The URL can be used to link to this page

Timber View Subdivision PP 00-010—W. 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. kNX%jtillaitsiii/irefi� oil''°'�y SET AL = PUBLISH April 21 & N 176A S1 • � . ��,�� rt�c�fit WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., I CLERK HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY MAYOR LEGAL DEPARTMENT Robert D. Come A Good Place to Live (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS BUILDING DEPARTMENT Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING Tamm deWeerd Tammy 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: PP -00-010 REQUEST: 40.33 ACRES 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 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: RF JEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPRO<< L MAR 3 1 200u PRELIMINARY PLAT , CITY OF mERIDI.AN pLANNING & ZONING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION XILk E O10 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 1/4 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 En ing eering, 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 0305\SUBAPPL-MER-preliminary (1) 12 What school(s) serve the 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): Single Family 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' along Victory & 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-pre 1 iminary (2) ENGINEERS / PLANNERS / SURVEYORS March 30, 2000 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION A,%. Boise, Idaho 83705 — 3142 Voice (208) 344-9700 Fax (208) 345-2950 E-mail briggs@micron.net 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.) 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. 5. The development plan reflects the existing easements for the Kennedy Lateral. 6. The proposed street names have been submitted to the Street Name Committee. 7. 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. 8. 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. r— � < Becky L. Bow Land Use Planner BLB:fc 03 05 \Statement -Compliance Fla AES Soil Evaluation Evaluation Date 21L ---L0-0 Requested By Stan McHutchison Bri s En ineerin Inc. Address 1800 W. Overland Road City Boise State Idaho Zip Code 83705 Phone _(208) 344-9700 Lot Size — Bedrooms — Parcel — Legal Description SESW of Section 19 T.3N., R.1E., B.M. Ada County, ID fil nr,c Coe n. i Est 1-2% Sloe -- --- Pit TH1 vca.i.uci Est 3-4% Sloe ccl MV uien Pit TH2 ri. Lo Est 2-3% Sloe an CPSS Pit TH3 0-13" Silt loam (20% clay), 0-13" Silt loam (25% 0-10" Silt loam (15-20% 10YR 3/4, many fine clay), 10YR 3/4, clay), 1OYR 3/4, many roots, estimated permeability 1-2"/hr. many fine and few medium roots, fine roots, estimated permeability 1-2"/hr. 13-25" Silt loam (15% clay), estimated permeability 1- 10-21" Silt loam (15% clay), 10YR 5/4, common 1.5"/hr. 10YR 5/4, common fine roots, estimated fine roots, estimated permeability 1-2"/hr. I 13-47" Strongly cemented permeability 1-2"/hr. 25-50" Indurated hardpan, to indurated hardpan, very 21-45" Loam (15% clay), fractured, no roots, fractured, common 10YR 5/4, common estimated fine roots in fine roots estimated permeability .02"- fractures, estimated permeability 1-2"/hr. .05"/hr. permeability .2- 50-108" Extremely gravelly .5"/hr. 45-114" Extremely gravelly and cobbly graded graded fine, medium, 47-67" Very flaggy fine fine medium and and coarse sand, sandy loam (5% coarse sand, common variegated color, no clay), IOYR 6/4, fine roots in upper 2', roots, estimated common fine roots none below, estimated permeability 15- in upper 12", few permeability 15"+/hr. 20"/hr. fine below, estimated permeability 4- 6"/hr. 67-115" Fine sandy loam (5- 10% clay), 10YR 6/4, no roots, estimated permeability 5- 10"/hr. 115-129" Fine sandy loam (5% clay), compact, 10YR 5/4, no roots, estimated permeability.5- 1 "/hr. 129-150" Loamy medium sand (5% clay), 10YR 6/4, no roots, estimated permeability 15"+/hr. Additional Info: TH 1 - No free water (water table) to 108" at time of excavation. TH2 - No free water (water table) to 150" at time of excavation. TH3 - No free water (water table) to 114" at time of excavation. AES Soil Evaluation Evaluation Date 2Z25/00 Requested By Stan McHutchison Bri s En ineerin Inc. Address 1800 W. Overland Road City Boise State Idaho Zip Code 83705 Phone 1208) 344-9700 Lot Size — Bedrooms —Parcel Legal Description SESW of Section CountV, ID 19 T.3N. R.lE. B.M. Ada Slo e See Below Evaluated By_ Glen H. Lo an CPSS Est 1-3% Est 0-1% Sloe Pit TH4 Sloe Pit THS F0-14" Silt loam (20% clay), 0-14" - -I Silt loam (20% 10YR 3/4, many fine clay), lOYR 3/4, and few medium many fine, few roots, estimated medium and coarse permeability 1-2"/hr. roots, estimated 14-32" Silt loam (25% clay), Permeability 1- 2"/hr. 10YR 4/4, slightly compact, common 14-25" fine roots, estimated Silty clay loam permeability 1 "/hr. (30%+ clay), compact, IOYR 4/4, 32-46" Siltyclay loam 30% Y ( common fine, few medium and coarse clay), compact, IOYR roots, estimated 4/6 and 6/3, few fine permeability .05 - roots, estimated .2"/hr. permeability .2-.5"/hr. 25-45" 46-78" Fine gravelly coarse Silt loam (20-25% clay), very sandy loam (5% clay), compact, IOYR 4/6, 10YR 4/6, compact, few fine and no roots, estimated medium roots, permeability 2-4"/hr. estimated 78-131" Weakly cemented permeability .2 - loamy fine sand, compact, IOYR 5/4, 45-60" Weakly cemented no roots, estimated hardpan, very permeability .05- compact, few fine •2"/Iu• roots, estimated 131-144" Fine sandy loam (10% elity P 02 /hr. clay), very compact, 10YR 4/6, no roots, 60-77" Very gravelly fine estimated sandy loam (10 - permeability .2-.5"/hr. 15% clay), weakly cemented and very compact, l OYR 5/4, no roots, estimated permeability .05- .2"/hr. 77-144" Extremely gravelly loamy coarse sand (<5% clay), variegated color, no roots, estimated permeability 15 "+/hr. Additional Info: TH4 - No free water (water table) to 144" at time of excavation TH2 - No free water (water table) to 144" at time of excavation DESCRIPTION FOR TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION March 30, 2000 A parcel of land being the SE'/4 of the SW Y, 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'/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 1/41, Thence N 0029'39" 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 PAIPMAN PUBLIC WORKS DE!' i. 0305\Subd legaLdes s mu'v �z unnRn ftaRR� M/ a RArtr rr — I a F � A 97 3 PRE4M1. PUT AOR rEr rrErwlra, Eq, ■ TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION p o Yi m ......P...., ...... 6l/11/YO rL! A •. b' .rRy ..�.,.,.r.+r �rY 93108988 16 5 00890 J. D M' ', '-'r , n 0 WARRANTY DEED BOISE ID En;TiTL[ Pa ESCROW Js(2 H'11215 FOR VALUE RECEIVED DEAN E. ON an WEVRLKAYPETERSON, husband and wife, the G tors, adorant, bargain, sell and convey unto THE V� _D „2, ;:LII+RILITY- COMPANY, an Idaho limited liability pang, 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 ox 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 cDOiN day of �11Cc /, -,1993. can E. Peterson ti Beverly Y>ZY Pe,Vbi7son WARRANTY DEED - 1 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) on this o;)0b� day of 1993, before me, the undersigned, a_ Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared 'DEAN E. PETERSON and BEVERLY KAY PETERSON, known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC for Idaho Residing at /-' c My Commission Expires: WARRANTY DEED - 2 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 89042145" 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; thet.ce North 81038129" West, 131.54 feet to a point; thence South 5022'48" West, 204.24 feet to a point; thence South 78052121" East, 149.98 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT Ditch and Road Rights -of -Way _ ___T_ WARRANTY DEED -13 1950 For Value Received DEAN E. PETERSON, Husband, the grantor , does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto BEVERLY KAY PETERSON, X Wife, r the grantee , the following described premises, in ......... Ada................County Idaho, to wit: a w An undivided one-half interest in and to the following: a iThe SE4 of the SW -14 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 t' -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. i Dated: November 1, 1968. STATE OF IDAHO, COUNTY OF ADA On :his i s t day of Nov. :9 68, before me, a notan• public in and for said State, personally appeared DEAN E. PETERSON, Husband, i known t,6 -,me to be the persor. whose name IS subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me tha he exec ted the same. � � 1 y \otar; Public Residing at ?fer:_dlan Idaho Comm. Expire : .lune 15, L 9 69 STATE OF IDAHO, COUNTY OF �! I hereby certify that :his : instrument -as filed for record at the request of r' i �.: =�� } �/ ; :� .•x i J at minutes past o'clock Am., this / day of 19 Z /7, in my office, and duly recorded in Look of 7eeds at page Ex -Officio P.ecorder, ' 1 By !^ Deputy. . Fees S ';C' -_j Mail to: C WARRANTY DE 3'i z i,3 For Value Recetved" ' GWENERVA �' PETERSON, a widow, ' the grantor ., does" hereby grant," bargain, sell and convey unto DEAN E. PETERSON, �. a single man:, . 1 the grantee the following described: remises, in....... Ada Count Idaho to wit. w,. g p _........... y , w per-' The SE}4 SWyw, Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, in Ada County, State of Idaho. Together with all water, water rights, right of way for ditches and ditches appurtenart thereto or connected therewith. I TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurlanances 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; that they are free from all encumbrances and that s he will warrant ,>it:d defend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever. Dated: Idiarch91963• ---� STATE OF IDAHO, qy UNTY CF AJ On this C,7f f� day of Marc -n- , I9 63 before me, a notary public in and for said State, personally appeared GW -1 ERV J. I-7,TER301i , a widow, known to me to -be the person whose name i c subscribed to She within instrument, and acknowledged to me that Svc "' ex uted the same. Notary Public Residing at _ Idaho Comm. Expires y _ zLy-, f \ , l/ STATE OF IDAHO, COUNTY OF I hereby certify that this instrument was filed for record at the request of 11 c , F_ i—,r , , at minutes past 9 o'clock/7 m., thin i day of No r 19 < in my office, and duly recorded in Book of Deeds at page CnARENCE A. FLAP?'I'INi_ �Ex-Officio Recorder By Deputy. Fees S Mail to: z ^SOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES BIOLOGY • GEOLOGY • ENGINEERING • SOIL SURVEYS • SOIL AND WATER QUALITY • RESOURCE PLANNING AND SITE INVESTIGATIONS 4696 Overland Rd., Suite 516 Boise, Idaho 83705 (208) 336-8661 March 1, 2000 Stan McHutchison Briggs Engineering, Inc. 1800 W. Overland Rd. Boise, ID 83705 Dear Stan: Five test holes were excavated and examined on the Mike Caven Property located in the SESW of Section 19, T.3N., R.IE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho. Soil physical characteristics and internal drainage conditions were noted and logged on the attached field sheet. The purpose of this investigation was to assess soil conditions for placement of storm drainage facilities. No free water (water table) was found in test hole TH1 to a depth of 108" at the time of excavation. This test hole is located within 50 feet of an irrigation canal. A monitoring well (10', 4" diameter PVC pipe) was placed in this test hole and water table levels, if any, should be measured and recorded from April 1 -August 31, 2000. This test hole did not have gleyed colors or mottling (iron oxide or manganese oxide staining) which are indicators of fluctuating high water tables. Test holes TH2-TH5 were dry (no water table) to depths of 114-150" at the time of excavation. These test holes did not have gleyed colors or mottling and I do not anticipate a fluctuating water table in them during the irrigation season. To confirm this the monitoring wells installed in them should be checked for water tables after the irrigation season starts (about April ls). If no water table appears by June I" there will not likely be any. Restrictive layers including cemented hardpans, compaction, and/or high clay content occur in these soils. Extremely gravelly sand or fine sandy loam substratums underlie these soils. The base of storm drainage facilities should be below the restrictive layers and in contact with the more permeable gravelly and sandy substratums. It appears the areas represented by the five test holes would satisfy the requirements for storm drain facilities, but monitoring the wells, as suggested above, will verify it. Sincerely, Glen H. Logan Certified Professional Soil Scientist AES Soil Evaluation Evaluation Date 2 25 00 Requested By Stan McHutchison, Briggs Engineering Inc Address 1800 W. Overland Road City Boise State Idaho Zip Code 83705 Phone (208) 344-9700 Lot Size — Bedrooms — Parcel — Legal Description SESW of Section 19 T.3N., R.1E. B.M. Ada Countv. ID Est 1-2% Slo a Pit TH1 .D,y h1CI1 ti. LO an UPSS Est 34% Sloe Pit TH2 Est 2-3% Slo e Pit TH3 0-13" Silt loam (20% clay), 0-13" Silt loam (25% 0-10" Silt loam (15-20% 10YR 3/4, many fine clay), IOYR 3/4, clay), 10YR 3/4, many roots, estimated many fine and few fine roots, estimated permeability 1-2"/hr. medium roots, permeability 1-2"/hr. 13-25" Silt loam (15% clay), estimated permeability 1- 10-21" Silt loam (15% clay), 10YR 5/4, common 1.5"/hr. 10YR 5/4, common fine roots, estimated fine roots, estimated permeability 1-2"/hr. I 13-47" Strongly cemented permeability 1-2"/hr. to indurated 25-50" Indurated hardpan, hardpan, very 21-45" Loam (15% clay), fractured, no roots, fractured, common IOYR 5/4, common estimated fine roots in fine roots estimated permeability .02"- fractures, estimated permeability 1-2"/hr. .05"/hr. permeability.2- 50-108" Extremely gravelly .5"/hr. 45-114" Extremely gravelly and cobbly graded graded fine, medium, 47-67" Very flaggy fine fine medium and and coarse sand, sandy loam (5% coarse sand, common variegated color, no clay), 10YR 6/4, fine roots in upper 2', roots, estimated common fine roots none below, estimated permeability 15- in upper 12", few permeability 15 "+/hr. 20"/hr. fine below, estimated permeability 4- 6"/11r. 67-115" Fine sandy loam (5- 10% clay), 10YR 6/4, no roots, estimated permeability 5- 10 "/hr. 115-129" Fine sandy loam (5% clay), compact, 10YR 5/4, no roots, estimated permeability .5- 1 "/hr. 129-150" Loamy medium sand (5% clay), 10YR 6/4, no roots, estimated permeability 15"+/hr. Additional Info: TH 1 - No free water (water table) to 108" at time of excavation. TH2 - No free water (water table) to 150" at time of excavation. TH3 - No free water (water table) to 114" at time of excavation. AES Soil Evaluation Evaluation Date 2Z25/00 Requested By Stan McHutchison,-Briggs Engineering,Inc. Address 1800 W. Overland Road City Boise State Idaho Zip Code 83705 Phone _(208) 344-9700 Lot Size — Bedrooms — Parcel Legal Description SESW of Section 19 T.3N. R.lE. B.M. Ada County,ID reee Below Pit TH4 Evalua Glen Est 0-1% Slo e Pit THSSilt H. Lo an CPSS loam (20% clay), 0-14" Silt loam (20% 10YR 3/4, many fine clay), IOYR 3/4 and few medium many fine, few roots, estimated medium and coarse Permeability 1-2"/hr. roots, estimated 14-32" Silt loam (25% clay), permeability 1- 2 10YR 4/4, slightly compact, common 14-25" Silty clay loam fine roots, estimated (30%+ clay), permeability 1 "/hr. compact, l OYR 4/4, 32-46" Siltyclay loam 30% Y ( common fine, few medium and coarse clay), compact, IOYR roots, estimated 4/6 and 6/3, few fine permeability .05 - roots, estimated .2"/hr. permeability.2-.5"/hr. 46-78" Fine gravelly coarse 25-45" Silt loam (20-25% clay), very sandy loam (5% clay), compact, l OYR 4/6, 10YR 4/6, compact, few fine and no roots, estimated medium roots, permeability 2-4"/hr. estimated 78-131" Weakly cemented permeability .2 - loamy fine sand, compact, IOYR 5/4, 45-60" Weakly cemented no roots, estimated hardpan, very permeability .05- compact, few fine •2"dir. roots, estimated 131-144" Fine sandy loam (10% permeability <.02"/hr. clay), very compact, 10YR 4/6, no roots, 60-77" Very gravelly fine estimated sandy loam (10 - permeability .2-.5"/hr. 15% clay), weakly cemented and very compact, IOYR 5/4, no roots, estimated permeability .05- .2"/hr. 77-144" Extremely gravelly loamy coarse sand (<5% clay), variegated color, no roots, estimated permeability 15 "+/hr. Additional Info: TH4 - No free water (water table) to 144" at time of excavation TH2 - No free water (water table) to 144" at time of excavation CO *d -1di01 t Y i � h r V(jQUU12 lLt1l�__ .►� �j V �QDDUa � uuu+ �� :;� +► V It I Soon SO Qt'QQ- • r c�7�mA� -. V Z0'd 0S6zSb2802T �N[ 'ONI�133NIJN3 SR9idH 6S:RG7 -I N �77 I V F--- 1 - I 87 I N A V C-) S. ANDROS WAY w f N N N O 1 Qf _ W BROKEN UMB AVE. N � N W f O S. STAN^DI IMBE O I EJ I O I IT1 � � W COJ N 00 ^J 7�C f 1 a N A V I DAYBREAK AVENUE o A W N I I I N S. DAYBREAK AVENUE A w m m m I I y� N N N .Z7 m m aRr a too, z a o n b aox `x C x z a U] O z 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 /Vv� 1�2 (Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. '•., otary Public for Idaho Residing at My Commission Expires: %Z75 -b $ % • O OF • 990208\affid-accuracy 03/29/2006 13:15 2083220149 ROYAL FORK REST INC r rrar<^—�� } • �� n l �u� Glv l ry PAGE 01 U r..'�'II IIYUf 11V4. f� 1�C±V J`+_JG J.PV � Vc AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST STATE OF IDAHO } COUNT'` OF ADA ) I, J6rry Caven (Victory 41, LLQ) 6$74 Fwrylew (name) (address) c� �: ^f0 Idaho 83704 being first duly sworn upon Me (city) (state) oath, depose and say: That I am the record owner and/or representative of the property described on the attached, and 1 grant my permission to Bri=s-EpMineerinq. Inc. - 1800 W. Overland_ Rd, Boise.. 10 83705 Telephone: 344-9700; FAX: 345-2,950 to Sign and submit the accompanying application pertaining to that property. 2. 1 agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Boise and it's employees harmless from any claim or liability resulting from amy dispute as to the statements contained herein Or as to the ownership of the property which is the subject of the application. Dated this ��' day of kwd- 2000 (Signature) t SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. Notary PublicV Idaho Residing at '' 4 m My Commission Expires. .P �..J it 4 C p• Jry `i 03051AFFt9l�GA�`-YPchy}�t�J1'�e, 'a,�v�'` _ MAR -29-2000 13:21 '2083220149 47% -- — h' .01 & MAR r29-2000 •• t ( lwf STATE OF IDAHO COUNTY OF ADA -r; 12:17 BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. ' 12083452950 —P .03 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: 1. 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. 2. 1 agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City of 945e 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 ��'� 2000 (Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first abovet-written. {' �rotary Public f aho Residing at C My Commission Expires:7J 11 0305WFF10LEGAL V*P—RE �+`aaaeacaaa�°�'� 1 TOTAL P.03 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 & 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 & 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 STATES INVESTMENT 6874 FAIRVIEW AVE BOISE ID 83704-8501 E VICTORY RD eoloN �eoo� DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS OF TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION #I DEVELOPER: VICTORY 41,L.L.C.- MIKE CAVEN 96045330 ADA C::. RE00RDER DECLARATION OF .:. DAVID NIVARR0 BM PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS EID .;7 JA BROOKDALE MEADOWS NO. 1 SUBDIVg0ffM30 Pel ' FEE �DEr RECORDED Ai T�:= rt4 S7 OF KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That STATES INVESTMENT, a general Idaho partnership, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor" does hereby certify and declare: That it is the owner of that certain real estate situated in the city of Boise, county of Ada, State of Idaho, hereinafter referred to as "Subdivision," more particularly described as follows: Brookdale Meadows No. 1 Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof on file in the office of the County Recorder of Ada County, State of Idaho, recorded as Instrument No. 94098606 in Book 66 of plats at page 6870 and 6871; which real property is hereinafter referred to as the "Property". These covenants shall attach to and run with the real property of Brookdale Meadows No. 1 Subdivision, and shall be binding on all persons who at any time hereafter and from time to time own or claim any right, title or interest in and to said real property, any and all whom shall hereinafter sometimes be referred to as "Owner." WHEREAS, Grantor desires to assure the attractiveness of the individual lots and community facilities within the Property; to prevent any future impairments thereof; to prevent nuisances; to preserve, protect and enhance the values and amenities of the Property; and to provide for the maintenance of said open spaces and walkways. In order to achieve these objectives, the Grantor is desirous of subjecting the Property to the covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, charges and liens set forth herein, each and all of which is and are for the benefit of the Property, the Grantor and each Owner thereof. ARTICLE I Definitions "Association" shall mean and refer to Brookdale Meadows No. 1 Subdivision Homeowners' Association, Inc., a non-profit `� DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 1 corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho, or any successor or assign of the Brookdale Meadows No. 1 Subdivision. "Owner" shall mean and refer to the record Owner, whether one (1) or more persons or entities, of a fee simple title to any lot which is a part of the property, including contract seller, but excluding those having an interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. "Property" shall mean and refer to the real property constituting Brookdale Meadows No. 1 Subdivision according to the official recorded plat thereof (the plat), and every part, parcel and lot thereof, and such additions thereto as may hereafter be made subject to this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Lots shall be references to the lots as defined and depicted on the Plat. "Common Area" shall mean and refer to Lot 1 Block 1, Lot 1 Block 2, Lot 1 Block 3, Lot 10 Block 4, Lot klBlock 5, Lot 1 Block 6, Lot 1 Block 9, Lot 1 Block 10, as entrance landscaping maintained by the Brookdale Meadows Owner's Association; Lot 14 Block 4, Lot 14 Block 11 as walkways and maintained by the Brookdale Meadows Owner's Association. Such term shall include all improvements which are within the Common Area. Said areas are intended to be devoted to the common enjoyment of the Owners (subject to the provisions hereof) and are not dedicated for use �^ ! by the general public. "Common Facilities" shall mean all improvements, structures, equipment and personal property (whether movable or immovable) constructed or placed upon the Common Areas, or upon any walkway or easement set forth on the recorded plat for Brookdale Meadows No. 1 and future phases of Brookdale Meadows Subdivision and shall include but not be limited to fencing, landscaping, sprinkler systems, exterior lighting, and walkways. "Lot" shall mean and refer to all Lots within and shown upon the official recorded plat of Brookdale Meadows Subdivision (the "plat"). "Declarant" shall mean and refer to States Investment Corporation, its successors and assigns. "Exempt Tree" shall mean any preexisting vegetation or any vegetation included on the list of solar friendly vegetation kept by the City of Boise's Public Works and Community Planning and Development Departments. "Front Lot Line" shall mean the line represented by the connection of the most distant corners of a lot, including flag (�� DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 2 lots, where said corners are in common with the boundary of a public or private road. For corner lots, the front lot line is designated on the plat. "Grantor," wherever used herein, shall refer to States Investment Corporation or any person or persons or corporation to whom the rights of the Grantor, as set forth in these Restrictions, shall be specifically transferred. "North Slope" shall mean the gradient, in percent slope, from the average finished grade of the front lot line of the shade restricted lot to the average finished grade of the solar lot line of a solar lot. The slope must be downward or decreasing in elevation from south to north. "Project" shall mean and refer to the Property and all contemplated improvements thereto. "Restricted Vegetation" shall mean a tree or other vegetation which is either evergreen, or if deciduous, tends to retain its leaves late in the fall and/or drop them late in the spring, or has dense branching pattern which generally tends to block a high level of the sun's rays during the heating season. Refer to the list of "solar friendly" trees on file with the Boise city Public Works and the Community Planning and Development Departments. "Shade" shall mean that portion of the shadow cast by the shade point of a structure or vegetation which exceeds the 11.5 foot fence at the solar lot line at solar noon, January 21. "Shade Point" shall mean that part of a structure, tree or other object, on a shade restricted lot, which casts the longest shadow (the most northerly shadow) when the sun is due south on January 21 at an altitude of twenty-six (26) degrees above the horizon, except a shadow caused by a narrow object such as a chimney, antenna, utility pole, or wire. "Shade Point Height" shall mean the vertical distance or height measured from the average elevation at the solar lot line to the shade point. If the shade point is located at the north end of a ridge line of a structure oriented within 45 degrees of a geodetic north -south line, the shade point height computed according to the preceding sentence may be reduced three feet (31). If a structure has a roof oriented within 45 degrees of a geodetic east -west line with a pitch which is flatter than six feet (61) (vertical) in twelve feet (12') or steeper, the shade point will be the peak of the roof. `- I DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 3 �- "Shade Restricted Lot" shall mean any lot within the subdivision that is southerly of and adjacent to a solar lot. These lots have some restriction on vegetation types and structure height. "Solar Friendly Vegetation" shall mean a tree or other vegetation which is included on the solar friendly vegetation list kept by the City of Boise's Public Works and Community Planning and Development Departments. "Solar Lot" shall mean a lot which has the following characteristics: 1. The front lot line is oriented within thirty (30) degrees of a geodetic east/west bearing; 2. The lot to the immediate south has a north slope of ten percent (10%) or less; 3. Is intended for the construction of an above ground inhabited structure. "Solar Lot Line" shall mean the most southerly boundary of a solar lot; the line created by connecting the most distant southerly corners of the solar lot. f "Solar Setbacks" shall mean the minimum distance, measured perpendicular in a southerly direction, from the center of the solar lot line to the shade point of a structure or to restricted vegetation based upon its height at maturity on the shade restricted lot. Whenever the context so requires, the use of the singular shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall include all genders. ARTICLE II Brookdale Meadows No. 1 HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION It is contemplated that simultaneously with the execution and recordation of this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (the "Declaration"), the Association will be incorporated, and the Association will adopt Bylaws for its governance. To the extent the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of the Association may conflict with the provisions of this Declaration, the provisions of this Declaration shall control. The Association may not be dissolved without the express written consent of the City of Boise. DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 4 /♦ ARTICLE III Property Rights Owner's Easements of Enjoyment. Every Owner shall have a right and easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Areas which right shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with the title to every Lot, subject to the following provision: The Association shall have the right to suspend the voting rights and right to use the Common Area of an Owner for any period during which any assessment against his Lot remains unpaid and for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days for any infraction of its published rules and regulations. ARTICLE IV General Restrictions The Grantor hereby covenants for all of said property; and each Owner by ratification of these covenants, conditions, and restrictions, or by acceptance of a deed or contract of purchase thereof, whether or not it shall be so expressed in any such deed or other conveyance or agreement for conveyance is deemed to covenant and agree to comply with and abide by these covenants, conditions and restrictions and agrees for himself, his heirs, administrators, and assignees to be personally bound by each of such covenants, restrictions, reservations and servitudes jointly, separately and severally. Should Owner violate or attempt to violate any of the provisions of these Restrictions, Grantor, Architectural Control Committee, or any other -person or persons owning any real property embraced in the Plat, at its or their option, shall have full power and authority to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting to violate any of the said Restrictions, either to prevent him or them from so doing, to mandate compliance, or to recover damages sustained by reason of such violation. Should the Grantor employ counsel to enforce any of these restrictions, or right of repurchase, by reason of such violation, all costs incurred in such enforcement, including a reasonable fee for counsel, shall be paid by the Owner of such Lot or Lots, and the Grantor shall have a lien upon such Lot or Lots to secure payment of all such accounts. The breach of any of these covenants, conditions, restrictions, or any repurchase by reason of such breach, shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith for value as to any Lot or Lots or portions of Lots in such premises, but these covenants, DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 5 conditions, reservations, and and effective against any such thereof, whose title thereto o foreclosure, trustee's sale, o restrictions shall be binding upon mortgagee or trustee or Owner r whose title is or was acquired by r otherwise. No delay or omission on the part of the Grantor or the Owners of other Lots in the properties in exercising any rights, power, or remedy herein provided, in the event of any breach of the covenants, conditions, or restrictions herein contained, shall be construed as a waiver thereof or acquiescence therein, and no right of action can be brought or maintained by anyone whatsoever against the Grantor for or on account of his failure to bring any action on account of any breach of these covenants, conditions, or restrictions herein which may be unenforced by the Grantor. These covenants, conditions and restrictions are cumulative and all remedies provided herein for breach are in addition to any rights and remedies provided by local or state laws and not in lieu thereof. Invalidation of any provisions, sentence, or paragraph contained in the Restrictions by judgment or court order shall in no wise affect or invalidate any of the other provisions, but the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. Approval by the City of Boise, vested with the responsibility of reviewing C planning and zoning and building codes having jurisdiction over this Subdivision, of an application made by any Owner which is in conflict with any covenants, conditions, or restrictions of this Declaration shall in no wise affect or invalidate this Declaration, but this Declaration shall remain in full force and effect, and subject to enforcement and remedies for violation hereof. ARTICLE V Annexation of Additional Property Section 1. Declarant owns unplatted parcels of property lying adjacent to the property known as Brookdale Meadows No. 1 Subdivision. Declarant may, by the filing of a Supplemental Declaration upon the recording of a Subdivision Plat for said parcels, make said parcels subject to this Declaration; and Owners of Lots in said subdivisions shall thereupon become and thereafter be members of the Association and be bound by the same rules and regulations as Brookdale Meadows No. 1 Subdivision. DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 6 ARTICLE VI Land Definitions and Restri�:tions 1. Lot: All Lots of the above recorded plat shall be known and described as single family residential Lots and shall be used exclusively for single family residential living purposes and such uses as are customarily incidental thereto, except those Lots designated as Common Area Lots. No residential -Lot shall be divided into two or more building sites. a. A single family is an individual, doing his own cooking, and living upon the premises as a separate housekeeping unit, or a collection or body of persons doing their own cooking and living together upon the premises as a separate housekeeping unit in a domestic relationship based upon birth, marriage or other domestic bond as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house, lodging house, club, fraternity or hotel. 2. Building Restrictions: a. Except as may be provided within this Declaration of Protective Restrictions and Covenants of Brookdale Meadows No. 1 Subdivision for Common Area Lots, no Lot shall be improved except with a dwelling or residential structure to accommodate no more than a single family and its servants and occasional guests as customarily incidental to a single family residence designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of these covenants relating to approval by the Architectural Committee and containing a floor area of not less than 1,800 square feet for a single level residence nor less than 1,200 square feet on the ground level for a two-story residence. No split entry residences are allowed to be built in this Subdivision. The following lots are corner lots and all houses built on these specific lots shall be facing Brookmeadow Drive. ov All garages thereto shall be built so they egress and ingress oTtf the side streets. However, Lot 20 Block 5 and Lot 2 Block 6 are excluded from this requirement: simce-they-axe_corner--l-cts-having no -side -streets --for. the garages to, -face -,on. The lots that this restriction affects are: Lots 27, 28, 32, 33, .and- 42 rid"Block 5; Lots 9, 10, 16, 17, 35, 36, 42, and 43 in Block 6; Lots 1 and 4 in Block 7; and Lots 1 and 3 in Block 8. All garages shall also be attached. b. No structure or above -ground improvements shall be permitted, except as expressly allowed below, on any Lot which is detached or separated from the principal structure unless designed as a single visual element connected or related visually with the principal structure by fencing or other DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 7 Com: architectural features and in accordance with other requirements of these covenants. C. All outbuildings improvements commonly referred to, but not limited to, storage sheds, play houses and play equipment consisting of walls and a roof, shall be of the same material, siding, and roofing as the home located on the said Lot. A height limit of, not to exceed eight feet, will pertain to all such structures unless a variance, in writing, is issued to the grantee by the Architectural Control Committee for approval prior to construction. d. No dwelling or, any other residential structure or above -ground improvements shall rise more than two stories from the ground level unless approved by the Architectural Control Committee. e. No house trailer, tent shack, unattached garage, barn or other outbuildings or structures shall be erected or placed on any Lot within said Subdivision, except for construction and/or sales offices as provided by Article IV paragraph 4 herein. f. No house, garage, outbuildings, fence or other structures shall be built, erected, placed, materially altered or materially repaired including without limitation the altering or repair of surface colors or textures on any Lot in the Subdivision unless and until the building plan specifications and plot plan have been reviewed in advance by the Architectural Control Committee and the same has been approved conditionally or otherwise. Said review and approval shall include without being restricted;- drainage, color, material design, artistic conformity to the terrain and other residences in the area, and architectural improvements. It shall not be the intent of these restrictions to control the interior layout or design of said structures. It shall be the responsibility of the homeowner, when applying to the Architectural Control Committee for approval, to provide the Architectural Control Committee with a set of plans and specifications which plans and specifications shall become the property of the Architectural Control Committee and held by them. It is required that all approved plans and specifications for building be signed off by a member of the Architectural Control Committee prior to commencement of any construction. g. No building or structure shall be moved onto said real property from any land outside said plat including a new prefabricated structure. h. No dwelling house or other building or any part thereof or any other structure, exclusive of fences and DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 8 similar structures, shall be placed near the front of the Lot or the rear of the Lot or the side of the Lot that is allowed by any ordinance, code provision, law or statute of the City of Boise, Ada County, or any other governmental entity that may control such setback requirements. i. All buildings and structures shall be of wood or light gauge steal frame. Use of stone or brick veneer is encouraged. If other than brick or stone, it shall be finished and painted and kept in good repair, and said property shall be used in such manner as to be unoffensive to any property owner. Roofing shall be cement tile, cedar shakes or cedar shingles, or architectural grade composition shingles with a minimum weight of 340 pounds per square. In all cases, composition shingles must be approved by the Architectural Committee at the time of plan review. Owner or builder must submit samples and manufacturer's data. No asphalt shingles are allowed. j. The Architectural Control Committee is hereby empowered to adopt rules to govern its procedures, including such rules as the Committee may deem appropriate and in keeping with the spirit of due process of law with regard to the right of concerned parties due to be heard on any matter before the Committee. The Architectural Control Committee is further hereby empowered to adopt such regulations as it shall deem appropriate, consistent with the provisions of this Declaration, with regard r to matters subject to the Committee's approval, including matters of design and aesthetic interest. Such rules, after adoption, shall be of the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein. 3. Approval of Plans: Plans of all buildings and fences to be erected on any building site embraced in the plat must be submitted to the Architectural Control Committee of not less than three (3) members, hereinafter called "Committee" which shall exercise the rights herein reserved. Complete plans and specifications of all proposed buildings and structures, together with a detailed plan showing proposed location on the particular building site, shall be submitted to the Committee before any construction or alteration is started and such construction or alteration shall not be commenced until written approval therefore is given by the Committee. All plans and specifications submitted to the Committee shall belong to the Committee and kept by them. No plan shall be deemed to have been approved by the Committee unless its approval is in writing executed by at least two (2) members of the Committee, provided that approval shall be deemed given if the Committee fails to approve or disapprove a proposed change or to make additional requirements DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 9 or request additional information within forty-five (45) days after a full and complete description of the proposed change has 1 been furnished in writing to the Committee with a written and specific request for approval. The Committee or Grantor, however, will not be responsible for application of local or state building codes of structural fitness. As to all improvements, constructions and alterations upon any building site, the Committee shall have the right to refuse improvements, construction or alterations, which, in its sole opinion, are not suitable or desirable for any reason, aesthetic or otherwise. In so passing upon such design, the Committee shall have the privilege in the exercise of its discretion to take into consideration the suitability of the proposed building or other structure, the materials of which it is to be built, and the exterior color scheme in relation to the site upon which it is proposed to be erected. The Committee may also consider whether the proposed structure and design shall be in harmony with the surroundings, the effect of the building or other structure or alterations therein as planned when viewed from the adjacent or neighboring property, effect or impairment that said structure will have on the view of surrounding building sites, and any and all other desirability of such proposed structure, improvements or alterations. Actual construction shall comply substantially with the plans and specifications as approved. After approval by the Committee of any proposed change of designation for property within the Subdivision, the proposed change shall be accomplished as promptly and diligently as possible and in complete conformity with the description therefore given to the Committee. --Failure to accomplish the change within the six months after the date of approval (subject to strikes or acts of God) or to complete the proposed change strictly in accordance with the description thereof and plans and specifications therefore shall operate to automatically revoke the approval of the proposed change and, upon demand by the Committee, such property shall be restored as nearly as possible to its state existing prior to any work in connection with the proposed change. The Committee and/or its duly appointed agents shall have the right to enter upon such property and inspect the same to see whether the proposed changes have been made or the status of such changes. The Committee shall have the right and authority to record a notice to show that any particular change in the existing state of property has not been approved or that any approval given has been automatically revoked. In addition to the costs and expenses to be reimbursed by the Owner of any Lot, all other costs, expenses and damages determined by the Architectural Control Committee to be proximately caused by any violation of these covenants, as well DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 10 as the costs and expenses incurred by the Declarant and the !(� Association to correct any violation, shall be assessed as a special assessment against the Owner of the Lot and such charge shall be a lien upon the Property and shall be due and payable at such time or in such installments as may be determined by the Architectural Control Committee in its sole discretion. The Architectural Control Committee shall have the right to enforce such special assessment as provided herein for special assessments without further action or vote of the Association or its membership. The Architectural Control Committee, or its authorized agent, shall have the right at all times to enter on or upon any Lot or building site that is vacant or unplanted or untenanted by the owners thereof, and to plant or replant, trim, cut back, remove, replace and/or maintain hedges, trees, shrubs, flowers and any other landscaping on said property, and/or to keep cultivated and/or remove plants on any portion of any Lot or building site of said property, and the Architectural Control Committee, or any agent thereof shall not thereby be deemed guilty in any manner of trespass. When the owner of a parcel or Lot so planted, maintained by the Architectural Control Committee, shall give written notice to the Architectural Control Committee, of his intentions to improve the same within thirty (30) days, and upon the approval of the owners' proposal by the Architectural Control Committee, the Committee may, within thirty (30) days, and thereafter until work on said improvements is commenced, transplant, remove or dispose of any and all of the plantings which may have been made by it. The Architectural Control Committee shall be composed of Jerry Caven, Steven Teed, and Michael Caven, and their successors, and shall serve for the time and on conditions as the Grantor, in its sole discretion, shall prescribe, provided that the Grantor may appoint successor members who shall serve for the time and on the conditions as the Grantor, in its sole discretion, shall prescribe. The Architectural Control Committee will exercise all of the powers set forth in these covenants as they apply to the construction of new improvements in the Subdivision. Owner specifically agrees with Grantor that such Architectural Control Committee, its members, and the Grantor shall incur no liability for any omission or act by any of said above-named parties under these Restrictions. In the event of death or resignation of a member, the remaining two (2) members shall have full authority to act, and within a reasonable time after the occurrence of such vacancy, the Grantor shall appoint a replacement. DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 11 Grantor reserves the right to construct residences and other improvements upon any residential Lot building site in said Subdivision, and to offer said Lots, together with or without the completed residence and structures thereon, for sale to individual owners. 4. Temporary Structures: No structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, barn or outbuilding -shall be used on any lot at any time as a residence either temporarily or permanently. However, for construction and/or sales office of a size, character and design approved by the Architectural Control Committee, may be placed upon a Lot within said Subdivision by the Grantor during the period the Grantor or its authorized agent is selling building sites in the Subdivision. 5. Prosecution of Construction work: The construction of a dwelling house and related structures shall be prosecuted diligently, continuously and without delays from time of commencement thereof until such dwelling house and structure are fully completed and painted. All structures shall be completed as to external appearance, including finished painting, yard turfing and landscaping, within six (6) months from the date of commencement of construction unless prevented by causes beyond the control of the Owner and only for such time that such cause continues. 6. Landscaping: The following provisions shall govern the. - landscaping of Lots within the Subdivision: a. The Owner shall prepare a landscape plan and shall submit two (2) copies of the same to the Architectural Control Committee. The Committee shall approve said landscape plan prior to the installation and/or construction of landscaping on a Lot. Landscaping of a Lot shall be in accordance with the approved plan. b. A desire for an open, spacious and green growing appearance will control the decisions of the Architectural Control Committee. The Committee shall consider overall design features of the improvements to be constructed on the Lot is reviewing and approving or disapproving the landscaping plan. as follows: C. The minimum landscaping requirements shall be DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 12 (i) Innovative landscape design, including �sculptured planting areas, berms or other features with screening or bordering of foundations, fences (if any), curbs and other similar elements of the improvements on the Lot. as a minimum, the followings 1al Sod lin thedscafrontnandhall sidelyards; two (2) flowering trees of at least two inch (2") caliper in the front yard, provided, that evergreen trees of at least six feet (61) in height may be substituted for one (1) of the flowering trees required in each of the front yard; five (5) five -gallon plants, and ten (10) one -gallon plants in the front yard. (iii) The front and side yards shall be irrigated with an automatic underground sprinkler system. d. Additional landscaping may be required in addition to the above minimum requirements if the Architectural Control Committee, in its discretion, reasonably determines necessary or desired to achieve the Project Objectives. 7. Oil and Mining Operations: No oil drilling, oil development operations, oil refining, quarrying, or mining operations of any kind shall be permitted upon or in any Lots, nor shall oil wells, tanks, tunnels, mineral derricks or other structures designed for use in �! boring for oil or.natural gas be erected, maintained or permitted upon any Lot. 8. Bathroom, Sink and Toilet Conveniences: All bathroom, sink, and toilet facilities shall be connected by underground pipes to the collection system lines of the West Boise City Municipal Sewer System, its successors or assigns, or such other corporation, association or company which may be legally qualified to operate and maintain such sewage collection system lines for the Subdivision. 9. Sewage Disposal: No individual sewage disposal system shall be permitted on any residential Lot or parcel in said Subdivision. All sewage disposal shall be through an underground collection system approved by and constructed to the standards of State and local health authorities. Sewage effluent shall be collected from the Subdivision by the West Boise Sewer District System, the hookup fees, costs, charges and assessments for which shall be the responsibility of Owner. �_ DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 13 I< 10. Refuse Disposal, Storage of Materials: No machinery, vehicles, appliances or structures or unsightly materials may be stored upon the real property, nor shall trash, garbage, ashes, or other refuse be thrown, dumped, burned or otherwise disposed of upon the real property. No building material of any kind shall be placed or stored upon a building site until the Owner is ready to and able to commence construction, and then such materials shall be placed within the property line of the building site upon which structure is to be erected. The Grantor shall have the right to enter upon any vacant building site for the purpose of burning or removing weeds, brush, growth or refuse at the expense of the Owner, which expense shall be collected as a delinquent assessment as provided in Article VIII hereof. Builders shall keep each job site clean of excess debris at all times. 11. Fences and Hedges: No fence, hedge or boundary wall situated upon a building site shall be constructed except upon approval of the Committee as provided in these covenants. No fence shall be constructed so as to extend toward the front of the Lot past the front plane of the dwelling structure and constructed thereon unless a variance is issued by the Architectural Control Committee. Special restrictions may be imposed by the � Architectural Control Committee on fences proposed that in the sole opinion of the Architectural Control Committee may be detrimental to the overall objectives and appearance of the project or neighborhood. No fence or hedge situated anywhere upon any building site shall have a height greater than six (6) feet or such other heights as the Architectural Control Committee may specify, above the finished graded surface of the ground upon which such fence or hedge is situated. No fence, hedge or shrub planting which obstructs sight lines at elevations between three (3) and eight (8) feet above the roadways shall be placed or permitted to remain on any corner Lot within the triangular area formed by the street property lines and a line connecting them at points twenty-five (25) feet from the intersection of the street lines, or in the case of a rounded property corner from the intersection of the street property lines extended. The same sight -line limitations shall apply on any Lot with ten (10) feet from the intersection of a street property line with the edge of a driveway or alley pavement. No tree shall be permitted to remain within such distances of such intersections unless the foliage line is maintained at sufficient height to prevent obstruction of such sight -lines. C DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 14 The construction or maintenance of a spite fence (� or spite tree shall be prohibited upon any building site. The determination by the Grantor that any wall, fence, hedge, or tree falls within the latter category shall be conclusive upon all parties. 12. Business Use or Other Noxious Use of Property: No portion of the Common Area, or any Lot or any structure thereon shall be used for the conduct of any trade or business or other commercial reason or professional activity, and noxious or undesirable acts or undesirable use of any portion of the Property is prohibited and shall not be permitted or maintained; provided, however, that an office or model home(s) for the purpose of the development, construction and sale of the Lots and homes in the Subdivision may be maintained by Declarant. The prohibition of use of any Lot or any structure thereon for the conduct of any trade or business or professional activities includes and prohibits, use of any Lot or any structure thereon for a "half -way house", treatment center, shelter home, school, day-care center or other similar use, including use for the care and residence of unrelated physically mentally handicapped person (notwithstanding the provisions of Section 67-6530 and 67-6531, Idaho Code). The occupancy of a dwelling structure on a Lot shall be limited to one or more persons related by blood, adoption or marriage, living together as a single housekeeping f unit, or not more than two persons, though not related by blood, 1. adoption or marriage, living together as.a single housekee in unit. g P g 13. Billboards and Signs: No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any Lot except one (1) sign of not more than five (5) square feet in size advertising the Property for sale or rent, or signs used by a builder to advertise the Property during the construction and sales period. The Association may maintain Subdivision identification signs, and appropriate information signs upon the Common Area of a size and design approved by the Architectural Control Committee. No other signs shall be placed or maintained upon the Common Area, except those of the Grantor for the purpose of marketing the Subdivision, during the construction and the sales process. Nothing herein shall prohibit the Grantor from using signs to advertise the Subdivision and sale of homes in the Subdivision. 14. Restriction Against Use Detrimental to Neighborhood: No part of any building site shall be used or occupied, as a residence or other, so as to have any injurious DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 15 effect upon the use, occupancy or value of any adjacent premises r` for the usual and customary residential purpose as established by the manner of use in the general area or the neighborhood. As to whether any use or occupancy violates the provisions of these covenants, Grantor and the Architectural Control Committee, in its sole discretion, may make such determination based upon any reason, aesthetic or otherwise, including failure to maintain the premises. This covenant shall run with the land and pass with all property in said plat and be binding upon all persons who may from time to time own or claim any right, title, or interest in and to any of said property. 15. Utilities and Easements: Telephone, Electric, Sewer, Water and Gas Service: All Lots shall be served by underground electrical, telephone lines, sewer, water and gas. The services shall be installed in road or easement right of way as platted. Each Owner agrees at his sole expense to pay for costs and hook on charges as established by the utility companies or Public Works. Grantor shall not be liable for the cost thereof but may recover funds advanced, if any, to obtain preliminary installation. The Grantor reserves such easements as shown and noted on said plat for the purpose of the construction of water mains, drainage ponds, drainage ditches, electric distribution �- lines, sewer lines, gas pipelines and such other public utilities as shall be necessary, convenient and desirable for the Owners. The easements area of each Lot and all improvements in it shall be maintained continuously by the Owner of the -Lot except for those improvements for which a public authority or utility company is responsible. Within these easements, no structure, planting or other material shall be placed or permitted to remain which may damage or interfere with the installation and maintenance of utilities or which may change the direction of flow of water through drainage channels in the easements. 16. Solar Access: Shade Restrictions: Each lot within the subdivision which is classified as a Shade Restricted Lot shall have the following restriction: Any structure or restricted vegetation (solar unfriendly) cannot cast a shadow higher than an imaginary fence 11.5 feet above the solar lot line on solar noon of January 21 when the sun is at an angle of 26 degrees above the horizon. This sun angle at noon on January 21 causes structures, vegetation, and other objects to cast a shadow twice as long as their height. The height of the shade point of a structure on the shade restricted lot is limited to nineteen feet (191) at the �' DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 16 j� fifteen foot (151) rear yard zoning setback in order that the } f 11.5 foot high "solar fence" at the north property line of the Shade Restricted Lot is not exceeded. These standards assure that a structure built to the fifteen foot (151) rear yard zoning setback, on the Solar Lot located to the north, will not be shaded more than four feet (41) above grade on its south wall on January 21 at solar noon. Pre -Existing Vegetation: Restricted vegetation (solar unfriendly), which existed when the subdivision was platted is exempt from the provisions of these covenants, conditions and restrictions. Any lot which would be shaded beyond the allowed shade limit by such vegetation shall not be classified as a Solar Lot. Slope Exemption: Any lot with an average finished grade slope along the north -south lot dimension greater than ten percent (10%) shall be exempt from the terms and conditions of these covenants, conditions and restrictions. Solar Setbacks: Each separate structure and item of restricted vegetation shall have a solar setback dependent on and calculated by its shade point height. All shade restricted lots shall have the following solar setback: Solar Setback (in feet) = (Shade Point Height (in feet) - 11.51] x 2. Table 1 below shows a few examples of solar setbacks for given shade point heights: TABLE 1 SOLAR SETBACKS REQUIRED FOR A GIVEN SHADE POINT HEIGHT Shade Point Solar Height Setback 10' 0' 15' 7' 20' 17' 25' 27' 30' 37' Solar Friendly Vegetation: Certain vegetation is considered "solar friendly" and is not restricted in regards to location on individual lots. Such vegetation is deciduous, dropping its leaves during early fall and regaining them during late spring. Such vegetation also has sparse branching which allows a high level of sunlight to penetrate through. This growth cycle produces shading during summer but allows sun to penetrate during winter. A list of acceptable solar friendly trees is maintained by the Boise City Public Works and the Community Planning and Development Departments. DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 17 i".. 17. Solar Access Rights, Duties and Responsibilities: 1 1 Solar Access Rights: The owner(s) of solar lots shall have a right to unobstructed solar access in accordance with these covenants, conditions and restrictions. Solar Access Duties: The owner(s) of any lot shall not build, install, or otherwise allow a structure or non solar friendly tree on that lot to cast more shade at their solar lot line than permitted under these solar access covenants, restrictions and conditions. 18. General Covenants: Occupancy Limitations: No dwelling or residence on any Lot or other property area created under any Supplemental Declaration shall be used for living purposes by more persons that it was designed to accommodate comfortably. Maintenance of Property: All property within the Subdivision and all improvements on any such property shall be kept and maintained by the Owner thereof in a clean, safe, attractive, and sightly condition and in good repair. No Hazardous Activities: No activities shall be conducted on any property within the Subdivision and no improvements constructed on any such property which are or might be unsafe or hazardous to any person or property. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, no firearms shall be discharged upon such property; and no open fires shall be lighted or permitted on such property except in a self-contained barbecue unit while attended and in use for cooking purposes or within a safe and well-designed interior fireplace. Vehicles and Equipment Parking: No campers, recreational vehicles, trailers, boats, motorcycles, snowmobiles, snow removal equipment, golf carts, or similar equipment or vehicles, except those owned and/or leased by the Owner and for the personal use of the Owner and/or his family, shall be kept or stored upon any Lot. Such vehicles or equipment shall not be parked on any street, nor shall they be parked or stored in the area between the front plane of the dwelling unit or street. Such vehicles or equipment as permitted hereunder shall be appropriately screened from the street view and by a six foot (61) privacy fence. No working or commercial vehicles larger than three-quarter (3/4) ton, and no junk cars, shall be parked upon any Lot. No outbuilding, pet pen, or any other unsightly object, shall be built, stored or parked within twenty (20) feet of the Common Areas. DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 18 No Annoying Lights, Sounds, or Odors: No light 1 shall be emitted from any property within the Subdivision which is unreasonably bright or causes unreasonable glare; no sound shall be emitted on any property which is unreasonably loud or annoying; and no odor shall be emitted on any property which is noxious or offensive to others. Animals: No animals, livestock, pot -belly pigs or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any Lot except that dogs, cats or other household pets excluding pot -belly pigs may be kept, provided that such pets are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purpose. Not more than two (2) dogs, cats or other household pets shall be kept by any individual household; nor shall any domesticated animals be kept which unreasonably bother or constitute a nuisance to other Owners of other Lots. Any such household pets shall be kept on leashes at all times that they are within the Subdivision and outside the boundaries of the pet Owner's Lot. It shall be the obligation of each Owner to control his pet in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Association. In the event an Owner constructs or maintains a kennel upon his Lot, such kennel shall: (a) Be screened from view so as not to be visible from the Common Area or adjacent Lots; not within twenty (20) feet. (b) Be located on the Lot in a manner to avoid any endangerment or of nuisance to, adjacent Lot Owners, and be located behind the front plane of the dwelling structure and no closer than ten (10) feet to any building site line; and (c) Be kept in a clean and odor -free manner. Other Restrictions for Additional Areas: Grantor, by any Supplemental Declaration, may impose other restrictions or alter these restrictions as to the property within the Subdivision or property to be added to the Subdivision hereafter. Construction Period Exception: During the course of actual construction of any permitted structures or improvements, the restrictions contained in this Declaration or in any Supplemental Declaration shall be deemed waived to the extent necessary to permit such construction and provided that, during the course of such construction, nothing is done which will result in a violation of these restrictions upon completion of construction. Exterior Antennas: No outside television antennas, satellite dishes, radio aerials, or similar devices or DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 19 structures shall be installed on any Lot or the exterior of any J structure located thereon. Mailbox Post: Mailbox post shall be provided for by the developer. Any replacement mailbox shall be approved by the Association. 19. Term of Restrictions: These restrictions shall run with the land described herein, and shall be binding upon the parties hereto and all successors in title or interest to said real property or any part thereof, twenty (20) years from the date of recordation in Ada County, Idaho, at which time said restrictions shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years unless the then Owner or then Owners of the legal title to not less than two-thirds of the platted residence tracts or platted Lots, or building sites by an instrument or instruments in writing, duly signed and acknowledged by them, shall then terminate or become effective upon the filing of such instrument or instruments for record in the office of the Recorder of Ada County, Idaho. Such instrument or instruments shall contain proper references by volume and page numbers to the records of the plats and record of this deed in which these Restrictions are set forth, and all amendments thereof. 20. Reserved Easements: The Grantor, for itself, its licensees and assigns, does hereby reserve all right, title and interest in, and full power to vacate and relocate by instrument filed of record in platted land in Grantor's name, a right-of=way and easement for installation, maintenance, and operation of utilities of any type and drainage and all incidences and appurtenances thereof, over, on and across the above-described real property as shown on the plat or reserved in any deed of Grantor, together with all rights of ingress and egress necessary for the full and complete use, occupation and enjoyment of the easement hereby reserved, and all rights, and privileges incident thereto, including the right from time to time to cut, trim and remove trees, brush, overhanging branches and other obstructions which may injure or interfere with the use, occupation or enjoyment of the reserved easement and the operation, maintenance and repair of the electrical, telephone or other utility system. Grantor further reserves to itself, its licensees, successors and assigns, the right and power to locate new, or to vacate and relocate any existing street or easement herein platted, as long as the Grantor owns each of the parcels which are adjacent to such street or easement and provides an adequate roadway in place of any vacated as may be required for ingress or egress by adjacent Lot. Provided, nevertheless, vacations and relocations DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 20 of easements, rights-of-way and streets allowed hereunder shall be made in accordance with the minimum standards of the State of Idaho, Ada County, Idaho, laws, ordinances and regulations thereunder in relation to improvements, and shall be effected only by instrument duly filed of record in said Ada County. Owner waives any right which he may have by statute or otherwise to object to any vacancies, relocations, vacations and dedications effected by Grantor in accordance with the provisions of this section. ARTICLE VII Association Membership and Voting Rights Section 1. Every Owner of a Lot shall be a member of the Association. Membership shall be appurtenant to and may not be separated from ownership of any Lot. Section 2. The Association shall have two (2) classes of voting membership: Class A: The Class A members shall be all Owners, with the exception of the Declarant (during the period when the Declarant is a Class B member). Each Class A member shall be entitled to one (1) vote for each Lot owned. When more than one (1) person holds an interest in any Lot, all such persons shall be members. The vote for such Lot shall be exercised as they determine, but in no event shall more than one (1) vote be cast with respect to any Lot. Class B: The sole Class B member shall be the Declarant, who shall be entitled to three (3) votes for each Lot owned. The Class B membership shall cease and be automatically converted to Class A memberships (one Class A membership for each Lot owned) upon the happening of either one of the following events, whichever occurs earlier: (a) When the total votes outstanding within all of the Subdivision Units, in Class A memberships exceed the total votes outstanding in the Class B membership; or (b) On May 1, 2014. ARTICLE VIII Covenant For Assessments Section 1. Creation of the Lien and Personal Obligation of Assessments. The Declarant, for each Lot owned within the Property, hereby covenants, and each Owner of any Lot by acceptance of a deed thereof, whether or not it shall be so DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 21 expressed in such deed, is deemed to covenant and agrees to pay tot he Association: (a) Annual assessments or charges; and (b) Special assessments; Such assessments to be established and collected as hereinafter provided. The annual and special assessments, together with interest, costs of collection and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in collection, shall be a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon the Lot against which each such assessment is made. Each such assessment, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees, shall also be the personal obligation of the person who was the Owner of such Lot at the time when the assessment fell due. The personal obligation for delinquent assessments shall not pass to his successors in title unless expressly assumed by them, but unpaid assessments shall constitute a continuing lien against the Lot until paid. Section 2. Purpose of Assessments. The assessments levied by the Association shall be used exclusively to promote the recreation, health, safety and welfare of the residents in the Project, and to pay all authorized Association expenses, including but not limited to the improvement and maintenance of the Common Area and Common Facilities. Section 3. Annual Assessment. Until there is a conveyance of the first Lot by Declarant to an Owner, there shall be no assessments on the Lots in this Subdivision. It is also understood that Declarant and Grantor are exempt from paying any assessment on Lots which Declarant or Grantor owns unless said Lots are in use and occupied. Upon the sale of each Lot, after the residence has been built thereon, and prior to Owner moving in, Owner must make a one hundred dollar ($100.00) assessment payment to the Association. Thereafter, the amount of assessment shall be determined by the Board of Directors of the Association, taking into consideration the needs of the Association as from time to time they may exist. (a) For the calendar year beginning January 1, immediately following the conveyance of the first Lot to an Owner, the maximum annual assessment may be increased effective as of January 1 (and each year thereafter) by action of the Board of Directors of the Association without a vote of the membership, in an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the prior year's assessment. It is understood that the first year's assessment for the Association is one hundred dollars ($100.00) per Lot. DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 22 �. (b) For the calendar year beginning January 1, immediately following the conveyance of the first Lot to an Owner, or any subsequent year, the maximum annual assessment may be increased in excess of the amount set forth in subsection (1), hereinabove, only by a vote of the members of the homeowners' association. Any such increase shall have the assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the total votes of members who are voting in person or by proxy at a meeting duly called for the purpose. The limitations hereof shall not apply to any change in the maximum basis of the assessments undertaken as the Association is authorized to participate under its Articles of Incorporation. Section 4. Special Assessments. In addition to the annual assessments authorized above, the Association may levy in any calendar year a special assessment applicable to that year only, for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, the cost of any construction, reconstruction, repair or replacement of capital improvement upon the Common Area, including fixtures and personal property related thereto, or for the defrayal of any other extraordinary Association expense, provided that by such assessment shall have the assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes of members who are voting in person or by proxy at a meeting duly called for this purpose. Section 5. Notice and Quorum for any Action Authorized Under Sections 3 and 4. Written notice of any meeting called for the purpose of taking any action authorized under Sections 3 or 4 of this Article VIII shall be sent to all members not less than thirty (30) days nor more than sixty (60) days in advance of the meeting. At such meeting the presence of members or of proxies entitled to cast fifty percent (50%) of all the votes of each class of membership shall constitute a quorum. If the required quorum is not present, the meeting shall be adjourned and rescheduled for a time and place not less than ten (10) days not more than thirty (30) days subsequent. Written notice of the rescheduled meeting shall be mailed to all members not less than five (5) days in advance of the rescheduled meeting date. The required quorum at the subsequent meetings shall be satisfied by the presence in person or by proxy of twenty-five percent (25%) for each class of membership. No such subsequent meeting shall be held more than sixty (60) days following the preceding meeting. Section 6. Uniform Rate of Assessment. Both annual and special assessments must be fixed at a uniform rate for all Lots and may be collected on a monthly basis (one -twelfth each month), or on a quarterly basis (one-fourth each quarter) as determined by the Association Board of Directors. Section 7. Date of Commencement of Annual Assessments; Due Dates. The annual assessments provided for herein shall DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 23 commence as to all Lots, except those Lots owned by the Grantor, on the first day of the month following the conveyance of the Lot by Grantor. The first annual assessment shall be adjusted (pro rata) according to the number of months remaining in the calendar year. The calendar year shall be the assessment period. The Board of Directors shall fix the amount of the annual assessment at least ten (10) days in advance of each annual assessment period; provided, however, that the first annual assessment shall be fixed by the Board within thirty (30) days of the conveyance of the first Lot by Declarant to an Owner; and provided further than in the event of an assessment proposed in excess of the authority of the Board of Directors. The amount of such assessment in excess of the Board's authority shall not be effective until membership approval. Written notice of the annual assessment shall be sent to every Owner subject thereto. The due dates shall be established by the Board of Directors. The Association shall, upon demand and for a reasonable charge, furnish a certificate signed by an officer of the Association, setting forth whether the assessments on a specified Lot have been paid. A properly executed certificate of the Association as to the status of assessments on a Lot is binding upon the Association as of the date of its issuance. Section 8. Effect of Nonpayment of Assessments; Remedies of the Association. Any assessment not paid within thirty (30) days after the due date shall bear interest from the due date at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum or at such other interest rate as may be established annually by the Board of Directors. Each assessment, when levied, shall automatically constitute a lien on and against the Lot to which the assessment pertains, without any requirement of filing any documentation of such lien. Nonetheless, the Association may file a Claim of Lien evidencing such lien thirty (30) days after the due date of the assessment lien against the Property, in the same manner as provided by law as to statutory liens. No Owner may waive or otherwise escape liability for the assessments provided for herein by non-use of the Common Area or abandonment of his Lot. Section 9. Subordination of the Lien to Mortgages. The lien of the assessments provided for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of any first mortgage provided that such first mortgage is held by a person or entity unrelated to the Lot Owner. Sale or transfer of any Lot shall not affect the assessment lien. However, the sale or transfer of any Lot pursuant to mortgage foreclosure or any proceeding in lieu thereof shall extinguish the lien of such assessments as to payments which became due prior to such sale or transfer. No sale or transfer shall relieve such Lot from liability for any assessment thereafter becoming due or from the lien thereof. DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 24 ARTICLE IX. Section 1. Special Easements, Use Restrictions and Association Authority. The Association shall provide for perpetual maintenance, repair and replacement of all Common Areas, to improvements thereon, located within the Project identified as follows: * Lot 1 Block 1, Lot 1 Block 2, Lot 1 Block 3, Lot 19 Block 4, Lot 1 -]Block 5, Lot 1 Block 6, Lot 1 Block 9, Lot 1 Block 10 as interest landscaping lots. * Lot 14 Block 5, Lot 14 Block 11 as walkways within the Subdivision. * All other Common Area Lots or portions as may be designated on the master plan from subsequent plats yet to be filed or constructed and which may become a part of Brookdale Meadows No. 1 Subdivision and/or a subsequent phase. Section 2. Persons Entitled to Enforce. The provisions of this Declaration may be enforced by any of the following persons or entities in accordance with the procedures outlined herein: (a) The Association; (b) The Owner or Owners of any Lot adversely affected, but only after demand made upon the Association and its failure to act, except that no such Owner shall have the right. -to enforce independently of the Association any assessment or lien herein; (c) The Declarant. Section 3. Methods of Enforcement. Subject to the provisions of Section 4 herein, the following methods of enforcement may be utilized: (a) Legal or equitable action for damages, injunction, abatement, specific performance, foreclosure, rescission, or cancellation of any contracts of any executory nature; (b) Eviction for trespass by police action; (c) Monetary penalties and temporary suspension from. Association membership rights and privileges, in accordance with the Bylaws of the Association, provided that, except for DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 25 r late charges, interest, and other penalties for failure to pay as due assessments levied by the Association as provided in this Declaration, no discipline or sanction shall be effective against a member unless: (1) The member is given fifteen (15) days' written notice of the proposed disciplinary action and a timely opportunity to be heard on the matter. The opportunity to be heard may, at the election of such member, be oral or in writing. The notice shall be given personally to such member or sent by first-class or registered mail to the last address of such member as shown on the records of the Association, and shall state the place, date and time of the hearing, which shall not be less than five (5) days before the effective date of the proposed expulsion, termination, or suspension. (2) The hearing shall be conducted by a committee composed of not less than three (3) persons, appointed by the President of the Association, which shall conduct the hearing in good faith and in a fair and reasonable manner and shall not reach a decision regarding discipline until the conclusion of the meeting. (3) Any member challenging the disciplinary measures taken by the board, including any claim alleging defective notice, must commence Court action within one (1) year after the date of the contested disciplinary measure taken by the Board. Section 4. Limitations on Enforcement. All methods of enforcement and discipline authorized by this Declaration are limited as follows: (a) The Association may not cause a forfeiture or abridgement of an Owner's right to the full use and enjoyment of his individually owned Lot on account of the failure of the Owner to comply with provisions of this Declaration except by judgment of a court or a decision arising out of arbitration or on account of a foreclosure for failure of the Owner to pay annual or special assessments duly levied by the Association. DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 26 (b) A monetary penalty imposed by the Association j as a disciplinary measure for failure of a member to comply with the provisions of this Declaration or as a means of reimbursing the Association for costs incurred by the Association in the repair of damage to the Common Areas for which the member was allegedly responsible, or in bringing the member and his Lot into compliance with this Declaration, may not be treated as an assessment which may become a lien against the members' Lot, enforceable by a sale of the interest. This provision does not apply to charges imposed against an Owner consisting of reasonable late payment penalties for delinquent assessments and for charges to reimburse the Association for the loss of interest and for costs reasonably incurred (including attorneys' fees) in its efforts to collect delinquent assessments. Section 5. Fees and Costs. Any person or the Association entitled to enforce any of the terms hereof by any of the means contained herein, who obtains a decree from any court or arbitrator enforcing any of the provisions hereof, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs incurred or anticipated to be incurred or anticipated to be incurred in remedying or abating the offensive condition as a part of his or its judgment or decree against the party in violation hereof. Section 6. Non -liability for Enforcement or for Non -enforcement. Neither the Architectural Control Committee nor tt the Association shall be liable to any person under any of these l covenants for failure to enforce any of them, for personal injury, loss of life, damage to property, economic detriment, or for any other loss caused either by their enforcement or non -enforcement. Failure to enforce any of the covenants contained herein shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. ARTICLE X. Protection of Mortgagees Section 1. Purpose. Notwithstanding any and all provisions of these covenants to the contrary, to induce the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("FHLMC"), the Governmental National Mortgage Association ("GNMA"), the Federal National Mortgage Association ("FNMA"), the Federal Housing Administration ("FHA") and the Veterans Administration ("VA") to participate in the financing of the purchase of Lots within Brookdale Meadows No. 1 Subdivision ("Brookdale"), the provisions of this Article are added hereto. To the extent the following sections of this Article conflict with any other provisions of these covenants or the provisions of any supplemental covenants, this Article shall control. DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 27 Section 2. Restriction on Amendments. No amendment of these covenants shall operate to defeat or render invalid the rights of a mortgagee or beneficiary under any first mortgage or first deed of trust upon a Lot made in good faith and for value, and recorded prior to the recordation of such amendment, provided that after foreclosure of any such mortgage or deed of trust such Lot shall remain subject to these covenants, as amended. Section 3. Mortgage defined. For the purposes of this Article only, a "Mortgagee" shall refer only to FHLMC, GNMA, FNMA, FHA and VA, as described in Article X, section 1 above. Section 4. Right to Notice. Each Mortgagee, upon filing a written request for notification with the Association in accordance with these covenants is entitled to written notice from the Association of any default by the Owner of the Lot encumbered by the mortgage held by said Mortgagee in the performance of such Owner's obligations under these covenants and under any supplemental covenants applicable to the Lot, the Articles or the Bylaws of the Association (hereafter collectively referred to as "Project Documents") which default is not cured within thirty (30) days after the Association has notice of such default. Section 5. Exemption From Right of First Refusal Every Mortgagee encumbering a Lot which obtains title to a Lot by foreclosure or otherwise shall be exempt from any "right of first refusal," if any, in favor of the Grantor or the Association. Section 6. Exemption From Prior Assessments Each Mortgagee which comes into possession of a Lot by virtue of foreclosure, or otherwise, shall take title to such Lot free from any claims for unpaid assessments and charges against the Lot, which accrue prior to the time such Mortgagee comes into possession, except for claims for a share of such assessments or charges resulting from a re -allocation thereof to all Lots including the mortgaged Lot. Section 7. Changes Requiring Unanimous Approval Without the prior unanimous approval of all Mortgagees of Lots within Brookdale, neither the Association nor the Owners shall: (a) By act or omission see, to abandon, partition, subdivide, encumber, sell or transfer the Common Area or the recreational facilities thereon which are owned, directly or indirectly, by the Association provided, however, that the granting of easements for public utilities or for other public purposes consistent with the intended use of the Common Area by the Association, or the transfer of the Common Area or the recreational facilities located thereon to an unincorporated association of the Owners in accordance with the Articles of the 't, DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 28 Association shall not be deemed a transfer within the meaning of ( this section. Section S. Right to Pay Charges Mortgagees may, jointly or singularly, pay taxes or other charges which are in default and which may or have become a charge against the Common Area and may pay any overdue premiums on hazard insurance policies covering said Common Area, and said Mortgagees making such payments shall be entitled to immediate reimbursement therefor from the Association. Section 9. Liability for Taxes. All taxes levied and assessed on the Common Area must be assessable against the Common Area only and the Association shall be solely responsible for the payment thereof. Section 10. Waiver of Liability and Subrogation Any provision in these covenants which requires Owners to indemnify the Association or other Owners against acts of the indemnitor is subject to the exception that if the liability, damage or injury is covered by any type of insurance and proceeds are actually paid to the insured by reason thereof, the indemnitor is relieved of -liability to the extent of insurance proceeds so paid. Section 11. Additional Contracts. In addition to the foregoing provisions of this Article, the Association may enter r into such contracts and agreements on behalf of the Association as are required in order to satisfy the guidelines of FHLMC, FNMA, GNMA, FHA or VA, or any similar entity, so as to allow for the purchase, guaranty or insurance, as the case may be, by such entity of mortgages encumbering Lots within improvements thereon. Each Owner, as a class of potential mortgage borrowers and potential sellers of their Lots, if such agencies approve Brookdale as a qualifying subdivision under applicable policies, rules and regulations, as adopted from time to time. Section 12. Consent to Release of Information by Mortgagee. Mortgagees are hereby authorized to furnish information to the Association concerning the status of any mortgage encumbering a Lot and each Owner of a Lot encumbered by such Mortgage hereby consents thereto. Section 13. Restricted Application. It is expressly provided that the terms, conditions and provisions of this Article shall not be operative or in force and effect unless and until FHLMC, FNMA, GNMA, FHA or VA purchases, guarantees or insures a mortgage on a Lot within Brookdale and then only to the extent the same are required by said purchaser, guarantor or insurer. In the event the standards and guidelines of FHLMC, FNMA, GNMA, FHA or VA do not require, as a condition of approval �- DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 29 of Brookdale as a qualifying subdivision, the inclusion of one or more of the provisions shall be of no further force or effect. ARTICLE XI General Provisions Section 1. Common Area Title and Improvements The Common Areas shall be conveyed to the Association by Declarant within ninety (90) days of the conveyance of the first Lot in the Project by Declarant to an Owner. Notwithstanding such conveyance, Declarant shall have the right of continuing access to the Common Areas to complete such improvements thereon or thereto as Declarant intends to construct. Section 2. Severability. Invalidation of any one of these covenants or restriction by judgment or court order shall not affect any other provisions hereof, which shall remain in full force and effect. Section 3. Amendment. The covenants and restrictions of this Declaration shall run with and bind the land for a term of twenty (20) years from the date this Declaration is recorded, after which time they shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years unless a document terminating the covenants and restrictions of this Declaration, signed and acknowledged by two-thirds (66.66%) of the then Owners, is recorded in the official records of Ada County, Idaho. THIS Declaration of Protective Restrictions and Covenants of Brookdale Meadows No. 1 Subdivision is executed this day of , 1996. Declarant: STATES INVESTMENT, a general Idaho partnership By "/ A, STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this e30 46- day of , 1996, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public i and fo s d2tgteL personally appeared )k, -44,J ,pC� �E�! �t y„ vti � ►, .,f ', o o me to be one of the partners in the partnership of STATES INVESTMENT DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 30 and the partner who subscribed said partnership name to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in said partnership name. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. DIAAr,�,� jo� NOTARY PUBLIC f .0 Residing at % �4 ' OTA�k ,A % 't' 0, 0 0. My Commission Expires: :!z 0 qu-sqlaw : " R:\Roy,-8roo.CCR B L VC, -" * 00 OF DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS - 31 TlAm (30) copies of the prelimimy Pict with dimensions of not less than 74" x 35", drawn to a scale suitable to insure clarity of all lines, dimensions and other data. Preliminary plats shall include: p „' a. Proper Subdivisloa Name �� f b. Drafting date �C C. Sectional location of plat - County d � d. North arrow d e. Scale of plat (not smallrr than 1" =100') U Na mes, addrCssa and tel ?bwe numbers of owner, subdivider cc subdividers and enguxar, surveyor' or planer who prepared the preliminary plat - g. Statemcat of Wunded use of the proposed subdivision (i.e., reddeatill single-family, two-family Wed multiple hottsiag, commer W, industrial, "=estional or agricuburBQ h. Sites proposed for patios. play, schools, churches or other public Uses IV i. Streets, street names, righta-of-way and roadway v 0 widths, mchrdiag ad]OLOWg streets or Ys T .. C Crry Op MERIDIAN ION PLAT _C- PR1x1.13VIDNARY aN NOT BE PRj� APPI1CA'i'I 11NCOMP sEETB ApPl,1CATION5 MUST BE 5UBM1TT8 D THIRTY (30) DAYS PMOR TO NEXT REGULARLY SCHBDUIED P&.Z MEETNG. pro -application submittal meeting held /tel 30 copies of the completed and executed Tbitty ( ) cop Wit#m application form , Proof of Current owna-Aip of the rel property k4uded in the prejWgnary plat and consent of _ ✓ / recorded ovAi fs Name and address of party to receive billingslcorrespoudcnce Ave-,, iSE �� 37�� Cv87� r"✓1 E W , Legal description of subdivision prepared and sped ✓'' by Registered Land Surveyor TlAm (30) copies of the prelimimy Pict with dimensions of not less than 74" x 35", drawn to a scale suitable to insure clarity of all lines, dimensions and other data. Preliminary plats shall include: p „' a. Proper Subdivisloa Name �� f b. Drafting date �C C. Sectional location of plat - County d � d. North arrow d e. Scale of plat (not smallrr than 1" =100') U Na mes, addrCssa and tel ?bwe numbers of owner, subdivider cc subdividers and enguxar, surveyor' or planer who prepared the preliminary plat - g. Statemcat of Wunded use of the proposed subdivision (i.e., reddeatill single-family, two-family Wed multiple hottsiag, commer W, industrial, "=estional or agricuburBQ h. Sites proposed for patios. play, schools, churches or other public Uses IV i. Streets, street names, righta-of-way and roadway v 0 widths, mchrdiag ad]OLOWg streets or Ys T .. C PRELiMMARY PLAT CHECKLM j. Lot lines and blocks showing- scaled dimensions and wtmbers of each,, L Legend of symbols 1. Minimum residen ial house size M C,oabour lines, shown at 5' intervals where land slope is greeter than 10% and at 2' intovals where land slope is 10% or less, ref6t aced to an established benchmadc� including Incaution and elevatiW n. Any proposed or existing utilities. including, but not limited .to, storm and sanitary sewers, irrigation latmis, diimbes, drainage, bridges, culverts, water mains, fire hydrants, streetlight&, pressurized irrigation and their respeaive profiles o. Any dedications to the public and/or easements together with a statement of location, dimen=ns and purposes of such p. Master stroet drainage plan including method of disposal and approval from the affected drainage district q. Floodplain bouncy as determined by FEMA or measures to amend this boundary r. Stab streets to provide access to adjacent undeveloped 1an,d or existing roadways (block lengths do rat exceed 1,000') s. Cul -cls -sac lengths not is excess of 450' A statement as to whether or not a variance WHI be requested with respect to any p[ on of the Nuance describing ttee paarticalar provision, the variance requested, and the reason therefor f A statement of development features 9. A map of the entire ana sciieduled for development if the proposed subdivision is a portion of a larger holding intended for subsequent devr.3opuaot Page 2of3 COM CENTS/DATE o ✓ D� 44 V�*iv tom, W4,e,#-7.7 �� PRELIMMARY PLAT CHUCKUST rrRM D=IPTIQN Thirty (30) copies of a< vicinity map showing a minimum 1/2 -mile radius from exterior boundaries of plat, including land use and existing aomng of proposed subdivision mud adjacent land (scale optional) Thirty (30) copies of a 1"=300' scale map on 8%* x 11' paper indicating ani adjacent developaest and/or lots of record within 300' of any boundary of the proposed development, with the layout of the proposed development in bold outline. 1 A sta�t of traffic impact on txisting adjacent roadways and intersections + Four (4) sets of coaccptual cn&eering pians, inducting respective profiles 14. Fee Paid - $300.00 + %66 Lots a $10.001L.ot 3 a- certified mailings @ mailing Proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed resfticti A site report for esiablish� of the highest seasonal groundwater elevadoo 17. Other h&mm don as Requestiod by Administrator, City Fa gineer, Ptaaning & Zoning Cion. or City Council APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE DATE: Page 3 of 3 COMMENTS/DATE :-_ss ' 101 N.. ** TOTAL PAGE.03 xo 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 % (south '/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 % 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 89°44'30" E 1,322.27 feet to the northeast corner of the SE Y4 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 /�AS 0305\Subd legal.des 4t Lu -� � � r �i W J rio doiu NOISIARMSy+ -d JS __-r N ;4� � Lti ?O NOIJ,VAMkfo g 4t Lu � � r J �° I I a3 p ° o aoN as °q qp ig b y Ur a=o[) mourn 0 El a interoffice MEMORANDUM To: William G. Berg, Jr. From: Wm. F. Nichol Subject: Observation Point Subdivision File: PP -00-010 Date: August 4, 2000 Will: .p y RECEIVED CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY r.i FRK nFFf('E ,/ Please find attached the original of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT, pursuant to action of the Council at their August 1, 2000 meeting. The Findings will be on the Council's agenda for August 15, 2000 meeting. Please serve conformed copies of the Findings upon the Applicant and the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works and the City Attorney office, if Council approves the Findings. If you have any questions arise please advise. ZAWork\M\Meridian 15360M\Victory 41 AZ PP VAR\Berg08O200PP.Mem July 13, 2000 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 18, 2000 APPLICANT Victory 41, LLC ITEM NO. (? REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 91 building lots and 10 other lots on 40.33 acres for proposed Timber View Subdivision / Observation Pointe in a proposed R-4 zone - 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: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: 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: COMMENTS See recommendations Contacted:Date:�O� Phone:c 2�1 --�—d _ Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. WHITE, PETERSON, PA SS, MORROW & GIGRAY, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW JULIE t. CAGI FIsAY, 11112 200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE BRE F.. JoHNs, III POST OFFICE Box 1150 B1iINT J. Joru�rsox D. SAMUEL JOHNSON MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150 WILLIAM A. MORROW WILLIAM F. McHoLs CHRISTOPHER S. NYE TEL (208) 288-2499 PHILIP A. PRrFRsoN FAX (i08) 288-2501 STEPHEN L. PRuss Eric S. ROSSMAN TODD A. RossMAN DAvro M. S WARTLEY TauuNcER WHITE June 26, 2000 To: Staff Applicant Affected Property Owner(s) Re: Application Case No. PP -00-010 Hearing Date: Lv 5, 2000 NAWA OFFICE 104 N[NTH AvENM SOUTH POST OFFICE BOX 247 NAMPA, IDAHO 83653-0247 TEL. (208) 466-9272 FAX (208) 4664405 PLEASE REPLY To MERIDIAN OFFICE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Staff, Applicant and/or Affected Property Owner(s): Please note that these Findin s and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be presented to the ity Council at the public hearing on the above referenced matter by the Planningand Zoning Administrator. Due to the volume of matters which the City Council must decie, 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 Frepared to state your position on this application by addressing the indings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission; and That you carefully complete (be sure it is le'ble) the Position Statement if You disagree with the Findings andvecommendations 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 a ggrroup, it is strongly recommended that one Position Statement be filled out for the group, wFiich can be signed by the representative for the group. Very truly yours, Mrney' ice IY/ r. BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION, VICTORY 41, LLC, Applicant Case No. PP -00-010 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL 1. The property is approximately 40.33 acres in size and is generally located north of Victory Road east of Meridian Road in Meridian, Idaho. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Victory 41, LLC, Dean and Beverly Peterson of Meridian. 3. The Applicant is owner of record, Meridian, Idaho. 4. The subject property is currently zoned Ada County R -T. However, there is a current application for rezone to Meridian R-4 before the City Council. The zoning of R-4 is defined within the City of Meridian's Zoning and Development Ordinance Section 11-7-2. 5. The proposed site of the subject property is vacant. 6. The subject property is within the city limits of the City of Meridian. 7. 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. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT -OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION 8. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: single family residential subdivision. 9. 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 preliminary plat as requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application, subject to the following: 1.1 There are a couple of variances that will have to be obtained in order for the application to be compliant with City ordinance. Planning and Zoning recommend approval of a variance of a buffer zone west of the property. 1.2 Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the developer re- align the lots on the northern boundary so that they are no less than 100' long on the northern boundary. 1.3 Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the development of Observation Point not be obligated to build a fence if Meridian Greens was approved without a fence requirement in accordance with City Ordinance at the time of approval, then Observation Point should not be obligated to build a fence. Otherwise, they must build the fence in accordance with the city Ordinance. 1.4 Planning and Zoning Commission recommend placement of a stop sign where S. Andross Way running south, meets E. Lake Creek Street for south bound traffic. 1.5 Planning and Zoning Commission recommend following through with a pathway pending City Council's approval of a pathway and also recommend an island at the intersection of S. Andross and E. Lake RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT -OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION Creek Street. Adopt the Planning and Zoning Administrator and Assistant City Engineer Recommendations as follows: 1.6 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. 1.7 Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 1.8 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. 1.9 Provide five -foot -wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance (Ord. 12-5-2.K). 1.10 All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, including sidewalk and pathway slopes, etc. 1.11 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. 1.12 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. 1.13 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 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT -OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION __N1 ^A, designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of the centerline. 1.14 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. 1.15 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. 1.16 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. 1.17 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 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 4 PRELIMINARY PLAT -OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION 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. 1.18 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. 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. 1.19 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. 1.20 Six -foot -high, permanent perimeter fencing shall be required along the south, 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. 1.21 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 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT -OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION 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. 1.22 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). 1.23 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. 1.24 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 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. 1.25 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, RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 6 PRELIMINARY PLAT -OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION it may be placed within the sight triangle. Adopt the Recommendations of the Ada County Highway District as follows: 1.26 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 permits), whichever occurs first. 1.27 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. 1.28 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. 1.29 Extend the existing Andros Way stub street South into the site as proposed. 1.30 Stub Loggers Pass Street to the east property line approximately 240 - feet south of the north property line as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. 1.31 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. 1.32 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. 1.33 Relocate the main entrance from Victory Road or reconstruct the bridge across the Kennedy Lateral. 1.34 Extend Daybreak Avenue to Victory Road approximately 300 -feet west of the east property line. The main entrance shall be designed with 21 - RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 7 PRELIMINARY PLAT -OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION 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. 1.35 Construct a center turn lane on Victory Road for the primary entrance from Victory Road intersection. The turn lane shall be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 1.36 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. 1.37 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. 1.38 Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. 1.39 As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, shall be placed on future development of this parcel. 1.40 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. Adopt the Meridian Fire Department's Recommendations as follows: 1.41 Common areas will need to be kept clean of trash and weeds. 1.42 No parking of vehicles or trailers in cul-de-sac. 1.43 All roads will be installed before building is started with appropriate RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 8 PRELIMINARY PLAT -OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION : street name signs. Adopt the Central District Health Department's Recommendations as follows: 1.44 The Applicant's central sewage and central water plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality. 1.45 Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 1.46 Stormwater shall be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality. 1.47 The Engineers and architects involved with the design of the subject project shall obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that prevents groundwater and surface water degradation. ZAWork\N1\Meridian 15360M\Recommendations\PPlatOlOObserv.rec RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 9 PRELIMINARY PLAT -OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION fil tj Meridian Planning and Z .ng Commission Meeting t ( � June 13, 2000 Page 27 �— street, it will meet the frontage requirements. If it fronts on the east west td/0 doesn't. -��,,� Borup: That is where I have a disagreement with our ordinance. Steve did that answer that for you. Siddoway: Yes and it still is shy by just barely 79 feet and 80 feet is the minimum. 63.67 plus half of the 31.2 which is 79.31 for frontage along that. Borup: It is short .7 feet. You could take that out of lot 5 1 guess if you wanted flexibility. I might just mention a minor thing on item 5, it's a typo mentions what the applicant said they comply with that. They want you to do some landscaping along Victory Road. Can you handle that. Change Victory to Ustick. Commissioner's. Barbeiro: I move we close the public hearing. Norton: Second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: I move that we recommend approval to City Council request for preliminary plat for proposed Wanda's Meadow Subdivision 26 lots on 7.99 acres in an R-4 zone by Robert Glenn to incorporate staff comments with a note that the developer will correct the plat to for lot—with staff comments. Nary: Second. Borup: Lot 5 Block 1 has the wrong square footage. Siddoway: We should also note that staff comments when it has lot and block designations it is based on the old plat and not on this one. Barbeiro: We should include Mr. Siddoway's comment in my motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PROPOSED OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION (FORMALLY TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION) — 91 BUILDABLE LOTS ON 40.33 ACRES BY VICTORY 41, LLC— NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: Meridian Planning and Z.,, ging Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 28 Borup: This application was continued to give the applicant an opportunity to incorporate some of the recommended changes. We talked a little about street alignment and the lot size on the north of the property. Mr. Siddoway. I'd like to open the public hearing. Siddoway: This is Timberview Subdivision now Observation Point located south of Meridian Greens on the north side of east Victory Road. This was the proposed plat and it is not the one that was submitted today. There was no small version that was submitted to us therefore it is not in the presentation tonight. I have not had a chance to do any thorough review of it. I can tell you that they have somewhat snaked that road entrance into where it connects with Meridian Greens, which is one of the requirements. It did provide a stub street to the west although it appears that the grade elevation change location. The lot sizes along the north property line have been increased. They did note on the plat an increase from 1400 sq ft minimum house size to 2100 foot. They still are not providing the mid block pathway connections and the buffer along the western property line adjacent to the nursery and the gravel pit are not shown. That is what I see just glancing at this. Borup: Is the applicant here. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 11283 West Hickory Dale, Boise. I am representing the applicant in this matter. I will hit on the issues that we were asked to go back and make some minor revisions to this drawing. As Steve indicated originally we had 1400 sq ft minimum house size on the plat because that is what the code states is applicable for the 8,000 sq ft. We have increase that to the 2100 square foot as we had stated in the previous hearing. Secondly you asked us since these lots are approximately 100 feet in width along the southern boundary of Meridian Greens. We had consistently 90-92 a few 94's spread out through here. You asked us if we could go in and either drop a lot for find a way to increase the width of these lots to come a little closed to the widths of lots in Meridian Greens. We have increased these lots. They are ranging from 98. I've got a couple of 94's but all of these along here are north boundary are 96's. I've got 100 and then this one is a large flag lot. It does have a 90 foot width but yet the square footage is all most 16,000. That was done by adjusting these lot lines here and the stub street shifted down a little. The other issue, this roadway intercepted with Meridian Greens stub street in a linear fashion. I did a sketch for the commission that we could come in and Y this into this corner radius here, therefore causing the traffic to slow down if they were to go in this direction. ACHD we did consult with them on the radius and how this would interconnect and they did agree with our staff that was appropriate. The other thing we did not show the stub street to the west. We discussed that in depth in the original plan. We finally agreed with the commission that we would go ahead and place that stub street. One of the problems we had is we've got a great difference because this was excavated as a gravel pit in the past. Therefore we had a distance between here and here to place that stub street. ACHD was concerned about putting it directly right here. If I stick it right here then I can't Y this intersection. I had two choices. I have to have a 125 foot centerline offset from here to here to meet ACHD standards. The stub streets is located right here at the edge of the slope. The grade Meridian Planning and 'L,,ding Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 29 difference is not a natural one but a condition that they created on this property. I believe that if we provide the stub street, and it is a public roadway, they are reclaiming that pit they would have to fill to that grade to intersect with that roadway. We are providing that access. It is there responsibility to bring it up to grade. The other two issues was the pedestrian pathway. We submitted a variance application along with our others and are asking for a variance of that pathway due to the excessive grades that we have here and the problem we foresee is safety issues. We would like to take that issue up with the council. It was stated in the past hearing END OF SIDE FOUR Bowcutt: and so that would go along with the variance application for the block lane separation with the pathway. We feel we have satisfied the concerns that the commission had and the last two remaining items are something we will have to deal with at the council. Do you have any questions? Borup: Do we have any one who would like to come forward. Segmiller: My name is Lee Segmiller at 512 E. Whitehall. I would first like to thank the developer and the council for giving us this opportunity to express our concerns are to make the changes that they have made. I am disappointed in seeing that the Y intersection is not a bit more curvy. I am afraid that people will tend to just shoot through it straight without slowing down as we desired. I would like to request a clarification on the roof issue. There was comment made about the quality of the level of the roofs that would be required in this Subdivision since Meridian Greens requires tile or shake. We would want to be sure that the roofs in this new Subdivision would be equal quality. There was some comment made about a 40 year presidential which is a brand name of celitex. I would like to see that put in the application so that is tied down. There was also discussion at the first meeting regarding a fence along the south edge of Meridian Greens and the north edge of this property and I don't know what the status of that was. Those are the comments I have. Borup: Anyone else want to comment on this application. Martinez: My name is Boris Martinez. I live at 521 E. Whilehall Street. I just had a question for the developer. I think at the last meeting we talked about taking one lot and distributing evenly among the others. That is not clear to me that is what happened here so I would like to have some discussion on that issue. Borup: Your right. They did not eliminate a lot. Anyone else. Commissioner's. Did you have any other comments Steve. Miss Bowcutt would you like to come up and address these questions. Bowcutt: What would you like me to address? Meridian Planning and .,ung Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 30 Borup: One was on the roofing. I think you stated previously that was going to be part of their covenants—the 40 year presidential. Bowcutt: I believe Mr. Cavin did indicate that at the last hearing and is still of that opinion. Borup: So you are in agreement with having that on the record that would be part of the covenants. Bowcutt: Yes sir. Borup: The comment of why a lot was not eliminated on the north side. Bowcutt: In the discussions at the past hearing we talked about either eliminating a lot or seeing what could be done to adjust our lots in order to increase the size. We looked at doing that and it was not feasible to keep the larger lots throughout the whole development. Borup: Could you repeat that. Bowcutt: As far as trying to place a lot somewhere else in the development so it remained the same number of lots, we looked at the other blocks to see the feasibility of that. Mr. Cavin and I went through them and based on the shape and topography we could not put a lot in there and still maintain the widths that he believed he needs in order to accommodate the homes of this size. Most of those lots—the widths are either comparable or a little narrower but the depths are deeper. That is why we are getting some bigger square footages as you go through the mid section. That is also the steepest part of the property. One of the things that was discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission was trying to bring these lot widths up to be closer to Meridian Greens. A comment was made to make them the same. Another commissioner commented I don't think we are looking for exactly the same, that is not our intent. We want you to make an effort to get closer to that 100 foot width because we had some 90's up against them and they had some 100's. There was up to a 10 foot difference. What we have done by shifting and making some adjustments, we brought those up to all most all of them are 96's. Two 94's and one that is 100 and 98 and the rest are 96's. Borup: The other question was on the fence. I think you addressed that last time. Bowcutt: There was lengthy discussion on the requirement of fencing. I think I stated on the record, my past experience fencing is mandated when your developing a residential development next to agricultural ground. We have always be required to do the perimeter fencing. I have had developments where if we adjoin an existing development comparable type densities we were not required to install the fencing. I think you asked the question of staff that was you recollection that was how it was applied and I'm not sure if staff clarified it or not. So that one, I guess, we will have to deal with at the council. Meridian Planning and Z, ,ung Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 31 Siddoway: Our recommendation was to match the existing but the question was whether or not that could be required. I don't have good answer for that. Maybe legal council does. Swartley: The ordinance does not address it. You can make the recommendation. I was counting days as your remember the annexation and zoning recommendation was all ready approved at the last meeting. I saw this being continued also so I was trying to figure out where the 45 days were up. All we can do is recommend that. Borup: I think the question came up what is the difference between this and a Subdivision that is phased. I don't see a lot of difference. Siddoway: We do require containment fencing between phases but do not require permanent fencing between phases. Barbeiro: I thought that the pathway was between Forest Ridge and (inaudible). Wasn't that the intent. Bowcutt: Yes between those two roadways. Barbeiro: When we discussed that and did some calculations doing a ADA rise of one and 12 with a five foot or 8 foot stop that essentially amounted to one foot in 20, we did some calculations here last time and found that that slope would allow for the one in 20 with a little build up on the side. I would rather see that there be a pathway between the two in keeping with the ordinance. Bowcutt: I think the discussion was is it practical—your right I think Commissioner Hatcher did calculated the slope. You guys went into a discussion on the practicality with the landings and then we went into discussion about the variance and the block length is an issue for the council because we submitted a variance asking for a waiver for the maximum block line. With the variance application we submitted with this application that you don't see, if the council chooses not to approve that application then we would have to insert the pedestrian pathway as staff recommended to break the block. The variance was submitted with the original application. Barbeiro: Is it possible to place a stop sign at the Y where is comes out of the culdesac. Bowcutt: As it intersects with our roadway system. That is ACHD's determination on stop signs. I don't know why they would be oppose to it. It would be feasible. Barbeiro: I motion we close the public hearing. Nary: Second. Borup: All in favor Meridian Planning and Z, .,ig Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 32 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Discussion? Comments. Concerns. Norton: I am concerned about not taking out a lot on the north side as we requested. In the minutes of May 24th Mr. Siddoway suggested a variance on various other things that are considering regarding block lane, annexing property that is going to be served as the well, a variance with a landscape buffer to make an easement. So there is a variance involved in here that they could do for things that we are not sure about. I am concerned about them not taking a lot out as we asked. And, not making that Y a little bit deeper, but I know that Idaho Smart Growth has some ideas of how to slow down traffic. Some alternative way to slow down that traffic. There is always speed bumps. Commissioner Nary, are you going to be involved in this vote? Nary: I have received the minutes on this but because your talking about things that in reading the minutes on this particular one it appears that was a portion of the motion that was made—hat one lot being removed, but I was not a part of that discussion so I was going to abstain from voting. Siddoway: I have a couple of comments for the record, not related to that block size but one on the variance that was filed, I have not personally seen that variance. I believe that from what Becky just showed me it was only for the block length. There needs to be some revision to that to include these other issues such as the required landscape buffer, etc. They will need to get that revised language in so it can be distributed to the City Council in advance of the meeting. The second thing I'd like to state is that the staff comments really only address requiring the buffer along the area where the gravel pit is. We did not address requiring extending it to the south adjacent to the nursery. I have been contacted by the owner of Victory Greens Nursery who says he's got several other uses on that property approved by Ada County but not ascetically pleasing as the tree holding with the nursery. He has large equipment that he stores back there. He sees just as many potential buffering issues on his lot and maybe more so because his lot is zoned commercial and will remain commercial and could change to some other commercial use in the future. I would like to amend the staff comment requiring that the buffer along the gravel pit to extend down to Victory Road to include that area adjacent to Victory Greens Nursery. Nary: I guess to be fair to the applicant and since I am part of the reason we may have an in pass here I would maybe suggest that the commission considers sending this matter over until commissioner Hatcher can be here. He did hear the prior discussion and did make the previous motion that approved this with some conditions being met which seem to be a contention now. Borup: We going to have a problem getting a second? Nary: I don't know. Meridian Planning and Z'-.,,iing Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 33 Borup: The problem we have is what Mr. Swartley was referencing earlier. Our time frame. Swartley: Commissioner Nary the annexation and zoning application came the same time as the preliminary plat application. The annexation and zoning application was heard on May 24 and it was approved but it's been held. So, from May 24, 45 days and that was what I was counting a moment ago, that application needs to go before City Council by July 12th I think it is. They don't want to hear an annexation and zoning recommendation with out the preliminary plat application. That is the problem we are facing. We could send it over but then I don't know what we would do with the annexation and zoning. Borup: Your saying the annexation and zoning should have been tabled. Swartley: I have not done the recommendation yet because I have not had the application. Borup: I thought we discussed we did not have a time period if we it as long as it wasn't —we have not passed it on to City Council yet. Swartley: But it needs to be passed on within 45 days. Norton: I would be willing to make a motion tonight. Swartley: I would tend to agree with Commissioner Nary's suggestion. Commissioner Hatcher was a very big part of the hearing last time on this application. I think that his input and in site would be quite helpful. I am going to guess that there is a way around that 45 time period. Nary: Mr. Chairman I don't have the ordinance in front of me. Does it require the City Council take approve or deny it in 45 days. Swartley: It has to be heard at City Council. Nary: The City Council could simply set it over. Siddoway: It has been known to me by the applicant that if the commission feels that the not dropping of a lot is a concern, they would be happy to have the recommendation go forward with that recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to drop that lot and then they will just take it up with City Council. Borup: I don't know if the issue was dropping the lot. It was to get the lots to 100 feet wide. Meridian Planning and 2-uning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 34 Barbeiro: The concerns the neighbors had was the adjacent lots in Meridian Greens were 13,200 square feet and the largest lot adjoining there was 12,400. The neighbors wanted to see those lots closer to 13,000 sq ft. Borup: Was it 13,000 or 100 feet width. Barbeiro: Both issues were brought up by the neighbors when Commission Hatcher was making his motion. He deferred to the 100 foot width. Mr. Swarthy we can not address any CTR issues but we can make a recommendation that the developer consider they are without weight. Swartley: Yeah you can do that. It would be a waste of your time. Borup: Are you referring to the roofing? How can that be addressed. Can it be addressed by this commission at all. Swartley: You can make it a part of the record. Your trying to put in it in the CC&R's and we have no control over those. Barbeiro: Steve, the buffer to the west of the property –what was the final analysis. After all the discussion if you wanted to remain with the recommendation. Borup: Maybe we ought to discuss that among the Commissioner's. It has all ready been stated that's in the ordinance that they are going to need to ask for a variance. I think we stated last time the (inaudible) would go to some type of residential use. I have to agree with the applicant on that. I don't see any sense in putting a buffer between what future use is going to be another residential use. Barbeiro: In that case – Borup: Other then a statement in there about –they had talked about each homeowner I mean in have a I can't remember. But rather then having a separate dedicated lot to have some landscaping requirements by the lot owner on something on that line was talked about. Barbeiro: It is going to have to go to a variance with the city then I will go ahead and recommend that the council approve the variance for the buffering. Mr. Chairman I wish to make a motion to recommend approval to City Council request for preliminary plat of proposed Observation Point Subdivision (formally Timber view Subdivision) 91 buildable lots on 40.33 acres by Victory 41, LLC north of Victory and east of Meridian Road with staff comments in that we would recommend approval of the variance of the buffer zone to the west of the property which is of course the opposite of what the staff recommended, that we would recommend to City Council that the developer realign the lots on the north boundary to more approach the 13,000 square feet which we believe dropping one lot may I—let's change it the recommendation that the lots to the north be no less than 100 feet wide along the east Lake Creek Street. That the developer of Meridian Planning and -,jning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 35 Observation Point not be obligated to build the fence on the north side if the ordinance for Meridian Greens was (inaudible) correctly on the assumption that Meridian Greens was required to build that fence upon their build out to this point and if they did follow the ordinance and are in compliance then the developer of Observation Point would be required to build a fence to the north. Borup: How about just stating that any fence on there would be in accordance with City Ordinance. Barbeiro: That would work. Thank you. That we would recommend placing a stop sign where South Andros Way meets East Lake Street and as the develop has requested a variance for the pathway, I would like to keep that in the motion that we follow through with that pathway between the lines until such time as the City Council reviews that variance. Borup: Was there any other verbal staff comments that should be included. Siddoway: There is one new one talking with Joe Roselyn from ACHD that in order for that curb section of the street to function property, there should be an island in the center of it to force people to stay in their lane and not just jump through and cross into other lanes of traffic. Borup: Which street were you talking about now. Is this the same street now the applicant wanted to do last time and ACHD said that they couldn't. Oh a different island, but it is still an island. Maintained by AHCD. Barbeiro: I would add that to the motion that there be a divider there where South Andros and East Lake Creek streets meet. Norton: Instead of the stop sign? Barbeiro: In addition to the stop sign. Norton: Okay, I second that motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED (2) OFFICEMAREHOUSE BUILDINGS ON 4.13 ACRES ZONED I -L BY H&W, INC. —CORNER OF FRANKLIN ROAD AND 10TH STREET: Borup: Mr. Siddoway. � _DIN� CITYxumrrS N 87 1 C R j 124' o f 98' ' 94' 96 96' C �94— ,\3 - 11 13688.3`sf- - 13 12 110 - 14 11656.0 sf 11656.0 sf N t M04.0 sf n 1190# 0 13446.4 ii--- 114 --oc ___ ? • - 82' 94• g4' 96, 6' j 12774.5 E -LQ( -EREEK-- -- -� i sf�`�-$ 15 i - ---�, 6490.6 sf � i 10 - _ 13993 9 f 20 CIO -i 1372.7 sf ^\ - " 11166.3sf rn 15127.3 sf ' 120 Q � 126 axt c_ —\ -------- - -o ---- -� BM9 15975.W,,. 13493.4sf>> Ij - -- - - - - - - -- -- 120' -- , f - 16 22 q-_ ---- - ---6 11280.Dsf 17366.2sf - h ` 15395.1 sf_ -- - \\ 8 -- _ e. NIJ I - _ 23 s4, 13573.9sf ` 24 g j - 15 i# 13180.4 sf i .12816.7sf 12427.5sf 141987sf _ 1,3 ' ' | | ! THE UNIT NO. (ZONING R4) 96o 96' 11904.0 sf - 7, ! -I! 11904.0 4, -^ -' `-- ` - 96' 60 11904.0 sf ` ` ! \ \ | CRY UMIT5 onf�� = - —`�- � ___� I- LME CREEK STREET 120' 12W.6sf 12 11 CY3 2699 6sf W. 4 124O`.3 ' | \ \ \ | L | � N MY UMITS ., � ' 96'(�u.v 11904.0 sf 11904.0 sf 49"$f 11904.0 isf, 12421,3 sf E. LAKE CREEK STREET 120' 12268.3 sf 15 12W.6sf 15 114644.0 f � \` \� SIT 11 160.osf� 60, 5C. 63439.2sf 34 -._--_ HILLTOP' -731 96 96' 96' --- 77.3sf 'sf 14 14343. 122 ', use `. \\ 13699.3sf �' ~ CE' -- —WEII\ \ \3054.BsX\ 11SHfQ� 15761.4sf ♦ � �— � — $LOCK4 \. tab' 108' 127' ~\ 731.4sf off' 1609. '� - _ 15785.9s1 10 ' 18413.3sf� 16615.1 sf - - _ \� 118' 8 119' 25' 0 93 ,1,08 — OBSERVATION o ARIVE - 2 all _ BLOCK 5. g��, - 164^ _. 4717.7 sf - ----- N'-__-- --_— _ co Q ` -1320. _ _ -- ----- _ ----- P_-__._- - - - -E'_ VICTORY 7 -ROAD- ---,b-'�— 21- ----------- __ OP 120 180 Ddu Cottn1V,_1qiq4u_1aV 'ZV,t,iCt " J' " """ "J""" 318 East 37th Street Dave 13ivens, Vice President Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499 Marlyss Meyer, Secretary Phone (208) 387-6100 Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner Fax (208) 387-6391 Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner E-mail: tellus@achd.ada.id.us May 16, 2000 RWErVED TO: Victory 41, L.L.C. M AY 1 9 2000 6874 Fairview Ave. C OF MERIDIAN Boise, ID 83704 FROM: Steve Arnold, Principal Development Analyst Planning & Development SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat: Timber View/MAZ-00-010/MPP-00-010 North of Victory Road and East of Meridian Road On May 10, 2000, the Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District (hereafter called "District") took action on the preliminary Plat as stated on the attached staff report. In order that the Final Plat may be considered by the District for acceptance, the Developer shall cause the following applicable standard conditions to be satisfied prior to District certification and endorsement: 1. Drainage plans shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District. 2. If public street improvements are required: Prior to any construction within the existing or proposed public right-of-way, the following shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District. a. Three complete sets of detailed street construction drawings prepared by an Idaho registered professional Engineer. b. Execute and Inspection Agreement between the Developer and the District together with initial payment deposit for inspection and/or testing services. C. Complete all street improvements to the satisfaction of the District, or execute a Surety Agreement between the Developer and the District to guarantee the completion of the construction of all required street improvements. 3. Furnish a copy of the Final Plat showing street names as approved by the Local Government Agency having such authority to ether with the payment of fee charged for the manufacturing and installation of all street signs. 2 4. If Public Right -of -Way Trust Fund deposit is required, make the deposit to the District in the form of cash or cashier's check for the amount specified by the District. 5. Furnish easements, agreements and all other datum or documents as required by the District. 6. Furnish Final Plat drawings together with the plat and plan review fees for District acceptance and endorsement. The final plat must contain the signed endorsement of the Owner and the Land Surveyor's certification. 7. All of the material must be submitted to District staff two -weeks prior to Commission review of the final plat. 8. Approval of the plat is valid for one year. The Commission will consider an extension of one year if requested within 15 -days prior to the expiration date. Please contact me at (208) 387-6170, should you have any questions. Cc: Planning & Development Chron/File Planning & Development Services -City of Meridian Construction Services — John Edney Drainage- Chuck Rinaldi Dean and Beverly Peterson 780 E. Victory Meridian, ID 83642 StanMcHutchison Briggs Engineering, Inc. 1800 W. Overland Road Boise, ID 83705 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 ACHD Commission Date — May 10, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. TINIBERVIEW.cmin Pa, -,e 1 'RT R� R1 AT AT AT R1 M AT --- N 1000 D 1000 2000 Feet \ I BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION REVISION BRIGGS PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3N., R.IE., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO SHEET (208) 344-9700 1 OF 1 1800 W. OVERLAND ROAD DESIGN DRAFT SCALEDATE DWG. NO. BOISE. IDAHO 63705 BKB 1" = 1000' 03r29/00 990617 0305 APR AT N 4 M SAN NS E "tTEMALL ST c 3 g 0 MERIDIAN CITY LIM S BOUNDARY 1414 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4. g B OCK LOCK 13 E. LAKE CREEK STREET 1 2 . qw 12 Q 18 20 10 11 12 v 15 1 z 3 BOCK 2 Z E. LOGGERS PASS STREET 9 13 2 Q 11 O 17 21 w LOC 5 14 YY 34 Nws W LOCK 16 22 N ��/ 7 6 3 } 33 S 23 6R 5 4 8 9 15 14 13 24 25 C,S, O�VE vi 32 E 8 12 26 27 28 29 30 11 LOCK 31 \ 7 20 19 10 9 8 O�S 7 18 6 6 B40CT 5 17 RIpGE DRIVE w 4. 2 16 S 5 � 3 1514 13 12 B OCK 6 4 5 7 8 9 10 c 3 5 qy C 2 4 W Q�)BSERVATICDRIVE 2 5 1 BLO 2 E. VICTORY ROAD Q vi N RT 300 0 300 600 Feet RT BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION REVISION BRIGGS PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3N., RAE., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO SHEET (208) 344-9700 1 OF 1 1800 W. OVERLAND ROAD . BOISE, IDAHO 83705 DESIGN DRAFT BKS SCALE 1••=.300' DATE 03r29r00 DWG. NO. 990617 .\0305. APR n 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 JAZ) 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 xvith 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 TINIBERVI ENV.cmm Pa,C 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. Tile 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 2l -foot street sections on either side of a center media. The median should be constructed a nlirlinlunl of 4 -feet wide to total a 111111111111111 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. TINIBERVIEW.cmun Pa -e 1. 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 -.-Io 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 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. K. District policy requires the applicant to constrict 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 permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right- of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #193. 2. 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 Nvith 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. TIiMBERVIEW.cmm Paze 4 Stub Loggers Pass Street to the east property line approximately 240 -feet south of the north property line as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. 6. 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. Constrict 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. Constrict 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. Tile 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. 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. TIN1BERVI EW.cnuu P'J o e Standard Requirements: A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall specifically identifv each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of why such a requirement would result in a substantial hardship or inequity. The written request shall be submitted to the District no later than 9.00 a m on the day scheduled for ACHD Commission action Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original decision. The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. 3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance +193, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 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-S00-342-1555) at least two full business days prior to breaking around within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 30-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. TINIBERVIEW.cmm Pa -e 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 confirmation 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 rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject propefty 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: Planninc and Development Staff Mav 10, 2000 TIMBERVIEW.cnim Page 7 Mayor ROBERT D. CORRIE City Council Members CHARLES ROUNTREE GLENN BENTLEY RON ANDERSON KEITH BIRD MEMORANDUM: HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY I-,- 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 (208)288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • Faz 887-1297 V May 3, 2000 City of Meridian City Clerk Offic:: From: Steve Siddoway, Planner �/ Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Techniciais� 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 -00.010, PP -00-010 Timber Vie .AZ.PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&""A' 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 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.ALPP.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 -00-010, PP -00-010 Tunber View.AZPP.dce Mayor, Council and P&.' May 3, 2000 Page 4 7. A 20 -foot wide minimum landscape buffer, beyond the required ACRD 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 View.AZPP.d. 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 `/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. 2.1U 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 Timber View.AZ.PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&T' 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. Housin 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. Communitv 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 -00.010, PP -00.010 Timber View .AZ.PP.doc MAYOR �-• KUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Robert D. Come A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT CITY COUNCIL CITYOF MERIDIAN `208' 28.Fax 288-2501 MEMBERS Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT Keith Bird NIERIDIAN, 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: PP -00-010 REQUEST: 40.33 ACRES 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) YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: V_')L/ -yy yU B? ,v j7�•�! 1.a,f) s{,� 1(� C-0, I S [�c<r r•� s BECK 81RUTT PLANNING SERVICES 11283 W. Hickory Dale Drive, Base, ID 83713 Phone 484-3904 or Home Phone 37&-8713 �E CITY OF MERIDIAN May 09, 2000 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: I. The applicant agrees. 2. The applicant agrees. 3. The applicant will comply. 4. The applicant agrees. PRELIl4IDVARY 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 2040 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. 5. 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 well will be abandoned. A irrigation well is located on the parcel which may be utilized as a secondary source for the pressure irrigation system. PRELIMINARY PLAT SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS; 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 few 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. 5. 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 I . j 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 eliminates 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 \ X� E WHITEHALL ST E. VICTORY ROAD RT 1 } 300 0 300 600 Feet RT BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION REVISION BRIGGS 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 BOISE. IDAHO 83705 DWG. NO. 8KB 1"= 300' 1 03/29/00 1 990617 10305.APR MERIDIAN CITY LIM S BOUNDARY 14 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 B OCK LOCK 13 ` E LAKE CREEK STREET `1 2 12, }Q 18 20 Q. ' 10 1112 15 77 1 B OCK 2Z wj E. LOGGERS PASS STREET 11 Q 17 21 w 9 13 8 LOC 5 14 2 Q 34 10 dz 16 22M F,� 7 3 cr LOCK 6 23 6 5 m 33 4 9- 15 14' 2d Cly p 25 ai 32 8 13 12 E 26 .' 27 28 29' . 11 " LOCK 30 31 7 20 19 10 9 F 8. 18 7 6 6 B40C 17 E 5 2 pRIVI; to 4 5 S ,� 3 16 15 14 1$ CK 7 O'QQS q B OCK 6 3 5 �9}- 5 7 8. 9 10 r 3 2 4 w j �SERVA77CmRNE Q 2 5 1- BLOCK 2 f - E. VICTORY ROAD RT 1 } 300 0 300 600 Feet RT BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION REVISION BRIGGS 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 BOISE. IDAHO 83705 DWG. NO. 8KB 1"= 300' 1 03/29/00 1 990617 10305.APR 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 -. ning 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 L'-.., iing 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 Ih Meridian Planning and L,iing 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 -oing 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 z_,iing 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. 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 2-vning 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 -. ring 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 /'_",iing 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 Zu, ging 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. it Meridian Planning and `_ging 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 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. Debenhams 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 —ging 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 --ring 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 Z'_,,oing 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 z-uning 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 2 -,-ting 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 L..jiing 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'-- ging 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 ening 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 /_,,, ging 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 z ping 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 z ping 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 z ping 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 z 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 Luning 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 _„ding 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 street, it will meet the frontage requirements. If it fronts on the east west street it doesn't. Borup: That is where I have a disagreement with our ordinance. Steve did that answer that for you. Siddoway: Yes and it still is shy by just barely 79 feet and 80 feet is the minimum. 63.67 plus half of the 31.2 which is 79.31 for frontage along that. Borup: It is short .7 feet. You could take that out of lot 5 1 guess if you wanted flexibility. I might just mention a minor thing on item 5, it's a typo mentions what the applicant said they comply with that. They want you to do some landscaping along Victory Road. Can you handle that. Change Victory to Ustick. Commissioner's. Barbeiro: I move we close the public hearing. Norton: Second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: I move that we recommend approval to City Council request for preliminary plat for proposed Wanda's Meadow Subdivision 26 lots on 7.99 acres in an R-4 zone by Robert Glenn to incorporate staff comments with a note that the developer will correct the plat to for lot—with staff comments. Nary: Second. Borup: Lot 5 Block 1 has the wrong square footage. Siddoway: We should also note that staff comments when it has lot and block designations it is based on the old plat and not on this one. Barbeiro: We should include Mr. Siddoway's comment in my motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PROPOSED OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION (FORMALLY TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION) – 91 BUILDABLE LOTS ON 40.33 ACRES BY VICTORY 41, LLC— NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: Borup: This application was continued to give the applicant an opportunity to incorporate some of the recommended changes. We talked a little about street alignment and the lot size on the north of the property. Mr. Siddoway. I'd like to open the public hearing. Siddoway: This is Timberview Subdivision now Observation Point located south of Meridian Greens on the north side of east Victory Road. This was the proposed plat and it is not the one that was submitted today. There was no small version that was submitted to us therefore it is not in the presentation tonight. I have not had a chance to do any thorough review of it. I can tell you that they have somewhat snaked that road entrance into where it connects with Meridian Greens, which is one of the requirements. It did provide a stub street to the west although it appears that the grade elevation change location. The lot sizes along the north property line have been increased. They did note on the plat an increase from 1400 sq ft minimum house size to 2100 foot. They still are not providing the mid block pathway connections and the buffer along the western property line adjacent to the nursery and the gravel pit are not shown. That is what I see just glancing at this. Borup: Is the applicant here. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 11283 West Hickory Dale, Boise. I am representing the applicant in this matter. I will hit on the issues that we were asked to go back and make some minor revisions to this drawing. As Steve indicated originally we had 1400 sq ft minimum house size on the plat because that is what the code states is applicable for the 8,000 sq ft. We have increase that to the 2100 square foot as we had stated in the previous hearing. Secondly you asked us since these lots are approximately 100 feet in width along the southern boundary of Meridian Greens. We had consistently 90-92 a few 94's spread out through here. You asked us if we could go in and either drop a lot for find a way to increase the width of these lots to come a little closed to the widths of lots in Meridian Greens. We have increased these lots. They are ranging from 98. I've got a couple of 94's but all of these along here are north boundary are 96's. I've got 100 and then this one is a large flag lot. It does have a 90 foot width but yet the square footage is all most 16,000. That was done by adjusting these lot lines here and the stub street shifted down a little. The other issue, this roadway intercepted with Meridian Greens stub street in a linear fashion. I did a sketch for the commission that we could come in and Y this into this corner radius here, therefore causing the traffic to slow down if they were to go in this direction. ACHD we did consult with them on the radius and how this would interconnect and they did agree with our staff that was appropriate. The other thing we did not show the stub street to the west. We discussed that in depth in the original plan. We finally agreed with the commission that we would go ahead and place that stub street. One of the problems we had is we've got a great difference because this was excavated as a gravel pit in the past. Therefore we had a distance between here and here to place that stub street. ACHD was concerned about putting it directly right here. If I stick it right here then I can't Y this intersection. I had two choices. I have to have a 125 foot centerline offset from here to here to meet ACHD standards. The stub streets is located right here at the edge of the slope. The grade difference is not a natural one but a condition that they created on this property. I believe that if we provide the stub street, and it is a public roadway, they are reclaiming that pit they would have to fill to that grade to intersect with that roadway. We are providing that access. It is there responsibility to bring it up to grade. The other two issues was the pedestrian pathway. We submitted a variance application along with our others and are asking for a variance of that pathway due to the excessive grades that we have here and the problem we foresee is safety issues. We would like to take that issue up with the council. It was stated in the past hearing END OF SIDE FOUR Bowcutt: and so that would go along with the variance application for the block lane separation with the pathway. We feel we have satisfied the concerns that the commission had and the last two remaining items are something we will have to deal with at the council. Do you have any questions? Borup: Do we have any one who would like to come forward. Segmiller: My name is Lee Segmiller at 512 E. Whitehall. I would first like to thank the developer and the council for giving us this opportunity to express our concerns are to make the changes that they have made. I am disappointed in seeing that the Y intersection is not a bit more curvy. I am afraid that people will tend to just shoot through it straight without slowing down as we desired. I would like to request a clarification on the roof issue. There was comment made about the quality of the level of the roofs that would be required in this Subdivision since Meridian Greens requires tile or shake. We would want to be sure that the roofs in this new Subdivision would be equal quality. There was some comment made about a 40 year presidential which is a brand name of celitex. I would like to see that put in the application so that is tied down. There was also discussion at the first meeting regarding a fence along the south edge of Meridian Greens and the north edge of this property and I don't know what the status of that was. Those are the comments I have. Borup: Anyone else want to comment on this application. Martinez: My name is Boris Martinez. I live at 521 E. Whilehall Street. I just had a question for the developer. I think at the last meeting we talked about taking one lot and distributing evenly among the others. That is not clear to me that is what happened here so I would like to have some discussion on that issue. Borup: Your right. They did not eliminate a lot. Anyone else. Commissioner's. Did you have any other comments Steve. Miss Bowcutt would you like to come up and address these questions. Bowcutt: What would you like me to address? Borup: One was on the roofing. I think you stated previously that was going to be part of their covenants—the 40 year presidential. Bowcutt: I believe Mr. Cavin did indicate that at the last hearing and is still of that opinion. Borup: So you are in agreement with having that on the record that would be part of the covenants. Bowcutt: Yes sir. Borup: The comment of why a lot was not eliminated on the north side. Bowcutt: In the discussions at the past hearing we talked about either eliminating a lot or seeing what could be done to adjust our lots in order to increase the size. We looked at doing that and it was not feasible to keep the larger lots throughout the whole development. Borup: Could you repeat that Bowcutt: As far as trying to place a lot somewhere else in the development so it remained the same number of lots, we looked at the other blocks to see the feasibility of that. Mr. Cavin and I went through them and based on the shape and topography we could not put a lot in there and still maintain the widths that he believed he needs in order to accommodate the homes of this size. Most of those lots—the widths are either comparable or a little narrower but the depths are deeper. That is why we are getting some bigger square footages as you go through the mid section. That is also the steepest part of the property. One of the things that was discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission was trying to bring these lot widths up to be closer to Meridian Greens. A comment was made to make them the same. Another commissioner commented I don't think we are looking for exactly the same, that is not our intent. We want you to make an effort to get closer to that 100 foot width because we had some 90's up against them and they had some 100's. There was up to a 10 foot difference. What we have done by shifting and making some adjustments, we brought those up to all most all of them are 96's. Two 94's and one that is 100 and 98 and the rest are 96's. Borup: The other question was on the fence. I think you addressed that last time. Bowcutt: There was lengthy discussion on the requirement of fencing. I think I stated on the record, my past experience fencing is mandated when your developing a residential development next to agricultural ground. We have always be required to do the perimeter fencing. I have had developments where if we adjoin an existing development comparable type densities we were not required to install the fencing. I think you asked the question of staff that was you recollection that was how it was applied and I'm not sure if staff clarified it or not. So that one, I guess, we will have to deal with at the council. Siddoway: Our recommendation was to match the existing but the question was whether or not that could be required. I don't have good answer for that. Maybe legal council does. Swartley: The ordinance does not address it. You can make the recommendation. I was counting days as your remember the annexation and zoning recommendation was all ready approved at the last meeting. I saw this being continued also so I was trying to figure out where the 45 days were up. All we can do is recommend that. Borup: I think the question came up what is the difference between this and a Subdivision that is phased. I don't see a lot of difference. Siddoway: We do require containment fencing between phases but do not require permanent fencing between phases. Barbeiro: I thought that the pathway was between Forest Ridge and (inaudible). Wasn't that the intent. Bowcutt: Yes between those two roadways Barbeiro: When we discussed that and did some calculations doing a ADA rise of one and 12 with a five foot or 8 foot stop that essentially amounted to one foot in 20, we did some calculations here last time and found that that slope would allow for the one in 20 with a little build up on the side. I would rather see that there be a pathway between the two in keeping with the ordinance. Bowcutt: I think the discussion was is it practical—your right I think Commissioner Hatcher did calculated the slope. You guys went into a discussion on the practicality with the landings and then we went into discussion about the variance and the block length is an issue for the council because we submitted a variance asking for a waiver for the maximum block line. With the variance application we submitted with this application that you don't see, if the council chooses not to approve that application then we would have to insert the pedestrian pathway as staff recommended to break the block. The variance was submitted with the original application. Barbeiro: Is it possible to place a stop sign at the Y where is comes out of the culdesac. Bowcutt: As it intersects with our roadway system. That is ACHD's determination on stop signs. I don't know why they would be oppose to it. It would be feasible. Barbeiro: I motion we close the public hearing. Nary: Second. Borup: All in favor MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Discussion? Comments. Concerns. Norton: I am concerned about not taking out a lot on the north side as we requested. In the minutes of May 24th Mr. Siddoway suggested a variance on various other things that are considering regarding block lane, annexing property that is going to be served as the well, a variance with a landscape buffer to make an easement. So there is a variance involved in here that they could do for things that we are not sure about. I am concerned about them not taking a lot out as we asked. And, not making that Y a little bit deeper, but I know that Idaho Smart Growth has some ideas of how to slow down traffic. Some alternative way to slow down that traffic. There is always speed bumps. Commissioner Nary, are you going to be involved in this vote? Nary: I have received the minutes on this but because your talking about things that in reading the minutes on this particular one it appears that was a portion of the motion that was made --hat one lot being removed, but I was not a part of that discussion so I was going to abstain from voting. Siddoway: I have a couple of comments for the record, not related to that block size but one on the variance that was filed, I have not personally seen that variance. I believe that from what Becky just showed me it was only for the block length. There needs to be some revision to that to include these other issues such as the required landscape buffer, etc. They will need to get that revised language in so it can be distributed to the City Council in advance of the meeting. The second thing I'd like to state is that the staff comments really only address requiring the buffer along the area where the gravel pit is. We did not address requiring extending it to the south adjacent to the nursery. I have been contacted by the owner of Victory Greens Nursery who says he's got several other uses on that property approved by Ada County but not ascetically pleasing as the tree holding with the nursery. He has large equipment that he stores back there. He sees just as many potential buffering issues on his lot and maybe more so because his lot is zoned commercial and will remain commercial and could change to some other commercial use in the future. I would like to amend the staff comment requiring that the buffer along the gravel pit to extend down to Victory Road to include that area adjacent to Victory Greens Nursery. Nary: I guess to be fair to the applicant and since I am part of the reason we may have an in pass here I would maybe suggest that the commission considers sending this matter over until commissioner Hatcher can be here. He did hear the prior discussion and did make the previous motion that approved this with some conditions being met which seem to be a contention now. Borup: We going to have a problem getting a second? Nary: I don't know. Borup: The problem we have is what Mr. Swartley was referencing earlier. Our time frame. Swartley: Commissioner Nary the annexation and zoning application came the same time as the preliminary plat application. The annexation and zoning application was heard on May 24 and it was approved but it's been held. So, from May 24, 45 days and that was what I was counting a moment ago, that application needs to go before City Council by July 12th I think it is. They don't want to hear an annexation and zoning recommendation with out the preliminary plat application. That is the problem we are facing. We could send it over but then I don't know what we would do with the annexation and zoning. Borup: Your saying the annexation and zoning should have been tabled. Swartley: I have not done the recommendation yet because I have not had the application. Borup: I thought we discussed we did not have a time period if we it as long as it wasn't —we have not passed it on to City Council yet. Swartley: But it needs to be passed on within 45 days. Norton: I would be willing to make a motion tonight. Swartley: I would tend to agree with Commissioner Nary's suggestion. Commissioner Hatcher was a very big part of the hearing last time on this application. I think that his input and in site would be quite helpful. I am going to guess that there is a way around that 45 time period. Nary: Mr. Chairman I don't have the ordinance in front of me. Does it require the City Council take approve or deny it in 45 days. Swartley: It has to be heard at City Council. Nary: The City Council could simply set it over. Siddoway: It has been known to me by the applicant that if the commission feels that the not dropping of a lot is a concern, they would be happy to have the recommendation go forward with that recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to drop that lot and then they will just take it up with City Council. Borup: I don't know if the issue was dropping the lot. It was to get the lots to 100 feet wide. Barbeiro: The concerns the neighbors had was the adjacent lots in Meridian Greens were 13,200 square feet and the largest lot adjoining there was 12,400. The neighbors wanted to see those lots closer to 13,000 sq ft. Borup: Was it 13,000 or 100 feet width. Barbeiro: Both issues were brought up by the neighbors when Commission Hatcher was making his motion. He deferred to the 100 foot width. Mr. Swarthy we can not address any CTR issues but we can make a recommendation that the developer consider they are without weight. Swartley: Yeah you can do that. It would be a waste of your time. Borup: Are you referring to the roofing? How can that be addressed. Can it be addressed by this commission at all. Swartley: You can make it a part of the record. Your trying to put in it in the CC&R's and we have no control over those. Barbeiro: Steve, the buffer to the west of the property —what was the final analysis. After all the discussion if you wanted to remain with the recommendation. Borup: Maybe we ought to discuss that among the Commissioner's. It has all ready been stated that's in the ordinance that they are going to need to ask for a variance. I think we stated last time the (inaudible) would go to some type of residential use. I have to agree with the applicant on that. I don't see any sense in putting a buffer between what future use is going to be another residential use. Barbeiro: In that case — Borup: Other then a statement in there about —they had talked about each homeowner I mean in have a I can't remember. But rather then having a separate dedicated lot to have some landscaping requirements by the lot owner on something on that line was talked about. Barbeiro: It is going to have to go to a variance with the city then I will go ahead and recommend that the council approve the variance for the buffering. Mr. Chairman I wish to make a motion to recommend approval to City Council request for preliminary plat of proposed Observation Point Subdivision (formally Timber view Subdivision) 91 buildable lots on 40.33 acres by Victory 41, LLC north of Victory and east of Meridian Road with staff comments in that we would recommend approval of the variance of the buffer zone to the west of the property which is of course the opposite of what the staff recommended, that we would recommend to City Council that the developer realign the lots on the north boundary to more approach the 13,000 square feet which we believe dropping one lot may I—let's change it the recommendation that the lots to the north be no less than 100 feet wide along the east Lake Creek Street. That the developer of Observation Point not be obligated to build the fence on the north side if the ordinance for Meridian Greens was (inaudible) correctly on the assumption that Meridian Greens was required to build that fence upon their build out to this point and if they did follow the ordinance and are in compliance then the developer of Observation Point would be required to build a fence to the north. Borup: How about just stating that any fence on there would be in accordance with City Ordinance. Barbeiro: That would work. Thank you. That we would recommend placing a stop sign where South Andros Way meets East Lake Street and as the develop has requested a variance for the pathway, I would like to keep that in the motion that we follow through with that pathway between the lines until such time as the City Council reviews that variance. Borup: Was there any other verbal staff comments that should be included. Siddoway: There is one new one talking with Joe Roselyn from ACHD that in order for that curb section of the street to function property, there should be an island in the center of it to force people to stay in their lane and not just jump through and cross into other lanes of traffic. Borup: Which street were you talking about now. Is this the same street now the applicant wanted to do last time and ACHD said that they couldn't. Oh a different island, but it is still an island. Maintained by ARCD. Barbeiro: I would add that to the motion that there be a divider there where South Andros and East Lake Creek streets meet. Norton: Instead of the stop sign? Barbeiro: In addition to the stop sign. Norton: Okay, I second that motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED (2) OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS ON 4.13 ACRES ZONED I -L BY H&W, INC. —CORNER OF FRANKLIN ROAD AND 10TH STREET: Borup: Mr. Siddoway. P�2- 5--9-00 s -l -v0 je/% RECI(T INCUR PLANNING SERVICES y 11283 W. Hickory Dale Drive, Boise, ID 83713 Phone 4843904 or Home Phone 3768713 IRFcEMED Mi Ay - t� ''00,0 CITY OF MERIDIAN May 09, 2000 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. PRELEM INARY 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. 5. 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 well will be abandoned. A irrigation well is located on the parcel which may be utilized as a secondary source for the pressure irrigation system. PRELMUNARY PLAT SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS: 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 few 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. 5. 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 corner. of Meridian Greens. MAY 09 100 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 90 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 eliminates 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, xo� Becky L. Bowcutt MAY 09 '00 12:44 PAGE.03 June 9, 2000 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: June 13 2000 APPLICANT: VICTORY Al LLC ITEM NUMBER: 3 REQUEST: PP1=1 IRAIninov AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: NEW PLAT COMING MONDAY PER BRIGGS ENGINEERING 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: SEE COMMENTS MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: I SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: V US WEST: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: SANITARY SERVICE: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL BRIGGS ENGINEERING, Inc. 1800 West Overland Road • Boise, Idaho 83705 PHONE: (208) 344-9700 • FAX NO: (208) 345-2950 TO J(WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ WE ARE RETURNING DATE 3 00 ID NO. 0.3at> JOB NAME l�S�/�/%! I!? )02VN 743-a,$17 JOB ADDRESS CITY, STATE ❑ SHOP DRA WINGS ❑ CHANGE ORDER ElAPPR04E0 COPY OF LETTER E]❑ PLANS El ORIGINALS ❑ FINAL PLA T ❑ SPEC/FICA PONS ❑ COMPU TER DISK ❑ O THER ❑ ENCLOSED ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA ❑ FEDERAL EXPRESS k14 COURIER El COPIES DATED ID NO. DESCRIPTION ElAPPR04E0 AS SUSM/TIED E]❑ OR YOUR /NFORMA770N ❑ APRR04ED AS NOTED ❑ ❑ AS REQUESTED ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECPONS ❑ ❑ FOR REVIEW AND 06WMENT ❑ PRICE ❑ FOR BIDS DUE ❑ ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW )THESE FORAPPROVAL ElAPPR04E0 AS SUSM/TIED E]❑ OR YOUR /NFORMA770N ❑ APRR04ED AS NOTED ❑ ❑ AS REQUESTED ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECPONS ❑ ❑ FOR REVIEW AND 06WMENT ❑ PRICE ❑ FOR BIDS DUE ❑ REMARKS COPY TO SIGNED RESUBMIT COP/ES FOR APPROVAL SUBMIT COPES FOR DI57RIBU77ON RE7URN CORRECTED PRINTS 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, iing 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 ^.iing 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 ging 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 stili 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 throuagh 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 . ging 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 ging 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. 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 `,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, ling 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 __ ming 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 z�.ing 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 .�,iing 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 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 ning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 12 Debenham: We are asking that they blend and we don't get 1400 square foot houses. I 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 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 #here 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 Y .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 �.�,ing 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: 1 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 i )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 3/4 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 — .ling 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 yo -r 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, iing 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. iing 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, ,iing 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 2 ing 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 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 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 May 19, 2000 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: May 24, 2000 APPLICANT: VICTORY 41, LLC ITEM NUMBER: 2 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 40.33 ACRES FOR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION 14 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: SEE PREVIOUS PACKET 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: I" IDAHO POWER: US WEST: N'� BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: SANITARY SERVICE: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Ada l,ou�ct� J�iclG�cv ,2JCJ 1NGC1 Judy Peavey -Derr, President Dave Bivens, Vice President 318 East 37th Street Marlyss Meyer, Secretary Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499 Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner Phone (208) 387-6100 Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner Fax (208) 387-6391 E-mail: tellus@achd.ada.id.us May 16, 2000 �Fi',(J�jj7ED TO: Victory 41, L.L.C. MAY 19 2000 6874 Fairview Ave. OF MERIDIAN Boise, ID 83704 FROM: Steve Arnold, Principal Development Analyst Planning & Development SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat: Timber View/MAZ-00-010/MPP-00-010 North of Victory Road and East of Meridian Road On May 10, 2000, the Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District (hereafter called "District") took action on the preliminary Plat as stated on the attached staff report. In order that the Final Plat may be considered by the District for acceptance, the Developer shall cause the following applicable standard conditions to be satisfied prior to District certification and endorsement: Drainage plans shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District. 2. If public street improvements are required- Prior to any construction within the existing or proposed public right-of-way, the following shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District. a. Three complete sets of detailed street construction drawings prepared by an Idaho registered professional Engineer. b. Execute and Inspection Agreement between the Developer and the District together with initial payment deposit for inspection and/or testing services. C. Complete all street improvements to the satisfaction of the District, or execute a Surety Agreement between the Developer and the District to guarantee the completion of the construction of all required street improvements. 3. Furnish a copy of the Final Plat showing street names as approved by the Local Government Agency having such authority together with the payment of fee charged for the manufacturing and installation of all street signs. } d s mom 007 i r .. d - e i a 2 "-1 4. If Public Right -of -Way Trust Fund deposit is required, make the deposit to the District in the form of cash or cashier's check for the amount specified by the District. 5. Furnish easements, agreements and all other datum or documents as required by the District. 6. Furnish Final Plat drawings together with the plat and plan review fees for District acceptance and endorsement. The final plat must contain the signed endorsement of the Owner and the Land Surveyor's certification. 7. All of the material must be submitted to District staff two -weeks prior to Commission review of the final plat. 8. Approval of the plat is valid for one year. The Commission will consider an extension of one year if requested within 15 -days prior to the expiration date. Please contact me at (208) 387-6170, should you have any questions. Cc: Planning & Development Chron/File Planning & Development Services -City of Meridian Construction Services — John Edney Drainage- Chuck Rinaldi Dean and Beverly Peterson 780 E. Victory Meridian, ID 83642 StanMcHutchison Briggs Engineering, Inc. 1800 W. Overland Road Boise, ID 83705 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 cbmment. 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 ACHD Commission Date — May 10, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. TIMBERVIEW.cmm Paae I RT RT 9 N R4 RT R1 RT Q O RT R1 s RT RT N 1000 01000 2000 Feet BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION REVISION BRIGGS PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3N., R.IE., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO (208) 344-9700 SHEET 1 OF 1 1800 W. OVERLAND ROAD DESIGN DRAFT SCALEDATE I d BOISE. IDAHO 83705 DWG. NO. BKB 1" = 1000' 0329!00 990617 >.0305.APR Eh'MIT", ST E. VICTORY ROAD RT 300 0 300 600 Feet N RT BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION REVISION BRIGGS PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3N., R. 1 E., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO MERIDIAN CITY LIMBI (208) 344-9700 SHEET 1 OF 1 1800 W. OVERLAND ROAD DESIGN DRAFT SCALE DATE DWG. NO. . BOISE, IDAHO 83705 BKB 1" = 300' BOUNDARY 990617 14 14 13 12 11 10: 9 8 7 6 5 4' 3 8 OCK 13 LOCK E. LAKE CREEK STREET 1 2 12 Q 18 20 10 11 12 15 1 z B OCK 2 Z : E. LOGGERS PASS STREET N11 17 21 w 9 13 8 LOC 5 14 2 Q 34 16 2200 1144 7 3 � In LOCK Ila" Iwo co co / g 23 6,p 5 Qp 33 _ 4 9 15 14 13 �W 24 25 ORIS 8 _ 12 E 26 27 28 30 11 LOCK 29 31 \\ 7 20 19 18S 10 9 8 7 6 6 B40C 17 T RIDGE 5 2 DRIB w 4 5 S' 3 16 15 14 13 12 11 Q QS' 4 B OCK 6 5 7 8 9 10 Ix 3 2 4 w _ RJBSERVATICDRIVE Q2 5 1 E. VICTORY ROAD RT 300 0 300 600 Feet N RT BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION REVISION BRIGGS PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3N., R. 1 E., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO (208) 344-9700 SHEET 1 OF 1 1800 W. OVERLAND ROAD DESIGN DRAFT SCALE DATE DWG. NO. . BOISE, IDAHO 83705 BKB 1" = 300' 03/29/00 990617 \0305.APR FA_ 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 11*� P\ development of the Meridian Greens subdivision. The developer of the Meridian Greens subdivision constricted 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 constrict 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.cmm Page 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 ,jo 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 constrict 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 of right- 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 permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right- of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #193. 2. 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 Page 4 5. Stub Loggers Pass Street to the east property line approximately 240 -feet south of the north property line as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. 6. 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. 7. 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 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. 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 fixture 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.cnim Page 5 Standard Requirements: A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall specifically 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 written request shall be submitted to the District no later than 9.00 a m on the day scheduled for ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the ComMission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original decision The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #193, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and constriction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 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 confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 9. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. Conclusion of Law: 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 b Commission Action: Plannine and Development Staff May 10, 2000 TIMBERVIEW.cmm Page 7 LETTER —OF BRIGGS ENGINEERING, Inc. 1800 West Overland Road • Boise, Idaho 83705 PHONE: (208) 344-9700 • FAX NO: (208) 345-2950 TO 7JAA N' _-E� d'WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ WE ARE RETURNING TRAPaSMITTAL DATE 5 2 3/00 ID NO. 0305 JOB NAME VO4-o'"2 pot, & JOB ADDRESS CITY, STATE COPIES DATED ID NO. ❑ SHOP DRAWINGS FrENCLOSED;`. n ❑ CHANGE ORDER ❑ cop Y OF LETTER El UNDER PLANS ❑ ORIGINALS ❑ FEDERA ❑ FINAL PLA T ElSPECIF/CA TIONS .,� L� COURIEF ❑ COMPUTER DISK ❑ OTHER ❑ COPIES DATED ID NO. DESCRIPTION ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS nn PRICE THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW : ❑ lfCR APPROVAL OR YOUR INFGRMATI01V AS RE01IES IED ❑ FOR REVIEW AND C(JWMENT ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS ❑ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ❑ APRROVED AS NOTED ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ PRICE ❑ RESUBMIT C6P1f_5 FOR APPROf1AL ❑ R18MIT COPIES FOR DI57RIBU770N ❑ RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS' IJ COPY TO SIGNED CU d - 1J �� LETTER OF T BRIGGS ENGINEERING, Inc. 1800 West Overland Road • Boise, Idaho 83705 PHONE: (208) 344-9700 • FAX NO: (208) 345-2950 TO ✓YYI� �TTu.� �� h7 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ WE ARE RETURNING DATE 5-/2-3/00 ?J' /00 ID NO. O JOB NAME P � V M �C) U . JOB ADDRESS Tim6n, CITY, STATE ❑ SHOP DRA WINGS ❑ CHANGE ORDER ❑ COPY OF LETTER 0 PLANS ❑ ORIGINALS ❑ FINAL PLA T ❑ SPECIFICA TIONS ❑ COMPU TER DISK ❑ O THER MAY 2 3 200 City of Meridian El ENCLOSED City Clerk office; ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA ❑ FEDERAL EXPRESS 2 COURIER 107 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW : ❑ �A4 APPROVAL RIFOR YOIUR INFWMARON AS REOUESTED ❑ FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ❑ FORBIDS DUE REMARKS ❑ APPROVED AS AIBMIiIFO ❑ APRROVEO AS NOTED ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ PRICE P� 7- - Lllt��O ;, ❑ RESUBM/T CA°/ES FOR APPROVAL ❑ SUBMIT COP/ES FOR DISMIRUAAN ❑ RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS 701 COPY TO T C SIGNED C�C ,fin MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: May 9 2000 APPLICANT: VICTORY 41 LLC ITEM NUMBER: 17 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 40.33 ACRES FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING & ZONING DEPT. SEE COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: SEE COMMENTS 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: SEE COMMENTS NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SEE COMMENTS SETTLERS IRRIGATION: 1 IDAHO POWER: US WEST: , A,� BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: j1 INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: C SANITARY SERVICE: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shay' HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY MAYOR Robert D. Come 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 (zos) 887-zz11 •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: PP -00-010 REQUEST: 40.33 ACRES 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: V_,)L ' v o sf "11�C-0, April 20, 2000 Will Berg, City Clerk Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 APR 2 4 2000 CITY OF k AJ 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 Re: PP-oo-010 Proposed Timber View Subdivision Dear Commissioners: Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's Kennedy Lateral courses through this proposed project. The District reserves the right to claim what we deem necessary to operate and maintain the Kennedy Lateral. 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 CENTRAL CENTRHL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMLNT •• DISTRICT Environmental Health Division (C OY H EA LT H Retur❑n tBoise :JDEPARTMENT W1111 ❑ Eagle Rezone # ❑ Garden City a j I -U u ,Meridian al Use # ❑ Kuna Zrefinmina Final / Short Plat Cbl 0 ❑ ACZ ❑ I. ❑ 2. ❑ 3. ❑ 4. ❑ 5. ❑ 6. ❑ 7. 4f8. DrAl We have No Objections to this Proposal. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. 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 This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or surface waters. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: 1f_central sewage ❑ community sewage system ❑ community water well ❑ interim sewagecentral water EJindividual sewage Is individual water 9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: ,central sewage ❑ community sewage system ❑ community water ❑ sewage dry lines [,central water 10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ❑ I I. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ❑ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ❑ 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ❑ food establishment ❑ swimming pools or spas ❑ child care center ❑ beverage establishment ❑ grocery store 14. K;!e_dT Z9,71-296 MC -7F Date: Reviewed By: CDHD 10/91 rcb, rer. 7/91 Review Sheet CENTRAL •• DISTRICT W HhUTH DEPARTMENT MAIN OFFICE - 707 N. ARMSTRONG PL - 801SE, ID 83704-0825 - (208) 315-5211 - FAX 327-8500 To prevent and treat disease and disability; to promote healthy lifestyles; and to protect and promote the health and quality oj'our ern•iro nuent. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that storm water be pre-treated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to ground water and surface water quality. The engineers and architects involved with the design of this project should obtain current best management practices for storm water disposal and design a storm water management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals that could be used for guidance are: State of Idaho Catalog of Stormwater Best Management Practices For Idaho Cities and Counties. Prepared by the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, July 1997. Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidebook. Prepared by City of Boise Public Works Department, January 1997. Ada / Boise County Office 707 N. Armsrong PI. Boise. ID 83704 Enviro. Health: 327-7499 Family Planning: 327-7400 Immunizations: 327-7450 Senior Nutrition: 327-7460 wIC 327-7488 FAX 327-8500 Serving galley, Elmore, Boise, and Ada Counties Ada -WIC Satellite Office 1606 Robert St. Boise. ID 83705 Ph. 334-3355 FAX: 334-3355 Elmore County Office 520 E. 8th Street N. Mountain Home. ID 83647 Enviro. Health: 587.9225 Family Health: 587-4407 WIC: 587-4409 FAX: 587-3521 Valley County Office 703 N. I st Street P.O Box 1448 McCall, ID 83638 Ph. 634-7194 FAX: 634-2174 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� I '� Meridian Road �.! ►M AY - 5 2000 ACHD Commission Date — May 10, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. CITY OF MERIDIAN TIMBERVIEW.cmm Page 1 RT R1 RT w RT R1 RT O RT uI \"'Z. N 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION REVISION BRIGGS PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3N., R. 1E., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO SHEET (208) 3449700 1 OF 1 1800 W. OVERLAND ROAD DESIGN DRAFT SCALEDATE BOISE, IDAHO 83705 DWG. NO. BKB 1" = 1000 0329/00 990617 10305.APR \1 RT W 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 constricted to the site's north property line as part of the TIMBERVIEW.mun Page 2 development of the Meridian Greens subdivision. The developer of the Meridian Greens subdivision constricted a temporary turnaround at the south end of Andros Way, including curb, gutter and sidewalk. D. Theapplicantis proposing to stub Loggers Pass Street to the east property line approximate) 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. 17* 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. The applicant is proposing that three residential lots that take access to Victory Road via a small cul-de-sac. The apparent reason for this layout is the desire to eliminate a roadway crossing of the Kennedy Lateral. Due to the size of the Kennedy Lateral, the applicant will be required to build a bridge over the lateral to access these lots. 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). 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 constriction 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. 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 constricted TIMBERVIEW.cmm Page 3 /'1 Gal T to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. J. The applicant is proposing to constrict 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 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. K. District policy requires the applicant to constrict 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 permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right- of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #193. 2. 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. Stub Loggers Pass Street to the east property line approximately 240 -feet south of the north property line as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS TIMBERVIEW.cnun Page 4 A ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Relocate the main entrance from Victory Road or reconstruct the bridge across the Kennedy Lateral. 9. If the Standing Timber Way connection to Victory Road is eliminated, 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 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. 10. Construct a center turn lane on Victory Road for the primary entrance from Victory Road intersection. The turn lane shall be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 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.mun Page 5 e`o1 Standard Requirements: PI 1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall specifically 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 written request shall be submitted to the District no later than 9.00 a m on the day scheduled for ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its orilzinal 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 4193, 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. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACRD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. TIMBERVIEW.cmm Paue 6 eol� f"1 8. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 9. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. Conclusion of Law: 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 TIMBERVIEW.cmm Page 7 ** TX CONFIRMAT. REPORT ** DATE TIME TO/FROM 19 05/05 16:11 12083452950 AS OF MAY 05 '00 16:. PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS EC --S 04'49" 010 139 OK • CENTRAL CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT •� DISTRICT Environmental Health Division HEALTH Return to: ❑ Boise MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: May 9. 2000 APPLICANT: VICTORY 41, LLC ITEM NUMBER: 17 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 40.33 ACRES FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING & ZONING DEPT. SEE COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: SEE COMMENTS CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WASTEWATER DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ��22 COrn ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: SEE COMMENTS NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SEE COMMENTS SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: oa�� SANITARY SERVICE: fro CA. OTHER: w Vo All Materials presented at public meetin to nAeridlan. Mayor ROBERT D. CORRIE City Council Members CHARLES ROUNTREE GLENN BENTLEY RON ANDERSON KEITH BIRD MEMORANDUM: 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 (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208)884-5533• Faz 887-1297 , 7 1.41/ Q May -3, 2000" City of Meridian Citv Clerk Offic,- From: Steve Siddoway, Planner z��/ Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Techniciax� 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 -00-010, PP -00-010 Timber View.AZ.PP.doc 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 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 -00010, PP -00-010 Timber Vw%vAZ.PP.dm r 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 T mbe View.AZPPAd 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 -00-010, PP -00-010 Timber 1 Yew.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 1/2x 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 -M010, PP -00-010 Timber View.AZ.PP.doc 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 Timbff Vim.AZ.PP.doc May 8, 2000 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission; MAY - 9 2000 CITY OF 3ERMIAN 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: 1. 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. Name Address Phone # G ct s U-� �-, � L Se9 � — 3 1 LIze S4 -F W-41 MAL s7 Name Address Phone # <051 , 1 (,din 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 -00.010, PP -00-010 Timbx ViewAZPPAm Mavor HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT City Council Members CITY OF MERIDIAN (208) 288-2499 - Fax 288.2501 CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTNIENT GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 RON ANDERSON (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING KEITH BIRD City Clerk Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • Faz 887-1297 i, iV-4 11 MEMORANDUM: .�'� r �, May'3 ,2000'' To: Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council City of Jleridiar: City Clerk Off_; c > From: Steve Siddoway, Planner �J Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Technici 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 motion of the Meridian City Council: or deleted by 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 -00.010, PP -00-010 Timbx ViewAZPPAm 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 -00-010, PP -00-010 Timber ViewAZPPA. 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.AZ.PP.doe 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 ACRD 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 View.AZPP.d. 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 '/z 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 -06010, PP -06010 Tunber View.AZ.PP.doc 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. 6.11 U Promote well-planned and well -designated affordable housing in all Meridian neighborhoods. AZ -00-010, PP -00-010 Tunber View .AZ.PP.doc -7 0.0>t2 f PcEMED MAY - 9 2000 May 8, 2000 CITY OF IER,IDIAN Ladies and Gentlemen of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission; 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: 1. 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. Name Address Phone # V-"-, -��'/��i�r7� �- /75--Z- - 6 75 -Z z� -F \ 11EILAILL sl -b D -�J P - iz�- o 7 Name Address Phone # i lm - May 09 00 12:28p BECKY BBWCUTT PLANNING SERVICES 11283 W. Hickory Dale Drive, Base, 1D 83713 Phone 484-3904 or Home Phone 3768713 RWEIvED MAY s g 2000 CITY OF MIDIAN May 09, 2000 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. PREL AMARY 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 2040 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. 5. 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 May 09 00 12:29p 7. A home is currently located on the property and it will remain. The existing septic and well will be abandoned. A irrigation well is Iocated on the parcel which may be utilized as a secondary source for the pressure irrigation system. PRELIM MARY PLAT SITE SPECI)t•IC REQUIREMENTS: 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 few 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. 5. 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 P.2 May 09 00 12:29p 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 90 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 eliminates 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 p.3 ** TX CONFIRMATION mEPORT ** DATE TIME TO/FROM 09 05/09 12:49 PUBLIC WORKS 10 05/09 12:50 2088886854 AS OF MAY 09 100 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS OF --S 00'43" 003 189 OK EC --S 00'55" 003 189 OK I10,� VJ V V LL !_Vr r•� P 2 '' BEAKY BBW6BIT PIUNIMC SERVIBES 11263 W. Hidtory Dale D ft Raise, ID 83713 7 Phone 484,W or Hans Phone 3768713 / PXCEzV-PD MAY - q 2000 CITY OF :MERIDIAN May 09, 2000 Attu: 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 dr ZONING REQU REMENTB: 1. The applicant agrees. 2. The applicant agrees. 3. The applicant will comply. 4. The applicant agrees. PRELIb@IARY PLAT GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. The applicant will comply. 2.71e 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 2040 feet of the sidewalk on Andros Way. The applicant proposes to construct the pathway and not the adjacent sidewalk. The pathway would be oonnected 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 ifpcdestrian pathways are mandated between block 2 and 6. The property has substantial grade di1T'erences. 6. The applicant will comply. MAY 09 '00 12:4:3 Pon= a, 04/24/2000 12:07 2088885052 SANITARY SERVICE PAGE 04 MAYOR HUB OF TRCASURE VALL rY Robert D. Come A Good Place to Live - LEGAL DEPARTMENT CITYOF MERIDIAN (708) 2U-2499 L•Fax 285-=501 CITY COUNCILMEMBERS PUBLIC WORKS Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT Keith Bird IVIERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) SS7.2211 - Fax 857.1297 Tammy deWeerd (208) S88-4433 - Fax (208) 887-a813 PLANNING AND ZONING Chene McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888.4218 DEPARTMENT (209) 85.1-5533 • Fax 8SR-6851 TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITU 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 Hail, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 28, 2000 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 10, 2000 HEARING DATE: May 9, 2000 FILE NUMBER' PP -00-010 REQUEST: 40.33 ACRES 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 �uq Ac _I Pr) Di7 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 APR 24 100 12:08 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN Pr'Cr. UFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) nLim c:OUNTY 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:C�o 0 J— APR 2 4 2000 CITY OF IVWDL43; 2088885052 PAGE.04 NUB OF TREASURE VALLEY MAYOR A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT Robert D. Corrie (208) 288-2499 - Fax 288-2501 CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 - Fax 887-1297 Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Tammy deWeerd (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING Cherie McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT (_' 08) 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: PP -00-010 REQUEST: 40.33 ACRES 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 RECEIVED APR 14 2000 Meridian City Water Superixtendn 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: PP -00-010 REQUEST: 40.33 ACRES 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 _7 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 CADNXISE REMARKS: r-. HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY -- MAYOR Robert D. Come A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT � j 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) 888-4433 • 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: PP -00-010 REQUEST: 40.33 ACRES 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 _7 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 CADNXISE REMARKS: TT'3SUcd bbL0b88807 8b:80 00, VT Jdb HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY MAYOR Robert D. Corrie A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPAR— MENT CITY OF MERIDIAN (203) 235-1.499 - Fax 285-2501 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PUBLIC WORKS Ron Andcrson 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT Kcith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 837.22211 • Fax 887-1297 Tammy deWeerd (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING Cherie McCandlcss City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTvIENT (208) S84-5533 • Fax 883-6854 TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH TIME 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: PP -00-010 REQUEST: 40.33 ACRES 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 EWATER 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) F F N 7� �O 9 � IAN \ _ M NS \ E WHITEHALL ST 3 m a MERIDIAN CITY LIM S y BOUNDARY 14 14 ; 13 12 11 10� 9 f 7� 6 x 5 4 3A �8 BOCK 8 ` f LOCK 13 CREEK STREET 1' 1 � r -" 11 OCK \ m 'I0 A{ 15 1\ W I � � 1 12 Q 18 a2 11 12 Z �3 3 BOCK 2 Z ~ E. LOGGERS PASS STREET 11 O of 9 13 2 Q 17 21 w LOC 5 14 Y 34 8 10 Q F 3 3LOCK 16 22 � �/ 7 6 } 33 \ 9 co 23 ' @p_ 5 4 0 14 24 cd 32 , 15 25 10) VE 13 E 8 12 26 27 28 30 11 LOCK 29 31 7 20 19 A, 10 9 8 18 7 6 6 ST 5 640C 17 RIDGE DRIVE Lu q I 2 1fi 15 5 S 3 14 13 12 11 B OCK 6 CK7 NQS' 4 3 5 7 g 9 cY 3 9 10 2 Q 4 w_ @JBSERVATICaRIVE a2 5 1;' BLOCK 2 9 E. VICTORY ROAD N RT 300 0 300 600 Feet RT BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. REVISION EfI�iNEERIA� TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION BRIGGS PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3N., R.1 E., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO SHEET (208) 344-9700 1 OF 1 1800 W. OVERLAND ROAD DESIGN DRAFT SCALE DATE DWG. NO. \0305.APR BOISE, IDAHO 83705 BKB 1" = 300' 03/29/00 990617