street, natural feature or subdivision boundary. Blocks shall not be less than five hundred feet (500') nor more than one thousand feet (1,000') in length. 11. All property owners within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries have been notified by mail, and their mailing addresses may be obtained from the list on file with the Planning and Zoning Department. 12. . The characteristics of the subject property which prevent compliance with the requirements of the ordinance are that there are three blocks (Block 1, 2, and 3 ) which exceed the maximum block length of 1,000 feet. The steep topography of the parcel warrants a design with east/west streets running parallel with the contours. The block lengths are excessive due to the inability to break blocks with a public street, because of the cut and fill which would be necessary. 13. The minimum requirements of the ordinance that need to be reduced to permit the proposed use would be the elimination of the requirement that every block should be designed no more than one thousand feet (1,000') in length. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND -- Page 4 of 9 ORDER OF DECISION GRANTING A VARIANCE / VAR -00-006 VICTORY 41, LLC / OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION 14. The difficulty or hardship which would result if the requirements of the ordinance were applied to the subject property is that the resulting streets would be either too steep, or "cut" into the elevated topography. 15. The unusual or peculiar circumstances which indicate that regulations of the ordinance should not be strictly complied with, and the special conditions and circumstances that exist, are that it would be difficult to break up the block lengths within the interior because of the topography of the parcel. The property adjoining the west is a gravel pit. 16. A literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the Applicant rights because the development of the property would be difficult if no flexibility on block lengths were allowed. The proposed street design minimizes the amount of grading and disruption of the topography. 17. The existence of special circumstances or conditions affecting the property is that the existing topography of the property is not a result of actions by the applicant. 18. Granting the variance would maintain rights which would be afforded to others in the same situation. 19. The Comprehensive Plan for the R-4 District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND -- Page 5 of 9 ORDER OF DECISION GRANTING A VARIANCE / VAR -00-006 VICTORY 41, LLC / OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible nonresidential uses. 20. The variance would allow the applicant to maximize the potential site in order to generate a fair return on investment and to offset the cost of the land and development costs. 21. The granting of the requested variance will not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the proposed plat, and, in fact, the development of the plat in accordance with the conditions of approval and the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance will prevent the conditions which are the source of the complaints raised in the public hearing of this matter. 22. ' The granting of this variance will not have an effect of altering the interest and purpose of the Subdivision or Development Ordinance and/or the City's Comprehensive Plan for the reasons stated above. 23. The applicant paid the fee established by the City Council for application variance. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The City of Meridian has authority pursuant to the enactment of the Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975 codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, and in particular, by the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND -- Page 6 of 9 ORDER OF DECISION GRANTING A VARIANCE / VAR -00-006 VICTORY 41, LLC / OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION provisions of Idaho Code § 67-6516 to provide as part of its zoning ordinance for the process of applications for variance permits. 2. The City of Meridian has exercised its authority of Idaho Code § 67-6516 by the enactment as a part of its Zoning and Development Ordinance variances, as set forth in Meridian City Code § 11-18. 3. That the requirements for the processing of a variance request are set forth in Idaho Code §§ 67-6509, 6516 and Meridian City Code §§ 11-15-5 and 11-17-5. 4. Application and standards for variances are set forth in Meridian City Code § 11-18-2, and the findings which are required are set forth in Meridian City Code § 11- 18-3, include required findings that there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that strict application of the provisions of Zoning and Development Ordinance would clearly be impracticable and unreasonable, and a finding that strict compliance with the requirements of the Zoning and Development Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the owner, subdivider or developer because unusual topography, the nature or condition of adjacent development, or other physical conditions or other conditions that make strict compliance with the ordinance unreasonable under the circumstances, or that the conditions and requirements of said ordinance will result in inhibiting the achievements or the objectives of the ordinance, and that the granting of a specified variance will not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND -- Page 7 of 9 ORDER OF DECISION GRANTING A VARIANCE / VAR -00-006 VICTORY 41, LLC / OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION property in the area in which the property is situated, and that such variance will not have the effect of altering the interest and purposes of the Zoning and Development Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 5. Meridian City Code, § 12-4-5, BLOCKS, and in the R-4 zone if granted the re -zone, provides as follows: 12-4-5 BLOCKS: Every block shall be so designed as to provide two (2) tiers of lots, except where lots back onto an arterial street, natural feature or subdivision boundary. Blocks shall not be less than five hundred feet (500') nor more than one thousand feet (1,000') in length. DECISION AND ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby Order and this does Order: That the Applicant is hereby granted a variance from the block requirements for Observation Point Subdivision in the proposed R-4 zone. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of a variance authorizing a variance of the Block Requirements in the R-4 Zone as provided in the Section 12-4-5 and may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND -- Page 8 of 9 ORDER OF DECISION GRANTING A VARIANCE / VAR -00-006 VICTORY 41, LLC / OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the l-�' day of l , 2000. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN RON ANDERSON VOTED COUNCILMAN KEITH BIRD VOTED_-ipi:� COUNCILPERSON TAMMY deWEERD VOTED__ (� COUNCILPERSON CHERIE McCANDLESS VOTED _V - - MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DATED: Z5— /S-- 06) MOTION: r- APPROV V DISAPPROVED: Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works ��{Qftlgf Department, and the City Attorney office. +�Orr Dated: . S City Clerk 3 SEAL - msg/ZAWork\M\Meridian 15360M\Victory 41 AZ PP VAROCIsGrantVariance "y �Q `Z,;3r f S� ��•� FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND -- Page 9 of 9 /`,,1 r" ,',` 1rot nN+ ORDER OF DECISION GRANTING A VARIANCE / VAR -00-006 VICTORY 41, LLC / OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION April 27, 2001 AZ 00-010 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 1, 2001 APPLICANT Victory 41, LLC ITEM NO. 3 - REQUEST First Addendum to Development Agreement for Observation Pointe Subdivision on 43.33 acres -- north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See attached CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: !� NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: � V SETTLERS IRRIGATION: W�y IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. FIRST ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CASE NO. A%-00-010) The following is an addendwn to that certain Development kgrcenicnt between the City of Meridian and Victory 41, 1.1.C, dated the clay of , 2001, specifically at section 5.2 under CONDMON'S GOVERNING DEVELOPMEN'F OF SUR)ECl' U'ROPEKI-Y therein attached, which section .5.2 will have langruage change pertaining; to the landscape buffer along the west side of the development. and reflects conditions which is subsequent to the entering into of the original development. agreement.. Now, t.hcreforc, for mutual consideration, the parties hereto ab7ee as follows: That section 5.2 of the above describecl Development Agreement is modified to read as follows: .5.2 "The 20 fom landscape buffer along the west side of the development may he provided in the form of a landscape easement, whereby the. lets bordering the west side of the development may be lengthened by 20 fcct, said 20 feet being the width of the landscal)c casement. Each lot owner will be responsible for mainw.»ancc Of Lhe landscape casement fur their particular lot, it Ding the intent. that said 20 foot landscape casement will provide sufficient. buffer from the potential and existing uses of the adjacent gravel pit now located itzunediately west of the development. The Developer/Owner shall also require and include in the covenants, conditions and restrictions of the subdivision, that each such lot owner shall be required to pliant. nOL less than two (2) trees with a rttirtimtun of a 2 inch (2") caliper within the landscape e:1SCTnenL. Said CC&R's shall also inform tate Owners, and_potential purchasers of said lots along the wcsL boundary of the development, that. the development isnznediamly to the west, may be incompatible with residential uses." 2. F-xcept as modified herein, said Development Agreement retrains in full force and effect. IT 1S SO AWLEF.D. DATED AND SIG;NEI) this clay of March, 2001. FIRST ADDENDUM TO SEC: i'I(:)N 5.2 TO t.)t?VE•LOI`MI;N'I' AGRCE•MEN'I'/ CASE NO. AZ -00-010 I'A(;F I OF 3 O z z 0 5:5 n 0 z r z67 -- 1i q m „r1dfW1 �� W- v1a4-V-15 To: City of Meridian From: Victory 41 LLC RE: 20' Landscape Buffer Dear Mayor and City Council, As part of the Preliminary plat approval of Observation Point the applicant had submitted a variance request for the elimination of the 20' landscape buffer between the subject parcel and a gravel pit to the west. For some reason the variance was not noticed properly and therefore the council was unable to consider the variance. Therefore, the council made a stipulation that if the applicant could get a letter from the gravel pit owner that the property would be residential in the future then the 20' buffer would be waived. This is reflected in the development agreement at paragraph 5.2. The letter that the applicant received from the gravel pit owner is attached. In short, he is in the process of reclamation however, is reluctant to guarantee that the property would be residential in the future. The site could be a school site and or the expansion of the landscape nursery etc. Who knows? Staff does not believe the letter goes far enough to address the concern for the buffer. It is the request of the applicant that if the letter is not acceptable by the council that a 20' landscape easement is placed on the map for those lots on the west boundary. This would allow the buyers of the lots to place their own landscaping on their own lot at locations that they feel would be best to buffer or to elect to leave the views to the west open. It would also not place the burden on the homeowners association to maintain a 20' buffer that would only potentially be a benefit to those lots which border the west property line. There are 8 lots out of 82 lots involved. It has been discussed with staff that the covenants and restrictions of the subdivision make it mandatory for each of the 8 lots to provide two 2" caliper trees at a minimum height of 6' in the 20' landscape easement prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. The applicant would prefer to allow the buyers of these lots to decided what buffer if any would be necessary but, would agree to the placement of 2 trees as described above, prior to the issuance of a occupancy permit if the council feels it appropriate. The landscape easement would allow the lot owners to run their side fences to the west boundary fence, keeping the additional 20' in their backyard, allow the homeowner to place buffering landscaping of their choice of kind, size and best location and would avoid a 20' common area that would not be a benefit to the rest of the subdivision but would place an undo expense for maintenance and upkeep. Respectfully submitted, Victory 41 LLC Michael D. Caven RECEIVED,,,_ OFFICE COPY MAR 1 5 2001 r'ITV r1r R DIAN INTER OFFI Cf kt *um bum TO: WILLIAM G. BERG, FROM: WM. F. NICHOLS SUBJECT: FIRST ADDEN UM TO SECTION 5.2 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CASE NO. AZ -00-010) — OBSERVATION POINT DATE: 03/13/01 CC: FILE Please find attached the original of the First Addendum To Section 5.2 To Development Agreement (Case No. A7--00-010), for Victory 41, LLC, Observation Point Subdivision. This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to Michael D. Caven's letter submitted to the Mayor and City Council, pertaining to the 20' landscape buffer. Please obtain the signatures for Victory 41, LLC and then this matter will be ready for placement upon an upcoming City Council meeting. If you have any questions regarding this project, please advise. Z:\Work\History\M\Meridian\Victory 41 AZ PP VAR\Berg031301 Memo.doc FIRST ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CASE NO. AZ -00-010) The following is an addendum to that certain Development Agreement between the City of Meridian and Victory 41, LLC, dated the day of )2001, specifically at section 5.2 under CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY therein attached, which section 5.2 will have language change pertaining to the landscape buffer along the west side of the development and reflects conditions which is subsequent to the entering into of the original development agreement. Now, therefore, for mutual consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. That section 5.2 of the above described Development Agreement is modified to read as follows: 5.2 "The 20 foot landscape buffer along the west side of the development may be provided in the form of a landscape easement, whereby the lots bordering the west side of the development may be lengthened by 20 feet, said 20 feet being the width of the landscape easement. Each lot owner will be responsible for maintenance of the landscape easement for their particular lot, it being the intent that said 20 foot landscape easement will provide sufficient buffer from the potential and existing uses of the adjacent gravel pit now located immediately west of the development. The Developer/Owner shall also require and include in the covenants, conditions and restrictions of the subdivision, that each such lot owner shall be required to plant not less than two (2) trees with a minimum of a 2 inch (2") caliper within the landscape easement. Said CC&R's shall also inform the owners, and potential purchasers of said lots along the west boundary of the development, that the development immediately to the west, may be incompatible with residential uses." 2. Except as modified herein, said Development Agreement remains in full force and effect. IT IS SO AGREED. DATED AND SIGNED this day of , 2001. FIRST ADDENDUM TO SECTION 5.2 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/ CASE NO. AZ -00-010 PAGE 1 OF 3 VICTORY 41, LLC B Oanag4ing Member ATTEST: Managing Member BY RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF MERIDIAN BY: Mayor Robert D. Corrie ATTEST: 9 -1 - City Cleric BY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. *yVVezt �)y C11 eO4C x CcX S -/-C/ A SE,AL ft tz FIRST ADDENDUM TO SECTION 5.2 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT / CASE NO. AZ -00-010 PAGE 2 OF 3 STATE OF IDAHO, ss: County of Ada, MAY On this js-- day of Ma4-k, 2001, before me, a Notary Public, in and for said state, personally appeared Robert D. Corrie and William G. Berg, Jr., known or identified to me to be the Mayor and City Cleric, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument on behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. (SEAL) :*f �•*: pustilC'.t meg• O �. STATE OF IDAHO, ss: County of Ada, 6'ta# Public for Idaho ' ding at: Me.-I'!1''oH y Commission Expires: 0 0 0 r A/0-9 On this day of March, 2001, before me, a Notary Public, in and for said state, personally appeared and known or identified to me to be the Managing Members of Victory 41, LLC, executed the instrument on behalf of said Limited Liability Corporation and acknowledged to me having executed the same. (SEAL) Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: My Commission Expires: who Z:\Work\History\M\Meridian\Victory 41 AZ PP VARWIRST ADDENDUM TO DEVELPOMENT AGREEMENT.doc FIRST ADDENDUM TO SECTION 5.2 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT / CASE NO. AZ -00-010 PAGE 3 OF 3 WHITE, PETERSON, PRUSS, MORROW & GIGRAY, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW JULIE KLEIN FISCHER PHILIP A. PETERSON WM. R GIGRAY, III STEPHEN L- PRUSS BRENT JOHNSON ERIC S. ROSSMAN D. SAMUEL JOHNSON TODD A. ROSSMAN WILLIAM A. MORROW DAVID M. SWARTLEY WILLIAM F NICHOLS* TERRENCE R. WHITE** CHRISTOPHER S. NYE *ALSO ADMITTED IN OR **ALSO ADMITTED IN WA William G. Berg, Jr. Meridian City Hall 33 E. Idaho Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE, SUITE 31 POST OFFICE BOX 1150 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150 TEL (208) 288-2499 FAX (208) 288-2501 Email via Internet @ wfg@wppmg.com August 4, 2000 NAMPA OFFICE 104 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH POST OFFICE BOX 247 NAMPA, IDAHO 83653.0247 TEL (208) 466-9272 FAX (208) 466.4405 PLEASE REPLY TO MERIDIAN OFFICE RE CEIVEj AUG 0 4 yppp CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE Re: OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION AZ -00-010/ ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (R-4) Dear Will: Please find enclosed the above ordinance for the annexation and zoning for Observation Point Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC. Please place this ordinance on the City Council agenda. This ordinance should not be Passed until the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order Granting Application for Annexation and Zoning are adopted. Please supply this letter to the Mayor and Council for their consideration of the Findings and Ordinance. If you have any questions arise, please advise. Very truly yours Wm. F. ols ntsg\Z:\work\M\Meridian 15360M\Victory 41 AZ PP VAR\Clerk on Ord .Ltr A-. WHITE, PETERSON, PRUSS, MORROW & GIGRAY, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW JULIE KLEIN FISCHER PHILIP A. PETERSON Wm. F. GIGRAY, III STEPHEN L. PRUSS BRENT JOHNSON ERIC S. ROSEMAN D. SAMUEL JOHNSON TODD A. ROSSMAN WILLIAM A. MORROW DAVID M. SWARTLEY WILLIAM F. NICHOLS* TERRENCE R. WHITE" CHRISTOPHER S. NYE 'ALSO ADMITTED IN OR "ALSO ADMITTED IN WA 200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE, SUITE 31 POST OFFICE BOX 1150 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150 TEL (208) 288.2499 FAX (208) 288-2501 Email via Internet L wfg@wppmg.com August 4, 2000 William G. Berg, Jr., City Cleric MERIDIAN CITY HALL 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 NAMPA OFFICE 104 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH POST OFFICE BOX 247 NAMPA, IDAHO 83653.0247 TEL (208) 466-9272 FAX (208) 466.4405 PLEASE REPLY TO MERIDIAN OFFICE RECEIVED AUG 0 4 2000 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY r l FRK nFFi(-E Re: OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION / ANNEXATION AND ZONING FINDINGS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, RESOLUTION AND CERTIFICATE OF CLERK / CASE NO. AZ -00-010 Dear Will: Please find enclosed the original of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FORANNEXATION AND ZONING prepared as per instructions from the Council meeting of August 1, 2000, and which are on the agenda for August 15, 2000. I have also attached the originals of the Resolution and Certificate of the Cleric for the Development Agreement for owner/developer's signature. I have also attached hereto the Development Agreement for the above matter. After the Council meeting of August 15, 2000, if Council approves the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the above matter, then the Findings will need to be attached to the four Development Agreements as Exhibit "B". Very truly yo , Wm. F. Nichols msg/ZAWor1c\M\Meridian 15360"Victory 41 AZ PP VAR\FFCL and DevAgt0k.1tr July 13, 2000 AZ 00-010 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 18, 2000 APPLICANT Victory 41, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST AZ of 40.33 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Timber View Subdivision / Observation Pointe - N of Victory Road and E of Meridian Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: COMMENTS See attached minutes + misc. docs CITY WATER DEPT: �rn ) MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: 1 / MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Mayor ROBERT D. CORRIE City Council Members CHARLES ROUNTREE GLENN BENTLEY" RON ANDERSON KEITH BIRD MEMORANDUM: i IA- HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218 To: Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council LEGAL DEPARTMENT ('_08)288-'_499 • Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208)887-2211• Fax 887-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208)884-5533 • Faz 887-1297 47 May- 32000- City of Meridian City Clerk Offic<� From: Steve Siddoway, Planner e/ Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Technician Re: - Request for Annexation and Zoning of 40.33 Acres from R -T to R-4 by Victory 41, LLC for proposed Timber View Subdivision. (File AZ -00-010) - Preliminary Plat of 40.33 Acres by Victory 41, LLC for proposed Timber View Subdivision (File PP -00-010) We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: LOCATION The property is generally located on the north side of Victory Road approximately one-third mile East of Meridian Road. It is designated as Single Family Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES North — Meridian Greens Subdivision. Lot sizes generally 0.3 to 0.5 acres. Zoned R-4. South — Irrigated farm land, Zoned RT in Ada County. East — Large -lot rural residences zoned RT in Ada County. West j Victory Greens Nursery zoned C-3 in Ada County and a gravel pit zoned RT in Ada County. ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUIREMENTS 1. The legal description submitted for the property is correct and places the parcels contiguous to existing city limits. 2. The proposed R-4 zone is in compliance with the current Comprehensive Plan for single family residential. AZ -00-0I0, PP -00-010 Timber View.AZ.PPAd Mayor, Council and P81' May 3, 2000 Page 2 3. A minimum 20 -foot landscape buffer beyond all right-of-way on E. Victory Road should be required as a condition of annexation. 4. A Development Agreement is not required as a condition of annexation, due to the fact that conditions placed on the plat will govern development of the property. PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL COMMENTS L Submit letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names with the final plat application. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 2. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 3. Assessment fees for water and sewer service are determined during the building plan review process. Applicant shall be required to enter into a Re -Assessment Agreement with the City of Meridian for all commercial uses. An assessment agreement is a vehicle that protects the City of Meridian and the Developer in the event that estimated assessments are not in line with actual usages. The agreement provides for reimbursement to the developer for over payment of assessments and payment to the City of Meridian of any shortfall in assessments. The overpayment/shortfall is determined after adequate historical usage. 4. Provide five -foot -wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance (Ord. 12-5-2.K). 5. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, including sidewalk and pathway slopes, etc. 6. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project shall be tiled per City Ordinance, except as provided for under site specific requirements. The ditches to be piped should be shown on the site plans. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 7. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance. Wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. PRLEMINARY PLAT SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 1. Sanitary sewer service to this is proposed via extensions from Meridian Greens Subdivision No. 3. Subdivision (Ten Mile Service Area), however lots 2-4, block 7 are outside of the service area. These three lots fall within the future Black Cat Trunk Service Area. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works AZ -00.010, PP -00-010 Timber View.AZPP.doc Mayor, Council and P&^ May 3, 2000 Page 3 Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of the centerline. 2. Water service to this site will be via extensions from extensions of existing mains installed in Meridian Greens Subdivision No. 3. Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Please provide the Public works department with information on anticipated fire flow and domestic water requirements for the proposed site. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. Flow and pressure from the existing mains should be monitored with the Meridian Water Department. 3. Two -hundred -fifty- and 100 -watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 4. Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all landscape areas on site. Please submit hook-up and design details based on the proposed landscaping. Due to the size of landscaped area, primary water supply connection to the City's mains will not be allowed. Applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If City water is proposed as a secondary source, developer shall be responsible to pay water assessments for the entire common open area. 5. Applicant has not indicated whether the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by an association or the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. If the system is being proposed as a private system, plans and specifications for the irrigation system shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. A draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual must be submitted prior to plan approval. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a creek or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer. If City water is proposed as a secondary source, developer shall be responsible to pay water assessments for the entire common open area. 6. Meridian Subdivision & Development Ordinance 12-4-7, "Planting Strips and Reserve Strips", requires a minimum 20 -foot wide screen between incompatible development features, including commercial or industrial uses next to residential property. The screening must be beyond any street right of way or utility easement. The buffer also must be located on a common lot, owned and maintained by a homeowners association, with a note indicating such on the plat. A 20 -foot wide screen will be required along the west boundary of the subdivision adjacent to the existing gravel pit. The screen must include trees spaced so that they will form a solid buffer at maturity. AZ -04010, PP -O0-010 Timber View.AZPPA. Mayor, Council and P&'�`- May 3, 2000 Page 4 7. A 20 -foot wide minimum landscape buffer, beyond the required ACHD right-of-way along Victory Road, must be constructed by the developer as a condition of the plat. The landscape buffer shall be within a common lot, owned and maintained by a homeowners association, with a note indicating such on the plat. The buffer should contain, at a minimum, one tree per 35 lineal feet along Victory Road. Fencing shall not encroach upon this buffer. 8. Detailed landscape plans for all landscape buffers and common lots shall be submitted for review and approval with submittal of the Final Plat application. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to City signature on the Final Plat. 9. Six -foot -high, permanent perimeter fencing shall be required along the north, east and west property lines. The fence along the north property line (against Meridian Greens Subdivision) is required only where fences do not currently exist, and must match the existing fence. Submit detailed fencing plans for review and approval with submittal of the Final Plat. All required fencing is to be in place prior to issuance of building permits. 10. Staff recommends leaving the Kennedy Lateral unpiped, and develop the large common area around the lateral (lot 5 block 7) as a pocket park for the subdivision, with a pathway along the lateral. The stormwater detention area should be designed with slight slopes and grass to allow it to function as a recreation area for the subdivision. The proposed subdivision is outside the service area of all existing city parks. 11. Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Block 7 (on the south side of the Kennedy Lateral) are outside of the sanitary sewer service area for the Ten Mile Trunk, and are within the service area for the future Black Cat Trunk. Therefore, staff recommends denial of these 3 lots and recommends use of the area as a neighborhood park for the residents of the subdivision. Total area of the 3 lots is 1.4 acres. Combined with Lot 5 (described above in #10) the total open space area would be 2.5 acres. The park must be owned and maintained by the homeowners association, or the applicant may contact the Parks Department to discuss potential City purchase or dedication in lieu of park impact fees (minimum park area would need to be approximately 5 acres). 12. Staff supports the ACHD recommendation to provide a stub street along the west property line as an extension of E. Lake Creek Street. The grades between the two lots match at this location; further south at the midpoint between E. Lake Creek Street and S. Forest Ridge Drive (the ideal location for a stub street) the grade differential would prohibit a stub street. Staff also supports the ACHD recommendation to relocate the access from Victory Road to an extension of Daybreak Avenue. 13. Blocks 2 and 6 exceed the 1000 -foot maximum block lengths. Staff recommends adding five -foot -wide paved pedestrian pathway connections between Falling Branch Drive and Forest Ridge Drive, and from Forest Ridge Drive to Observation Drive at the mid -block location. A landscape strip a minimum of 5' wide shall be provided along both sides of the path. This corresponds to an overall pathway common lot of 15 feet wide minimum. The landscape strips should be planted with a minimum of 1 deciduous tree per 35 lineal feet and AZ -00.010, PP -00-010 Timber Vi AZ_PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&?' --- May 3, 2000 Page 5 shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover. Fences adjacent to the pathway are recommended to be "see through" as it provides better security and visibility from adjacent homes. If solid fences are used, they shall not exceed 4' in height. If the pathways are not provided, a Variance application must be filed with the City to exceed the maximum block length. Staff will not support such a Variance. 14. Any entry signage for the subdivision must be placed outside of a 40' X 40' clear sight triangle, measured from the projected intersection of Victory Road and the entry road, or if the sign is less than 3' in height, it may be placed within the sight triangle. 15. Submit 10 copies of the revised plat that conforms to these requirements at least one week prior to the public hearing with City Council. Also submit one 8 % x 11 legible copy of the plat. Applicant's Response Please respond, in writing, to each of the comments contained in this memorandum by 12:00 p.m. (noon) of the Monday prior to the scheduled hearing by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission (05/8/00). Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the applications, with the conditions noted above. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS The 1993 Comprehensive Plan contains a variety of goals and policies relevant to this application. The following sections most directly apply to the proposed project and are repeated here for the Council and Commission's consideration during the hearing process. Goal 4 is "to provide housing opportunities for all economic groups within the community." Goal 8 is "to establish compatible and efficient use of land through the use of innovative and functional site design." Land Use 1.4U Encourage new development that reinforces the City's present development pattern of higher density 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 areas that contain the necessary parks, schools and commercial facilities to maintain and form identifiable neighborhoods. 2.lU Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-family, multi -family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities. AZ•00-010, PP -00-010 Tunber Vi AZ.PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&? - May 3, 2000 Page 6 2.2U Support strategies for the development of neighborhood parks within all residential areas. 2.3U Protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's physical condition and enhance its quality of life for residents. 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 the urban level densities and rural residential densities. Transportation 1.4U Monitor and coordinate the compatibility of the land use and transportation system. 1.20U Encourage proper design of residential neighborhoods to ensure their safety and tranquility. Open Space, Parks and Recreation 2.5U New subdivision development... will be considered as opportunities to ... encourage the development of recreational open spaces and parks as part of new planned developments. Housing 1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types ... in a variety of locations suitable for residential development. 1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers shall be encouraged. 1.6 Housing proposals shall be phased with transportation, open space and public service and facility plans, which will maximize benefits to the residents, minimize conflicts and provide a tie-in between new residential areas and service needs. 1.19 High-density development, where possible, should be located near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, and near major access thoroughfares. Community Design 5.2 Ensure that all new development enhances rather than detracts from the visual quality of its surroundings, especially in areas of prominent visibility. 6.11 U Promote well-planned and well -designated affordable housing in all Meridian neighborhoods. AZ-MOIO, PP -0O-010 Timber View.AZ.PP.doc MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MAY 24, 2000 The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup. MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Thomas Barbeiro, Richard Hatcher, Kent Brown. OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Will Berg. Borup: We'd like to begin on meeting this evening. This is the May 24th special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. Maybe a little bit of information on procedure. Our procedure on the majority of the public hearings would be we'd start with a staff report. Then the applicant will come forward and give a brief summary of their project. Commissioner's may have questions during that time. Then it will be open for public testimony. Then the applicant will have a final opportunity to make any closing comments. When the public hearing is closed, the commission will discuss the project and hopefully make a recommendation. One of our purposes is to gather information. We like to spend a lot of time to do that and get as much as we can. To help us do that we also need to have some restrictions. If its going to be a major project with a lot of people testifying, we have a 3 minute limit to hear as many people as we can. Also, keep in mind the type of testimony and the information has got to be pertinent to the project. Saying that, we'd like to begin with item 1. 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 40.33 ACRES TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION BY VICTORY 41, LLC—NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: 2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION – 91 BUILDABLE LOTS ON 40.33 ACRES BY VICTORY 41, LLC—NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: Borup: Staff, do we have a report? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, would you like me to address just the annexation or both. Borup: I think we would like to address both. On some of these we would have opportunity to open both public hearings at the same time, take testimony which we have been doing but have had to turn around and open the other public hearing. If the commission would be in favor on some of these, we could go ahead and open both at the same time. Meridian Planning and -.-ding Commission May 24, 2000 Page 2 Siddoway: Okay Commissioner's the proposed Timber View Subdivision has a name change. Observation Point. I just saw the revised plat for the first time at 4 o'clock today. This is Victory Road and Meridian Road. Meridian Greens Subdivision is directly north of it. To the west is Victory Greens Nursery and there is a gravel here. To the west is a rural residential county sub. To the south is irrigated farm land. The boundary is there. The stub street that comes in from Meridian Greens to the property is in this location here. Not all of that area along the south property line of Meridian Greens or the north property line of Observation Point is fenced. There is a fence from approximately half way point down to the east. The Kennedy lateral this course through the southwest corner of the property. We have recommended in our comments that this be left untitled as a amenity and the green space adjacent to it with the storm water facility be developed as a useable recreation space with a pathway a long it. This was the original plat. I don't have a copy of the new one that was just submitted. I can tell you just based on the quick review I did this afternoon, they have eliminated these 3 lots. They are talking about leaving that as a single residential lot on septic. They decreased these (inaudible) 7 foot landscape buffers to 40 feet. The plat that has been submitted still does not conform with the staff comments for the pedestrian connections or the buffers between the land uses of the gravel pit and the Subdivision. Also noticed in the file several comments related to the connection of this stub street. As planning staff we would recommend that stub street go through. We see it as critical for the interconnectivity within the city. The stub street that we have requested would be an extension of this street where the grades do match is also not shown in the revised plat. Borup: Any comment on the ACHD recommendations? Mainly the entry. Siddoway: They recommended that the entry way shift from the point that it is shown on here to the west because it was too close to the bridge that the Kennedy lateral goes through. On the new plat they have shifted it to the east. We don't see that as a problem. Borup: Is the applicant here. Becky are you doing this again. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt. I am back one more time. 11283 W. Hickory Dale, Boise. Borup: I might just add we do have your written comments dated May 9th or your response to staff comments. The first question I have is there anything changed from what you submitted earlier. Bowcutt: Yes. The issue with the three lots adjoining Victory Road. I'll go through that. This property when you look at it with the lots and the streets it looks like any ordinary Subdivision you may see, but when you look at the topographic map this property is very unique to the City of Meridian. It is hilly. It has a good grade. A nice knoll through the mid section. My client, Mr. Cavin, when he came to us to plan this Meridian Planning and zing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 3 project, he main concern was I would like to create a view corridor for this lots and maximize the views of the Boise front, the Owyhees as much as possible. The way this is designed the lots are slanted in a north easterly direction. He did not want lots backing up to Victory Road. We have a single loaded street all through this area. He felt that gave him a better Subdivision. The density he intended was a low density. This will be a high end Subdivision. We've got 2.21 dwelling units per acre. The lots are ranging from 11,000 and we have one that is as big as 33,400 square feet. The homes he intends to build are similar to the homes that have been constructed in Brookdale Meadows which is located north of McMillan between Cloverdale and Eagle Road. The smallest home that he intents to be constructed within this development is approximately 2100 square feet. I know some of the resident were alarmed because the preliminary plat in (inaudible) square footage said 1400. It states that because that's the minimum for that R-4 zone. As Steve indicated the Kennedy lateral (inaudible) this property here on the southwest corner. This particular triangular area currently has one single family dwelling which appears to be the old homestead house. There is one other existing home that sits up here on the hill side. That is the home of the previous property owner. We are platting that lot as part of this development. The original plan we showed 3 lots down in this area and we had kind of a little knuckle here to provide access to them. Ada County Highway District came back and said because Victory Road will eventually be a arterial, we don't want those homes taking access in that fashion. Their recommendation was that those homes take access internally which means coming across, bridging the Kennedy and bringing a short culdesac just to access basically 3 lots. In the staff report they indicated that the Kennedy lateral is also the demarcation line for the sewer drainage area, even through physically this particular area can drain into the extension of the Ten Mile off shoot of the trunk out of the south end of Meridian Greens. They indicated that these lots here should not take sewer service. After multiple discussions with Mr. Cavin, we determined we will go ahead and buy in to that and we removed those three lots and then this area here is 1.66 acres and we will leave this existing home on its existing septic and well. That existing house does encroach into the required 20 foot landscape area. There is about a 7 foot encroachment. There is a stub street up here in Meridian Greens and sewer and water will be extended through our development from that point. At this time they have a temporary culdesac there and we would make an interconnection here and it was mandated by Ada County Highway District. We had not choice. It is a platted public right of way and was always intended to be extended. We have stubbed through the east here. There is a long parcel here. ACHD did not want our entrance too close to the Kennedy lateral bridge. One, visibility and two we need to provide a center turn lane into our project and if it is too close to the bridge it would require complete rebuild of the bridge. Their recommendation was we off set between 300 to 350 feet or go align with this street. Our intent was to create a landscaped area with lots of flowers as your entry way view when you come into the development. We'd have heavy landscaping here and Mr. Cavin intends to build a wall all along Victory Road that would consist of a rock fascia. We'll have a pathway. Since these two roadways, Observation Drive and Victory are only 40 feet apart, what we would propose to do is install our sidewalk meandering. Our wall would be here. It would be north of the 20 foot landscape area. Pull our sidewalk in and interconnect here and pull it in again and interconnect and Meridian Planning and --ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 4 come across here. We want to construct pathways doing the same here. Then install a pathway along the Kennedy lateral and we've got landscaping proposed there. In my comments to the staff, I indicated that we still would have to Nampa Meridian Irrigation approval for any improvements within the easement for the Kennedy lateral. That easement is 55 feet and runs right here. Going to the comments that I made, one of the concerns was the request for pedestrian pathways. We did submit a variance application. Staff has asked since we do exceed the maximum block length of 1000 feet, that we put a pedestrian pathway connecting these two blocks. A pedestrian pathway has to meet ADA standards, so there are some concerns. Since this property is unique I am asking staff and commission to consider some factors. We have kept our lot depths as deep as possible next to Meridian Greens. They range between 124-125 in depth. We kept our widths which range between 90-94 feet. That would be about 11,400 square feet. We have some lots in our development that have more depth where we have the hill side to deal with because we will have to provide a pad area for the home to be built and be able to accommodate the drainage due to the slopes and so forth. In those instances where we have the greater slopes we went a greater depth. Some of those are 165 feet and others 140 on the average. We intend to fence our boundary. Along the Kennedy lateral we would have to discuss with the district and the city some type of safety fence. We'd be required to fence this western boundary here. Along Meridian Greens there are intermittent fences through there. Staff indicated they want us to fence whatever has not been fenced and match the fencing that is currently in place. The most objectionable thing in the staff report was the issue of the buffer here. We have the Victory View Nursery here. This is an older gravel pit. It think it is 15 acres. It appears to be played out. They do have some activity going there. One of the concerns that we have was the Comprehensive Plan states that in some point of time would be single family. I believe medium density single family on the new Comprehensive Plan. Staff stated we want a stub street there to provide inter- connectivity to the parcel. However, in the next comment it stated you have a incompatible use adjoining you. Therefore, you need a 20 foot buffer. My opinion it can't be both ways. If it is intended to be residential then that is what it is going to be in the future so therefore it would be compatible. I think it should be viewed in that manner as far as the buffer is concerned. Anytime you put a buffer along a perimeter that has no use—no pedestrian use or really any practical use, the chance of that being maintained over time is going to be severely diminished when you compare it to usable visible space. This is behind lots. It benefits only the lots that are there. We have developed Subdivisions next to more intensive uses or what some may deem incompatible. What we have done there, fencing was one but we also went with heavy landscaping. East individual lot owner is going to make that determination on what type of landscaping they want. I don't think it is practical. We did not show the stub street along the western boundary for one reason and that is because of our concern. If there is still activity going on there, we don't want any of those trucks coming through this project. That public stub street is built and dedicated then aren't they entitled to utilize it as a public street. ACHD first required it but then got to thinking about it and the grade separation because there is about 12 to 13 foot grade separation through here. This property sits up high and that is another issue as far as they are low. We are high for buffering. Ada County Highway District had a stub street right here hanging up in the Meridian Planning and -- ling Commission May 24, 2000 Page 5 air. When we discussed it further they said you are right. We don't want trucks coming through your development. We do have a grade separation, therefore maybe your right and it is not a good idea. That condition was removed. The city staff discussed it and they called the highway district it is important because we believe that property is going to redevelop at some point of time as residential. Do you have any questions. Norton: I don't see anywhere in our notes that there will be a homeowners association but you mentioned one. Will there be CC&R's. Bowcutt: Yes. They will be consistent with the other higher end Subdivision that Mr. Cavin has done. The very same things you have seen in Meridian Greens. Borup: Becky, are you familiar with the parcels to the west. Is that separate parcels or ownership. Bowcutt: Yes sir. Parcels are separated by the Kennedy lateral is the parcel boundary. Borup: So, that triangle piece is a separate parcel. Bowcutt: Under separate ownership and takes access through an easement. I think it takes access south of Victory Road. I may be wrong. I stand corrected. To the west. It is just a easement. Borup: You said if that developed it would have access to Meridian Road. Bowcutt: When that parcel adjoins it develops, then obviously you get another opportunity for interconnection to Meridian Road and Victory Road. Barbeiro: Did you read the petition that came from the neighbors asking for larger lot sizes and the big one was they wanted to have similar roofing. Bowcutt: No I have not received that. I did chat with the neighbors a couple weeks ago out in the lobby. Barbeiro: So we would request that the adjoining (inaudible) have the same roofing materials those being either cedar shake or tile roofs. In your CC&R's are those addressed? Bowcutt: Yes, the roofing would be addressed in the CC&R's and I believe Mr. Cavin indicated that in this Subdivision they have those architectural shingles. They are different then the old asphalt shingles. They are attractive. Borup: Somewhere we will have to discuss the conflicting comments with staff. Commissioner's will have a chance to do that. We would like to open this to public testimony at this time. Meridian Planning and --ding Commission May 24, 2000 Page 6 Martinez: My name is Boris Martinez. I live at 521 E. Whitehall Street. I come before you today to voice my opposition to Observation Point Subdivision in its present embodiment. In the statement of compliance for the Timber View Subdivision now Observation Point, dated March 30, 2000 submitted by Briggs Engineering, Item 10 states, the applicant would like to provide larger lots to accommodate homes similar to the ones in Meridian Greens. Yet, I have a hard time finding any of these lots up against the Meridian Greens Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan states protect and maintain residential neighborhood values. Improve each neighborhoods physical condition and enhance its quality of life for residents. I do not understand how placing the majority of the smallest lots up against Meridian Greens property line is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. I took the liberty of reproducing the Timber View Subdivision plat. I highlighted in yellow all lots that are less than 11,500 square feet. If you will notice they don't appear anywhere in the front. They all are against the Meridian Greens property line or in close proximity to it. It was mentioned that examples of the types of homes that would be build in this Subdivision were like the ones in Brookdale Meadows. I went and looked at some of the houses being built there and I saw some very nice homes there, but 1 also saw some homes like this one. This is a 2100 square foot home, 2 car garage for $204,900. Given what they proposal for, this would be a perfectly acceptable home to abut our property lines. This house is probably about $100,000 less than all the houses on the property line. I would like to see covenants that prevent homes like this from occurring. They mentioned shingles. Out of that whole Subdivision there was only one house with wood shingles. Every other house had something else. So in my minds the covenants are not indicative of what we would expect to see. I think there needs to be strict covenants about the type of roofing that has to be on those homes. I would like to ask that the homes that are built against our property lines are of comparable size and price as what is in Meridian Greens. We should have either ceramic or wood shakes and we should have 10 foot setbacks. The Subdivisions need to blend together. I please ask you to keep that in consideration when reviewing this proposal. Thank you. Borup: Do you agree that the same continuity needs to take place within Meridian Greens Subdivision itself. Martinez: Well from seeing it as we get toward the back of the Subdivision I think the houses are pretty comparable. If you go toward the front, it seems as you move toward the back, the houses get more and more expensive. If they want smaller or lower priced homes, why not integrate those toward the front of the Subdivision. Or put them to the east side. Basically what is going to happen if this goes through, probably 2 or 3 years ago when they started to develop the areas to the east, there will be a whole bunch of people here before you again arguing about how their lots are big and the things that go next to them are going to get small. If you create that environment now where you blend in with us and then as you move east and west, if you start to put smaller homes in there, then you have transition homes. Seegmiller: My name is Lee Seegmiller. I live at 512 E. Whitehall. I share the same concerns as Mr. Martinez. My biggest concern is a matter of safety. This as mentioned Meridian Planning and L.,ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 7 is a choice building site but it is hilly. It is not appreciated by looking at the map. There is approximately 1000 feet of down hill straight road headed north bound and it dumps into a culdesac. This map is incorrect. That was a culdesac at the end of Andros Way. It is 9200 feet in diameter. It was built and paved and curved as a culdesac. Now at this date, change it to a through way at the end of a long straight street coming downhill is a concern to me. The curbing in Meridian Greens is a very low contour and does not offer protection to keep the cars off the sidewalk. There are small children in the area and there has been numerous instances where cars have driven up on to the sidewalk. My mail box has been knocked over by a car who failed to negotiate the turn. I have concern about cars coming down that hill in excessive speed and entering that culdesac and failing to negotiate the corners. I would like to see that street made into a curve of some kind so that the speed could be controlled. I was informed by the builder when I purchased the lot that that was to be access for emergency fire department use only. There were never any signs there informing the buyers that was to be temporary culdesac. I feel at this date to change that to a through street is a breech of faith on the part of the commission. My second concern regards the lot sizes and the roofing material. I will refer to Mr. Martinez's comments. My third comment is referring to water pressure. If the new Subdivision is tapped into our supply it will aggravate an all ready unsatisfactory condition. On many occasions I have measured the water pressure at my home of 25 pounds per square inch. That is inadequate to water the lawn or even fight a small fire. I would like to ask the question what is to be done about water supply to this new Subdivision. Are they going to have a pressurized irrigation system or will they be watering from the city's supply. Borup: Pressurized system. Seegmiller: That is good. In Meridian Greens we depend upon the city water supply for all of our irrigation needs. I would like to also request that the board require a more protective type of curbing. In the winter when that down hill road is covered with ice I can anticipate there will be out of control cars coming into that area. Oward: David Oward. I live at 1019 E. Dominica. I'd like to add a few comments to what Mr. Martinez said. The principal concerns we have are obviously with the lot sizes. I have personally no complains with the land being developed. I am concerned that it be developed in a manner that it does not hurt our property values. Obviously that property has had its value enhanced virtue to the fact that it is sitting adjacent to some very expensive home. I would like to see that increase in property value not come at our expense. Concerning home sizes, I spent time down at the county court house determining what the size of houses on Whitehall are and I pulled up the square footages and the average comes out a little higher then on the letter. It is around 3100 feet. The covenants in that neighborhood on our street are 2400, 2500 square feet. I would like to encourage the commission to insist that the lots as well as the housing square footage be at least similar so there is not a drastic discontinuity. Another concern is that in Meridian Greens there is not a lot of green open area and that is because the lots are large and the big 10 foot setbacks in there. Based on the number of lots in a small Subdivision I don't presume they will put a park in there. I would like to Meridian Planning and `-ding Commission May 24, 2000 Page 8 propose that the 10 foot setbacks be maintained to keep some what of a green space field in the neighborhood. The back half of Meridian Green has no pressurized irrigation. We do have a serious water pressure from time to time. Looking at the plat I noticed it appears there will be a pressurized irrigation system running down the back fence of Whitehall. If that system is being ran by Nampa Meridian Irrigation would it be possible for the lots sitting on that line to be able to have some service. I would be willing and interested and would pay some burden of the cost to do that. Thanks. St. Clair: Randy St. Clair. 1775 E. Dunwoody. I own the gravel pit that is just to the west of the project. As you know, the property operates now under a conditional use permit and the easement to it is temporary. I would like to assure myself of is that the property does not become land locked at some point of time. If we don't access through this property that only leaves one property left to access it through. END OF SIDE ONE Borup: Mr. St. Clair your accessing to the east right now through this property. St. Clair: To the west off Meridian Road right now. Temporary easement. It goes through the corner of Victory Greens right now. The access is probably the north boundary of Victory Greens property. Also I would like to mention, if they do provide utilities through there that they are compatible. It is zoned residential now that the utilities are compatible with the gravel pit—the elevations of the gravel pit. It is my understand that if my property is to be developed, that the sewer will go through that property of the new Subdivision. Borup: Your saying they are going to bring the sewer line presently through your property. In the future if you develop yours. Okay. I thought that was through the Black Cat Trunk line. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, northeast of the Kennedy lateral goes back to the Ten Mile. I guess the question I would pose to Mr. St. Clair is how deep you going to dig your pit. St. Clair: The pit right now is being reclaimed. There is some mining activity going on now but for the most part it is being reclaimed. Freckleton: The gravel pit would go to the Ten Mile. Hatcher: I believe that the sewer issue for the future development of the gravel pit is a design issue that would be resolved at the time of development of the pit. Whether or not your pit is (inaudible) reclaimed and level with the property at hand, nobody in this room have control of what you do with that land. At the time that you develop it then it's a design issue as to how you do. Meridian Planning and /_�, ging Commission May 24, 2000 Page 9 St. Clair: It operates under a conditional use permit now but if the conditional use permit ever lapses it reverts back to residential. I ask you guys what is the intent for sewer and water for that parcel. Hatcher: Basically it would be appropriate to develop based upon the Comprehensive Plan. It would be in your right to develop it residential and if you do and the city annexes it, then the city will provide utilities to your development. How it is to be provided is a design issue which will be dealt with at that time. St. Clair: Long range planning thought couldn't we make the sewer— Hatcher: We don't know what elevation to put the sewer at because it depends on whether you reclaim the pit, leave it or keep digging. Freckleton: Commissioner Hatcher. The City of Meridian did commission a study that is a facility plan for the entire city. The purpose of the plan was to try and define boundaries. Define where sewer lines need to run in order to service the properties. That property is included in that facility plan. You are correct in what you said about the design issue, but as far as the service ability of your property Randy, it has been accounted for in that facility plan. Widdison: Sue Widdison. I live at 2594 S. Abaco Way. My concern I also the road that is going through our Subdivision into the new one. This is a map that one neighbor received. It has always been shown as a culdesac there. I can understand for emergency purposes they might need to have that open. We gave you petitions to try to close the road off completely but I understand that it might need to be there. Now I am hoping we can have an emergency break down fence. We have 17 children under the age of 12 on that street. By opening that up to new construction and with only one opening on Victory Road into the new Subdivision so that only gives them they can enter on Victory or into our Subdivision giving us a lot of traffic and trucks where we have little kids. Porter: John Porter. I live at 2650 S. Andros Way. I submitted a letter with concerns I have. Some have been address by the developer. The road that they are trying to add on to Andros Way is a down hill access. They could redo the road. They could put a design that the road is not a straight shot. There is alternatives to that road coming into Meridian Greens. I was under the impression it was going to remain a culdesac. The traffic flow will increase. I see no need to have that second road come through there. Why couldn't they get 2 egresses in there —one at each end of the lots. That would push the traffic or make it more favorable to go out on Victory Road. The size of lots is a very high issue with us. The average lot size on the back adjoining property is 11,000 square feet and find that unacceptable. I have talked to the developer. If he just consumed one or two of those lots make them larger it would probably appease a lot of us. I am not opposed to the development but I am opposed the way the plat is, the design of it. Meridian Planning and L—ling Commission May 24, 2000 Page 10 Markel: Karen Markel. 661 E. Whitehall and I would like to add my concerns to the other residents. The small lots sizes also are my concerns. All they would need to do would be consume one of those lots across the back. Make them larger. I believe Becky Bowcutt painted a pretty picture of what architectural shingles look like. All they are is a composite shingle that looks a little bit different in shape. On the other side of Meridian Greens toward the front, there is a Subdivision that abuts against the east side and similar changes have been made to that Subdivision. They were required to put in wood shakes along where the lots a join Meridian Greens and also required to substantially increase their square footages. For some of us our homes are our only investment. We went into this home expecting a profit in the future. McKinley: Dennis McKinley. 2665 S. Andros. Right where that road bends that is where they'll be in my front yard. I offer opposition here as well that I bought that —told it was a culdesac, there was not sign that it was anything other than a culdesac. The curb went all the way around and I would like to maintain my properties and keep the people out of my front yard. All the requests here this evening I agree with. Borup: You said that showed that was a culdesac. Are you referring to the recorded plat shows that or —1 am talking about the recorded plat. Did you see a sales drawing that showed that. McKinley: I received a copy with my CC&R's and that showed it. In fact it was mentioned to me at one time it was going to be a golf course out there. It does affect all of our values. Diehl: My name if Paul Diehl. 2569 S. Aboco Way. I am surprised about this whole development because—We never received a notification that this thing was going in. A lot of people did not receive anything either so the neighbors informed us. We bought into a quiet neighborhood and quiet street. We were told at that time this was a culdesac period. I am not opposing the development but I am opposed to that road opening up. Nicholas: I am Luana Nicholas. I live at 545 Whitehall. I am here with all of my many neighbors. I will mention that my home is one of the ones right on the edge there. The white fence that you saw in the first picture that he put up tonight --the beginning of the white fence is my backyard. Those 2100 square foot homes will be built right across the fence line from me. That size of home is 2/3 size of my home. It would significantly depreciate the property value of my home. Debenham: Brett Debenham. I live at 737 E. Whitehall. I have a few questions and maybe some observations. Is the minimum square footage 2100 square feet or the minimum 1400. Borup: We will get an answer for you on that. Meridian Planning and , ling Commission May 24, 2000 Page 11 Debenham: The fence line will be going along Whitehall. 3/4 of the housing along there has very expensive fencing. The attitude I got from the developer was they would be willing to split the cost on that other quarter fencing. That kind of shows to me the spirit of how the developer is taking this. Barbeiro: I don't know if you can speak for the group but can you tell me what the minimum building size in Meridian Greens is. I believe it is 2400. Siddoway: The minimum house size in Meridian Greens as per the plat is 1300 square feet. Borup: He's got the plat. This is what was recorded and submitted by the developer. Debenham: When we moved into the Subdivision the minimum house price was $250,000. Barbeiro: I am asking the square footage of the property of the home. Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro I think I can answer that for you. I do have a set of covenants Meridian Green number 1. The recorded covenants for that says that a house size shall not be less than 1700 square feet. Barbeiro: What my point is for you and the neighbors is I don't think there are very many homes in your neighborhood at or close to the minimum. I think you might find that in this new Subdivision is will be equal. That you will find few is any homes that will come close to the minimum. Debenham: Let's say things go wrong here. He is not selling the lots as quickly as he'd like to. He is going to put 1400 or very small houses back up against there. What is going to stop that from happening Barbeiro: NO, no. Borup: Same thing that stopped it from happening in Meridian Greens. Debenham: What was that. When we bought into it, there was a minimum price that the house had to appraise for and that was $250,000. Hatcher: Requirements that numerous people that have mentioned here tonight are all driven by CC&R's not by Planning and Zoning Ordinances. We state that certain residential tones shall be made. The size of lot and house is different than the zoning ordinance because it is being governed by the CC&R's by the developer. The best interest to everybody involved is to work in a cooperative effort with the developer that is looking at developing this land. We don't have any way of governing what size of house he builds so long it meets the minimum requirements per the ordinance. Meridian Planning and c --ping Commission May 24, 2000 Page 12 Debenham: We are asking that they blend and we don't get 1400 square foot houses don't think that is unreasonable to ask. Diehl: Paul Diehl again. I was on the Meridian Greens homeowners association for 3 years and on the architectural committee. That 1700 feet is correct for the first phase. The other phases next to the new development is 2500 square feet minimum. With respect to the question about the houses, we would make reviews of the houses periodically through Meridian Greens checking on fences, etc. In essence, there are no homes in Meridian Greens that have down graded the value of other homes being built up in higher prices. Brown: Bob Brown. 695 Whitehall. I share the same views as everybody else. I know at Sportsman Point, I purchased a couple lots over there that back up to Meridian Greens the canal and all those lots back there were the biggest lots in the Subdivision and that is where the higher end houses went in at Sportsman Point. They did make them do the shake roofs so it is not unreasonable to comply with these things. Mussle: Tim Mussle and I am the owner of the nursery. What I want to ask if there is a way that —1 don't have a problem with this at all. I just want to make sure that down the road if I do anything with my property that I don't get a room full of folks. If there is a way to make sure that in this approvals or something that those folks or the developer or somebody along that whole fence line makes sure it is a consistent berm or buffer so when those guys move in to these wonderful homes and look across to my nursery and they don't have a problem with it then anything I do all of a sudden becomes a big problem. If that is something that can be addressed. Barbeiro: Mr. Mussel, as I look at the Comprehensive Plan it looks like you have some prime commercial property there for you to let the residents know that on that corner the possibility of a commercial development does exist. When everybody knows when you come to us in 2 or 3 years with a commercial development, we didn't know that was commercial. The new Subdivision people should be aware of that too. Borup: Anyone else. Becky any final or wrap up you'd like to do. Bowcutt: When we designed this Subdivision we were sensitive to the lot sizes. The question has been asked how come some of the lots next to Meridian Greens are some of the smaller ones that are in this development. The main answer is topography. With the hilliness of this property we had its design in a fashion that we need some of that depth to be able to handle the grading necessary for the streets and the homes. Just because a particular lot is 6 feet less in depth than its adjoined lot does not mean it is not compatible. This is intended to be a very high end exclusive Subdivision with views out of these homes which also enhances the value of the homes and the lots. It is not intended to be a 1400 or 1600 square foot Subdivision. Mr. Cavin is willing to go on the record that the minimum square footage will be 2100 square feet for the dwelling. That will be put in the covenants. As far as the issue of roofing, I never in 10 years of doing this ever had any governing body dictate a particular type of roofing. I have a shake Meridian Planning and z-,,ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 13 roof on my house and my house is a 2 story, 3250 square foot. Very comparable and it is not going to last. My neighbors that built their house a couple year before me, my house is 7 years old, are all ready replacing their roofing. I had a roofing company come out and the gentleman said we do not have the appropriate climate for shake shingles. Too many extremes in our weather. The expansion and contractions limits their life span. The shingles have come a long way. Those homes have architectural shingles and look very, very nice. Like I said compatibility does not mean exactly the same. Mr. Cavin is going to have strict covenants just like Meridian Greens does. Brookdale Meadows are very good looking homes and that is what he intends for this development. The culdesac --- we don't have choices when it comes to inter connection with the stub street to the north. Ada County Highway District dictates that and I understand and we face this time and time again. Some of the things we can do if the highway district will agree to it is put a choker up there at that intersection or East Lake Creek Street. What that does is funnel the traffic into all most one lane and it requires a driver to slow down and functions well. The other thing are speed humps which are not popular with emergency services. Second was construction traffic. Mr. Cavin can tell the subcontractors that construction traffic will take access off of Victory Road. He intends it to be a two phase project. He may build it all as one phase. He has not determined that but we will start at Victory and do the first loop for sure and then go on. Obviously the closest point of ingress and egress is Victory Road. For them to drive 3/ of a mile through Meridian Greens winding through the residential streets is not practical. The contractors will take the shortest route. I have seen signage put up and it is Ashford Greens I believe have a sign that directed construction traffic to a particular street. We have done it before. This development will have pressure irrigation. Mr. Cavin has not determined whether is will be under the association or under Nampa Meridian Irrigation Districts owner and maintenance. He will decide prior to the submittal of the final plat. As far as blending the home, just as Meridian Greens when it first started up at Overland Road as you went southward and the Subdivision started developing, the value the homes increased. That is a standard thing with a development with this low of density just like theirs. The price and value of the home increase as you develop each phase. We feel this is a good project. A good quality project. We have made great effort to come before you with a low density project. Our 2.21 dwelling units per acre is right there with Meridian Greens on their density. We calculated their phase 3 and it is like 2.2. With the rock wall on the exterior, being able to utilize that Kennedy lateral and make some esthetic improvements out there, I think it will be a asset to the city. Any questions. Excuse me. There was a comment about the 10 setbacks. Their zoning designation in Meridian Greens is R-4. That is the same zone we are requesting. Any two story house under the zoning ordinance requires 10 foot setback, 5 feet per story according to the ordinance. Barbeiro: I am going to try to solve your problem. You talk about a choker and we do know that while the plat shows this as being a stub street, it is a culdesac. With the use of a choker would the developer consider taking about 5 to 10 feet to halfway through each of these lots, widen that road. Work with the 2 neighbors at this lot and this lot to widen their road a little so you could take the choker about half way into their Meridian Planning and ening Commission May 24, 2000 Page 14 Subdivision. That would be enough to slow the traffic down, give them some assemblance of a culdesac. It essentially will be an island. Bowcutt: Your thinking a island and then choke it up with two lanes one on each side. Barbeiro: Yeah and passing through into your subdivision if your developer would consider the added expense in moving into their Subdivision if ACHD would allow— Bowcutt: Ada County Highway District will not allow us to put that median in their existing right of way. We can do it in a new Subdivision because the common lot or median is a separate and not a part of the public right of way. They have never allowed us to put those in a right of way. My concern is we may have to go in and either vacate part of the right of way or go to the commission with some sort of license agreement. I don't know if they would favor that. They will work with us but that one, I don't think it is possible. Hatcher: On the same line, the recorded plat of Meridian Greens is showing a public stub street to be (inaudible) to the southern property. When it was developed, the developer put in a temporary culdesac. Since that culdesac is not recorded I am at a loss as to one of two things are going to have to occur. Either the adjacent property owners in Meridian Greens actually own a chunk of that culdesac and when the street goes all the way through, then it will have to be reclaimed and those people be given their property back. Or, the culdesac was built out of violation to the recorded plat. Freckleton: I can clear that up for you. The recorded Subdivision plat for Meridian Greens Unit 3, there is a 50 foot right of way platted to the southern boundary. There is also a temporary emergency vehicle turn around ingress egress easement that goes into lot 50, block 8 and also lot 37, block 12 which is both sides of the right away. It says that this easement is to revert back to adjacent lot owners upon the extension of the public street. That is right on the face of the plat. Hatcher: So the culdesac would be — into a straight street. The adjacent property owners would reclaim how much land? Freckleton: Well, it's a 50 foot straight through right of way as platted. The culdesac is encroaching into the lot by an easement right now. Hatcher: By an easement—so there was a legal means in which that encroachment occurs. Freckleton: That is correct and I believe if we went back in the record, I think the City of Meridian was instrumental in requiring that because our requirements typically or any time you have a street that goes in more than one lot depth, you have to provide a turn around. Meridian Planning and Luning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 15 Hatcher: Okay. In reverting the culdesac to a through street, is it the Meridian Greens Association that does this work or the adjacent developer going in and making the adjustments within Meridian Greens? Freckleton: Typically it is the developer of the Subdivision that is effected by the culdesac. It would have been Meridian Greens. When this street goes through, if they choose to leave the culdesac where it was, that is there choice. If they want to reclaim it as their plat provides— Hatcher: So it would be the land owner or the association would have to go back to the original developer and say we want our land back. Freckleton: That is correct. Norton: I have a question regarding the homeowners concern about pressurized irrigation. They indicated they have difficulty with the water pressure and would be willing to help with expensive if they could tap into the pressurized irrigation that your Subdivision seems to be able to have. When the issue is resolved of who is going to be owning that, the Subdivision, homeowners association or the irrigation district, would your developer be willing to work with the neighbors to tap into that. Bowcutt: I have faced this before when developing next to adjoining properties that had no access to irrigation water. Nampa Meridian in two other instances took that to their board and came back and said unless we can provide water for the entire development of the adjoining Subdivision, they would not allow the lots that adjoin my development to connect to our system. It had to do with their water rights. Some Subdivisions have forfeited their water rights, some retain them and pay for the water rights, but don't get any water. I have dealt with this before and developers say yes they will do that but they would not allow it. I don't think that will happen. We could ask. Borup: Is Nampa Meridian going to be operating this system. Bowcutt: Either they will operate it or the association. Borup: So, it has not been decided yet. You stated that the 2100 square feet would be part of the covenants. Any reason that couldn't be put on the plat also. Bowcutt: If Mr. Cavin agrees. END OF SIDE TWO Borup: The warranty on a cedar shake shingle roof is non-existent. There is no warranty. What there any discussion on the type of architectural. Bowcutt: Presidential or better Mr. Cavin has just indicated for the record. 40 year. Meridian Planning and ening Commission May 24, 2000 Page 16 Borup: That will be in the covenants also. Bowcutt: Yes. Borup: And that is a very good quality shingle. Top of the line. That will look better in the future than a shake roof. I would like some more discussion on the stub street to the west. You mentioned concern about the grade. You also said that the steep grade in the one area but tapers off as it gets to each end. (Inaudible) stub street have to be where the embankment is rather then where it tapers off a little bit. Bowcutt: Where the highway district originally asked for it was between lot 10 and 11. That was the steepest point or – Borup: I don't think they realized about the grade. Bowcutt: My first meeting they agreed it was not necessary. They have left it the same but they have concerns about truck traffic coming through us. That was one of their concerns. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I contacted the (inaudible) Ada County Highway District on this issue and they originally recommended the stub street going this location which is the ideal location to prevent high speed traffic from going through on a long straight away. That location has the highest grade change so you can go there without some type of bridge structure or something. The grades meet from about this point north and the grades do meet at the location where East Lake Creek Drive would be extended. My last conversation with Dave Splitz suggested that that is the logical location for that because they are also grade elevation differences that still exist down here until you get on the other side of the lateral. We also voiced a concern about the possibility of gravel trucks now being able to use this to get out, but he was saying it could be barricaded with the sign saying this street will be extended in the future when that property is later developed as a residential Subdivision. We feel the connection is needed for the inner - connectivity. The grades do match at that location and I believe that it can be barricaded while the use is a gravel pit to keep trucks from using it. Borup: Did ACHD express what their—did they say what they really wanted? Siddoway: They agreed they wanted to get a stub street and when I pointed that location out they said that was where it should go. But I have not seen anything in writing. They do want a stub street. Borup: Your comment on the buffering, if it is going to be an incompatible use, the buffering needs to stay there. Your saying you don't want the stub street because its going to be residential and then its going to be a like use and the buffering would not need to be there. Along the same line, if it is going to be residential the stub street needs to be there. Meridian Planning and z_vning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 17 Bowcutt: Yes sir. Borup: Had there been any design consideration to a less direct route on Andros, turning at Lake Creek rather than extending through. Bowcutt: You mean try to ninety it and then bring it in perpendicular. That may be a possibility where you take it — what I was contemplating is softening the curve as we come around a little bit and then take Andros and intersect it 90 degrees like this instead of taking it straight. If the district would agree. We've done that before. Borup: Has there been any discussion about one less lot on the north boundary and distributing that between them. Bowcutt: The differences in the depth, they are approximately 130 we've got 124, 125 so it is 6 or 7 feet. In the width we've got 94 to 90 in our widths. They appear to be about 96 1 think. On those that are squared. With the 92 that we have, there is about a 6 or 8 foot difference. Borup: So is that a way of saying no, there has not been discussion. Bowcutt: We felt we were pretty darn close and that we are compatible. I would hate to loose a lot in there. A little bit of shifting could possibly be done to enhance. Borup: The lot you lose there could you add it back in somewhere else. Bowcutt: No, I don't think so not to meet the frontages that we need for the zone and the due to the slopes. Our first thought we'd try to move the lot lines, shift them a little to enhance the width. To the east probably, around the corner. I don't think there is enough room to bring every single lot there up to 100. That one on the end, lot 14, is 105. Borup: Whether you can gain that lot somewhere else in the Subdivision that is a design thing. You do have the larger lots on the north or on the south and the smaller lots on the north. It does seem you leave the smaller lots near an entrance. We've got the plat. Any other questions Commissioner's. Hatcher: I move we close the public hearings, both of them. Norton: I second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: We can do the discussion on both. We will need to make motions on each separate. Meridian Planning and Z-„,iing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 18 Hatcher: There was a comment earlier from one of the Meridian Greens residents about a violation of commitment from this commission. (Inaudible) we were to allow that road to go through. I wanted to address that. It is not a violation of the city or this board. It is a ACHD and Meridian City requirement that adjoining properties be harmoniously tied together so there is a free flow of traffic through out the city. Borup: The violation would have been to not have the road go through because that was what was on the plat and committed to. Hatcher: I am getting to that and what I would really say is that if there is any violation of commitment it is from the realtor and builders that you have dealt with because that road on the recorded plat has always been a stub street, always intended to be a stub street and if your swayed or deceived by the people you dealt with, I empathize with you. As far as the traffic because of the stub street, I think you will probably fine I look at the Meridian Greens Subdivision as it is currently platted and I would find that the back third of that Subdivision is going to take advantage of going through this Subdivision. You guys are going to benefit by this Subdivision and the traffic flow of the Subdivision. Every single house in that Subdivision will most likely go to Victory because it is a block away rather than driving 3/ of a mile through meandering roads in your Subdivision. The likelihood of them going through your Subdivision is pretty minimal. Another comment about curbs and having a turn down curb or rolled curb, a 6 inch curb. It doesn't matter what type you build it is not going to stop a car. The other issue is the culdesac and design standard. All of the culdesac that are in Meridian Greens by what I can see here were designed in a oval or oblong fashion which provide for guest parking in the middle of the culdesac and that looks like a Subdivision design standard. That should have been a red flag to anyone that through that other culdesac was permanent because it doesn't have that feature. I am discouraged about Meridian irrigation districts policy of not servicing adjacent lots. I encourage the Subdivision and the developer to come to means with that. If the Subdivision decides to maintain it them selves and make it as a homeowners association, then I think the Meridian Greens property could benefit from that with a joint venture with the developer. The three items I would be in favor of adjusting if I were to put a motion together on this would be the northern lots adjacent to Meridian Greens that they be adjusted so that they are no smaller than the smallest lot in the adjacent Meridian Greens. The second is to ask the developer to coordinate and work with Meridian Greens homeowners association to develop CC&R's that reflect similar conditions. The other issue would be that a western stub street in alignment with Lake Creek per staff recommendation be added in and that the buffering requirements be dropped as a requirement. Under the assumption that the gravel pit would be developed as residential. That is my discussion. Norton: I would concur with that but would also like to do or have something regarding this Andros Way meander so its not a straight shot downhill into Meridian Greens. Hatcher: I would not be opposed to that. I calculated the slopes of that and it would be a 3 percent slope, which is well within the standard means of a road. Meridian Planning and /-uning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 19 Norton: Do we want to do anything about helping the neighbors with the fence line along that back group of houses. Hatcher: Most of its there. Barbeiro: Steve could you go back to the photograph showing that fence line. Hatcher: I think we should maintain our current requirements and if that means the developer has to add what is not there then he adds what is not there. Barbeiro: I was pleased with Becky's answer to doing that curved Y road there. That would work well to slow down the traffic. I would like to see access to the St. Clair property and I like the access there between lot 11 and 12 as opposed East Lake because we have a Y there. Between lot 7 and 8 on the (inaudible) plat. Hatcher: The problem we have moving it down more toward the middle of the gravel pit is adjacent grades. Barbeiro: Agreed but I think when Mr. St. Clair develops his land he will figure out a way to match up with that road. Borup: 7 and 8 was probably the only spot on there that doesn't work very well. We will let Becky worry about the design. Barbeiro: The difference between a lot that is .27 acres and a lot that is .31 acres which the argument is between Meridian Greens group is not sufficient enough to have me request that the developer make those northern lots that much larger. I am satisfied that the homes minimum of 2100 square feet will be exceeded and the vast majority of these homes will be far greater. Since the homes in the middle of this are much larger lots, I would expect to see those home far of in excess of 3000 and 4000 square feet. By putting in that extension road we then loose the buffer. Norton: Mr. Barbeiro would you be in agreement to change these lot lines toward the back if commission Hatcher made a motion. Barbeiro: Yes. Borup: The only two comments I had—well one you said you'd like the CC&R's to be similar. What does that mean. Hatcher: I'd be asking the developer to work with Meridian Greens so that— Borup: What aspects do you have a concern with. Hatcher: No specific aspects. Meridian Planning and 2 uu ling Commission May 24, 2000 Page 20 Borup: Most covenants are very similar. Some of them get a little bit but I think at one time a number of years ago one attorney prepared them and everybody else copied. Hatcher: I am not going to sit here and tell them they need to have so many trees and bushes, etc. All I am saying is I am —not in the motion. Go to the developer and work with Meridian Greens and have comparable CC&R's that are all ready establish. Borup: Your statement that no lot would be smaller than the adjoining lots. It may be appropriate along there to have the lots at a larger—I don't see—if it was so incompatible then the Meridian Greens Subdivision as a whole would be having a problem. The first phase a large one which was 1700 square feet. Looking at the plat there is a fair number of 90 foot lots in there. Granted as the phase went on it went from 1700 to 2400 and higher. But those 1700 and 90 foot lots are across the street from the others that are larger. I don't see an incompatibility there. If there were doing within the same Subdivision definitely should not be a problem. Hatcher: You bring up the same point that Commissioner Barbeiro had mentioned about not being opposed to the site— Borup: One lot along there and distributing that through there would add —that would not get up to the 100 foot but— Hatcher: I did not say dimensions. I said size, so if they are wider and not as deep, so be it. Your suggestion of taking one lot and dividing it equally amongst the remaining 11 lots would satisfy my concern. Siddoway: First of all both plats are out of compliance with the current zoning ordinance on exceeding block length. We put in the requirement to put in those pedestrian walkways in saying that if they were able to do that it would bring them into compliance. I am not convinced if this street slopes are at 3 per cent that they would not be able to put those in and still meet ADA, but if they are not able to put those in and have a valid argument and they can't, it's still will require a variance from that ordinance submitted to the City Council. If they can demonstrate that hardship that they can't provide those pedestrian walkways due to the slopes and ADA standards, then it would be a variance that we could support. If the facts don't show that that is the case, then we would say those pedestrian walkways should be put in and not support the variance. But if they are not going to do the pedestrian walkways the block length exceeds the required maximum in the ordinance of 1000 feet and would require a variance from the city council. Second issue on the buffer between the land uses, this is also just straight out of the ordinance and would also require a variance from City Council. I don't think we can simply just drop it from the requirements. The existing land uses are incompatible as commercial industrial adjacent to proposed residential and would require those buffers. I believe we could support based on the fact that it is planned to go residential in the future based on the Comprehensive Plan, maybe to support a variance to have those be an easement on the lot as Becky suggested with minimum number of trees Meridian Planning and ening Commission May 24, 2000 Page 21 and have them belong to the individual lot owners rather than our standard situation of a common lot owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The requirement for that buffer is straight out of the ordinance and I don't think we can waive it away without a variance. The bigger issue to me is the house they are leaving on septic and well in the southwest corner. We'd be annexing a property with the house sitting inside of the required landscape buffer. We would stand by our comment number 11 that would ask that that lot be turned into a common area for the Subdivision. That the house be removed out of the required landscape buffer and — Borup: Steve could that parcel be excluded from the annexation. Is that their other option. Siddoway: That's their other option. I don't know if we could annex it without being along a lot line. That would be the option is not annexing that portion and leave it in the county. Borup: What is that going to look like. What problems the city going to have down the road. Siddoway: Exactly. It would go against city policy to annex a house that is not able to hook up to city water and sewer. I was not at the last meeting but Bruce told me that discussion was even through that is where the line is, it can gravity flow and is possible for it to be hooked to water and sewer. ACHD does not want that lot taking access off of Victory road and was requiring a costly stub street for a relatively few number of lots. Borup: Looks to me like if your saying the house has to be moved your probably forcing the applicant to exclude that from the project. That would be one of their options. Siddoway: It doesn't sound like a great option, but yes. That area is not a separate lot at this point in time. It is proposed to be a separate lot as this is subdivided but they would probably have to go through some sort of a lot split so that they could annex a full lot that excludes that portion, if they decide to go that route. That is not what I am recommending, but-- We already discussed the stub street at length. On all of these design issues I would just state as far as minimum lot size and house size, roofing types and things like that, I do not believe that we as a city can require more than this stated minimums unless this was a planned development which with a conditional use permit we could impose whatever we wanted. They are exceeding the minimum lot sizes. The 1400 square feet is the minimum house size by ordinance. If the developer is willing to put 2100 square feet on the plat, that is fine. He can volunteeringly make that more restrictive, but this isn't a conditional use permit, it is not a planned development. Therefore, we have to make our recommendations based on the ordinance. I don't know if Mr. Swartley has more to say on that but that would be how I interpret the code. Swartley: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Siddoway is correct. We can't control the CC&R's. We have no jurisdiction over that. Meridian Planning and mooning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 22 Borup: I think he is going beyond that saying we can't be doing anything more restrictive than what our city ordinance says either. Swartley: That is correct as well. Borup: I had a question on the pathway. I am not sure what the ADA standards are. Looking at the one lot in the middle of the block, it looks to me like just the length of the lot, 137 feet or so, it falls about 10 feet. It tapers off to another 5 or 6 feet on the other lot is not quite as steep. Street to street that is about 16 feet, 15 feet. Siddoway: Eight percent, one in twelve with landings and it would be the burden of proof on the developer to show they can't do that. You need a level area. Get the pathway in or request a variance on the street thing. That would need to go to the council. I am wondering if Becky may want to talk to you right now on this lot with the existing house. If she could talk to Steve, we could go on with our business. Any other discussion. Will you kind of put some points together for a motion. At this point we are talking about annexation. Hatcher: None of my modifications to staff comments apply to annexation and zoning. Borup: The only thing that would apply to annexation is this one parcel that on a new revised plat is showing as a single lot with no sewer. Hatcher: Even though it doesn't go per normal standards, the option we have is that the developer withhold that parcel from annexation which is he legal right and he could proceed in that fashion. But, is it truly to the City's benefit to allow him to do that as where they are currently proposing to put that landscape buffer in right of way improvements along Victory the full length with a variance for the existing building. We can make it a condition that prior to that lot being developed in any fashion, that these deficiencies be corrected prior to development. Borup: That may be one more variance they need to look at. Hatcher: Yes. I think it would be to the City's interest to allow what was submitted rather than have them pull it out. The water sewer issue, correct me if I'm wrong legal, to be able to annex a piece of property we need to have the ability to provide sewer and water. You don't mandate that they hook up. We can leave it as it is because otherwise we are running those utilities across the lateral. Borup: That is the only access at this point is they'd have to come across the lateral even though it is— Hatcher: It is going to be 25 years before the Black Cat trunk gets to--- Borup: Right. That would be a good criteria for a variance. Steve, we're about ready to make a motion on the annexation and zoning. You got any final comments. Meridian Planning and ening Commission May 24, 2000 Page 23 Siddoway: The solution is unclear. The option for making any common lot park area is not looked on favorably. The problem with leaving just that portion out of the annexation is that our Comprehensive Plan says that no lot should be created in the county less than 5 acres in size. This one is three. They would have to split off more of it based on that policy or ADA County would have to make a determination that this is just annexing the part north of the lateral would be okay. Or, we annex the whole thing which is currently against City Council policy of annexing a property that will not be in a sewer district not sewerable that will remain on Septic and Well, I don't have a good answer for you right now. Hatcher: Steve, while you were distracted we discussed the possibility of being submitted as a variance—the sewer zoning issue on that lot. Siddoway: That would be the other option. Just add all these things to a variance application. Ask for a variance to the block length, to annexing a property that is going to be served by well and septic, a variance on the landscape buffer issue and make it an easement. All of those things could be rolled into a variance to City Council. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I motion that we recommend approval to City Council request for annexation and zoning of 40.33 acres to R-4 for proposed Timber View/Observation Point Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC incorporating staff comments. Norton: I second that. Borup: Any discussion. One observation, the applicant was in agreement with all the staff comments on the annexation and zoning. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Item number 2, request for a preliminary plat. Hatcher: I am ready to make a motion. I would motion that we recommend approval to the City Council on the preliminary plat for the proposed Timber View/Observation Point Subdivision which comprises of END OF SIDE THREE Hatcher: 90 lots on 40.33 acres by Victory 41, LLC to include staff comments and the following modifications. First one would be that the adjacent lots on the north property line adjacent to Meridian Greens be modified from 12 lots to 11 lots distributing the difference amongst the 11. Next I would encourage the developer to coordinate the writing of the CC&R's to reflect similar CC&R's of Meridian Greens. I would encourage Greens homeowners association to work with the developer on the irrigation issue once that is finalized. Second issue on the motion would be that the western stub street be provided per staffs recommendation and I'll leave that to the design professionals for locations. Third is we need to as suggested by Becky Bowcutt that we modify the Meridian Planning and toning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 24 intersection at Lake Creek Street and South Andros Way to have it as a offset Y intersection rather than straight through traffic. Those would be the modifications. As far as the buffering, we will let that be submitted as a variance. Barbeiro: I had some confusion on the requirements for the fence. Borup: I do too. The Subdivision should put the fence in would have been Meridian Greens. They were developed first. Steve is the city required fences put between residential Subdivisions. Siddoway: Standard perimeter fencing is a standard requirement. Borup: Perimeter against non use land, isn't it. Why are we requiring fences between different phases of the same Subdivision. What's the difference. Then why aren't we requiring fences between different phases of the same Subdivision. I did not think we were. I can't think of one where we required fencing against abutting adjoining residential Subdivision. Hatcher: What I am getting at is if Meridian Greens did not have the requirement to provide fencing at an adjacent agriculture land, then so be it. If they did then the Meridian Greens developer needs to put some fence in. If our current applicant is not required to put in fencing then so be it. I don't think this board needs— Borup: I think we do depending on how you want to incorporate the staff comments. The comment on the north side fencing should be stricken on the staff comments. Hatcher: That the word north be stricken from Item number 9. Borup: The other two things in staff comments that the applicant would like to do a meandering pathway along Victory. That was strictly in disagreement but maybe just a—okay. The other was the buffer to the west. Staff recommended easement. Applicant would like to have landscaping by each individual lot owner. Hatcher: I thought that was being dealt with as a variance. Borup: The buffer, okay. Norton: I second that motion. Swartley: Mr. Chairman. Just a point of clarification, is a meandering sidewalk becoming part of the motion? You brought it up as discussion. I want to hear if it is going to be part of the motion. Hatcher: I don't see a conflict. Meridian Planning and ening Commission May 24, 2000 Page 25 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. I would recommend from staff position that the applicant bring a revised plat back to you with these modifications rather then sending it on to City Council and requiring them to see that all these modification were made property so that they are made to your satisfaction that is come back to you with those modification and in the mean time require that the variance application for those variances that they are going apply for, be applied for to City Council. That way they can be heard at the same time. Borup: It would go a lot smoother at City Council. Norton: Do we need an amendment to that motion? Hatcher: I think we do. Point of clarification wouldn't a final plat come before us for final review..no never mind. I amend my motion to make that a requirement. Borup: Would we also want to table the annexation then. Swartley: That was my next question. Make a motion to hold it. Borup: We'll do that as another motion after this. Any other discussion. All in favor? Swartley: Mr. Chairman, yes the motion needs to be withdrawn if your going to follow Steve's advice and that is to have the applicant go back, make changes to the plat, bring them in front of the commission again and then you can vote on it. To ensure that those changes are being made which I believe that one of Becky's associates was writing down all those changes, correct. Yeah. Yes, table it so the applicant will have the opportunity to make those changes. Hatcher: After all that work of making the motion. Swartley: You made the motion. Its on the record. We can make it again at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Borup: Okay, we straight on that. Do we want to withdraw this motion. Hatcher: I withdraw this motion. Norton: I concur. Borup: Do we have an alternative motion? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, in order for them to bring it back before you, you may need to open the public hearing and leave it open. Otherwise they can't present. Barbeiro: I move we re -open the public hearing. Meridian Planning and z*_,,Ang Commission May 24, 2000 Page 26 Hatcher: I second the motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move that we continue the public hearing to our next regularly scheduled meeting June 13th pending a variance application and presentation of a new plat. Hatcher: Second Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Do we have another motion on item number 1. Hatcher: I motion that we hold item number 1 and not move it on to City Council pending outcome of our next meeting on June 13tH Norton: I second that motion. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER FOR 24 MONTHS TO BE PLACED ON PROPERTY ZONED I -L BY JAMES L. AIMONETTO-2204 LANARK STREET: Borup: Steve. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's this is a property that is on East Lanark Street. This would be Nola Road. Locust Grove here. This is Franklin, this is Lanark Street. Back here is where all the buses are and adjacent to that there is an existing lot asphalt right now or maybe gravel. These are site photos. The applicant is requesting a temporary office trailer to be placed on the site. He has requested 24 months. At the last City Council meeting, City Council entertained a variance on this property for landscaping, granted that variance for one year, not two. Therefore we would recommend that the temporary office trailer be approved for a maximum of one year and at that time the temporary uses should be out and the site should be in full compliance with permanent structure and the landscape requirements as required by the City Council. We have asked the temporary trailed be located 35 feet back from the _.1 NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. on July 18, 2000, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of Victory 41, LLC, for annexation and zoning of 40.33 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Timber View Subdivision generally located north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road; Furthermore, the applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval of 91 building lots and 10 other lots on 40.33 acres and a variance of the 1,000 -foot block length also located north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road. A more particular description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours generally located at 33 East Idaho. 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 June, 2000 '0 ,116LIAR41�IJ�G. BERG, ` R., CITY CLERK \\ f MF/i6 sem~#5 OR4 r PUBLISH June 30th and July 14th, 2000.E SEAL �T isl . OI TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300' GLENCO INC MITCHELL MICHAEL D & PO BOX 851 MITCHELL IRENE A MERIDIAN ID 83680-0851 2657 S ANDROS WAY E TRINIDAD ST MERIDIAN ID 83642-7432 HUNT THOMAS B & WARWICK RALPH CARROLL & HUNT JANICE L WARWICK ROBERTA V 2599 S ABACO 698 E WHITEHALL ST MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 OSTLUND HAROLD R & OORD JOHN A & OSTLUND VIRGINIA OORD JANICE M 2610 S ABACO WAY 2101 W KUNA CAVE RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 KUNA ID 83634-0000 656 E WHITEHALL ST MARLOW DAVID D & MCKINLEY LARA DAWN MARLOW KAREN A YAGUES KEVIN B & 230 EDMONDS CT YAGUES SHELLY D MERIDIAN ID 83642-6604 2632 SE WAY 5TH MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 COBBLE JIM & PORTER TRICIA G COBBLE SHIRLEY L HOLLOWELL DAN A 95 HORSESHOE CIR HOLLOWELL MALIA L JEROME ID 83338-5991 538 E WHITEHALL ST 820 E VICTORY RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 MILLER M TOM & SIMMONS BRETT M MILLER NANCY L 584 E WHITEHALL ST 2615 SE WAY 05TH MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 MCKINLEY DENNIS E & PANGBORN J H & J B 93 NV TRUST MCKINLEY LARA DAWN PANGBORN J H& J B TRUSTEES 2665 S ANDROS WAY 2639 S ANDROS WAY BOISE ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 PORTER JOHN R & SEEGMILLER HENRY LEE BOWLING & PORTER TRICIA G NANCY LEA TAYLOR 2650 S ANDROS WAY 512 E WHITEHALL MERIDIAN ID 83642-7432 MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 BERG JOHN THOMAS & HEZELTINE RON B & BERG LINDA JEAN HEZELTINE KATHLEEN A 778 E TRINIDAD ST 764 E TRINIDAD DR MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 MARTINEZ BORIS & SMITH VERNE T MARTINEZ RHONDA SMITH MARY E 521 E WHITEHALL ST 759 E TRINIDAD ST MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 BOISE ID 83642-0000 TERRELL DAVID J & TERRELL DEBBIE L 769 E WHITEHALL ST MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 BIENAPFL WILLIAM PHILLIP JR 2674 S ANDROS WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 NICHOLAS LUANA & PROHASKA LYNN JAY JR 545 E WHITEHALL ST MERIDIAN ID 83712-0000 DEBENHAM BRETT M & DEBENHAM KRISTEN A 737 E WHITEHALL ST MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 BROWN ROBERT E & BROWN LYNDA GROUT 695 E WHITEHALL ST MERIDIAN ID 83642-7429 MARKLE PARRY A MARKLE KAREEN 661 E WHITEHALL ST MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 SALLEE WILLIAM C & SALLEE DARLENE P 633 E WHITEHALL ST MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 OVARD DAVID K & OVARD LAURIE 1019 E DOMINICA MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 619 E WHITEHALL ST BUDGE RICHARD WALLACE & BUDGE TONI LEA 573 E WHITEHALL MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 MILLER THOMAS C & MILLER PAMELA K 2689 S ANDROS WAY MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 VICTORY 41 LTD LIABILITY CO 6874 FAIRVIEW AVE BOISE ID 83704-8501 500 E VICTORY RD ST CLAIR RANDY AND ST CLAIR DENNIS 111 E 40TH ST BOISE ID 83714-6347 S MERIDIAN RD MUSSELL TIM J & MUSSELL CAROL M 110 E VICTORY RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-6984 PETERSON DEAN & BEVERLY KAY 780 E VICTORY RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-6954 STATES INVESTMENT 6874 FAIRVIEW AVE BOISE ID 83704-8501 E VICTORY RD SKELTON JAMES C & KATHLEEN 895 E VICTORY RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-6955 ATES IESTMENT 68 �I;* W AVE BOI04-8501 E VICTC►RY RD NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on May 9, 2000 for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of Victory 41, LLC for annexation and zoning of 40.33 acres from RT to R4 for proposed Timber View Subdivision. Furthermore, the applicant requests preliminary plat approval for proposed Timber View Subdivision located north of Victory and east of Meridian Road. A more particular description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho 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 13th day of April, 2000. �NNONAIttttIIIfrlr/Ir Win_ i� v � SEAL �C5 ! PUBLISH April 21 & NWA.�K��``, ��r�rrrrtttt fttt��ti��� ILLIAM G. BERG, JR., I CLERK NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. on July 18, 2000, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of Victory 41, LLC, for annexation and zoning of 40.33 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Timber View Subdivision generally located north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road; Furthermore, the applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval of 91 building lots and 10 other lots on 40.33 acres and a variance of the 1,000 -foot block length also located north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road. A more particular description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours generally located at 33 East Idaho. 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 June, 2000 G. BERG, ` R., CITY CLERK PUBLISH June 30th and July 14th, 2000.x~ _ SELL MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MAY 24, 2000 The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup. MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Thomas Barbeiro, Richard Hatcher, Kent Brown. OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Will Berg. Borup: We'd like to begin on meeting this evening. This is the May 24th special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. Maybe a little bit of information on procedure. Our procedure on the majority of the public hearings would be we'd start with a staff report. Then the applicant will come forward and give a brief summary of their project. Commissioner's may have questions during that time. Then it will be open for public testimony. Then the applicant will have a final opportunity to make any closing comments. When the public hearing is closed, the commission will discuss the project and hopefully make a recommendation. One of our purposes is to gather information. We like to spend a lot of time to do that and get as much as we can. To help us do that we also need to have some restrictions. If its going to be a major project with a lot of people testifying, we have a 3 minute limit to hear as many people as we can. Also, keep in mind the type of testimony and the information has got to be pertinent to the project. Saying that, we'd like to begin with item 1. 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 40.33 ACRES TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION BY VICTORY 41, LLC—NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: 2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION – 91 BUILDABLE LOTS ON 40.33 ACRES BY VICTORY 41, LLC—NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: Borup: Staff, do we have a report? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, would you like me to address just the annexation or both. Borup: I think we would like to address both. On some of these we would have opportunity to open both public hearings at the same time, take testimony which we have been doing but have had to turn around and open the other public hearing. If the commission would be in favor on some of these, we could go ahead and open both at the same time. Meridian Planning and ening Commission May 24, 2000 Page 2 Siddoway: Okay Commissioner's the proposed Timber View Subdivision has a name change. Observation Point. I just saw the revised plat for the first time at 4 o'clock today. This is Victory Road and Meridian Road. Meridian Greens Subdivision is directly north of it. To the west is Victory Greens Nursery and there is a gravel here. To the west is a rural residential county sub. To the south is irrigated farm land. The boundary is there. The stub street that comes in from Meridian Greens to the property is in this location here. Not all of that area along the south property line of Meridian Greens or the north property line of Observation Point is fenced. There is a fence from approximately half way point down to the east. The Kennedy lateral this course through the southwest corner of the property. We have recommended in our comments that this be left untitled as a amenity and the green space adjacent to it with the storm water facility be developed as a useable recreation space with a pathway a long it. This was the original plat. I don't have a copy of the new one that was just submitted. I can tell you just based on the quick review I did this afternoon, they have eliminated these 3 lots. They are talking about leaving that as a single residential lot on septic. They decreased these (inaudible) 7 foot landscape buffers to 40 feet. The plat that has been submitted still does not conform with the staff comments for the pedestrian connections or the buffers between the land uses of the gravel pit and the Subdivision. Also noticed in the file several comments related to the connection of this stub street. As planning staff we would recommend that stub street go through. We see it as critical for the interconnectivity within the city. The stub street that we have requested would be an extension of this street where the grades do match is also not shown in the revised plat. Borup: Any comment on the ACHD recommendations? Mainly the entry. Siddoway: They recommended that the entry way shift from the point that it is shown on here to the west because it was too close to the bridge that the Kennedy lateral goes through. On the new plat they have shifted it to the east. We don't see that as a problem. Borup: Is the applicant here. Becky are you doing this again. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt. I am back one more time. 11283 W. Hickory Dale, Boise. Borup: I might just add we do have your written comments dated May 9th or your response to staff comments. The first question I have is there anything changed from what you submitted earlier. Bowcutt: Yes. The issue with the three lots adjoining Victory Road. I'll go through that. This property when you look at it with the lots and the streets it looks like any ordinary Subdivision you may see, but when you look at the topographic map this property is very unique to the City of Meridian. It is hilly. It has a good grade. A nice knoll through the mid section. My client, Mr. Cavin, when he came to us to plan this Meridian Planning and ^ ,ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 3 project, he main concern was I would like to create a view corridor for this lots and maximize the views of the Boise front, the Owyhees as much as possible. The way this is designed the lots are slanted in a north easterly direction. He did not want lots backing up to Victory Road. We have a single loaded street all through this area. He felt that gave him a better Subdivision. The density he intended was a low density. This will be a high end Subdivision. We've got 2.21 dwelling units per acre. The lots are ranging from 11,000 and we have one that is as big as 33,400 square feet. The homes he intends to build are similar to the homes that have been constructed in Brookdale Meadows which is located north of McMillan between Cloverdale and Eagle Road. The smallest home that he intents to be constructed within this development is approximately 2100 square feet. 1 know some of the resident were alarmed because the preliminary plat in (inaudible) square footage said 1400. It states that because that's the minimum for that R-4 zone. As Steve indicated the Kennedy lateral (inaudible) this property here on the southwest corner. This particular triangular area currently has one single family dwelling which appears to be the old homestead house. There is one other existing home that sits up here on the hill side. That is the home of the previous property owner. We are platting that lot as part of this development. The original plan we showed 3 lots down in this area and we had kind of a little knuckle here to provide access to them. Ada County Highway District came back and said because Victory Road will eventually be a arterial, we don't want those homes taking access in that fashion. Their recommendation was that those homes take access internally which means coming across, bridging the Kennedy and bringing a short culdesac just to access basically 3 lots. In the staff report they indicated that the Kennedy lateral is also the demarcation line for the sewer drainage area, even through physically this particular area can drain into the extension of the Ten Mile off shoot of the trunk out of the south end of Meridian Greens. They indicated that these lots here should not take sewer service. After multiple discussions with Mr. Cavin, we determined we will go ahead and buy in to that and we removed those three lots and then this area here is 1.66 acres and we will leave this existing home on its existing septic and well. That existing house does encroach into the required 20 foot landscape area. There is about a 7 foot encroachment. There is a stub street up here in Meridian Greens and sewer and water will be extended through our development from that point. At this time they have a temporary culdesac there and we would make an interconnection here and it was mandated by Ada County Highway District. We had not choice. It is a platted public right of way and was always intended to be extended. We have stubbed through the east here. There is a long parcel here. ACHD did not want our entrance too close to the Kennedy lateral bridge. One, visibility and two we need to provide a center turn lane into our project and if it is too close to the bridge it would require complete rebuild of the bridge. Their recommendation was we off set between 300 to 350 feet or go align with this street. Our intent was to create a landscaped area with lots of flowers as your entry way view when you come into the development. We'd have heavy landscaping here and Mr. Cavin intends to build a wall all along Victory Road that would consist of a rock fascia. We'll have a pathway. Since these two roadways, Observation Drive and Victory are only 40 feet apart, what we would propose to do is install our sidewalk meandering. Our wall would be here. It would be north of the 20 foot landscape area. Pull our sidewalk in and interconnect here and pull it in again and interconnect and Meridian Planning and ;ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 4 come across here. We want to construct pathways doing the same here. Then install a pathway along the Kennedy lateral and we've got landscaping proposed there. In my comments to the staff, I indicated that we still would have to Nampa Meridian Irrigation approval for any improvements within the easement for the Kennedy lateral. That easement is 55 feet and runs right here. Going to the comments that I made, one of the concerns was the request for pedestrian pathways. We did submit a variance application. Staff has asked since we do exceed the maximum block length of 1000 feet, that we put a pedestrian pathway connecting these two blocks. A pedestrian pathway has to meet ADA standards, so there are some concerns. Since this property is unique I am asking staff and commission to consider some factors. We have kept our lot depths as deep as possible next to Meridian Greens. They range between 124-125 in depth. We kept our widths which range between 90-94 feet. That would be about 11,400 square feet. We have some lots in our development that have more depth where we have the hill side to deal with because we will have to provide a pad area for the home to be built and be able to accommodate the drainage due to the slopes and so forth. In those instances where we have the greater slopes we went a greater depth. Some of those are 165 feet and others 140 on the average. We intend to fence our boundary. Along the Kennedy lateral we would have to discuss with the district and the city some type of safety fence. We'd be required to fence this western boundary here. Along Meridian Greens there are intermittent fences through there. Staff indicated they want us to fence whatever has not been fenced and match the fencing that is currently in place. The most objectionable thing in the staff report was the issue of the buffer here. We have the Victory View Nursery here. This is an older gravel pit. It think it is 15 acres. It appears to be played out. They do have some activity going there. One of the concerns that we have was the Comprehensive Plan states that in some point of time would be single family. I believe medium density single family on the new Comprehensive Plan. Staff stated we want a stub street there to provide inter- connectivity to the parcel. However, in the next comment it stated you have a incompatible use adjoining you. Therefore, you need a 20 foot buffer. My opinion it can't be both ways. If it is intended to be residential then that is what it is going to be in the future so therefore it would be compatible. I think it should be viewed in that manner as far as the buffer is concerned. Anytime you put a buffer along a perimeter that has no use—no pedestrian use or really any practical use, the chance of that being maintained over time is going to be severely diminished when you compare it to usable visible space. This is behind lots. It benefits only the lots that are there. We have developed Subdivisions next to more intensive uses or what some may deem incompatible. What we have done there, fencing was one but we also went with heavy landscaping. East individual lot owner is going to make that determination on what type of landscaping they want. I don't think it is practical. We did not show the stub street along the western boundary for one reason and that is because of our concern. If there is still activity going on there, we don't want any of those trucks coming through this project. That public stub street is built and dedicated then aren't they entitled to utilize it as a public str>:;te+. ACHD first required it but then got to thinking about it and the grade separation because there is about 12 to 13 foot grade separation through here. This property sits up high and that is another issue as far as they are low. We are high for buffering. Ada County Highway District had a stub street right here hanging up in the Meridian Planning anc ening Commission May 24, 2000 Page 5 air. When we discussed it further they said you are right. We don't want trucks coming through your development. We do have a grade separation, therefore maybe your right and it is not a good idea. That condition was removed. The city staff discussed it and they called the highway district it is important because we believe that property is going to redevelop at some point of time as residential. Do you have any questions. Norton: I don't see anywhere in our notes that there will be a homeowners association but you mentioned one. Will there be CC&R's. Bowcutt: Yes. They will be consistent with the other higher end Subdivision that Mr. Cavin has done. The very same things you have seen in Meridian Greens. Borup: Becky, are you familiar with the parcels to the west. Is that separate parcels or ownership. Bowcutt: Yes sir. Parcels are separated by the Kennedy lateral is the parcel boundary. Borup: So, that triangle piece is a separate parcel. Bowcutt: Under separate ownership and takes access through an easement. I think it takes access south of Victory Road. I may be wrong. I stand corrected. To the west. It is just a easement. Borup: You said if that developed it would have access to Meridian Road. Bowcutt: When that parcel adjoins it develops, then obviously you get another opportunity for interconnection to Meridian Road and Victory Road. Barbeiro: Did you read the petition that came from the neighbors asking for larger lot sizes and the big one was they wanted to have similar roofing. Bowcutt: No I have not received that. I did chat with the neighbors a couple weeks ago out in the lobby. Barbeiro: So we would request that the adjoining (inaudible) have the same roofing materials those being either cedar shake or tile roofs. In your CC&R's are those addressed? Bowcutt: Yes, the roofing would be addressed in the CC&R's and I believe Mr. Cavin indicated that in this Subdivision they have those architectural shingles. They are different then the old asphalt shingles. They are attractive. Borup: Somewhere we will have to discuss the conflicting comments with staff. Commissioner's will have a chance to do that. We would like to open this to public testimony at this time. Meridian Planning and i ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 6 Martinez: My name is Boris Martinez. I live at 521 E. Whitehall Street. I come before you today to voice my opposition to Observation Point Subdivision in its present embodiment. In the statement of compliance for the Timber View Subdivision now Observation Point, dated March 30, 2000 submitted by Briggs Engineering, Item 10 states, the applicant would like to provide larger lots to accommodate homes similar to the ones in Meridian Greens. Yet, I have a hard time finding any of these lots up against the Meridian Greens Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan states protect and maintain residential neighborhood values. Improve each neighborhoods physical condition and enhance its quality of life for residents. I do not understand how placing the majority of the smallest lots up against Meridian Greens property line is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. I took the liberty of reproducing the Timber View Subdivision plat. I highlighted in yellow all lots that are less than 11,500 square feet. If you will notice they don't appear anywhere in the front. They all are against the Meridian Greens property line or in close proximity to it. It was mentioned that examples of the types of homes that would be build in this Subdivision were like the ones in Brookdale Meadows. I went and looked at some of the houses being built there and I saw some very nice homes there, but I also saw some homes like this one. This is a 2100 square foot home, 2 car garage for $204,900. Given what they proposal for, this would be a perfectly acceptable home to abut our property lines. This house is probably about $100,000 less than all the houses on the property line. I would like to see covenants that prevent homes like this from occurring. They mentioned shingles. Out of that whole Subdivision there was only one house with wood shingles. `very other house had something else. So in my minds the covenants are not indicative of what we would expect to see. I think there needs to be strict covenants about the type of roofing that has to be on those homes. I would like to ask that the homes that are built against our property lines are of comparable size and price as what is in Meridian Greens. We should have either ceramic or wood shakes and we should have 10 foot setbacks. The Subdivisions need to blend together. I please ask you to keep that in consideration when reviewing this proposal. Thank you. Borup: Do you agree that the same continuity needs to take place within Meridian Greens Subdivision itself. Martinez: Well from seeing it as we get toward the back of the Subdivision I think the houses are pretty comparable. If you go toward the front, it seems as you move toward the back, the houses get more and more expensive. If they want smaller or lower priced homes, why not integrate those toward the front of the Subdivision. Or put them to the east side. Basically what is going to happen if this goes through, probably 2 or 3 years ago when they started to develop the areas to the east, there will be a whole bunch of people here before you again arguing about how their lots are big and the things that go next to them are going to get small. If you create that environment now where you blend in with us and then as you move east and west, if you start to put smaller homes in there, then you have transition homes. Seegmiller: My name is Lee Seegmiller. I live at 512 E. Whitehall. I share the same concerns as Mr. Martinez. My biggest concern is a matter of safety. This as mentioned Meridian Planning and ^,ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 7 is a choice building site but it is hilly. It is not appreciated by looking at the map. There is approximately 1000 feet of down hill straight road headed north bound and it dumps into a culdesac. This map is incorrect. That was a culdesac at the end of Andros Way. It is 9200 feet in diameter. It was built and paved and curved as a culdesac. Now at this date, change it to a through way at the end of a long straight street coming downhill is a concern to me. The curbing in Meridian Greens is a very low contour and does not offer protection to keep the cars off the sidewalk. There are small children in the area and there has been numerous instances where cars have driven up on to the sidewalk. My mail box has been knocked over by a car who failed to negotiate the turn. I have concern about cars coming down that hill in excessive speed and entering that culdesac and failing to negotiate the corners. I would like to see that street made into a curve of some kind so that the speed could be controlled. I was informed by the builder when I purchased the lot that that was to be access for emergency fire department use only. There were never any signs there informing the buyers that was to be temporary culdesac. I feel at this date to change that to a through street is a breech of faith on the part of the commission. My second concern regards the lot sizes and the roofing material. I will refer to Mr. Martinez's comments. My third comment is referring to water pressure. If the new Subdivision is tapped into our supply it will aggravate an all ready unsatisfactory condition. On many occasions I have measured the water pressure at my home of 25 pounds per square inch. That is inadequate to water the lawn or even fight a small fire. I would like to ask the question what is to be done about water supply to this new Subdivision. Are they going to have a pressurized irrigation system or will they be watering from the city's supply. Borup: Pressurized system. Seegmiller: That is good. In Meridian Greens we depend upon the city water supply for all of our irrigation needs. I would like to also request that the board require a more protective type of curbing. In the winter when that down hill road is covered with ice I can anticipate there will be out of control cars coming into that area. Oward: David Oward. I live at 1019 E. Dominica. I'd like to add a few comments to what Mr. Martinez said. The principal concerns we have are obviously with the lot sizes. I have personally no complains with the land being developed. I am concerned that it be developed in a manner that it does not hurt our property values. Obviously that property has had its value enhanced virtue to the fact that it is sitting adjacent to some very expensive home. I would like to see that increase in property value not come at our expense. Concerning home sizes, I spent time down at the county court house determining what the size of houses on Whitehall are and I pulled up the square footages and the average comes out a little higher then on the letter. It is around 3100 feet. The covenants in that neighborhood on our street are 2400, 2500 square feet. I would like to encourage the commission to insist that the lots as well as the housing square footage be at least similar so there is not a drastic discontinuity. Another concern is that in Meridian Greens there is not a lot of green open area and that is because the lots are large and the big 10 foot setbacks in there. Based on the number of lots in a small Subdivision I don't presume they will put a park in there. I would like to Meridian Planning and ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 8 propose that the 10 foot setbacks be maintained to keep some what of a green space field in the neighborhood. The back half of Meridian Green has no pressurized irrigation. We do have a serious water pressure from time to time. Looking at the plat I noticed it appears there will be a pressurized irrigation system running down the back fence of Whitehall. If that system is being ran by Nampa Meridian Irrigation would it be possible for the lots sifting on that line to be able to have some service. I would be willing and interested and would pay some burden of the cost to do that. Thanks. St. Clair: Randy St. Clair. 1775 E. Dunwoody. I own the gravel pit that is just to the west of the project. As you know, the property operates now under a conditional use permit and the easement to it is temporary. I would like to assure myself of is that the property does not become land locked at some point of time. If we don't access through this property that only leaves one property left to access it through. END OF SIDE ONE Borup: Mr. St. Clair your accessing to the east right now through this property. St. Clair: To the west off Meridian Road right now. Temporary easement. It goes through the corner of Victory Greens right now. The access is probably the north boundary of Victory Greens property. Also I would like to mention, if they do provide utilities through there that they are compatible. It is zoned residential now that the utilities are compatible with the gravel pit—the elevations of the gravel pit. It is my understand that if my property is to be developed, that the sewer will go through that property of the new Subdivision. Borup: Your saying they are going to bring the sewer line presently through your property. In the future if you develop yours. Okay. I thought that was through the Black Cat Trunk line. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, northeast of the Kennedy lateral goes back to the Ten Mile. I guess the question I would pose to Mr. St. Clair is how deep you going to dig your pit. St. Clair: The pit right now is being reclaimed. There is some mining activity going on now but for the most part it is being reclaimed. Freckleton: The gravel pit would go to the Ten Mile. Hatcher: I believe that the sewer issue for the future development of the gravel pit is a design issue that would be resolved at the time of development of the pit. Whether or not your pit is (inaudible) reclaimed and level with the property at hand, nobody in this room have control of what you do with that land. At the time that you develop it then it's a design issue as to how you do. Meridian Planning and ening Commission May 24, 2000 Page 9 St. Clair: It operates under a conditional use permit now but if the conditional use permit ever lapses it reverts back to residential. I ask you guys what is the intent for sewer and water for that parcel. Hatcher: Basically it would be appropriate to develop based upon the Comprehensive Plan. It would be in your right to develop it residential and if you do and the city annexes it, then the city will provide utilities to your development. How it is to be provided is a design issue which will be dealt with at that time. St. Clair: Long range planning thought couldn't we make the sewer— Hatcher: We don't know what elevation to put the sewer at because it depends on whether you reclaim the pit, leave it or keep digging. Freckleton: Commissioner Hatcher. The City of Meridian did commission a study that is a facility plan for the entire city. The purpose of the plan was to try and define boundaries. Define where sewer lines need to run in order to service the properties. That property is included in that facility plan. You are correct in what you said about the design issue, but as far as the service ability of your property Randy, it has been accounted for in that facility plan. Widdison: Sue Widdison. I live at 2594 S. Abaco Way. My concern I also the road that is going through our Subdivision into the new one. This is a map that one neighbor received. It has always been shown as a culdesac there. I can understand for emergency purposes they might need to have that open. We gave you petitions to try to close the road off completely but I understand that it might need to be there. Now am hoping we can have an emergency break down fence. We have 17 children under the age of 12 on that street. By opening that up to new construction and with only one opening on Victory Road into the new Subdivision so that only gives them they can enter on Victory or into our Subdivision giving us a lot of traffic and trucks where we have little kids. Porter: John Porter. I live at 2650 S. Andros Way. I submitted a letter with concerns I have. Some have been address by the developer. The road that they are trying to add on to Andros Way is a down hill access. They could redo the road. They could put a design that the road is not a straight shot. There is alternatives to that road coming into Meridian Greens. I was under the impression it was going to remain a culdesac. The traffic flow will increase. I see no need to have that second road come through there. Why couldn't they get 2 egresses in there —one at each end of the lots. That would push the traffic or make it more favorable to go out on Victory Road. The size of lots is a very high issue with us. The average lot size on the back adjoining property is 11,000 square feet and find that unacceptable. I have talked to the developer. If he just consumed one or two of those lots make them larger it would probably appease a lot of us. I am not opposed to the development but I am opposed the way the plat is, the design of it. Meridian Planning and . ding Commission May 24, 2000 Page 10 Markel: Karen Markel. 661 E. Whitehall and I would like to add my concerns to the other residents. The small lots sizes also are my concerns. All they would need to do would be consume one of those lots across the back. Make them larger. I believe Becky Bowcutt painted a pretty picture of what architectural shingles look like. All they are is a composite shingle that looks a little bit different in shape. On the other side of Meridian Greens toward the front, there is a Subdivision that abuts against the east side and similar changes have been made to that Subdivision. They were required to put in wood shakes along where the lots a join Meridian Greens and also required to substantially increase their square footages. For some of us our homes are our only investment. We went into this home expecting a profit in the future. McKinley: Dennis McKinley. 2665 S. Andros. Right where that road bends that is where they'll be in my front yard. I offer opposition here as well that I bought that —told it was a culdesac, there was not sign that it was anything other than a culdesac. The curb went all the way around and I would like to maintain my properties and keep the people out of my front yard. All the requests here this evening I agree with. Borup: You said that showed that was a culdesac. Are you referring to the recorded plat shows that or —1 am talking about the recorded plat. Did you see a sales drawing that showed that. McKinley: I received a copy with my CC&R's and that showed it. In fact it was mentioned to me at one time it was going to be a golf course out there. It does affect all of our values. Diehl: My name if Paul Diehl. 2569 S. Aboco Way. I am surprised about this whole development because—We never received a notification that this thing was going in. A lot of people did not receive anything either so the neighbors informed us. We bought into a quiet neighborhood and quiet street. We were told at that time this was a culdesac period. I am not opposing the development but I am opposed to that road opening up. Nicholas: I am Luana Nicholas. I live at 545 Whitehall. I am here with all of my many neighbors. I will mention that my home is one of the ones right on the edge there. The white fence that you saw in the first picture that he put up tonight --the beginning of the white fence is my backyard. Those 2100 square foot homes will be built right across the fence line from me. That size of home is 2/3 size of my home. It would significantly depreciate the property value of my home. Debenham: Brett Debenham. I live at 737 E. Whitehall. I have a few questions and maybe some observations. Is the minimum square footage 2100 square feet or the minimum 1400. Borup: We will get an answer for you on that. Meridian Planning and ;ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 11 Debenham: The fence line will be going along Whitehall. 3/ of the housing along there has very expensive fencing. The attitude I got from the developer was they would be willing to split the cost on that other quarter fencing. That kind of shows to me the spirit of how the developer is taking this. Barbeiro: I don't know if you can speak for the group but can you tell me what the minimum building size in Meridian Greens is. I believe it is 2400. Siddoway: The minimum house size in Meridian Greens as per the plat is 1300 square feet. Borup: He's got the plat. This is what was recorded and submitted by the developer. Debenham: When we moved into the Subdivision the minimum house price was $250,000. Barbeiro: I am asking the square footage of the property of the home. Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro I think I can answer that for you. I do have a set of covenants Meridian Green number 1. The recorded covenants for that says that a house size shall not be less than 1700 square feet. Barbeiro: What my point is for you and the neighbors is I don't think there are very many homes in your neighborhood at or close to the minimum. I think you might find that in this new Subdivision is will be equal. That you will find few is any homes that will come close to the minimum. Debenham: Let's say things go wrong here. He is not selling the lots as quickly as he'd lake to. He is going to put 1400 or very small houses back up against there. What is going to stop that from happening Barbeiro: NO, no. Borup: Same thing that stopped it from happening in Meridian Greens. Debenham: What was that. When we bought into it, there was a minimum price that the house had to appraise for and that was $250,000. Hatcher: Requirements that numerous people that have mentioned here tonight are all driven by CC&R's not by Planning and Zoning Ordinances. We state that certain residential tones shall be made. The size of lot and house is different than the zoning ordinance because it is being governed by the CC&R's by the developer. The best interest to everybody involved is to work in a cooperative effort with the developer that is looking at developing this land. We don't have any way of governing what size of house he builds so long it meets the minimum requirements per the ordinance. Meridian Planning and ^ ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 12 Debenham: We are asking that they blend and we don't get 1400 square foot houses don't think that is unreasonable to ask. Diehl: Paul Diehl again. I was on the Meridian Greens homeowners association for 3 years and on the architectural committee. That 1700 feet is correct for the first phase. The other phases next to the new development is 2500 square feet minimum. With respect to the question about the houses, we would make reviews of the houses periodically through Meridian Greens checking on fences, etc. In essence, there are no homes in Meridian Greens that have down graded the value of other homes being built up in higher prices. Brown: Bob Brown. 695 Whitehall. I share the same views as everybody else. I know at Sportsman Point, I purchased a couple lots over there that back up to Meridian Greens the canal and all those lots back there were the biggest lots in the Subdivision and that is where the higher end houses went in at Sportsman Point. They did make them do the shake roofs so it is not unreasonable to comply with these things. Mussle: Tim Mussle and I am the owner of the nursery. What I want to ask if there is a way that —1 don't have a problem with this at all. I just want to make sure that down the road if I do anything with my property that I don't get a room full of folks. If there is a way to make sure that in this approvals or something that those folks or the developer or somebody along that whole fence line makes sure it is a consistent berm or buffer so when those guys move in to these wonderful homes and look across to my nursery and they don't have a problem with it then anything I do all of a sudden becomes a big problem. If that is something that can be addressed. Barbeiro: Mr. Mussel, as I look at the Comprehensive Plan it looks like you have some prime commercial property there for you to let the residents know that on that corner the possibility of a commercial development does exist. When everybody knows when you come to us in 2 or 3 years with a commercial development, we didn't know that was commercial. The new Subdivision people should be aware of that too. Borup: Anyone else. Becky any final or wrap up you'd like to do. Bowcutt: When we designed this Subdivision we were sensitive to the lot sizes. The question has been asked how come some of the lots next to Meridian Greens are some of the smaller ones that are in this development. The main answer is topography. With the hilliness of this property we had its design in a fashion that we need some of that depth to be able to handle the grading necessary for the streets and the homes. Just because a particular lot is 6 feet less in depth than its adjoined lot does not mean it is not compatible. This is intended to be a very high end exclusive Subdivision with views out of these homes which also enhances the value of the homes and the lots. It is not intended to be a 1400 or 1600 square foot Subdivision. Mr. Cavin is willing to go on the record that the minimum square footage will be 2100 square feet for the dwelling. That will be put in the covenants. As far as the issue of roofing, I never in 10 years of doing this ever had any governing body dictate a particular type of roofing. I have a shake Meridian Planning and~)ning Commission .-. May 24, 2000 Page 13 roof on my house and my house is a 2 story, 3250 square foot. Very comparable and it is not going to last. My neighbors that built their house a couple year before me, my house is 7 years old, are all ready replacing their roofing. I had a roofing company come out and the gentleman said we do not have the appropriate climate for shake shingles. Too many extremes in our weather. The expansion and contractions limits their life span. The shingles have come a long way. Those homes have architectural shingles and look very, very nice. Like I said compatibility does not mean exactly the same. Mr. Cavin is going to have strict covenants just like Meridian Greens does. Brookdale Meadows are very good looking homes and that is what he intends for this development. The culdesa.c --- we don't have choices when it comes to inter connection with the stub street to the north. Ada County Highway District dictates that and I understand and we face this time and time again. Some of the things we can do if the highway district will agree to it is put a choker up there at that intersection or East Lake Creek Street. What that does is funnel the traffic into all most one lane and it requires a driver to slow down and functions well. The other thing are speed humps which are not popular with emergency services. Second was construction traffic. Mr. Cavin can tell the subcontractors that construction traffic will take access off of Victory Road. He intends it to be a two phase project. He may build it all as one phase. He has not determined that but we will start at Victory and do the first loop for sure and then go on. Obviously the closest point of ingress and egress is Victory Road. For them to drive 3/ of a mile through Meridian Greens winding through the residential streets is not practical. The contractors will take the shortest route. I have seen signage put up and it is Ashford Greens I believe have a sign that directed construction traffic to a particular street. We have done it before. This development will have pressure irrigation. Mr. Cavin has not determined whether is will be under the association or under Nampa Meridian Irrigation Districts owner and maintenance. He will decide prior to the submittal of the final plat. As far as blending the home, just as Meridian Greens when it first started up at Overland Road as you went southward and the Subdivision started developing, the value the homes increased. That is a standard thing with a development with this low of density just like theirs. The price and value of the home increase as you develop each phase. We feel this is a good project. A good quality project. We have made great effort to come before you with a low density project. Our 2.21 dwelling units per acre is right there with Meridian Greens on their density. We calculated their phase 3 and it is like 2.2. With the rock wall on the exterior, being able to utilize that Kennedy lateral and make some esthetic improvements out there, I think it will be a asset to the city. Any questions. Excuse me. There was a comment about the 10 setbacks. Their zoning designation in Meridian Greens is R-4. That is the same zone we are requesting. Any two story house under the zoning ordinance requires 10 foot setback, 5 feet per story according to the ordinance. Barbeiro: I am going to try to solve your problem. You talk about a choker and we do know that while the plat shows this as being a stub street, it is a culdesac. With the use of a choker would the developer consider taking about 5 to 10 feet to halfway through each of these lots, widen that road. Work with the 2 neighbors at this lot and this lot to widen their road a little so you could take the choker about half way into their Meridian Planning and ^ ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 14 Subdivision. That would be enough to slow the traffic down, give them some assemblance of a culdesac. It essentially will be an island. Bowcutt: Your thinking a island and then choke it up with two lanes one on each side. Barbeiro: Yeah and passing through into your subdivision if your developer would consider the added expense in moving into their Subdivision if ACHD would allow— Bowcutt: Ada County Highway District will not allow us to put that median in their existing right of way. We can do it in a new Subdivision because the common lot or median is a separate and not a part of the public right of way. They have never allowed us to put those in a right of way. My concern is we may have to go in and either vacate part of the right of way or go to the commission with some sort of license agreement. I don't know if they would favor that. They will work with us but that one, I don't think it is possible. Hatcher: On the same line, the recorded plat of Meridian Greens is showing a public stub street to be (inaudible) to the southern property. When it was developed, the developer put in a temporary culdesac. Since that culdesac is not recorded I am at a loss as to one of two things are going to have to occur. Either the adjacent property owners in Meridian Greens actually own a chunk of that culdesac and when the street goes all the way through, then it will have to be reclaimed and those people be given their property back. Or, the culdesac was built out of violation to the recorded plat. Freckleton: I can clear that up for you. The recorded Subdivision plat for Meridian Greens Unit 3, there is a 50 foot right of way platted to the southern boundary. There is also a temporary emergency vehicle turn around ingress egress easement that goes into lot 50, block 8 and also lot 37, block 12 which is both sides of the right away. It says that this easement is to revert back to adjacent lot owners upon the extension of the public street. That is right on the face of the plat. Hatcher: So the culdesac would be — into a straight street. The adjacent property owners would reclaim how much land? Freckleton: Well, it's a 50 foot straight through right of way as platted. The culdesac is encroaching into the lot by an easement right now. Hatcher: By an easement—so there was a legal means in which that encroachment occurs. Freckleton: That is correct and I believe if we went back in the record, I think the City of Meridian was instrumental in requiring that because our requirements typically or any time you have a street that goes in more than one lot depth, you have to provide a turn around. Meridian Planning and _,ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 15 Hatcher: Okay. In reverting the culdesac to a through street, is it the Meridian Greens Association that does this work or the adjacent developer going in and making the adjustments within Meridian Greens? Freckleton: Typically it is the developer of the Subdivision that is effected by the culdesac. It would have been Meridian Greens. When this street goes through, if they choose to leave the culdesac where it was, that is there choice. If they want to reclaim it as their plat provides— Hatcher: So it would be the land owner or the association would have to go back to the original developer and say we want our land back. Freckleton: That is correct. Norton: I have a question regarding the homeowners concern about pressurized irrigation. They indicated they have difficulty with the water pressure and would be willing to help with expensive if they could tap into the pressurized irrigation that your Subdivision seems to be able to have. When the issue is resolved of who is going to be owning that, the Subdivision, homeowners association or the irrigation district, would your developer be willing to work with the neighbors to tap into that. Bowcutt: I have faced this before when developing next to adjoining properties that had no access to irrigation water. Nampa Meridian in two other instances took that to their board and came back and said unless we can provide water for the entire development of the adjoining Subdivision, they would not allow the lots that adjoin my development to connect to our system. It had to do with their water rights. Some Subdivisions have forfeited their water rights, some retain them and pay for the water rights, but don't get any water. I have dealt with this before and developers say yes they will do that but they would not allow it. I don't think that will happen. We could ask. Borup: Is Nampa Meridian going to be operating this system. Bowcutt: Either they will operate it or the association. Borup: So, it has not been decided yet. You stated that the 2100 square feet would be part of the covenants. Any reason that couldn't be put on the plat also. Bowcutt: If Mr. Cavin agrees. END OF SIDE TWO Borup: The warranty on a cedar shake shingle roof is non-existent. There is no warranty. What there any discussion on the type of architectural. Bowcutt: Presidential or better Mr. Cavin has just indicated for the record. 40 year Meridian Planning and ' iing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 16 Borup: That will be in the covenants also. Bowcutt: Yes. Borup: And that is a very good quality shingle. Top of the line. That will look better in the future than a shake roof. I would like some more discussion on the stub street to the west. You mentioned concern about the grade. You also said that the steep grade in the one area but tapers off as it gets to each end. (Inaudible) stub street have to be where the embankment is rather then where it tapers off a little bit. Bowcutt: Where the highway district originally asked for it was between lot 10 and 11. That was the steepest point or – Borup: I don't think they realized about the grade. Bowcutt: My first meeting they agreed it was not necessary. They have left it the same but they have concerns about truck traffic coming through us. That was one of their concerns. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I contacted the (inaudible) Ada County Highway District on this issue and they originally recommended the stub street going this location which is the ideal location to prevent high speed traffic from going through on a long straight away. That location has the highest grade change so you can go there without some type of bridge structure or something. The grades meet from about this point north and the grades do meet at the location where East Lake Creek Drive would be extended. My last conversation with Dave Splitz suggested that that is the logical location for that because they are also grade elevation differences that still exist down here until you get on the other side of the lateral. We also voiced a concern about the possibility of gravel trucks now being able to use this to get out, but he was saying it could be barricaded with the sign saying this street will be extended in the future when that property is later developed as a residential Subdivision. We feel the connection is needed for the inner - connectivity. The grades do match at that location and I believe that it can be barricaded while the use is a gravel pit to keep trucks from using it. Borup: Did ACHD express what their—did they say what they really wanted? Siddoway: They agreed they wanted to get a stub street and when I pointed that location out they said that was where it should go. But I have not seen anything in writing. They do want a stub street. Borup: Your comment on the buffering, if it is going to be an incompatible use, the buffering needs to stay there. Your saying you don't want the stub street because its going to be residential and then its going to be a like use and the buffering would not need to be there. Along the same line, if it is going to be residential the stub street needs to be there. Meridian Planning and ,ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 17 Bowcutt: Yes sir. Borup: Had there been any design consideration to a less direct route on Andros, turning at Lake Creek rather than extending through. Bowcutt: You mean try to ninety it and then bring it in perpendicular. That may be a possibility where you take it — what I was contemplating is softening the curve as we come around a little bit and then take Andros and intersect it 90 degrees like this instead of taking it straight. If the district would agree. We've done that before. Borup: Has there been any discussion about one less lot on the north boundary and distributing that between them. Bowcutt: The differences in the depth, they are approximately 130 we've got 124, 125 so it is 6 or 7 feet. In the width we've got 94 to 90 in our widths. They appear to be about 96 1 think. On those that are squared. With the 92 that we have, there is about a 6 or 8 foot difference. Borup: So is that a way of saying no, there has not been discussion. Bowcutt: We felt we were pretty darn close and that we are compatible. I would hate to loose a lot in there. A little bit of shifting could possibly be done to enhance. Borup: The lot you lose there could you add it back in somewhere else. Bowcutt: No, I don't think so not to meet the frontages that we need for the zone and the due to the slopes. Our first thought we'd try to move the lot lines, shift them a little to enhance the width. To the east probably, around the corner. I don't think there is enough room to bring every single lot there up to 100. That one on the end, lot 14, is 105. Borup: Whether you can gain that lot somewhere else in the Subdivision that is a design thing. You do have the larger lots on the north or on the south and the smaller lots on the north. It does seem you leave the smaller lots near an entrance. We've got the plat. Any other questions Commissioner's. Hatcher: I move we close the public hearings, both of them. Norton: I second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: We can do the discussion on both. We will need to make motions on each separate. Meridian Planning and ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 18 Hatcher: There was a comment earlier from one of the Meridian Greens residents about a violation of commitment from this commission. (Inaudible) we were to allow that road to go through. I wanted to address that. It is not a violation of the city or this board. It is a ACHD and Meridian City requirement that adjoining properties be harmoniously tied together so there is a free flow of traffic through out the city. Borup: The violation would have been to not have the road go through because that was what was on the plat and committed to. Hatcher: I am getting to that and what I would really say is that if there is any violation of commitment it is from the realtor and builders that you have dealt with because that road on the recorded plat has always been a stub street, always intended to be a stub street and if your swayed or deceived by the people you dealt with, I empathize with you. As far as the traffic because of the stub street, I think you will probably fine I look at the Meridian Greens Subdivision as it is currently platted and I would find that the back third of that Subdivision is going to take advantage of going through this Subdivision. You guys are going to benefit by this Subdivision and the traffic flow of the Subdivision. Every single house in that Subdivision will most likely go to Victory because it is a block away rather than driving 3/ of a mile through meandering roads in your Subdivision. The likelihood of them going through your Subdivision is pretty minimal. Another comment about curbs and having a turn down curb or rolled curb, a 6 inch curb. It doesn't matter what type you build it is not going to stop a car. The other issue is the culdesac and design standard. All of the culdesac that are in Meridian Greens by what I can see here were designed in a oval or oblong fashion which provide for guest parking in the middle of the culdesac and that looks like a Subdivision design standard. That should have been a red flag to anyone that through that other culdesac was permanent because it doesn't have that feature. i am discouraged about Meridian irrigation districts policy of not servicing adjacent lots. I encourage the Subdivision and the developer to come to means with that. If the Subdivision decides to maintain it them selves and make it as a homeowners association, then I think the Meridian Greens property could benefit from that with a joint venture with the developer. The three items I would be in favor of adjusting if I were to put a motion together on this would be the northern lots adjacent to Meridian Greens that they be adjusted so that they are no smaller than the smallest lot in the adjacent Meridian Greens. The second is to ask the developer to coordinate and work with Meridian Greens homeowners association to develop CC&R's that reflect similar conditions. The other issue would be that a western stub street in alignment with Lake Creek per staff recommendation be added in and that the buffering requirements be dropped as a requirement. Under the assumption that the gravel pit would be developed as residential. That is my discussion. Norton: I would concur with that but would also like to do or have something regarding this Andros Way meander so its not a straight shot downhill into Meridian Greens. Hatcher: I would not be opposed to that. I calculated the slopes of that and it would be a 3 percent slope, which is well within the standard means of a road. Meridian Planning and ,ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 19 Norton: Do we want to do anything about helping the neighbors with the fence line along that back group of houses. Hatcher: Most of its there. Barbeiro: Steve could you go back to the photograph showing that fence line. Hatcher: I think we should maintain our current requirements and if that means the developer has to add what is not there then he adds what is not there. Barbeiro: I was pleased with Becky's answer to doing that curved Y road there. That would work well to slow down the traffic. I would like to see access to the St. Clair property and I like the access there between lot 11 and 12 as opposed East Lake because we have a Y there. Between lot 7 and 8 on the (inaudible) plat. Hatcher: The problem we have moving it down more toward the middle of the gravel pit is adjacent grades. Barbeiro: Agreed but I think when Mr. St. Clair develops his land he will figure out a way to match up with that road. Borup: 7 and 8 was probably the only spot on there that doesn't work very well. We will let Becky worry about the design. Barbeiro: The difference between a lot that is .27 acres and a lot that is .31 acres which the argument is between Meridian Greens group is not sufficient enough to have me request that the developer make those northern lots that much larger. I am satisfied that the homes minimum of 2100 square feet will be exceeded and the vast majority of these homes will be far greater. Since the homes in the middle of this are much larger lots, I would expect to see those home far of in excess of 3000 and 4000 square feet. By putting in that extension road we then loose the buffer. Norton: Mr. Barbeiro would you be in agreement to change these lot lines toward the back if commission Hatcher made a motion. Barbeiro: Yes. Borup: The only two comments I had—well one you said you'd like the CC&R's to be similar. What does that mean. Hatcher: I'd be asking the developer to work with Meridian Greens so that— Borup: What aspects do you have a concern with. Hatcher: No specific aspects. Meridian Planning and ^ iing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 20 Borup: Most covenants are very similar. Some of them get a little bit but I think at one time a number of years ago one attorney prepared them and everybody else copied. Hatcher: I am not going to sit here and tell them they need to have so many trees and bushes, etc. All I am saying is I am —not in the motion. Go to the developer and work with Meridian Greens and have comparable CC&R's that are all ready establish. Borup: Your statement that no lot would be smaller than the adjoining lots. It may be appropriate along there to have the lots at a larger—I don't see—if it was so incompatible then the Meridian Greens Subdivision as a whole would be having a problem. The first phase a large one which was 1700 square feet. Looking at the plat there is a fair number of 90 foot lots in there. Granted as the phase went on it went from 1700 to 2400 and higher. But those 1700 and 90 foot lots are across the street from the others that are larger. I don't see an incompatibility there. If there were doing within the same Subdivision definitely should not be a problem. Hatcher: You bring up the same point that Commissioner Barbeiro had mentioned about not being opposed to the site— Borup: One lot along there and distributing that through there would add —that would not get up to the 100 foot but— Hatcher: I did not say dimensions. I said size, so if they are wider and not as deep, so be it. Your suggestion of taking one lot and dividing it equally amongst the remaining 11 lots would satisfy my concern. Siddoway: First of all both plats are out of compliance with the current zoning ordinance on exceeding block length. We put in the requirement to put in those pedestrian walkways in saying that if they were able to do that it would bring them into compliance. I am not convinced if this street slopes are at 3 per cent that they would not be able to put those in and still meet ADA, but if they are not able to put those in and have a valid argument and they can't, it's still will require a variance from that ordinance submitted to the City Council. If they can demonstrate that hardship that they can't provide those pedestrian walkways due to the slopes and ADA standards, then it would be a variance that we could support. If the facts don't show that that is the case, then we would say those pedestrian walkways should be put in and not support the variance. But if they are not going to do the pedestrian walkways the block length exceeds the required maximum in the ordinance of 1000 feet and would require a variance from the city council. Second issue on the buffer between the land uses, this is also just straight out of the ordinance and would also require a variance from City Council. I don't think we can simply just drop it from the requirements. The existing land uses are incompatible as commercial industrial adjacent to proposed residential and would require those buffers. I believe we could support based on the fact that it is planned to go residential in the future based on the Comprehensive Plan, maybe to support a variance to have those be an easement on the lot as Becky suggested with minimum number of trees Meridian Planning anc -ming Commission May 24, 2000 Page 21 and have them belong to the individual lot owners rather than our standard situation of a common lot owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The requirement for that buffer is straight out of the ordinance and I don't think we can waive it away without a variance. The bigger issue to me is the house they are leaving on septic and well in the southwest corner. We'd be annexing a property with the house sitting inside of the required landscape buffer. We would stand by our comment number 11 that would ask that that lot be turned into a common area for the Subdivision. That the house be removed out of the required landscape buffer and — Borup: Steve could that parcel be excluded from the annexation. Is that their other option. Siddoway: That's their other option. I don't know if we could annex it without being along a lot line. That would be the option is not annexing that portion and leave it in the county. Borup: What is that going to look like. What problems the city going to have down the road. Siddoway: Exactly. It would go against city policy to annex a house that is not able to hook up to city water and sewer. I was not at the last meeting but Bruce told me that discussion was even through that is where the line is, it can gravity flow and is possible for it to be hooked to water and sewer. ACHD does not want that lot taking access off of Victory road and was requiring a costly stub street for a relatively few number of lots. Borup: Looks to me like if your saying the house has to be moved your probably forcing the applicant to exclude that from the project. That would be one of their options. Siddoway: It doesn't sound like a great option, but yes. That area is not a separate lot at this point in time. It is proposed to be a separate lot as this is subdivided but they would probably have to go through some sort of a lot split so that they could annex a full lot that excludes that portion, if they decide to go that route. That is not what I am recommending, but-- We already discussed the stub street at length. On all of these design issues I would just state as far as minimum lot size and house size, roofing types and things like that, I do not believe that we as a city can require more than this stated minimums unless this was a planned development which with a conditional use permit we could impose whatever we wanted. They are exceeding the minimum lot sizes. The 1400 square feet is the minimum house size by ordinance. If the developer is willing to put 2100 square feet on the plat, that is fine. He can volunteeringly make that more restrictive, but this isn't a conditional use permit, it is not a planned development. Therefore, we have to make our recommendations based on the ordinance. I don't know if Mr. Swartley has more to say on that but that would be how I interpret the code. Swartley: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Siddoway is correct. We can't control the CC&R's. We have no jurisdiction over that. Meridian Planning and ^ ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 22 Borup: I think he is going beyond that saying we can't be doing anything more restrictive than what our city ordinance says either. Swartley: That is correct as well. Borup: I had a question on the pathway. I am not sure what the ADA standards are. Looking at the one lot in the middle of the block, it looks to me like just the length of the lot, 137 feet or so, it falls about 10 feet. It tapers off to another 5 or 6 feet on the other lot is not quite as steep. Street to street that is about 16 feet, 15 feet. Siddoway: Eight percent, one in twelve with landings and it would be the burden of proof on the developer to show they can't do that. You need a level area. Get the pathway in or request a variance on the street thing. That would need to go to the council. I am wondering if Becky may want to talk to you right now on this lot with the existing house. If she could talk to Steve, we could go on with our business. Any other discussion. Will you kind of put some points together for a motion. At this point we are talking about annexation. Hatcher: None of my modifications to staff comments apply to annexation and zoning. Borup: The only thing that would apply to annexation is this one parcel that on a new revised plat is showing as a single lot with no sewer. Hatcher: Even though it doesn't go per normal standards, the option we have is that the developer withhold that parcel from annexation which is he legal right and he could proceed in that fashion. But, is it truly to the City's benefit to allow him to do that as where they are currently proposing to put that landscape buffer in right of way improvements along Victory the full length with a variance for the existing building. We can make it a condition that prior to that lot being developed in any fashion, that these deficiencies be corrected prior to development. Borup: That may be one more variance they need to look at. Hatcher: Yes. I think it would be to the City's interest to allow what was submitted rather than have them pull it out. The water sewer issue, correct me if I'm wrong legal, to be able to annex a piece of property we need to have the ability to provide sewer and water. You don't mandate that they hook up. We can leave it as it is because otherwise we are running those utilities across the lateral. Borup: That is the only access at this point is they'd have to come across the lateral even though it is— Hatcher: It is going to be 25 years before the Black Cat trunk gets to--- Borup: Right. That would be a good criteria for a variance. Steve, we're about ready to make a motion on the annexation and zoning. You got any final comments. Meridian Planning and ` ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 23 Siddoway: The solution is unclear. The option for making any common lot park area is not looked on favorably. The problem with leaving just that portion out of the annexation is that our Comprehensive Plan says that no lot should be created in the county less than 5 acres in size. This one is three. They would have to split off more of it based on that policy or ADA County would have to make a determination that this is just annexing the part north of the lateral would be okay. Or, we annex the whole thing which is currently against City Council policy of annexing a property that will not be in a sewer district not sewerable that will remain on Septic and Well, I don't have a good answer for you right now. Hatcher: Steve, while you were distracted we discussed the possibility of being submitted as a variance—the sewer zoning issue on that lot. Siddoway: That would be the other option. Just add all these things to a variance application. Ask for a variance to the block length, to annexing a property that is going to be served by well and septic, a variance on the landscape buffer issue and make it an easement. All of those things could be rolled into a variance to City Council. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I motion that we recommend approval to City Council request for annexation and zoning of 40.33 acres to R-4 for proposed Timber View/Observation Point Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC incorporating staff comments. Norton: I second that. Borup: Any discussion. One observation, the applicant was in agreement with all the staff comments on the annexation and zoning. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Item number 2, request for a preliminary plat. Hatcher: I am ready to make a motion. I would motion that we recommend approval to the City Council on the preliminary plat for the proposed Timber View/Observation Point Subdivision which comprises of END OF SIDE THREE Hatcher: 90 lots on 40.33 acres by Victory 41, LLC to include staff comments and the following modifications. First one would be that the adjacent lots on the north property line adjacent to Meridian Greens be modified from 12 lots to 11 lots distributing the difference amongst the 11. Next I would encourage the developer to coordinate the writing of the CC&R's to reflect similar CC&R's of Meridian Greens. I would encourage Greens homeowners association to work with the developer on the irrigation issue once that is finalized. Second issue on the motion would be that the western stub street be provided per staffs recommendation and I'll leave that to the design professionals for locations. Third is we need to as suggested by Becky Bowcutt that we modify the Meridian Planning and ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 24 intersection at Lake Creek Street and South Andros Way to have it as a offset Y intersection rather than straight through traffic. Those would be the modifications. As far as the buffering, we will let that be submitted as a variance. Barbeiro: I had some confusion on the requirements for the fence. Borup: I do too. The Subdivision should put the fence in would have been Meridian Greens. They were developed first. Steve is the city required fences put between residential Subdivisions. Siddoway: Standard perimeter fencing is a standard requirement. Borup: Perimeter against non use land, isn't it. Why are we requiring fences between different phases of the same Subdivision. What's the difference. Then why aren't we requiring fences between different phases of the same Subdivision. I did not think we were. I can't think of one where we required fencing against abutting adjoining residential Subdivision. Hatcher: What I am getting at is if Meridian Greens did not have the requirement to provide fencing at an adjacent agriculture land, then so be it. If they did then the Meridian Greens developer needs to put some fence in. If our current applicant is not required to put in fencing then so be it. I don't think this board needs— Borup: I think we do depending on how you want to incorporate the staff comments. The comment on the north side fencing should be stricken on the staff comments. Hatcher: That the word north be stricken from Item number 9. Borup: The other two things in staff comments that the applicant would like to do a meandering pathway along Victory. That was strictly in disagreement but maybe just a—okay. The other was the buffer to the west. Staff recommended easement. Applicant would like to have landscaping by each individual lot owner. Hatcher: I thought that was being dealt with as a variance. Borup: The buffer, okay. Norton: I second that motion. Swartley: Mr. Chairman. Just a point of clarification, is a meandering sidewalk becoming part of the motion? You brought it up as discussion. I want to hear if it is going to be part of the motion. Hatcher: I don't see a conflict. Meridian Planning and ring Commission May 24, 2000 Page 25 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. I would recommend from staff position that the applicant bring a revised plat back to you with these modifications rather then sending it on to City Council and requiring them to see that all these modification were made property so that they are made to your satisfaction that is come back to you with those modification and in the mean time require that the variance application for those variances that they are going apply for, be applied for to City Council. That way they can be heard at the same time. Borup: It would go a lot smoother at City Council. Norton: Do we need an amendment to that motion? Hatcher: I think we do. Point of clarification wouldn't a final plat come before us for final review..no never mind. I amend my motion to make that a requirement. Borup: Would we also want to table the annexation then. Swartley: That was my next question. Make a motion to hold it. Borup: We'll do that as another motion after this. Any other discussion. All in favor? Swartley: Mr. Chairman, yes the motion reeds to be withdrawn if your going to follow Steve's advice and that is to have the applicant go back, make changes to the plat, bring them in front of the commission again and then you can vote on it. To ensure that those changes are being made which I believe that one of Becky's associates was writing down all those changes, correct. Yeah. Yes, table it so the applicant will have the opportunity to make those changes. Hatcher: After all that work of making the motion. Swartley: You made the motion. Its on the record. We can make it again at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Borup: Okay, we straight on that. Do we want to withdraw this motion. Hatcher: I withdraw this motion. Norton: 1 concur. Borup: Do we have an alternative motion? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, in order for them to bring it back before you, you may need to open the public hearing and leave it open. Otherwise they can't present. Barbeiro: I move we re -open the public hearing. Meridian Planning and ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 26 Hatcher: I second the motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move that we continue the public hearing to our next regularly scheduled meeting June 13th pending a variance application and presentation of a new plat. Hatcher: Second Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Do we have another motion on item number 1. Hatcher: I motion that we hold item number 1 and not move it on to City Council pending outcome of our next meeting on June 131H Norton: I second that motion. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER FOR 24 MONTHS TO BE PLACED ON PROPERTY ZONED I -L BY JAMES L. AIMONETTO-2204 LANARK STREET: Borup: Steve. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's this is a property that is on East Lanark Street. This would be Nola Road. Locust Grove here. This is Franklin, this is Lanark Street. Back here is where all the buses are and adjacent to that there is an existing lot asphalt right now or maybe gravel. These are site photos. The applicant is requesting a temporary office trailer to be placed on the site. He has requested 24 months. At the last City Council meeting, City Council entertained a variance on this property for landscaping, granted that variance for one year, not two. Therefore we would recommend that the temporary office trailer be approved for a maximum of one year and at that time the temporary uses should be out and the site should be in full compliance with permanent structure and the landscape requirements as required by the City Council. We have asked the temporary trailed be located 35 feet back from the May 19, 2000 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: May 24, 2000 APPLICANT: VICTORY 41, LLC ITEM NUMBER: 1 REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 40.33 ACRES TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING & ZONING DEPT. CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WASTE WATER DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: SANITARY SERVICE: OTHER: COMMENTS SEE PREVIOUS PACKET + ATTACHED LETTER All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MAY - g 2Q0� Date: May 9, 2000 CITY OF MERMIAN To: Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Meridian, Idaho From: John Porter, 2650 S. Andros Way, Meridian, ID Re: Issues with the proposed rezoning of Timber View property/49'__ roperty,. j� f i:1°" e 1) Issue: The egress through Meridian Greens will increase the amount of traffic on streets that are already busy. For various reasons, many people living in Meridian Greens do not want Andros Way connected to Timber View. Our subdivision has many very young children who ride bicycles and play near our streets. Their safety is in jeopardy with increased traffic. Solution: Do not connect Meridian Greens to Timber View. Redesign Timber View so that there are two egresses from Victory instead of the one that continues through Meridian Greens. Use Thousand Springs and Sherbrooke Hollows subdivisions on Victory Road as examples of subdivision with two egresses. Meridian Greens already has three egresses onto main roads. These egresses, coupled with the low density of dwellings per acre, make another egress unnecessary. There is no need to connect Meridian Greens with Timber View. 2) Issue: As proposed, Timber View has a ratio of approximately 2.79 units per acre of land. Meridian Greens has a ratio of approximately 2.1 to 2.3 units per acre. The largest adjacent lot to Meridian Greens is 13,058 square feet and smaller sizes are being proposed on the current plat of Timber View. Currently, Timber View will not be similar in quality to Meridian Greens. We live in Meridian Greens because of its high quality of life and park -like settings. We do not want houses built next door which will decrease the property value of our homes. Solution: Stay consistent with requirements in Meridian Greens. • Decrease the ratio of units per acre to be consistent with that of Meridian Greens at 2.1 to 2.3 units per acre. • Increase the lot size to be consistent with Meridian Greens (approximately 18,000 to 24,000 sq. ft. per lot). • Increase the minimum square footage of the dwellings from 1400 sq. ft. to 2300 sq. ft. for single level and 2400 sq. ft. or greater for two-story houses. • Maintain the 20 -foot setbacks and 10 -foot minimum spacing (15 ft. for two-story dwellings) between property lines. • Set the minimum purchase price greater than $220,000 per unit. • Require a 3 -car garage minimum. 3) Issue: Schools impacted by building in this area are presently over -crowded. Mary McPherson Elementary is supporting many students beyond its designed capacity. Solution: Build new schools first. Solve the current over -crowding situation before adding more families. 4) Issue: City Services—There are no police stations or fire stations south of the interstate. Sewer and water services are not developed. All of these services are operating near their capacity now. Solution: Require the City to provide services south of the interstate before building new subdivisions. 5) Issue: Parks—There are no public parks south of the interstate. Solution: Use part of the Timber View subdivision to build a park. Turn 20 acres of the proposed 40 acres of Timber View into a Meridian public park! Let's get some parks in place!! Once land is subdivided and houses built, the land will never be reclaimed for a park. Our children need a place to play and fly kites. We need a place for family gatherings. Useable fields are at a premium! Tom Kuntz of the Meridian Parks Department said they are very interested in something like this. Let's have some foresight and leave a City for future generations that makes us proud. How can it be fiscally responsible to keep adding these developments and not providing for the people who will be living there? I don't deny that the proposed site of Timber View will be developed one day. My only hope is that we can build the needed infrastructure first (Police, Fire, Parks, Libraries, and non-commercial, non-residential development). This needs to happen now, before the available land is subdivided and we are left saying "should have, could have, wish we would have." At a minimum, this decision should be tabled for at least six months so a land donation or purchase for a park can be pursued and the need for city services can be explored. This would also give the developers time to redraw the plat to incorporate the requests stated above. Another subdivision can wait at least 6 months. fzBCBTV:Ej) MAY - 9 2000 We the homeowners in the Meridian Greens Subdivision adamantly oppgo OF MERMUN the new road that would connect our subdivision to the proposed Timber View subdivision. We oppose the road connecting the two subdivisions because of the heavy traffic flow we already have through our neighborhood. A connecting road would cause a large increase in traffic on a residential street, S.E. 5th way. We recently had a four way stop installed on 5th due to heavy traffic. Connecting the Meridian Greens subdivision to Timber View will cause deterioration of our neighborhood. Many small children and retired couples populate our subdivision. Please don't endanger our children and destroy Meridian Greens. Names Address I:ZC5 .5- H-, Z,,� aor-� U Zq4 ` qZ (/44%t oe A,, ". .t SJ2 sribaep toacf 09 ,• .. I?BCErVTj) MAY - 9 2000 We the homeowners in the Meridian Greens Subdivision adamantly oppG,M OF MERIDIAN the new road that would connect our subdivision to the proposed Timber View subdivision. We oppose the road connecting the two subdivisions because of the heavy traffic flow we already have through our neighborhood. A connecting road would cause a large increase in traffic on a residential street, S.E. 5t'' way. We recently had a four way stop installed on 5"' due to heavy traffic. Connecting the Meridian Greens subdivision to Timber View will cause deterioration of our neighborhood. Many small children and retired couples populate our subdivision. Please don't endanger our children and destroy Meridian Greens. Names Address Cl �C Al'"V1114 0 L, <---) L) 14 -n0" C. �S 5- f- -Z ;. ,,�6 ��7 �► �- �at o a y7y 5 • �¢ba �o �3zy s� MAY - 9 2000 We the homeowners in the Meridian Greens Subdivision adamantly opp&WY OF MERIDIAN the new road that would connect our subdivision to the proposed Timber View subdivision. We oppose the road connecting the two subdivisions because of the heavy traffic flow we already have through our neighborhood. A connecting road would cause a large increase in traffic on a residential street, S.E_ 51h way. We recently had a four way stop installed on 5th due to heavy traffic. Connecting the Meridian Greens subdivision to Timber View will cause deterioration of our neighborhood. Many small children and retired couples populate our subdivision. Please don't endanger our children and destroy Meridian Greens. Address VZ Iki t/ PCFTV:ED MAY - 9 2000 We the homeowners in the Meridian Greens Subdivision adamantly oppg' OF MERIDIAN the new road that would connect our subdivision to the proposed Timber View subdivision. We oppose the road connecting the two subdivisions because of the heavy traffic flow we already have through our neighborhood. A connecting road would cause a large increase in traffic on a residential street, S.E. 5th way_ We recently had a four way stop installed on 5th due to heavy traffic. Connecting the Meridian Greens subdivision to Timber View will cause deterioration of our neighborhood. Many small children and retired couples populate our subdivision. Please don't endanger our children and destroy Meridian Greens. Names Address MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: May 9 2000 APPLICANT: VICTORY 41 LLC ITEM NUMBER: 16 REQUEST: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 40.33 ACRES FROM RT TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION COMMENTS AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING & ZONING DEPT. CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WASTEWATER DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: SANITARY SERVICE: OTHER: SEE COMMENTS All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MEMORANDUM: wrhy3 9OA06) ' City of Meridian To: Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council City Clerk Offict' From: Steve Siddoway, Planner �/ Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Technicia>s Re: - Request for Annexation and Zoning of 40.33 Acres from R -T to R-4 by Victory 41, LLC for proposed Timber View Subdivision. (File AZ -00-010) - Preliminary Plat of 40.33 Acres by Victory 41, LLC for proposed Timber View Subdivision (File PP -00-010) We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: LOCATION The property is generally located on the north side of Victory Road approximately one-third mile East of Meridian Road. It is designated as Single Family Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES North — Meridian Greens Subdivision. Lot sizes generally 0.3 to 0.5 acres. Zoned R-4. South — Irrigated farm land, Zoned RT in Ada County. East — Large -lot rural residences zoned RT in Ada County. West j Victory Greens Nursery zoned C-3 in Ada County and a gravel pit zoned RT in Ada County. ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUIREMENTS 1. The legal description submitted for the property is correct and places the parcels contiguous to existing city limits. 2. The proposed R-4 zone is in compliance with the current Comprehensive Plan for single family residential. Timber View.AZ.PP.doc AZ -00-010, PP -00-010 HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Mayor LEGAL DEPARTMENT ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS City Council Members BUILDING DEPARTMENT CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO (208)887-2211• Fax 887-1297 GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING RON ANDERSON City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT KEITH BIRD (208) 884-5533 • Faz 887-1297 MEMORANDUM: wrhy3 9OA06) ' City of Meridian To: Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council City Clerk Offict' From: Steve Siddoway, Planner �/ Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Technicia>s Re: - Request for Annexation and Zoning of 40.33 Acres from R -T to R-4 by Victory 41, LLC for proposed Timber View Subdivision. (File AZ -00-010) - Preliminary Plat of 40.33 Acres by Victory 41, LLC for proposed Timber View Subdivision (File PP -00-010) We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: LOCATION The property is generally located on the north side of Victory Road approximately one-third mile East of Meridian Road. It is designated as Single Family Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES North — Meridian Greens Subdivision. Lot sizes generally 0.3 to 0.5 acres. Zoned R-4. South — Irrigated farm land, Zoned RT in Ada County. East — Large -lot rural residences zoned RT in Ada County. West j Victory Greens Nursery zoned C-3 in Ada County and a gravel pit zoned RT in Ada County. ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUIREMENTS 1. The legal description submitted for the property is correct and places the parcels contiguous to existing city limits. 2. The proposed R-4 zone is in compliance with the current Comprehensive Plan for single family residential. Timber View.AZ.PP.doc AZ -00-010, PP -00-010 Mayor, Council and P&Z May 3, 2000 Page 2 3. A minimum 20 -foot landscape buffer beyond all right-of-way on E. Victory Road should be required as a condition of annexation. 4. A Development Agreement is not required as a condition of annexation, due to the fact that conditions placed on the plat will govern development of the property. PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Submit letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names with the final plat application. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 2. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 3. Assessment fees for water and sewer service are determined during the building plan review process. Applicant shall be required to enter into a Re -Assessment Agreement with the City of Meridian for all commercial uses. An assessment agreement is a vehicle that protects the City of Meridian and the Developer in the event that estimated assessments are not in line with actual usages. The agreement provides for reimbursement to the developer for over payment of assessments and payment to the City of Meridian of any shortfall in assessments. The overpayment/shortfall is determined after adequate historical usage. 4. Provide five -foot -wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance (Ord. 12-5-2.K). 5. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, including sidewalk and pathway slopes, etc. 6. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project shall be tiled per City Ordinance, except as provided for under site specific requirements. The ditches to be piped should be shown on the site plans. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 7. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance. Wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. PRLEMINARY PLAT SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 1. Sanitary sewer service to this is proposed via extensions from Meridian Greens Subdivision No. 3. Subdivision (Ten Mile Service Area), however lots 2-4, block 7 are outside of the service area. These three lots fall within the future Black Cat Trunk Service Area. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works AZ -M010, PP -00-010 Tiber View.AZPP.dce Mayor, Council and P&Z May 3, 2000 Page 3 Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of the centerline. 2. Water service to this site will be via extensions from extensions of existing mains installed in Meridian Greens Subdivision No. 3. Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Please provide the Public works department with information on anticipated fire flow and domestic water requirements for the proposed site. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. Flow and pressure from the existing mains should be monitored with the Meridian Water Department. 3. Two -hundred -fifty- and 100 -watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 4. Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all landscape areas on site. Please submit hook-up and design details based on the proposed landscaping. Due to the size of landscaped area, primary water supply connection to the City's mains will not be allowed. Applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If City water is proposed as a secondary source, developer shall be responsible to pay water assessments for the entire common open area. 5. Applicant has not indicated whether the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by an association or the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. If the system is being proposed as a private system, plans and specifications for the irrigation system shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. A draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual must be submitted prior to plan approval. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a creek or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer. If City water is proposed as a secondary source, developer shall be responsible to pay water assessments for the entire common open area. 6. Meridian Subdivision & Development Ordinance 12-4-7, "Planting Strips and Reserve Strips", requires a minimum 20 -foot wide screen between incompatible development features, including commercial or industrial uses next to residential property. The screening must be beyond any street right of way or utility easement. The buffer also must be located on a common lot, owned and maintained by a homeowners association, with a note indicating such on the plat. A 20 -foot wide screen will be required along the west boundary of the subdivision adjacent to the existing gravel pit. The screen must include trees spaced so that they will form a solid buffer at maturity. AZ -00-010, PP -00-010 Timber View.AZYRdoe 510 Mayor, Council and P&Z May 3, 2000 Page 4 7. A 20 -foot wide minimum landscape buffer, beyond the required ACHD right-of-way along Victory Road, must be constructed by the developer as a condition of the plat. The landscape buffer shall be within a common lot, owned and maintained by a homeowners association, with a note indicating such on the plat. The buffer should contain, at a minimum, one tree per 35 lineal feet along Victory Road. Fencing shall not encroach upon this buffer. 8. Detailed landscape plans for all landscape buffers and common lots shall be submitted for review and approval with submittal of the Final Plat application. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to City signature on the Final Plat. 9. Six -foot -high, permanent perimeter fencing shall be required along the north, east and west property lines. The fence along the north property line (against Meridian Greens Subdivision) is required only where fences do not currently exist, and must match the existing fence. Submit detailed fencing plans for review and approval with submittal of the Final Plat. All required fencing is to be in place prior to issuance of building permits. 10. Staff recommends leaving the Kennedy Lateral unpiped, and develop the large common area around the lateral (lot 5 block 7) as a pocket park for the subdivision, with a pathway along the lateral. The stormwater detention area should be designed with slight slopes and grass to allow it to function as a recreation area for the subdivision. The proposed subdivision is outside the service area of all existing city parks. 11. Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Block 7 (on the south side of the Kennedy Lateral) are outside of the sanitary sewer service area for the Ten Mile Trunk, and are within the service area for the future Black Cat Trunk. Therefore, staff recommends denial of these 3 lots and recommends use of the area as a neighborhood park for the residents of the subdivision. Total area of the 3 lots is 1.4 acres. Combined with Lot 5 (described above in #10) the total open space area would be 2.5 acres. The park must be owned and maintained by the homeowners association, or the applicant may contact the Parks Department to discuss potential City purchase or dedication in lieu of park impact fees (minimum park area would need to be approximately 5 acres). 12. Staff supports the ACHD recommendation to provide a stub street along the west property line as an extension of E. Lake Creek Street. The grades between the two lots match at this location; further south at the midpoint between E. Lake Creek Street and S. Forest Ridge Drive (the ideal location for a stub street) the grade differential would prohibit a stub street. Staff also supports the ACHD recommendation to relocate the access from Victory Road to an extension of Daybreak Avenue. 13. Blocks 2 and 6 exceed the 1000 -foot maximum block lengths. Staff recommends adding five -foot -wide paved pedestrian pathway connections between Falling Branch Drive and Forest Ridge Drive, and from Forest Ridge Drive to Observation Drive at the mid -block location. A landscape strip a minimum of 5' wide shall be provided along both sides of the path. This corresponds to an overall pathway common lot of 15 feet wide minimum. The landscape strips should be planted with a minimum of 1 deciduous tree per 35 lineal feet and AZ-WOIO, PP -00-010 Timba View.AZ.PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z May 3, 2000 Page 5 shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover. Fences adjacent to the pathway are recommended to be "see through" as it provides better security and visibility from adjacent homes. If solid fences are used, they shall not exceed 4' in height. If the pathways are not provided, a Variance application must be filed with the City to exceed the maximum block length. Staff will not support such a Variance. 14. Any entry signage for the subdivision must be placed outside of a 40' X 40' clear sight triangle, measured from the projected intersection of Victory Road and the entry road, or if the sign is less than 3' in height, it may be placed within the sight triangle. 15. Submit 10 copies of the revised plat that conforms to these requirements at least one week prior to the public hearing with City Council. Also submit one 8 '/2 x 11 legible copy of the plat. Applicant's Response Please respond, in writing, to each of the comments contained in this memorandum by 12:00 p.m. (noon) of the Monday prior to the scheduled hearing by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission (05/8/00). Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the applications, with the conditions noted above. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS The 1993 Comprehensive Plan contains a variety of goals and policies relevant to this application. The following sections most directly apply to the proposed project and are repeated here for the Council and Commission's consideration during the hearing process. Goal 4 is "to provide housing opportunities for all economic groups within the community." Goal 8 is "to establish compatible and efficient use of land through the use of innovative and functional site design." Land Use 1.4U Encourage new development that reinforces the City's present development pattern of higher density 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 areas that contain the necessary parks, schools and commercial facilities to maintain and form identifiable neighborhoods. 2.1 U Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-family, multi -family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities. AZ-OM10, PP -OD -010 Timber vim-AZPPdoc Mayor, Council and P&Z May 3, 2000 Page 6 2.2U Support strategies for the development of neighborhood parks within all residential areas. 2.3U Protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's physical condition and enhance its quality of life for residents. 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 the urban level densities and rural residential densities. Transportation 1.4U Monitor and coordinate the compatibility of the land use and transportation system. 1.20U Encourage proper design of residential neighborhoods to ensure their safety and tranquility. Open Space, Parks and Recreation 2.5U New subdivision development... will be considered as opportunities to ... encourage the development of recreational open spaces and parks as part of new planned developments. Housing 1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types... in a variety of locations suitable for residential development. 1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers shall be encouraged. 1.6 Housing proposals shall be phased with transportation, open space and public service and facility plans, which will maximize benefits to the residents, minimize conflicts and provide a tie-in between new residential areas and service needs. 1.19 High-density development, where possible, should be located near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, and near major access thoroughfares. Community Design 5.2 Ensure that all new development enhances rather than detracts from the visual quality of its surroundings, especially in areas of prominent visibility. 6.11U Promote well-planned and well -designated affordable housing in all Meridian neighborhoods. AZ -00-010, PP -00-010 Timber View AZYP.doc p L BECKY BOWCUIT PLANNING SERVICES 11283 W. Hickory Dale Dme, Boise, ID 83713 Phone 4843904 or Home Phone 376-8713 :4 I�IAN May 09, 2000 CITY OF NIERI Attn: Bruce Freckleton, Shari Stiles & Will Berg City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Preliminary Plat of Timber View Estates (Responses to Staff Comments) ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUIREMENTS: 1. The applicant agrees. 2. The applicant agrees. 3. The applicant will comply. 4. The applicant agrees. PRELEWWARY PLAT GENERAL, COMMENTS: 1. The applicant will comply. 2. The applicant will comply. 3. The applicant understands the project is subject to residential sewer and water assessment fees. The condition references commercial uses, this project has no commercial uses. 4. The applicant will provide sidewalks adjacent to the roadway, except were a meandering pathway is designated. The applicant wants to construct a five foot meandering sidewalk parallel to Victory Road. If a sidewalk is constructed on the south side of Observation Drive, the two sidewalks would be side by side. We propose to construct the meandering sidewalk along the Victory Road frontage and interconnect it with Observation Drive. The City has requested a pathway along the north side of the Kennedy Lateral. This pathway would be within 20-40 feet of the sidewalk on Andros Way. The applicant proposes to construct the pathway and not the adjacent sidewalk. The pathway would be connected to Andros Way sidewalk at lot 6, block 7. S. The applicant will construct all sidewalks in conformance to ADA standards. However, we have concerns about meeting ADA requirements if pedestrian pathways are mandated between block 2 and 6. The property has substantial grade differences. 6. The applicant will comply. MAY 09 '00 12:43 PAGE.01 7. A home is currently located on the property and it will remain. The existing septic and wellwill be abandoned. A irrigation well is located on the parcel which may be utilized as a secondary source for the pressure irrigation system. PRELBONARY PLAT SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMEN'T'S: 1. Lots 24, block 7 can gravity flow into the proposed sewer mains within the project. It makes no logical sense when the sewer depth is in excess of 12 feet and can easily service these fzw lots, a portion of a larger development, that they be denied service. 2. The applicant will comply. 3. The applicant will comply. 4. The applicant will comply. S. The applicant is reviewing the option to deed the pressure irrigation system to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. Prior to submittal of the final plat, the applicant will make commitment to one of the two available options. 6. The applicant objects to the condition requiring a 20 foot landscape lot adjacent to the gravel pit on the west boundary. The adjoining parcel is zoned RT (Rural Transition) and is designated Single Family Residential on the existing Meridian Comprehensive Plan Map. The new Comprehensive Land Use Map identifies the property as Medium Density Residential. It is obvious that the long term plan for the property is a residential use. The applicant has provided depths 125 feet and above, so each lot owner has the ability to screen as they deem necessary. To construct a 20 foot corridor along the back yards of these lots will create a safety problem. This hidden area could be used as a entry corridor to burglarize the homes that adjoin. Since the corridor has no functional use which benefits the neighborhood as a whole, it likely that over time the area would not be maintained properly. We strongly suggest that the same type of screening can be provided upon each lot. This would allow the individual homeowner to chose the appropriate landscaping. 7. The applicant will comply. 8. The applicant will comply. 9. The applicant intends to fence the east and west boundary and construct a decorative wall along the south perimeter. However, the applicant objects to the requirement to install matching fencing along the north boundary. Past applications at the City have not been required to install fencing when located adjacent to a residential development of similar density. 10. The applicant agrees with staff that the Kennedy Lateral could be used as an amenity. The applicant will landscape and install a pathway if approval from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District can be obtained. If Nampa Meridian objects, our improvement would be limited to the area outside the lateral easement. 11. The applicant objects to the recommendation to deny the lots south of the lateral sewer service within this development. The staff has indicated in multiple occasions that if a lot can gravity flow to a main line, it is allowed service by the adjacent line. I met with City Engineer concerning this property and discussed sewer service. It was stated clearly that the subject property could be served by the trunk line at the southwest comer of Meridian Greens. MAY 09 '00 12:43 PAGE.02 The applicant requests inclusion of the these lots as buildable lots taking service from the proposed sewer main extension. The applicant does not believe the proposed development can financially support this area as a park, With the limited number of go lots, the applicant must be sensitive to the landscaping burden which he transfers to these residents. The staff has indicated that the City Parks Department will not consider the purchase of land for a neighborhood park unless the area is 5 acres or greater. So this climinates the option for a public park. 12. The applicant would prefer to not stub a street to the west. The staff has indicated that the gravel pit is an incompatible use, however, they insist we provide vehicular interconnection. The applicant has concerns that since the stub street is public, the gravel pit will begin using the roadways within the development. 13. The applicant is aware that the block lengths exceed the 1000 foot minimum. We did not provide a pedestrian pathway because we had concerns about the grade of the pathway. If the pathway has a considerable amount of slope, we could create a hazard for children. If they roller blade or bike, the incline may increase their speed which would propel the children into the roadway. This issue concerns me and makes me reluctant to agree with the pedestrian paths between blocks. 14. The applicant will comply. 15. The applicant will comply. Sincerely, Becky L. Bowcutt MAY 09 '00 12:44 PAGE.03 May 8, 2000 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission; 'I UIJ10 CITY OF ATERIDLAIN We as homeowners in the Meridian Greens subdivision whose property is adjoining, or in close proximity to the proposed Timber View subdivision, have some concerns with the proposed development plans as filed with the city of Meridian. While recognizing and respecting the developers right to develop the property, we are concerned that they do so without negatively impacting the adjacent property values. In reviewing the proposed application several areas of concern were noted: The average size of the lots in the Timber View subdivision appears to be approximately 13000 square feet. However, the smallest lots in the subdivision have been located adjoining Meridian Greens and are only around 11000 square feet. The adjoining lots in Meridian Greens range from 13200 to 18000 square feet with all of the lots being at least 132 feet deep. We strongly request that the adjoining Timber View lots be increased in overall size and depth. The adjoining lots should be at least as large as the other lots in the Timber View subdivision, and closer to the size of lots in Meridian Greens. 2. The square footage requirements in the covenants on file call for 1800 square feet for one- story homes and 1200 square feet on the main level for two-story homes. These appear to be rather small minimum square footage requirements given the large lot sizes. According to the ADA County Assessors Office records, the average size of the homes on Whitehall Street and Andros Way (the area of Meridian Greens that adjoins the proposed Timber View development) is 3019 square feet, excluding basement square footage. We believe it is important to maintain some degree of continuity in the size and value of homes as well as to protect the significant investment the Meridian Greens homeowners have made in their properties. We strongly request that the restrictive covenants for the lots in the Timber View subdivision that directly adjoin Meridian Greens require homes of reasonably similar size and price to those in Meridian Greens. 3. Meridian Greens has a 10 -foot side lot setback requirement, which has enhanced the appearance and open feel of the neighborhood. Since the two neighborhoods will be directly connected by Andros Way, and the Timber View lots appear to be of adequate size, we would request the 10 -foot side lot setback requirement be maintained. 4. The Meridian Greens subdivision has a requirement for either cedar shake or tile roofing materials. For all of the previously stated reasons we would request that adjoining lots in the Timber View subdivision have this same roofing material requirement. We believe that with the fairly minor modifications outlined above, the value of homes in the two subdivisions can enhance and compliment one another. Clearly, the value of the adjoining Timber View lots will be enhanced by their proximity to some largest and most expensive homes in Meridian Greens. If no modifications are made we believe those increased property values will be at the direct expense of the Meridian Greens homeowners. Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter. r. Name Address Phone # V--"- lNVlj S4 z -E WALLNIALr s� I I - 7 �73 Ff 7 j -' - 7,:,:�' e 7 -ils/ Name Address Phone # may ' 3 HP LaserJet 3100 SEivL) CONFIRMATION REPORT for Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner City of Meridian 2088886854 May -4-00 4:O8PM Job Start Time Usage Phone Number or ID Type Pages Mode Status 783 5/ 4 4:O4PM 4105" 2083220149 Send .............. 7/ 7 EC 96 Completed........................................ Total 4'05" Pages Sent: 7 Pages Printed: 0 100 E Ceara AM., SW 201 M.U., ID 80.{2 Ph" (200)89 sv F- Mff=68054 Ta L iad C&M-Victory 41, LLC F— Sdya Day Fan 322-0148 a. smn Ph— Fww 7 res c -N) R« TkWWVlewSub. (AZ PP) - Oct Sbaffft ❑ VMWK ® Fur Rw4aw ❑ F1.a.. Com —d ❑ N.a.. Ropy O Pk—a)..yda >0 -IN ** TX CONFIRMATION m=PORT ** DATE TIME TO/FROM 07 05/05 12:20 12083452950 AS OF MAY 05 100 12~23 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD## STATUS EC --S 03'11" 006 123 OK Mayor HUB OF rmsun VALLEY ROBEXI' D. CORRIL A Good Placc to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT CITY OF MERIDIAN (toe) 282494 . Fax 288.2501 City Council Members PUBLIC WORKS CHART -F-5 ROUNl'REF 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT GLENN BENTLEY MERMIrAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 887-2211- Fax 887-1297 RON ANDERSON (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 P►.ANNINC AND ZONING KBTTH BIRD City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • Faz 887-1297 MEMORANDUM: AhY3 0000 City of Meridian To: Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council City Clerk Office From: Steve Siddoway, Planner Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Technician Rc: - Request for Annexation and Zoning of 40.33 Acres from R -T to R-4 by Victory 41, LLC for proposed Timber View Subdivision. (File AZ --00-010) Prelirninary Plat of 40.33 Acres by Victory 41, LLC for proposed Timber View Subdivision (File PP -00-010) We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council LOCATION The property is generally located on the north side of Victory Road approximately one-third mile East of Meridian Road. It is designated as Single Family Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES North — Meridian Greens Subdivision. Lot sizes generally 0.3 to 0.5 acres. Zoned R-4. South — Irrigated farm land, Zoned RT in Ada County. East — Large -lot rural residences zoned RT in Ada County. West j Victory Greens Nursery zoned C-3 in Ada County and a gravel pit zoned RT in Ada County. ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUIREMENTS 1. The legal description submitted for the property is correct and places the parcels contiguous to existing city limits. 2. The proposed R-4 zone is in compliance with the current Comprehensive Plan for single family residential. , Post ` Fax Note 7671 Date # 1, P as To From Co.)Dept. CO. Phone A? Phone t# Fax it Fax P AZ -04010. PP.00-010 tuber Vi—.AZ.Pr d - HUES OF TREASURE VALLEY MAYOR Robert D. Corrie A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT(los) s8�-2211 •Fax 8s7-1297 Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Tammy deWeerd (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT Cherie McCandless (208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854 TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 28, 2000 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 10, 2000 HEARING DATE: May 9, 2000 FILE NUMBER: AZ -00-010 REQUEST: 40.33 ACRES FROM RT TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION BY: VICTORY 41, LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD SALLY NORTON, P/Z KENT BROWN, P/Z THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C CHERIE McCANDLESS, C/C KEITH BIRD, C/C TAMMY de WEERD, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT SANITARY SERVICE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL) YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: APR 2 0 2000 MY OF PIER DLAL t RECEIVED APR 1 1 2000 Meridian City Water Stypes,"{ April 19, 2000 Will Berg, City Clerk Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 APR 2 4 2000 1 1117 4 r, 7 t1 11 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Re: AZ -00-010 Rezone from RT to R-4 for Proposed Timber View Subdivision Dear Commissioners: The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above referenced application. Sincerely, Bill Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT BH: dln Cc: File — Shop File — Office Water Superintendent APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 20'39dd "LeveeeoZ SV:80 00, VT Kidd HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY MAYOR Robert D Corrie A Good Placc to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT CITY OF MERIDIAN • (209) 299-2499 -Fax 2Ss-2501 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PUBLIC WORKS Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT Kcith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 53642 (208) 387.2211 - Fax 387. t297 Tammy deWeerd (208) 883.4433 - Fax (208) 537-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING Cherie McCandless City Clerk Oriice Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT (208) 984-5533 • Fax 888.6354 TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 28, 2000 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 10, 2000 HEARING DATE: May 9, 2000 FILE NUMBER: AZ -00-010 REQUEST: 40-33 ACRES FROM RT TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION BY: VICTORY 41, LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD SALLY NORTON, PIZ KENT BROWN, PIZ THOMAS BARBEIRO, PIZ RICHARD HATCHER, PIZ KEITH BORUP, PIZ ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C CHERIE McCANDLESS, C/C KEITH BIRD, C/C TAMMY de WEERD, C/C ATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT SANITARY SERVICE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT COMMUNITY 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) M��� �► uW.iia WAVIEWWATIFAXI mm:1 ,►r 11� T T /E0d ttL6178g80Z=G I N71VM319VM NV I G I H3W Ctp : !_0 &0 _t T -t�& TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 28, 2000 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 10, 2000 HEARING DATE: May 9, 2000 FILE NUMBER: AZ -00-010 REQUEST: 40.33 ACRES FROM RT TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION BY: VICTORY 41, LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD SALLY NORTON, P/Z KENT BROWN, P/Z THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C CHERIE McCANDLESS, C/C KEITH BIRD, C/C TAMMY de WEERD, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT SANITARY SERVICE 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 COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NkviPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTFRMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL) YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: /�" v cc HUB OF TREASURE [/ALLEY "` MAYOR Robert D. Corrie A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT CITY OF MERIDIAN (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PUBLIC WORKS Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 Tammy deWeerd (208) 888-4133 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING Cherie McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854 TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 28, 2000 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 10, 2000 HEARING DATE: May 9, 2000 FILE NUMBER: AZ -00-010 REQUEST: 40.33 ACRES FROM RT TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION BY: VICTORY 41, LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD SALLY NORTON, P/Z KENT BROWN, P/Z THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C CHERIE McCANDLESS, C/C KEITH BIRD, C/C TAMMY de WEERD, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT SANITARY SERVICE 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 COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NkviPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTFRMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL) YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: /�" v cc MAYOR HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY -- Robert D. Corrie A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Ron Anderson CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO (208) 288-2499 - Fax PUBLIC WORKSB ,501 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 Tammy deWeerd Cherie McCandless (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854 TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 28, 2000 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 10, 2000 HEARING DATE: May 9, 2000 FILE NUMBER: AZ -00-010 REQUEST: 40.33 ACRES FROM RT TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION BY: VICTORY 41, LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD SALLY NORTON, P/Z _MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT KENT BROWN, P/Z THOMAS BARBEIRO, P/Z RICHARD HATCHER, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C CHERIE McCANDLESS, C/C KEITH BIRD, C/C TAMMY de WEERD, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT SANITARY SERVICE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT COMMUNITY 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) CCWP1CENTRAL ff= DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT Rezone # Conditional Use # CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT Environmental Health Division Preliminary / Final / Short Plat —/0 /4v, I. We have No Objections to this Proposal Lei Return to: ❑ Boise ❑ Eagle ❑ Garden City &Meridian ❑ Kuna ❑ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. ❑ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ❑ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ❑ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ❑ high seasonal ground water ❑ waste flow characteristics ❑ or bedrock from original grade ❑ other ❑ 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or surface waters. ❑ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. ❑ 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: ❑ central sewage ❑ community sewage system ❑ community water well ❑ interim sewage ❑ central water ❑ individual sewage ❑ individual water ❑ 9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: ❑ central sewage ❑ community sewage system ❑ community water ❑ sewage dry lines ❑ central water ❑ 10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ❑ 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ❑ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ❑ 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ❑ food establishment ❑ swimming pools or spas ❑ child care center ❑ beverage establishment ❑ grocery store ❑ 14. Date: —01 ©G Reviewed By: CDHD 10/91 mb, rev. 1/91 Review Sheet REQ�T FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVA"` PRELIMINARY PLAT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TIME TABLE FOR SUBMISSION: A request for preliminary plat approval must be in the City Clerks possession no later than three days following the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hear the request at the monthly meeting following the month that the request was made. After a proposal enters the process it may be acted upon at subsequent monthly meetings provided the necessary procedures and documentation are received before 5:00 P.M., Thursday following the Planning and Zoning Commission action. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name of Annexation and Subdivision: Timber View Subdivision 2. General Location: SE 1/4 SW'/4 Section 19 T3N., RIE. B.M. _ 3. Owners of record: Victory 41 LLC Address: 6874 Fairview, Boise Zip 83704 Telephone 322-5600 Owners of record: Dean and Beverly Peterson Address: 780 E. Victory, Meridian , Zip 83642 Telephone 888-3855 4. Applicant: Victory 41 LLC Address: 6874 Fairview, Boise , Zip 83704 Telephone 322-5600 5. Engineer, Stan McHutchison Firm Briggs Engineering, Inc. Address, 1800 W. Overland Road, Boise, ID Zip 83705 Telephone 344-9700 6. Name and address to receive City billings - Name: Victory 41, LLC Address 6874 Fairview, Boise, ID 83704 Telephone 322-5600 PRELIMINARY PLAT CHECKLIST: Subdivision Features 1. Acres: 40.33 2. Number of building lots: 91 3. Number of other lots: 10 4. Gross density per acre: 2.26 5. Net density per acre: 2.79 6. Zoning Classification(s): Existing: RT & Proposed: R-4 (Low Density Residential) 7. If the proposed subdivision is outside the Meridian City Limits but within the jurisdictional mile, what is the existing zoning classification? RT (Rural Transition) 8. Does the plat border a potential green belt? No 9. Have recreational easements been provided for? No 10. Are there proposed recreational amenities to the City? No Explain 11. Are there proposed dedications of common areas? No Explain For future parks? No Explain 03 05 \SUBAPPL-MER-preliminary (1) 12. What school(s) service A-" area? Mary McPherson do you propose any agreements for future school sites? No , Explain 13. Are there any other proposed amenities to the City? No Explain 14. Type of Building (Residential, Commercial, Industrial or combination): Residential 15. Type of Dwelling(s) (Single Family, Duplexes, Multiplexes, other): Sin le�ly 16. Proposed Development features: a. Minimum square footage of lot(s): 10,937 b. Minimum square footage of structure(s): 1.400 C. Are garages provided for? Yes Square footage: 400 d. Has landscaping been provided for: Yes , Describe A minimum of 22' alongVictory & Landscape Islands. e. Will trees be provided for? Yes Will trees be maintained ? Association f. Are sprinkler systems provided for? Yes g. Are there multiple units ? No , Type: Remarks: h. Are there special set back requirements ? No Explain: i. Has off street parking been provided for ? Yes Explain: Garages and Driveways j. Value range of property: NA k. Type of financing for development: Conventional 1. Were protective covenants submitted? , Date: 17. Does the proposal land lock other property? No Does it create Enclaves? No STATEMENTS OF COMPLIANCE: 1. Streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks are to be constructed to standards as required by Ada County Highway District and Meridian Ordinance. Dimensions will be determined by the City Engineer. All sidewalks will be five (5) feet in width. 2. Proposed use is in conformance with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 3. Development will connect to City services. 4. Development will comply with City Ordinances. 5. Preliminary Plat will include all appropriate easements. 6. Street names must not conflict with City grid system. 9-604 B PRE -APPLICATION MEETING The developer shall meet with the Administrator prior to the submission of the Preliminary Development Plan. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss early and informally the purpose and effects of this Ordinance and the criteria and standards contained herein, and to familiarize the developer with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and such other plans and ordinances as deemed appropriate. The developer may also meet with the Commission or Council prior to submitting an application. 03 05\SUBAPPL-MER-preliminary (2) lo -1k BR/GGS ENG/NEER/NG, Inc. 1800 West Overland Road EM1NEERS / PLANNERS / SURUEYCM Boise, Idaho 83705 — 3142 Voice (208) 344-9700 Fax (208) 345-2950 E-mail briggs@micron.net March 30, 2000 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION 1. The purposed streets will be constructed to Ada County Highway District and City of Meridian standards. (Construction standards: 36 -ft. street section from back of curbs to back of curb and 5 ft. sidewalks.) 2. The proposed development is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. This area is designated as single family residential on the Comprehensive Plan map. The proposed development will connect to existing sewer and water facilities located in the Meridian Greens Unit No. 3. 4. The proposed development complies with the Meridian City Ordinance, except the proposed block lengths. Block 1, 2 and 3 exceed the maximum block length of 1,000 ft. The development plan reflects the existing easements for the Kennedy Lateral. 6. The proposed street names have been submitted to the Street Name Committee. The block length of Block 1, 2 and 3 exceeds 1,000 feet. However, due to the steep topography and adjoining gravel pits, the block lengths cannot be avoided. The applicant has submitted a variance. The proposed development consists of 91 single family dwelling lots and (10) common lots. The proposed density is 2.26 dwellings per acre. All lots exceed 10,000 square foot. The minimum lot size for the R-4 zone is 8,000 square foot. Multiple common lots adjoining Victory Road have been provided as a landscape buffer. The Kennedy Lateral traverses the parcel's southwest corner. A separate common lot has been created to accommodate the lateral and a landscape area. A traffic study is not required for the project since the number of buildable lots is less than 100. 10. The project is proposed as an R-4 development with lots ranging from 10,937 square feet to 33,477 square foot. The applicant would like to provide larger lots to accommodate homes similar to the ones in Meridian Greens. There is a need for different home prices and lot sizes in the current real estate market. Sincerely, BRIGG NGINEERING, Inc. Becky L. Bow Land Use Planner BLB:fc 0305\Statement-Compliance 1 romi-o" NA" F/a 4,01 - - .;" I I $I rl i !! E� e aAPo. A 1�7 aail 4q F i 3 .waur.•Rr .s..r row ..... a•aaw.t,ac TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION � r - .. raw � ..•ew+. •.�.� _JAI%%�/.._ �..� v t rrteuuir+Mv .u. Fort rw��R•c a _ TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION } _ _ m ? 8 Y I I♦ I I � O� r' t rrteuuir+Mv .u. Fort rw��R•c a _ TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION } _ _ m 0& IAN Ns E WHITEHALL ST a MERIDIAN MERIDIAN CITY LIM S S/ z BOUNDARY 14 L 4 �61 O'CK 2.. .. ...... Zt, E. LOGGERS PASS STREET -- 9 13 'j 11 17 21 0 8 LOG 5 34 o 3 3LOCK'2 FR 10 16 22'0. 7 -- ! — 6 33 I 5 23 4 3" — 9 15 14 24 J)Rj c6 32 13 25 8 12 E 26 27 28 30 11 29 LOCK 31 7 2010 1 19 1 7 6 I 6 koc 5 17 RIDGE�' DRIVE ui 4 2 16 5 0 15 1 14 3 13 � 126 11 �OCK 6 1 CK7 NQS 4< 5 1 7 j UJ 3 8 3 5Qlj 1 1 9 lo 2 4 LLJ LLJ R)BSiER 5 BLOCK z E. VICTORY ROAD vi N RT 300 0 300 600 Feet RT BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. BRIGGS TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION REVISION PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3N., R. 1E., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO SHEET (208) 344-9700 1 OF 1 1800 W. OVERLAND ROAD DESIGN DRAFT SCALE DATE DWG. NO. BOISE, IDAHO 83705 1 BKB I" = 300' 03f29/00 990617 \0305.APR 1 o C� RT C.G f RT (� 1 Rd I 1 1 1 RT I � - O ♦ r" 79'rm I d RT 11 NO LL Lu G RT G O RT uj Ca RT E. VICTORY ROAD R1 0! LRT RT RT RT 'n V 0 RT T RT RT N 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. aN TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION REVISION BRIGGS PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3N., R. 1E., B.M., (208) 3449700 ADA COUNTY, IDAHO SHEET 1 OF 1 1800 W. OVERLAND ROAD BOISE, IDAHO 63705 DESIGN DRAFT BKB SCALEDATE 1" = 1000' 03/29/00 DWG. NO. 990817 \0305.APR DESCRIPTION FOR TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION March 30, 2000 A parcel of land being the SE'/4 of the SW % of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of the SW Y4 (south % corner) of Section 19, T. 3N., R. 1 E., B.M., the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence S 89°42'45" W 1,320.43 feet to the southwest corner of the SE %4 of the SW 1/1, Thence N 0°29'39" E 1,329.84 feet to the northwest corner of the SE '/4 of the SW '/4; Thence N 89044'30" E 1,322.27 feet to the northeast corner of the SE'/4 of the SW 1/4-1 Thence S 0°34'26" W 1,329.19 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Said parcel of land contains 40.33 acres more or less. Michael E. Marks, PLS - No. 4998 0305\Subd legal.des Preparing ZO Today's Students For n Tomorrow's Challenges. Fogle . Mec�d�o� � SUPERINTENDENT Christine H. Donnell April 17, 2000 Joint School District No. 2 911 Meridian Street • Meridian, Idaho 83642 • (208) 888-6701 • Fax (208) 888-6700 City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Councilmen: APR 2 0 2000 CIIN OF ivRIL LL11d Enclosed for your review is general information relative to schools located in the proposed project area. If you have any questions, please contact Jim Carberry at 888-6701. Reference: Timber View Subdivision Elementary School: Mary McPherson Elementary School Middle School: Lake Hazel Middle School High School: Meridian High School Comments and/or Recommendations: Mary McPherson Elementary School is at capacity. Lake Hazel Middle School is at capacity and will remain so until the fifth middle school comes on line in the fall of 2000. Meridian High School is also at capacity. We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house thirty (30) elementary aged children, twenty-three (23) middle school aged children, and twenty-one (21) senior high aged students. Sincerely, Jim Carberry, Administrator of Support Services BOARD OF TRUSTEES Diane Anderson • Rex Harrison . Wally Hedrick 9 Holly Houfburg 9 David Wynkoop co r_ T Ul 0 (D LU Ul 3 z Cl) N 1 co CAV W mcr 3 W N N Jm V ma D �T CD M.•m 8 t M CO v CDCD , FAN CD , 0` CL G Ir \V/l O 5.0 D CDm O V 31 3 O n c J ` V 1 7 O W O mmmd�>• 7 y d J h N O ;Z N n N O C C' z C n' d S 7 C O O X 0 p 0ICD N 3 J d �p G F N y, mca POa o aggc j (D O Q N n3�oa 3�?mno 0 _ m n ° m $13Do 3 NN N N J J' o 0 m a ID o pp3 0 �. o o xo 3 N (Dm C d. �, o am�.3-m m 5' C a � J.ao c(o mm333�' cm. om -0 g 03 n c . oOToc"m! 2Oo0a 03 °'m0m co � w ID �. nO,y J 3 m fD N W C 369 j n�m� ID r N m C ai ; (D (� (Dy y ('D y 7 � a c >. 3CD Ag r m m oU) CD ff (D NSD n (D y m O OL 3 N II ❑❑A❑ o3 ox �_.mm J O (DN' 3 .0CD ate (0 3 0 d - m O J a -Zzzc O C (DD (D n !11 J Nco n G N (D Q 000- ❑ 0 _ _ c �� (D O CD Z x cp pa o c QO. c n <D '77 m Q CD x n m CD0� �owD CD Q 0 x. CD n a CL e5•3 m2 Oo 0m� y fU O (D m Cl) O CD 0 C (D' co co / m oa'Q oq Q ^� Vv W w v Co r oT cl.l U7 A Co N 1 W00 V Z3W N "` o Z V o m '"> ni yCD v N m C� �rn 0 v 1 CL ID CD 0 CD acl c w Q v0° a O ZD- CD e �° m cn Z 3 FD 3 Cl)~CD Gi 0 D ° d 0000 -1 mmx v o�12.-oIz f m a N 0 a m m m m o n CD N x 0 o v^ CD -W g. m --'"Q31 O ncm m� m _.Q CD m �. mmI ID ° 3 m m '0 -;c o � m O(D ° a m iy'm CD CD W 3. C N .-332.-< m D o x°° c s _ > m N y C O N N j n to y m p, a C C m o aodE. mQ > j m o �m �n3amo. 0 c m 9D n 3 ° OZ x m� m Oa o y cr m c N a y �g ma c ° cD x ° 0 3 S -n m Q CD - p 3 y 3 m n m 'rl Bm 3 m. ° mm �.�.o d mny.R� � �= mmc(c Q� n X TI m _ m y dH3o3y CD -07 c m. m CL (D m C, 3 �aFQ0°--3' `°S Ov°i va m oOmc'� �t O� o /� tU � o C c3a� m O °03 m v f,2 y O N O m W n tU = (n m O J y c m u' go '� � 3 CD CL o co a m ow c m CL m y ° 3 VFlb Z mE; m g=N.m H �v m moa � m �mQ r7 3 ID (p __4 / \, ® OD CD / \i vCL 2 �/ } ƒ } 2 � \ 0 2 (/ 7 J � ) k �-lb � j Ee72/�e2 o I a a # IOD � 0, 2D ;J ID§=/t$`= ®£2C, f@/=z» /t I'= s=2 =a! 7/i\/f (D P 2f , {k(/Ck f$-000 ]i«& 3 CDM /\/f\ _=$3 ° .q \1\ 7735)/ \ Cl - 0 §//$/\ gRJ2\z \lams! co -$ /$ \k\ƒ} CL \/}j} /)}o/ J(ƒ(\/ © r !Z >'Z ° E EB / co ■CL {/ � ° , ƒ_ cn T O 3 W co4 D v ca D a m° po 3 1 1 j 1 c0 07 J W N 1 m N CL G S P W N _` O CL o aA m CD 3 lD Q T N 6 m 0 G G W $ m El ❑ 111:1 ❑ � o W ON1 N 4N1 3 cr m� V N Ln ON W m ~ Ln 6N1 ~ fD m O W O O zD �O N ° m a cn cn x N CCD _—L.� � MLn I m 3 D a° A P A F+ -4 m CD 4. a fi C o Ln CD~ A -P '~ -P A r c to tD a P- m m o W 8 S CDEn 30 x d A T d p 0. W No v°i 2E (� Ln m Ln W N Ln O a 00 V Cn W O w o P A 7 y A N � a n N N G z = _ w 3 m m z c _ o�—' 3 3 a - v a 3 3 o ° 3 < n 0CL FD m = n w a n d CL w CL < m ^ C) ? 5�i cBJ ¢° 3 c1 OF o (D ° C r+ N co m N ❑❑❑ ❑ z c CD CD C>37�mx m x n a m° po 3 m N a � N m m CL o 3 lD T N 6 m W $ m El ❑ 111:1 ❑ � o W ON1 N 4N1 VV'I V N Ln ON W m ~ Ln 6N1 ~ fD m O W O O U1 �O N ° m a cn cn x N CCD _—L.� � MLn I m 3 D a° �_ sw omFDJ ;w CD c rt a a a m 8 S CDEn 30 x d °�' d U) 0. d o3i v°i (� c� m a = a �? _ < W O 0 Cl) y 0 0 (D N C O 0 O W 1:13 N N C 7 a-.. mQma m m o 0 ID C, 0 w . w . J w N m= S o (Da 703 3 ° w N O ID cn C ry N �3oco mc+>>oyc o wn o Q m J.J3a ma J amJ'm o m 7 n 3,a°C9' o o w $ O J o y 3 3 m w m m ° _ N O O X ° 0 o a 9 i ECr wx av w 0 0 X w, N O G 3 a � m c D �. 3 w. _° as I a m c ° 3 S. m 3 J m g ,ncw.7�n mC,.-a p� m w ww�'Gos aF g 0 n s m °2. o°�. O 3 omJ o w.w'� y co J (D y N J ° m C' 3- ow�o• D m m w o J o a J y N N N a m m 0 Q r Dw n o Q < E m C CD CL <N m w c c m mo c I T n n co z 7�' U� 6 n a c (D m O cD v 4CD CD ? o D n 60 x Q O fn CD n a 3 n� =• A7 m= v 0 w° m O TO w O 3cnR In. �tv cn�c CD ��.Q O� [L �D JO J 3J (D 3 N r Vl O 1 1 3 c 1 _ W N 1 01 CD W V a7 `o 00 CJl A Ca N 1 m m j� N Q ¢(D V ° >'a N (/1 O CD C co u cD CD A rn 3CD m m C„ A o V V 0) 0) ' ax3 �m �A VW vb a W 00 C,0 a C N d Q v a v,° v n Om m 1 < z CD y p a p 7 3 \ a pp a Cl) 0 m 53 y \ 7 rr p = In N (D c a n U) r o 7 � N A n O O � 0 n N ❑D❑ ;D n O , m O 0 m x I m o C 4] 'R (D N (D y a N m �o f —CD a m 33 �� � m CD Lb. a ❑DO❑ m 7C _< O1 IOD n 17 0 (D p ry' �m W K C>�c a a ma�iov�,mOs '0 < Opi O d < eco _._� 0 m OO�c0 m p m m y m tp p3 m KY> y m C O I aa' mo°° c O ID -' 3' k T .'3 y 7 W^ m o of 'z CD m �j fD 3.0 n om n M 3 d O 0 C 0 x j O 0 X, m n < j N' (D� 3 - m � m ° 9c:CD m w 2.01D m_ m O m n s �3c)^a ci »C') a0 �� p O El El �;�03d (�DSm �v) mom $= o O m Z E, m O O cry 0CL N753 mc 33.y.m�; cD "" m m O 0 wm� nn' O'N--�� NN a F m Q cny"�ma x m� a _iz m D ID O o 3 CD dO CD °, 3 0. T D a C KK g0 CU > y Ep n n�O. _z cp O m O ao�x. N� = A7 y ° a _ y3cI m -,ZC D m -cSoND Cm a!0n Wp aFQ? ca) O .o - 2,1c, m�cp� (D CD oa 3OX O3 'day' mm Q Otp m mph Q d a m m v> 3 ° mo m m C, a N 3 _N' m y 69 yycf»32 m Do� --dccmoa�NO, CD 3 "w d m y m R CL [r f y�I ym Ln W N 1 m fn a 3 �D r f (-nW y N O 1 CL u) aZ A N Q oT Q c • W CA �m CL c am. 3 w A 3 v CD cr D `D a m c1 o (D UlmLn t0 3 QFC V 00 o os cD V a cD r D a m n N n 90 CD m w Zc Jto z C '.O < O O m 0 :3 m ^v 0 C -o > a a - -, W Om �0 33 o N O 3 3 nn 3 mS<D O N 0 N U) ❑0❑ N W m x 3 m 0, Cb O CD O ¢ m N CD 3 m o vm ¢ 3 CD w, m N IV m ❑ [1 3 N V °° '�_ m 0 in cn rn my , m ° m cn D D 3 3 �w 0 m m X D 3 2 _ � 3 a K w¢ =n ¢ 9 CD - @ a (D rt rt lD a O) CL O 3 m m m .. o a D ' 9 O 03 �oN N :13 cp N m > > '(D e CL (D W C n m O m L �, n m C m a D1 m _.d Hid y N Ln 3 G' m Q1wIoo o 0 7 N 0' c m m¢ o M 3�- 3 3 m 3 w P tD m a 00% g;� _ a n a a CL a 3� o El El 7 7 7 « m 0 t�D Om U) Z X(Q 6 cn CD CO noy =; Op, c fD m 0D'momn <D m O 3N�ocy(n Oo r- rr O O nDj c N '3- �' o � (D a OD QD OD W pp (D7o CO CD m-m7N�_ W W W W W m w D O 3CD c m CD N N N N N N � - N N n to T CL 0 - o 0 l � N N O (7 x Q - (D (n uNi D mma .0) 'R TU) -w aN �� Q03 IOD� w (D CD v CD CD W y� ID 3 d. ao�: CD m=yOi O N .ow m 7 J O N T O 0 Cl) N O %C �. C t0 n a3 ' m CD N cD p) N - c psi ai32wm � � C Oa ID -0 N d N 3 N v » y 0 m a O -a' O m 2 --4O 0 S O a � 3 9 73 o , Si r m w 3 v m o m 3 C r.a w e� y j E a �O ai CLm ti -� 3 Dm m Dpiow 7 D� m n Q a _ m m m '