Loading...
Tuscany Lakes Subdivision AZ 00-023TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: Transmittal Date: November 6, 2000 File No.: AZ -00-023 December 5, 2000 Hearing Date: December 12, 2000 Request: Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision By: Gem Park II Partnership Location of Property or Project: SW corner of Victory and Eagle Sally Norton, P/Z Bill Nary, P/Z Jerry Centers, P/Z Richard Hatcher, P/Z Keith Borup, P/Z Robert Corrie, Mayor Ron Anderson, C/C Tammy deWeerd, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Cherie McCandless, C/C Water Department Sewer Department Sanitary Service Building Department Your Concise Remarks: Fire Department Police Department City Attorney City Engineer City Planner Parks Department (Residential Applications only) Gen - 26 PP/FP/PFP - 30 AZ - 27 Meridian School District Meridian Post Office (FP/PP) Ada County Highway District Community Planning Assoc. Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP) U.S. West (FP/PP) Intermountain Gas (FP/PP) Ada County (Annexation) Idaho Transportation Department HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY LEGAL DEPARTMENT MAYOR A Good Place to Live (208) 288-2499 •Fax 288-2501 Robert D. Corrie CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS BUILDING DEPARTMENT Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Keith Bird (208) 888-4433 •Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING Tammy deWeerd City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 - Fax 888-6854 Cherie McCandless TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: Transmittal Date: November 6, 2000 File No.: AZ -00-023 December 5, 2000 Hearing Date: December 12, 2000 Request: Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision By: Gem Park II Partnership Location of Property or Project: SW corner of Victory and Eagle Sally Norton, P/Z Bill Nary, P/Z Jerry Centers, P/Z Richard Hatcher, P/Z Keith Borup, P/Z Robert Corrie, Mayor Ron Anderson, C/C Tammy deWeerd, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Cherie McCandless, C/C Water Department Sewer Department Sanitary Service Building Department Your Concise Remarks: Fire Department Police Department City Attorney City Engineer City Planner Parks Department (Residential Applications only) Gen - 26 PP/FP/PFP - 30 AZ - 27 Meridian School District Meridian Post Office (FP/PP) Ada County Highway District Community Planning Assoc. Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP) U.S. West (FP/PP) Intermountain Gas (FP/PP) Ada County (Annexation) Idaho Transportation Department CITY OF MERIDIAN ^ 1RECErvz]) -3 East Idaho Street, Meridian, ID 8364'c " L! Phone: (208) 888-4433 .��C, SEP 2 9 2000 Fax: (208) 887-4813 CITY OF MERIDIAN QCT G & ZONING AZ-oo - QZ3 PROPOSED NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision GENERAL LOCATION: Portion of N''/z Section 29, T3N. RIE (West of Eagle & South of Victory Rd) TYPE (RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL): RESIDENTIAL ACRES OF LAND IN PROPOSED ANNEXATION: 156.21 ACRES PRESENT LAND USE: AGRICULTURAL PROPOSED LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT: PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT: APPLICANT: GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP PHONE: 888-9946 ADDRESS: P. O. BOX 344 MERIDIAN IDAHO 83680 ENGINEER, SURVEYOR, OR PLANNER: Briggs Engineering Inc. PHONE: 344-9700 ADDRESS: 1800 W. Overland Road Boise Idaho 83705 OWNER(S) OF RECORD: SEE ATTACHED SHEET PHONE: ADDRESS: Signature of applicant 9903 Wannex-rezone-mer ANNEXATION OF Tuscany Lakes Subdivision 1. Gem Park II Partnership, P. O. Box 344, Meridian, Idaho 83680 (Phone: 888-9946 and Fax 888-9947. 2. Gem Park II Partnership, P. O. Box 344, Meridian, Idaho 83680 (Phone: 888-9946 and Fax 888-9947 3. Affidavit of Legal Interest attached. 4. Affidavit of Legal Interest attached. 4. Legal description attached. 5. Present Land Use: The parcel is currently used for agricultural purposes. 6. Proposed Land Use: We would like a residential uses for this property. We would like to submit a Planned Unit Development on the site. Our desire is to have a mixture of lot sizes and open space. The proposed density will be in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. We are also working with the School District about an elementary school site on the property. 7. Present District: The property is zoned RT (Rural Transition) and outside the City limits of Meridian. 8. Proposed District: The applicant is requesting annexation and rezone to R-4 designation. 9. The property adjoins the City limits of Meridian along the southern portion of Thousand Springs project. The request for R-4 zoning designation which is consistent with previous annexation/rezones where the Comprehensive Plan designated single-family designation. 10. The proposed development is a single family residential project. The development will have a mixture of open space and home sites to create a unique living environment. Many of the proposed open spaces will have water amenities in them. 11. The annexation/rezone is supported by the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The plan allows for urban development when urban services (ie. sewer and water) can be extended to the property. The willing to extend Ten Mile Trunk sewer out of Meridian Greens to this site. The requested R-4 is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Map, which identifies this area as single family residential. 12. Map attached. 13. 300 Scale maps attached. 99021 Mannex.req 14. List of property owners is attached. 15. Fees attached. 16. Affidavit attached. 17. Affidavit of application preparation is attached. 990211\annex.req 208889947 P . 02 Sep —2_00 02:s1P The Westpark Co REQUEST ANNEXATIONIPUD AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO September 22, 2000 GEM PARK Ii PARTNERSHIP , does hereby submit to the City of Meridian application of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision for the purpose of annexation, PUD and Subdivision Approval gf the property(ies) described within. of The Westpark Co. Inc., Managing Partner of Gem Park 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENT - Corporate STATE OF IDAHO } )SS County of Ada } On this s2!2_ day of S eg to i,, e,- , in the year of 2000 , before me Marilea L. Boncz , a notary public, personally appeared known or identified to me to be the of the corporation that executed the within instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same and acknowledged that the same was signed as a free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this � a day of 2000 ,. � �oTARr i S * � Jbu gl,1G •s OP L9'..•�. Iry 11132". SEP -22-2000 i-: o3 Notary Public, for the State of Idaho Residing at Meridian, Idaho My Commission Expires: 8/29/2002 2088-0899 A4 F. 02' STATE OF IDAHO ) ss COUNTY OF ADA ) I Name FFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST W _,� COypq �^L- Address �,1`� I - , �(,- ', <� , being first duly sworn upon (city) (state) oath, depose and say: That I am the record owner of the property described on the attached, and I grant my permission to (name) (address) to submit the accompanying application pertaining to that property. 2. 1 agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Meridian 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. Dated this .D day of SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. Not ry Public for Idaho ��.• ��, L, to .,�� Residing at Z� �pTA.R ? My Commission Expires: 9/a * �: pUg1,tG�• �O e ,gyp moi' ���•����•�0••4. eeee 5 Au! -29--00 03:03P The Westpark Co 2088889947 P.02 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss COUNTY OF ADA ) I Boise, (may) Name AFFIDAVIT OF i . That I am the record owner of the permission to Gen Park II Partrmw i (name) to submit the accompanying INTEREST Address being first duly sworn upon oath, depose and say: described on the attached, and I grant my a-idian, Id. (address) pertaining to that property. 2. 1 agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Meridian and it's employees harmless from any claim or liability resulting from a iy dispute as to the statements contained herein or as to the ownership of the proper which is the subject of the application. Dated this 1st day of -3g;tmeber dM 2n V (Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. Notary PubliGtZtdaha Residing at My Commission Expires: 5 i00 'd IONZA80"(:'l3L odNNvd 2f:31 Noll) 00.1I-'d3S 09/64/2800 99:86 801-469d11� M V, 1%4KLUw 001WED I I1: Id PARKPOINTEUNERrti TE4:2006?28101 Auiy-29-00 03:03P The Westpark Cc 20SWO9947 STATE OFL4c►L-� COUNTY OFABA ()k-uN-k } I AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST JAL. L_�. ,_Z- A BE7 it Mr �. sant tlur�n�F7T ; rE F ' �p �►/� Name ,d�i�zcTl'2HiG� Tis 1el-"7 Address PR 0 62-- U a -A d„ ,c�4&0being lust duly swam upon W (state) oath, depose and say: 40 That I yam the record owner of the property described on the attached, and I grant my permission to Gem Park II Partnership PO Box 344, Meridian, ID 83680 (name) (address) to submit the accompanying application peftining to that prop”. 2. 1 agree, to indemnity, defend and hold the Clay of Meridian and it's employees harmless from any claim or Ilebility resultin=g from any dispute as to the statements contained herein or as to fhe ownership of the property whleh is the subject of the applicatlon. Dated this ,..A_ day of � � rg/hf3 a p'9cV M,067. (signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me fhe day and year first above written. 807NNON TUCKEIT BYP�i91,�•Slflfo101,W 2191 W CANYON AD_ VO, UTAH 81E0f M. EXP. 7.16.2003 y Re -aiding at a ,r, MY • • />.. 100'd 'I0N31111003iNIHNNN 'c1' SI (Noll) 00 ,I I- "d3S AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF IDAHO ) COUNTY OF ADA ) I, Kent Brown, (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 will personally post the subject property with a hearing notice one week prior to the public hearing for annexation. Dated this day of _ (Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. 00,66111111884,4* M Oso *00000 ���'•. 10 w$% �'CARY otaryPublic Idaho c = •'' tiG Residing at (� ti o• PU$ • Sp '•••«••'''10 �o• My Commission Expires: �''•.A TE OV - 99021 B 4- 990211 \affid-posting AFFIDAVIT OF ACCURACY STATE OF IDAHO ) ss COUNTY OF ADA ) I, Kent Brown (Briggs Engineering, Inc.) 1800 W. Overland Road (name) (address) Boise Idaho, 83705 , being first duly sworn upon (city) (state) oath, depose and say: That I prepared the attached applications and the information contained is true and correct. Dated this �� day of (Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. 990211 \affid-accuracy otary Publ W for Idaho Residing at--��Jii� My Commission Expires:�� b ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION FOR TUSCANY SUBDIVISION August 29, 2000 A parcel of land located in the south 25 feet of Section 20, the west 25.00 feet of Section 28, the north '/z of Section 29, and the east 25.00 feet of Section 30, all of Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more pa Licularly described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of Section 29, T3N., R1 E., B.M., thence S 0014'24" W 1322.87 feet along the west line of said Section 29 to the northwest corner of the south % of the NW Y4, the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence S 89°36'13" E 520.48 feet along the north line of said south 1/2 to a point,- Thence oint; Thence N 51'58'04" E 87.93 feet to a point; Thence N 46°00'49" W 150.80 feet to a point; Thence N 18°01'28" E 385.82 feet to a point; Thence S 72°47'45" E 841.76 feet to a point on the centerline of the Eight -Mile Lateral; Along said centerline the following: Thence S 4°45'54" E 111.17 feet to a point of curvature; Thence 123.47 feet along a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 250.00 feet, a central angle of 28017'48", a tangent of 63.02 feet and a chord of 122.22 feet which bears S 18°54'48" E to a point of tangency; Thence S 33003'42" E 16.09 feet to a point of curvature; Thence 49.89 feet along a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 350.00 feet, a central angle of 08°10'01 ", a tangent of 24.99 feet and a chord of 49.85 feet which bears S 28058'42" E to a point on the north line of the south 1/2 of the NW'/4 of said Section 29; Leaving said centerline: Thence S 89°3613" E 1193.74 feet to the northeast corner of said south '/ of the NW'/4, Thence S 0°15'20" W 1042.84 feet along the east line of said south '/2 of the NW'/4 to a point on the centerline of the Ridenbaugh Canal; Along the centerline of the Ridenbaugh Canal the following: 0308\legal.des Thence N 46001'42" E 147.75 to a point of curvature; Thence 161.84 feet along a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 750.00 feet, a central angle of 12°21'48", a tangent of 81.23 feet and a chord of 161.52 feet which bears N 39050'48" E to a point of tangency; Thence N 33°39'54" E 488.53 feet to a point of curvature; Thence 134.02 feet along a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 750.00 feet, a central angle of 10014'18", a tangent of 67.19 feet and a chord of 133.84 feet which bears N 28032'45" E to a point of tangency; Thence N 23025'36" E 313.49 feet to a point on the north line of the south '/2 of the NE '/4; Leaving said centerline.- Thence enterline° Thence S 89°37'11" E 4.91 feet to the southwest corner of the east'/2 of the NW 114 of the N E '/4, Thence N 0°18'31" E 11.51 feet along the west line of the east'/2 of the NW'/4 of the NE '/4 to a point on the centerline of the Ridenbaugh Canal,- Along anal; Along said centerline the following: Thence N 23°25'36" E 950.12 feet to a point of curvature; Thence 148.92 feet along a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 200.00 feet, a central angle of 42°39'48", a tangent of 78.10 feet and a chord of 145.51 feet which bears N 2°05'42" E to a point of tangency,- Thence angency; Thence N 19°14'12" W 150.61 feet to a point of curvature; Thence 160.51 feet along a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 250.00 feet, a central angle of 36047'12", a tangent of 83.13 feet and a chord of 157.77 feet which bears N 37037'48" W to a point of tangency,- Thence angency; Thence N 56°01'24" W 43.02 feet to a point on the north line of said Section 291- Leaving 9; Leaving said centerline: Thence S 89°36'38" E 476.32 feet to the east 1/16 corner common to Sections 20 and 29; Thence N 0°11'31" E 25.00 feet along the west line of the SE'/4 of the SE'/4 of Section 20, T. 3N., R. 1 E., B.M., to a point on the north right-of-way of Victory Road; Thence S 89°36'44" E 670.68 feet along said north right-of-way to a point on the east line of the west'/2 of the SE '/4 of the SE '/4 of said Section 20; 0308\legal.des Thence S 0°28'30" W 1316.05 feet along said east line and the east line of the west 1/2 of the NE '/4 of the NE % of said Section 29 to a point; Thence S 89°37'11" E 670.98 feet to a point on the east line of said Section 29; Thence S 89032'15" E 25.00 feet to a point on the east right-of-way of Eagle Road,- Thence oad;Thence S 0°27'45" W 30.00 feet to a point on the south line of the NW Y4 of the NW 114 of Section 28, T. 3N., R.1 E.; Thence N 89°32'15" W 25.00 feet to the southeast corner of the NE'/4 of the NE '/4 of said Section 29,- Thence 9; Thence N 89°37'11" W 1338.92 feet to the southwest corner of the NE'/4 of the NE 1/4 of said Section 29; Thence S 0021'39" W 1321.14 feet to the southeast corner of the SW'/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 29 Thence N 89°37'43" W 1336.57 feet to the southwest corner of the NE '/4 (center '/4 corner) of said Section 29; Thence N 89°38'09" W 2679.90 feet to the southwest corner of NW '/4 (west '/4 corner) of said Section 29,- Thence 9; Thence S 89°44'17" W 25.00 feet along the south line of the SE '/4 of the NE '/4 of Section 30, T.3N., R.1E., B.M., to a point on the west right-of-way of Locust Grove Road; Thence N 0014'24" E 1323.09 feet along said west right-of-way to a point on the north line of the SE '/4 of the NE Y4 of said Section 30; Thence S 89045'36" E 25.00 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. This parcel contains 156.21 acres, more or less. Michael E. Marks, PLS, No. 4998 0308\legal.des 141MDIAM PUSt IC WORKS r r CITY OF MERIDIAN "Hub of Treasure Valley' 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 888-4433 PAINTED IN U.S.A. � vnixreo mrx �`-�yy � ISOY I NK J iVlhtY(�I LCl 8(,(/ 4 m 0 ai (M 0 Nm in z 52.0 co > "o 4 0 < m Z 0 C) Q, 0 0 CD I HARLANO Sme 2 71 0 MOD M:r M m 0 4 m 0 ai (M 0 Nm in z 52.0 co > "o 4 0 < m Z 0 C) Q, 0 0 CD RL PK 0. R CL6 LW 0 0 03 X cn LP ru -%3 0 M3 (N C3 ru 4 m 0 ai (M 0 Nm in z 52.0 co > "o 4 0 < m Z 0 C) Q, 0 0 CD R E C 0 R WARRANTY DEED '92 NOU 18 PM 2 22 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Douglas W. Burnett and Jean R. Burnett, GRANTORS, do hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL AND CONVEY unto Douglas W. Burnett and Jean R. Burnett, Successor Co-Trustees of the Burnett Family Trust, dated February 12, 1988, and as amended November i7, 1992, GRANTEES, whose current address is Box 179, Donnelly, Idaho, 83615, the following described real property in Ada County, State of Idaho, more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Parcel 1• The Southwest 114 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridien, Ada Comity, Idaho, Parcel 2: The Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 and the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. EXCEPTING FROM THE ABOVE TWO PARCELS THE FOLLOWING: 1. A tract of land situated in the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particular- ly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast Section corner of said Section 29, thence South 00032150" West along the East Section Line of said Section 29 a distance. of 660.46 feet, thence North 89036146" West a distance of 30.00 feet to the REAL 4 POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence South 00032150" West a distance of 300.46 feet, thence North 89037102" West a distance of 639.49 feet, thence North 00028130" East a 1� distance of 300.54 feet, thence South 89036146" East a distance of 639.86 feet, to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. 2. Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise KL) Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, thence West on the Section 00 line 330 feet; thence South 660 feet on a line parallel to the ist line of said Section line, thence East 330 feet to the East line of said Section line, thence North 660 feet to the point of beginning. WARRANTY DEED - 1 3. The part of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, Northeast 1/4 of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, lying West of the Ridenbaugh Canal. 4. That part of the Southwest 1/4, Northeast 1/4 of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, lying West of the Ridenbaugh Canal. 5. That part of the Northeast 1/4, Northeast 1/. of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range i East, Boise Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Northeast 1/4, Northeast 1/4; thence West 330 feet to the real point of beginning, thence continuing West 340.70 feet, thence South 660.54 feet, thence ::est 339.86 feet, thence North 660.49 feet to the real point of beginning. 6. Commencing 30 feet North of the Southeast corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range l East, Boise Meridian, thence North 330 feet on Section line, thence West 660 feet parallel to the North line of the Section line; thence South 330 feet, thence East 660 feet, to the real point of beginning. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurtenanc- es unto the said Grantees, their heirs and assigns forever. And the said Grantors do hereby covenant to and with the said Grantees that they are the owners in fee simple of said premises; that the said premises are free from all encumbrances, except as a matter of record, and that they will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever. DATED This J-7 day of November, 1992. of NTORS" Do las W. Burn tt can R. Burnett WARRANTY DEED - 2 TUSCANY SUBDIVISION PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300' HANSEN MARVIN R & HANSEN NANCY J 2460 E VICTORY RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-7050 THOUSAND SPRINGS SUB HOA 4550 W STATE ST BOISE ID 83703-0000 S BRANDY'S JEWEL WAY HASTINGS VERNETTA 2910 E VICTORY RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-7051 GLICK JONATHAN W & GLICK BONITA J 2860 E VICTORY RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-7051 YOUNG REX T & MARLA H 2950 E VICTORY RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-7051 DOUG LASHER CONSTRUCTION INC PO BOX 583 MERIDIAN ID 83680-0583 3130 S TAGISH PL 3133 S TAGISH PL 3144 S TAGISH PL ALLEN BIRTEN JAMES & ALLEN MARY LOU 3040 E VICTORY RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-7051 MARQUART DAVID M & BARBARA K 3100 E VICTORY RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 FARWEST LLC 4550 W STATE ST BOISE ID 83703-4467 S TAGISH PL S BRANDY'S JEWEL WAY ALLIANCE ENTERPRISES INC 7311 POTOMAC BOISE ID 83704-0000 3171 S TAGISH PL WHITE & SONS CONSTRUCTION LLC 565 JACKSON ST BOISE ID 83705-0000 3121 S TAGISH PL OASIS CONSTRUCTION INC 5772 N APPLEBROOK WAY BOISE ID 83713-0000 3169 S TAGISH PL C W CONSTRUCTION INC 1300 S HEIDI PL MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 3157 S TAGISH PL KESLING DIRK A KESLING DENISE 2422 12TH AVE S STE 127 NAMPA ID 83687-0000 3145 S TAGISH PL JERREMS CATHERIN E 3245 S LOCUST GROVE RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-7045 CAVEN JERRY L TRUST 6874 FAIRVIEW AVE BOISE ID 83704-8501 S LOCUST GROVE RD BELL RICHARD & BELL TINA 3615 S LOCUST GROVE RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-7045 IEST TINA DECLARATION OF TRUST 2313 TERRACE DR CALDWELL ID 83605-2258 E VICTORY RD JENKINS HOWARD B JENKINS SHARON J 6951 PEARL RD EAGLE ID 83616-0000 3815 S LOCUST GROVE RD 3893 S LOCUST GROVE RD PATTERSON JAMES DARE 9362 W WICHITA ST BOISE ID 83709-0000 4145 S LOCUST GROVE RD 1-3 LIDDELL RUSSELL V & KAREL J RUGE AIMEE P TRUSTEE 1777 E VICTORY RD 3515 S EAGLE RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN ID 83642-7021 RICHARDSON CHARLES H SIGMONT WALT T RICHARDSON VICKIE R SIGMONT RUTH A 1835 E VICTORY RD 3817 S STAR VALLEY RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 BOISE ID 83709-4851 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 2015 E VICTORY RD S LOCUST GROVE RD 214 BROADWAY AVE BOISE ID 83702-0000 GOLDSMITH MARTY E VICTORY RD 4550 W STATE ST MORGNER E M REV LVNG TRUST BOISE ID 83703-0000 E VICTORY RD KUNTZ LUANN TRUSTEE 4800 W HOLMES ST PULLMAN H R& J F TRUST BOISE ID 83706-2207 PULLMAN H R & J F TRUSTEES 2015 E VICTORY RD 4010 S LOCUST GROVE RD E VICTORY RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-7024 BURNETT FAMILY TRUST PATTERSON WILLIAM D & BURNETT D W& J R TRUSTEES PATTERSON JULIE B 1408 E 2300 PROVO UT 84604-4175 4224 S LOCUST GROVE RD 2895 E VICTORY RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-7024 WATSON MARK NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT 3085 E VICTORY RD 1503 01ST SOUTH ST MERIDIAN ID 83642-7003 NAMPA ID 83651-0000 E VICTORY RD WEBB CRETA J DAWSON TOM L & WEBB GERALD D DAWSON DEBRA 1975 E VICTORY RD 4390 S LOCUST GROVE RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN ID 83642-7059 HOWARD RAYNER C WARRICK PAUL C HOWARD SUSAN A 2445 E AMITY RD 3420 S LOCUST GROVE RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-7054 MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 E AMITY RD KUNZ ERMA SARAH FLOYD POOLE ALAN & LENETTE 3335 S EAGLE RD 3200 S MARYMEADE MERIDIAN ID 83642-7019 EAGLE ID 83616-0000 N EAGLE RD S EAGLE RD SIGMONT WALTER T JR GARRETT H OWEN & SMITH RAYMOND C GARRETT ROMA S 3817 S STAR VALLEY RD 1320 E 500 S # 1006 BOISE ID 83709-4851 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102-0000 S LOCUST GROVE RD S LOCUST GROVE RD MALAISE ALLEN G & SANDRA K NELSON J BRUCE & 3580 S LOCUST GROVE RD NELSON JANICE W MERIDIAN ID 83642-7024 3295 FALCON DR MERIDIAN ID 83642-7037 HILL ANGUS F III & MARGARET M 1925 MERIDIAN RD KUNA ID 83634-0000 3620 S EAGLE RD QUICK TROY & QUICK KRISTI 3677 S CALEB PL MERIDIAN ID 83642-7068 BERTSCH FREDA 3650 S EAGLE RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-7020 COOK REX M & COOK TAMERA D 3691 S CALEB PL MERIDIAN ID 83642-7068 x ROBERT L. ALDRIDGE, CHARTERED Attorney at Law 1209 North Eighth Street Boise, Idaho 93702-4297 Telephone: (208) 336-9880 Fax: (208) 336-9882 WARRANTY DEED GRANTOR: Wanner -Buckner Partnership, an Idaho general partnership, 4225 South Riva Ridge Way, Boise, Idaho 83709 GRANTEE: Kenai Partners LLC, an Idaho limited liability company PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: See attached. FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Grantor does hereby grant, bargain, sell, and convey unto the Grantee the above described property; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the said Grantee, and Grantee's heirs and assigns forever. Grantor does covenant to and with the said Grantee that Grantor is the owner in fee simple of said premises; that said premises are free from all encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever. DATED August 25, 1999. Wanner -Buckner Partnership alt Wanner, Managing Partner STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. COUNTY OF ADA ) On this August 25, 1999, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Walt Wanner, known or identified to me to be the Managing Partner of Wanner - Buckner Partnership and to be the person whose name is attached to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that said partnership executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto placed my official hand and seal the day and year in this Certificate first above written. 2 0p.....N.... * .,. n. [7 _ CO 1 'k ld�q Notary Public for Idaho 0' two Residing at \ K �° • My Commission expires on vo l&0 * NN R"Idi^0 M M Commiss/on expires�� Idaho1. 2 'PARCEL 2 y'�i° A parcel of land situated in the Northwest quarter of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being all of the South half of the Northwest quarter and a portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29, as shown in Record of Survey No. 2464, as on file in the Office of the Recorder for Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 29, a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence along the West line of said Section 29 South 0000124" East 1322.89 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, said point being the Southwest corner of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29 marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence along the South line of the said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter South 89050151" East 520.48 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence leaving the said South line of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter' North 51043'15" East 87.93 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence North 46015'38" West 150.80 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence North 17046139" East 385.83 feet (formerly North 17047' West) to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 73002134" East 775.45 feet (formerly South 73004' East) to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin, said point being on the East line of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29; thence along the East line of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29 South 0000'01" West 302.16 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin, said point being the Southeast corner of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29; thence along the North line of the South half of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29 South 89050'51" East 1340.19 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin, said point being the Northeast corner of the South half of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29; thence along the East line of the South half of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29 South 0000141" West 1321.50 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin, said point being the Southeast corner of the South half of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29; thence along the. South line of the South half of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29 North 89052137" West 2679.86 feet to a point marked by a brass cap, said point being the Southwest corner of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29; thence along the West line of said Section 29 North 0000124" West 1322.89 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: A parcel of land consisting of the lands conveyed to the United States of America in the deeds filed in Book 82 of Deeds at Page 281, Instrument No. 27944, and in Book 83 of Deeds at Page 318, Instrument No. 29116, in the Office of the Recorder of Ada County, Idaho, as shown on Record of Survey No. 2464 filed in the said Office of the Recorder for Ada County, said parcel being situated in the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 29, a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence along the West line of said Section 29 South 0000'24" East 1322.89 feet to the Northwest corner of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29, a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence along the North boundary of the said Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter South 89050151" East 1340.0 feet to the Northwest corner of the said Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 29, a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence along the North boundary of the said Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter South 89050151" East (formerly East) 181.90 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving the said North boundary South 33018151" East (formerly South 33028' East) 51.20 feet to a point; thence South 1038109" West (formerly South 1029' West) 342.80 feet to a point; thence South 12009'51" East (formerly South 12019' East) 361.80 feet to a point; thence South 25015151" East (formerly South 25025' East) 243.20 feet to a point; thence South 45030151" East (formerly South 45040' East) 245.90 feet to a point; thence South 10000151" East (formerly South 10010' East) 47.78 feet to a point; thence South 67047137" East (formerly South 6705$' East) 215.19 feet to a point; thence North 73027123" East (formerly North 73020' East) 191.70 feet to (Continued) a point; thence South`23027137" East 129.38 feet (formerly South 23035' East 129.3 feet) to a point on the South boundary of the said Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence along the said South boundary North 89052137" West 65.45 feet (formerly West 65.5 feet) to a point; thence leaving the said South boundary North 23027137" West (formerly North 23035' West) 50.00 feet to a point; thence South 73027'23" West (formerly South 73020' West) 159.70 feet to a point; thence North 67047137" West (formerly North 67055' West) 198.44 feet to a point; thence South 10000'51" East (formerly South 10010' East) 19.74 feet to a point; thence North 89050'51" West (formerly West) 61.00 feet to a point; thence North 10000151" West (formerly North 10010' West) 46.81 feet to a point; thence North 67047'37" West (formerly North 67055' West) 9.59 feet to a point; thence North 10002137" West (formerly North 10010' West) 68.00 feet to a point; thence North 45030151" West (formerly North 45040' West) 223.37 feet to a point; thence North 25015151" West (formerly North 25025' West) 260.80 feet to a point; thence North 12009'51" West (formerly North 12019' West) 376.00 feet to a point; thence North 1038109" East (formerly North 1029' East) 331.20 feet to a point; thence North 33018151" West 71.93 feet (formerly North 33028' West 72.00 feet) to a point on the said North boundary of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence along the said North boundary South 89150'51" East 71.94 feet (formerly East 71.8 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT ditch and road right of ways. PARCEL: -II- A parcel of land situated in the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 29, a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence along the West line of said Section 29 South 0000124" East 1322.89 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin, said point being the Southwest corner of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29; thence along the South boundary of the said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter South 89050151" East 1340.09 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin, said point being the Southwest corner of the said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter which point is also the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the West boundary of the said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter North 00000'01" East 302.26 feet to a point; thence leaving the said West boundary of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter South 73002134" East 66.31 feet to a point on the centerline of the Eight Mile Lateral; thence along the said centerline South 5000143" East 111.17 feet to a a point of curvature; thence continuing Southeasterly 123.47 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 250.00 feet, a central angle of 28017148" and a long chord which bears South 19009'37" East 122.22 feet to a point of tangency; thence continuing South 33018131" East 6.10 feet to a point of curvature; thence continuing Southeasterly 49.96 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 350.00 feet, a central angle of 8010'43" and a long chord which bears South 29013109" East 49.92 feet to a point on the South boundary of the said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence along the said South boundary of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter North 89050151" West 146.46 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT ditch and road right of ways. el -- IJTY CLERK FILE CHECKLIST Project Name: Tuscany Lakes Subdivsion File No. AZ -00-023 Contact Name: Kent Brown Date Received from Planning and Zoning Department: Planning and Zoning Level: 0 0 RX M Notes: Transmittals to agencies and others: i� Notice to newspaper with publish dateg `U/ Certifieds to property owners: ►` Phone: 344-9700 October 20, 2000 aring d * r , V(V 2 � ov---00 and 6--5er=00 ,--/� ®6D Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: � Approve ❑ Deny City Council Level: ❑ Transmittals to agencies and others: ❑ Notice to newspaper with publish dates: ❑ Certifieds to property owners: Hearing Date: ❑ City Council Action: ❑ Approve ❑ Findings / Conclusions / Order received from attorney on: Findings / Conclusions / Order: ❑ Approved by Council: ❑ Copies Disbursed: ❑ Findings Recorded Development Agreement: ❑ Sent for signatures: ❑ Signed by all parties: ❑ Approved by Council: ❑ Recorded: ❑ Copies Disbursed: Ordinance No. Resolution No. ❑ Approved by Council: ❑ Recorded: Deadline: 10 days ❑ Published in newspaper: ❑ Copies Disbursed: Notes: and ❑ Deny Resohrtions: Original Res / Copy Cert: Minulebook Copy Res I Copy Cert: City Clerk City Engineer City Planner City Attorney Sterling Codifiers Project File Copy Res I Original Cert Ada Courty (CPAs) Applicant (non -CPAs) Recorded Ordinances: Original: Minutebook Copies to: City Clerk State Tax Comm. State Treasurer, Auditor, Assessor Starting Codifiers City Attorney City Engineer City Planner Project file Applicant (it appl) Findings I Orders: Original: Minutebook Copies to: Applicant Project file City Engineer CRY Planner City Attorney Record Vacation Findings — •" Recorded Daiopment Agreements: OrginaMraproof Fits Copes to:Applicent Project file City Engineer City Planner City Attorney ROBERT L. ALDRIDGE, CHARTERED Attorney at Law 1209 North Eighth Street Boise, Idaho 93702-4297 Telephone: (208) 336-9880 Fax: (208) 336-9882 WARRANTY DEED GRANTOR: Wanner -Buckner Partnership, an Idaho general partnership, 4225 South Riva Ridge Way, Boise, Idaho 83709 GRANTEE: Kenai Partners LLC, an Idaho limited liability company PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: See attached. FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Grantor does hereby grant, bargain, sell, and convey unto the Grantee the above described property; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the said Grantee, and Grantee's heirs and assigns forever. Grantor does covenant to and with the said Grantee that Grantor is the owner in fee simple of said premises; that said premises are free from all encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever. DATED August 25, 1999. Wanner -Buckner Partnership Walt Wanner, Managing Partner STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. COUNTY OF ADA ) On this August 25, 1999, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Walt Wanner, known or identified to me to be the Managing Partner of Wanner - Buckner Partnership and to be the person whose name is attached to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that said partnership executed the same. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto placed my official hand and seal the day and year in this Certificate first above written. 2 7lublic for Idaho Residing at My Commission expires on A"ung M M.1an Co'"Nssion 9Xplreg Idaho d ho04 PARCEL I A parcel of land situated in the Northwest quarter of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being all of the South half of the Northwest quarter and a portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29, as shown in Record of Survey No. 2464, as on file in the Office of the Recorder for Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 29, a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence along the West line of said Section 29 South 0000124" East 1322.89 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, said point being the Southwest corner of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29 marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence along the South line of the said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter South 89050151" East 520.48 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence leaving the said South line of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter' North 51043115" East 87.93 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence North 46015138" West 150.80 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence North 17046139" East 385.83 feet (formerly North 17047' West) to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 73002134" East 775.45 feet (formerly South 73004' East) to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin, said point being on the East line of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29; thence along the East line of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29 South 0000'01" West 302.16 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin, said point being the Southeast corner of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29; thence along the North line of the South half of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29 South 89050151" East 1340.19 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin, said point being the Northeast corner of the South half of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29; thence along the East line of the South half of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29 South 0000141" West 1321.50 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin, said point being the Southeast corner of. the South half of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29; thence along the South line of the South half of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29 North 89052137" West 2679.86 feet to a point marked by a brass cap, said point being the Southwest corner of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29; thence along the West line of said Section 29 North 0000124" West 1322.89 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. EX C, V 4b '! A parcel of land consisting of the lands conveyed to the United States of America in the deeds filed in Book 82 of Deeds at Page 281, Instrument No. 27944, and in Book 83 of Deeds at Page 318, Instrument No. 29116, in the Office of the Recorder of Ada County, Idaho, as shown on Record of Survey No. 2464 filed in the said Office of the Recorder for Ada County, said parcel being situated in the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 29, a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence along the West line of said Section 29 South 0000124" East 1322.89 feet to the Northwest corner of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29, a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence along the North boundary of the said Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter South 89050151" East 1340.0 feet to the Northwest corner of the said Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 29, a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence along", the North boundary of the said Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter South 89050151" East (formerly East) 181.90 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving the said North boundary South 33018151" East (formerly South 33028' East) 51.20 feet to a point; thence South 1038109" West (formerly South 1029' West) 342.80 feet to a point; thence South 12009151" East (formerly South 12019' East) 361.80 feet to a point; thence South 25015151" East (formerly South 25025' East) 243.20 feet to a point; thence South 45030151" East (formerly South 45040' East) 245.90 feet to a point; thence South 10000151" East (formerly South 10010' East) 47.78 feet to a point; thence South 67047137" East (formerly South 67055' East) 215.19 feet to a point; thence North 73027123" East (formerly North 73020' East) 191.70 feet to (Continued) a point; thence South:23027137" East 129.38 feet (formerly South 23035' East 129.3 feet) to a point on the South boundary of the said Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence along the said South boundary North 89052137" West 65.45 feet (formerly West 65.5 feet) to a point; thence leaving the said South boundary North 23027137" West (formerly North 23035' West) 50.00 feet to a point; thence South 73027123" West (formerly South 73020' West) 159.70 feet to a point; thence North 67047137" West (formerly North 67055' West) 198.44 feet to a point; thence South 10000151" East (formerly South 10010' East) 19.74 feet to a point; thence North 89050151" West (formerly West) 61.00 feet to a point; thence North 10000151" West (formerly North 10010' West) 46.81 feet to a point; thence North 67047137" West (formerly North 67055' West) 9.59 feet to a point; thence North 10002137" West (formerly North 10010' West) 68.00 feet to a point; thence North 45030151" West (formerly North 45040' West) 223.37 feet to a point; thence North 25015151" West (formerly North 25025' West) 260.80 feet to a point; thence North 12009151" West (formerly North 12019' West) 376.00 feet to a point; thence North 1038109" East (formerly North 1029' East) 331.20 feet to a point; thence North 33018151" West 71.93 feet (formerly North 33028' West 72.00 feet) to a point on the said North boundary of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence along the said North boundary South 89050151" East 71.94 feet (formerly East 71.8 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT ditch and road right of ways. A parcel of land situated in the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 29, a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence along the West line of said Section 29 South 0000124" East 1322.89 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin, said point being the Southwest corner of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 29; thence along the South boundary of the said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter South 89050151" East 1340.09 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin, said point being the Southwest corner of the said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter which point is also the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the West boundary of the said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter North 00000101" East 302.26 feet to a point; thence leaving the said West boundary of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter South 73002134" East 66.31 feet to a point on the centerline of the Eight Mile Lateral; thence along the said centerline South 5000143" East 111.17 feet to a a point of curvature; thence continuing Southeasterly 123.47 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 250.00 feet, a central angle of 28017148" and a long chord which bears South 19009137" East 122.22 feet to a point of tangency; thence continuing South 33018131" East 6.10 feet to a point of curvature; thence �r continuing Southeasterly 49.96 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 350.00 feet, a central angle of 8010143" and a long chord which bears South 29013109" East 49.92 feet to a point on the South boundary of the said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence along the said South boundary of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter North 89050151" West 146.46 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT ditch and road right of ways. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 15 6.21 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF VICTORY ROAD EAST OF LOCUST GROVE ROAD WEST OF EAGLE ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP, C/C 06-19-01 Case No. AZ -00-023 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for public hearing on June 5, 2001, and continued until June 19, 2001, at the hour of 6:30 o'clock p.m., Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, and Gary Smith, Pubic Works Director, appeared and testified, and appearing and testifying on behalf of the Applicant was: I(ent Brown of Briggs Engineering, Inc., and appearing and testifying with comments/concerns or in opposition were: Herman Pullman, Rex Young, Mary DeChambeau, and Greg Johnson, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter therefore makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL / GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP - PROPOSED TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION (AZ -00-023) FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The notice of public hearing on the application for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearing scheduled for June 5, 2001, and continued until June 19, 2001, before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice having been mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred (300') feet of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing and with the notice of public hearing having been posted upon the property under consideration more than one week before said hearing; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having been duly considered by the City Council at the June 5, 2001, and continued until June 19, 2001, public hearing; and the applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence. 2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code §§ 67-6509 and 67-6511, and §§11-2-416E and 11-2-417A, Municipal Code of the City of Meridian. 3. The City Council takes judicial notice of its zoning, subdivisions and development ordinances codified at Title 11, Municipal Code of the City of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL / GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP - PROPOSED TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION (AZ -00-023) Meridian, and all current zoning snaps thereof, and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ordinance No. 629, January 4,1994, and maps and the ordinance Establishing the Impact Area Boundary. 4. The property is approximately 156.21 acres in size and is located at the south side of Victory Road east of Locust Grove Road west of Eagle Road. The property is designated as Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. 5. The owner of record of the subject property is the Kenai Partners, LLC of Boise, Idaho. 6. Applicant is Gem Park II Partnership of Meridian, Idaho. 7. The property is presently zoned by Ada County as (RT) Rural Transitional, and consists of agricultural uses. 8. The Applicant requests the property be zoned as Low Density Residential District (R-4). 9. The subject property is bordered on all sides by working farms and rural residential uses, zoned RUT and by Thousand Springs Subdivision zoned R-4 by Meridian. 10. The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 11. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL / GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP - PROPOSED TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION (AZ -00-023) 12. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: a residential subdivision of 349 building lots and 44 other lots. 13. The Applicant requests zoning of the subject real property as R-4 which is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map which designates the subject property as Single -Family Residential. 14. The Meridian City Council recognizes and takes notice of the concerns of Jon and Bonnie Glick, Mr. and Mrs. G. Webb, William Patterson, Mary Morgner DeChambeau, and Al Malaise. 15. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that affect the consideration of this application. 16. The proposed development would pose a high demand for police and fire services, as the services are presently inadequate to serve the proposed development. 17. It is found to not be in the best interests of the City of Meridian to annex the subject property, at this time, given the subject development proposal. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The City of Meridian has authority to annex real property upon written request for annexation and the real property being contiguous or adjacent to city boundaries and that said property lies within the area of city impact as provided by Idaho Code Section 50-222. The Municipal Code of the City of Meridian Section 11 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL / GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP - PROPOSED TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION (AZ -00-023) 2-417 provides the City may annex real property that is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The City Council may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 3. The City of Meridian has exercised its authority and responsibility as provided by "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975', codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code by the adoption of 'Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ord. No. 629, January 4, 1994. 4. The requested zoning of Low Density Residential District, (R- 4), are defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-7-2 C. as follows: (R-4) Low Density Residential District: Only single-family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for planned residential development and public schools. The purpose of the R-4 District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwelling, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible nonresidential uses. The R-4 District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal water and sewer systems of the City. 5. That in § 11-2-417 A it provides in part that: "If the Commission and Council approve an annexation request, the Commission and Council shall insure that said annexation is in accord with this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan." 6. Idaho Code § 67-6511(c) provides in matters where the City Council is considering a zoning designation application as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL / Page 5 GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP - PROPOSED TUSCANY LAIrES SUBDIVISION (AZ -00-023) "If the request is found by the governing board to be in conflict with the adopted plan, or would result in demonstrable adverse impacts upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services, including school districts, within the planning jurisdiction, the governing board may require the request to be submitted to the planning or planning and zoning commission or, in absence of a commission, the governing board may consider an amendment to the comprehensive plan pursuant to the notice and hearing procedures provided in section 67-6509, Idaho Code. After the plan has been amended, the zoning ordinance may then be considered for amendment pursuant to section 67-6511(b), Idaho Code." 7. Idaho Code § 67-6512 (a) provides the authority to grant special and/or conditional use permits" .... when it is not in conflict with the plan." [referring to the Comprehensive Plan.] 8. The City's authority to make and enforce ordinances are confined to within the City's boundaries as provided in Article XII § 2 of the Constitution of the State of Idaho. 9. The provisions of I.C. § 50-222 govern the conditions upon which the City may exercise its authority to annex territory, but the exercise of that authority is discretionary as determined by the City Council. DECISION AND ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby order and this does order: 1) That the application for annexation is denied for the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL / Page 6 GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP - PROPOSED TUSCANY LAI<ES SUBDIVISION (AZ -00-023) a. Development of the road infrastructure within the proposed subdivision is inadequate in its present design and layout. b. The proposed subdivision would extend police and fire services farther south beyond Victory Road, and which services would then be beyond an acceptable service area for response for emergency service at this time. C. The parcel is contiguous to the City limits, but the proposed phasing of the development would begin construction at a portion of the property farthest away from the existing City limits. d. The City Council determined, at their June 19, 2001 meeting, that the annexation of the property is not in the best interest of the City of Meridian at this time. 2) Based upon the section set forth in item no. 1 the application for zoning designation is dismissed. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the denial of the annexation and zoning may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 9 day of 2001. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL / GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP - PROPOSED TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION (AZ -00-023) ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN ANDERSON VOTED COUNCILMAN BIRD VOTED C COUNCILWOMAN deWEERD VOTED COUNCILWOMAN McCANDLESS VOTED MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DATED: 7-5 '© MOTION: APPRO DISAPPROVED: Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department and the City Attorney. ``tY";',,;4j01 Dated: City Clerk Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Tuscany Lakes Sub A7--00-023 PP -00-024 023DENIAL.doc FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL / GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP - PROPOSED TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION (AZ -00-023) Page 8 June 29, 2001 AZ 00-023 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 3, 2001 APPLICANT Gem Park II Partnership ITEM NO. C REQUEST Findings - AZ of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision s/o Victory Road and w/o Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See attached Findings CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: Y NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: Contacted: 1<ert 6/ (i `VYj Date: Phone: 0 Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. interoffice MEMORANDUM To: William G. Berg, Jr. From: Wm. F. Nichols Subject: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision/Gem Park II Partnership Date: June 25, 2001 Will: .DECEIVED 1026 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN Please find attached the original of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL, pertaining to the above matter. Please note this application was denied at the City Council meeting of June 19, 2001. These Findings are now ready to be placed upon the July 3, 2001 City Council agenda. If you have any questions please advise. Z:\Work\N1\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Tuscany Lakes Sub AZ -00-023 PP -00-024 CUP-00-052\Berg062501AZDenyMem.doc Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notices Subject: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision File No.: AZ 00-023 I, Shelby E. Ugarriza, hereby certify that the public hearing notices were sent to the property owners adjacent to the subject property noted in the mailing list on Friday, May 18, 2001 for the public hearing on June 5, 2001 and witnessed by Holly Ulias. Signed, LOAFOut � �a 4(wVinet (,?I Im Date 5I r )01 Date June 15, 2001 AZ 00-023 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 19, 2001 APPLICANT Gem Park II Partnership ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision - s/o Victory Road and w/o Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See previous Item Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: 01P OTHER: ti OTHER: 1,4 Contacted: 4,w I V)y >N n Date: °I (� Q f! Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. PUBLIC HEARING r` RECEIVED SIGN-UP SHEET JUN 19 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE -Tunc_ Iw ! Ux�l I+eryz W. t® PROJECT NUMBER Al CO -OZ� PROJECT NAME NAME FOR AGAINST Z4/�z ?W16' Ak PCI 4-11 MAYOR Robert D. Corrie CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Ron Anderson Keith Bird Tammy deWeerd Cherie McCandless HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208)887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 A&I NNING AND ZONING ARTMENT 5208) 88 • Fax 888-6854 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR C ,°3�` ADOpa OMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT#A TS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: Transmittal Date: File No.: PP -00-024 November 6, 2000 December 5, 2000 Hearing Date: December 12, 2000 Request: Preliminary Plat approval of 156.21 acres for 353 building lots and 39 other lots in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivsion By: Gem Park II Partnership Location of Property or Project Sally Norton, P/Z Bill Nary, P/Z Jerry Centers, P/Z Richard Hatcher, P/Z Keith Borup, P/Z Robert Corrie, Mayor Ron Anderson, C/C Tammy deWeerd, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Cherie McCandless, C/C Water Department Sewer Department Sanitary Service Building Department Y Fire Department Police Department SW corner of Victory and Eagle Meridian School District Meridian Post Office (FP/PP) Ada County Highway District Community Planning Assoc. Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP) U.S. West (FP/PP) Intermountain Gas (FP/PP) Ada County (Annexation) Idaho Transportation Department Your Concise Remarks: City Attorney _ City Engineer _ City Planner _ Parks Department (Residential Gen - 26 PP/FP/PFP - 30 AZ - 27 ":,A 0— La,4.v T Q `,l{j div �•� `� �' AJ 4ppli iorn �,orlly� ' vcS�1� T Cmc.L -1ke �a/�h' -cra- i s a PJ f-`� OAle 'n��rs►�u c. A nU'D _t4b 7` v S'� bdi4"rs i 0ry �C�-TVED ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT DEC - 9 2000 Planning and Development Division CITY OF 11'IERIDIAN -- Development Application Report Preliminary Plat — Tuscany Lakes/MPP-00-024 Locust Grove Road/Victory Road MAZ-00-023/MCUP-00-052 mea k4d'R4F This application has been referred to ACHD by the City of Meridian for review and comment. Tuscany Lakes is a 353 -lot residential subdivision on 152.5 -acres. The applicant is also requesting a rezone from RT to R-4 and annexation into the City of Meridian, and conditional use approval for a planned unit development. This preliminary plat includes an elementary school site. The site is located on the south side of Victory Road, east of Locust Grove Road. This development is estimated to generate 4,000 total trips based on the submitted traffic study. Roads impacted by this development: Locust Grove Road Victory Road Eagle Road ACHD Commission Date — December 13, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. Tuscany Lakes.cnun Page 1 i Q i C) 0 4:1- C) 0 0 CD CD M 10J m Facts and Findings: A. GeneralInfonnation Owner — Kenai Partners LLC, Jean & Richardson Burnett Family Trust Applicant — Briggs Engineering RT - Existing zoning R-4 - Requested zoning 152.5 - Acres 353 - Proposed building lots 39 - Proposed common lots 3,400 - New trips generated by single family 600 - New trips generated by school 293 - Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada - Impact Fee Service Area Meridian - Impact Fee Assessment District Locust Grove Road Section line road Traffic count of 3,552 on 7-16-99 _m C -Existing Level of Service C -Existing plus project build -out Level of Service w 1,325 -feet of frontage 55 -feet existing right-of-way (30 -feet east from centerline) 90 -feet required right-of-way (45 -feet from centerline) Locust Grove Road is improved with 25 -feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Victory Road Collector with bike lane designation Traffic count of 3,321 on 2-2-00 C -Existing Level of Service C -Existing plus project build -out Level of Service 1,050 -feet of frontage 55 -feet existing right-of-way (25 -feet south from centerline) 70 -feet required right-of-way (35 -feet from centerline) Victory Road is improved with 25 -feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. Tuscany Lakes.cmi Nee 2 I Eagle Road Minor arterial with bike lane designation Traffic count of 7,498 on 2-2-00 (n/o Victory Road) C -Existing Level of Service C -Existing plus project build -out Level of Service 30 -feet of frontage 50 -feet existing right-of-way (25 -feet from centerline) 96 -feet required right-of-way (48 -feet from centerline) Eagle Road is improved with two -lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. B. On November 13, 2000, the District Planning and Development staff inspected this site and evaluated the transportation system in the vicinity. On November 20, 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. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. D. Dartmoor Drive, the main entrance off Locust Grove Road, should be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and located as proposed, approximately 560 -feet south of the north property line. 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. E. The applicant should be required to construct a center turn lane on Locust Grove Road for the Dartmoor Drive intersection, because the intersection is expected to carry 1,800 vehicle trips per day according to the submitted traffic study. The turn lane should be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. F. The applicant should be required to construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the site. The sidewalk should be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Locust Grove Road. G. Tuscany Way, the main entrance off Victory Road, should be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and located as proposed at the east property line. 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. H. The applicant should be required to construct a center turn lane on Victory Road for the Tuscany Way intersection, because the intersection is expected to cavy 2,000 vehicle trips per day according to the submitted traffic study. The turn lane should be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. Tuscany Lakes.cmm Noe I. The applicant should be required to construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Victory Road abutting the site. The sidewalk should be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Victory Road. J. The applicant is not proposing access to Eagle Road because the site only has 30 -feet of frontage. The lot with frontage on Eagle Road will be a common lot. K. The applicant should provide a deposit in the amount of $600 to the Public Road Trust Fund for the cost of constricting a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the site (approximately 30 -feet). L. The traffic generated by this development will more than double the volume of traffic on the west leg of the Victory Road/Eagle Road intersection. The applicant's traffic study states that a signal will be warranted by 2005. Because Victory Road and Eagle Road are section line roads ACHD will not require a road trust for this subdivision. Other subdivisions in the area were not required to provide a road trust. M. Any irrigation facilities or utilities should be relocated out of the new right-of-way on Locust Grove Road and Victory Road. �:N.K; N. All streets in the subdivision should be located to align or offset a minimum of 125 -feet from any proposed streets. O. The applicant should be required to construct all public roads within the subdivision as 36 -foot r street sections with curb, gutter, and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of- way. P. The turnarounds should be constructed to provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet. The applicant should also be required to provide a minimum of a 29 -foot street section on either side of any center islands within the turnarounds. Any medians should be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. Dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. Q. The applicant is proposing to construct two traffic circles in Dartmoor Drive located at Como Place and Ionia Way. The applicant should coordinate the size and design of the circles with Traffic Services staff. Dartmoor Drive should be constructed as a 36 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks. Parking should be prohibited on this street segment. Coordinate the signage plan with District staff. R. The following street segments should normally be designated as residential collector streets with no front -on housing, because the anticipated traffic volumes exceed 1,000 vehicle trips per day, according to the submitted traffic study. The submitted preliminary plat shows front -on housing on some segments. • Dartmoor Drive from Locust Grove Road to Naples Avenue • Naples Avenue from Dartmoor Drive to Mediterranean Avenue (plan shows front -on) • Mediterranean Avenue from Naples Avenue to Turin Avenue (plan shows front -on) Tuscany Lakesxnim Paee 4 • Falcon Drive from Turin Avenue to Tuscany Way (plan shows front -on) • Tuscany Way from Falcon Drive to Victory Road The applicant has requested that the District not restrict any of the streets in the subdivision to no -front on housing (with the exception of Dartmoor Drive) because when the abutting sites develop the traffic will be redistributed and according to the applicant's traffic engineer, none of the streets with have over 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The applicant is proposing to stub streets to the east with those properties having frontage on Eagle Road. Also, there is a good possibility that there will be a connection from Mediterranean Avenue to Victory Road through the undeveloped property that bisects this subdivision. S. The proposed Turin Avenue is approximately'/4-mile in length, and is anticipated to carry 1,000 vehicles per day, with front -on housing and direct lot access. The applicant is not proposing to construct any traffic calming on this street. Staff recommends that the applicant take the �� "straightness" out of the roadway, and install traffic circles, or construct traffic chokers in three locations on Turin Avenue. The applicant should submit a new street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. T. The proposed Falcon Drive is anticipated to carry 1,200 vehicles per day with front -on housing and direct lot access. The applicant is not proposing to construct any traffic calming on this street. Staff recommends that the applicant construct one traffic circle or traffic choker on this - segment of roadway to slow vehicles on this street with front -on housing. The applicant should :N submit a new street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. U. The applicant is proposing to constrict Mediterranean Drive from Naples Avenue east to the Ridenbaugh Canal across a parcel that is not a part of this preliminary plat. The City of Meridian requires an applicant to go through the formal subdivision process when the applicant is dedicating right-of-way for a local road which splits a parcel. The parcel being split by this segment of roadway was not included in this preliminary plat, and this proposed segment of the roadway is located off-site. The applicant should consult with the City of Meridian to determine if that parcel also requires subdivision. ACHD should require that this applicant acquire the 50 - feet of right-of-way from the property owner of the adjacent parcel if this segment of Mediterranean Drive it is to be a part of this plat. ACHD is not requiring the construction of that segment of Mediterranean Drive because it is currently off-site. If Mediterranean Drive is not constructed, the applicant should be required to provide a deposit to the Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing one-half of a bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal and Nine Mile Drain. When the abutting property develops that applicant will be required to construct Mediterranean Drive. If Mediterranean Drive is not built, the applicant should supply a preliminary design and cost estimate of the bridge for staff review, prior to determination of the exact amount of the road trust deposit. If this segment of Mediterranean Drive is not constructed with this application, the applicant should be required to provide a turnaround at the west end of Mediterranean Drive, east of the Ridenbaugh Canal. V. The applicant is proposing to construct San Marino Drive to the east property line as a stub street, located between Lot 1, Block 7, and Lot 5, Block 8. District staff supports the location of Tuscany Lakes.cmm Paee 5 the stub street. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street because it is less than 150 -feet deep. 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. W. The applicant is proposing to construct Venice Drive to the east property line as a stub street, located between Lot 1, Block 20, and Lot 23, Block 17. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street because it is less than 150 -feet deep. 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. X. The applicant is proposing to construct Mediterranean Drive to the east property line as a stub street, located between Lot 1, Block 17, and Lot 1, Block 14. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street because it is less than 150 -feet deep. 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. Y. The applicant is proposing to construct Pompei Avenue to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot 20, Block 14, and Lot 37, Block 12. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street, as proposed. 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 and the design of the turnaround with District staff Z. With the exception of Pompei Avenue, the applicant is not proposing to construct any other stub streets to the south property line. Due to the irrigation ditches and canals, it is difficult to provide a stub to the south without constructing a bridge. Staff does recommend that the applicant construct Como Way to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot 11 and Lot 13, Block 9, in alignment with the proposed Como Way on the north side of Calabria Court. City of Meridian staff also indicated that they would be supportive of a stub street in this location. This stub street could serve two oddly shaped parcels with 15 -acres total. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street. 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. AA. The applicant's plat indicates a school site within the subdivision. The school district does not have an official plan for this site, and ACHD will review the school site in the fixture when the plan is submitted by the school district. BB. 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. Tuscany Lakes.cmm Paue 6 CC. Based on development patterns in this area and the resulting traffic generation, staff anticipates that the transportation system will be adequate to accommodate additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. Special Recommendation to the City of Meridian: 1. The applicant is proposing to construct Mediterranean Avenue from Naples Avenue east to the Ridenbaugh Canal across a parcel that is not a part of this preliminary plat. The City of Meridian requires an applicant to go through the formal subdivision process when the applicant is dedicating right-of-way for a local road which splits a parcel. The parcel being split by this segment of roadway was not included in this preliminary plat, and this proposed segment of the roadway is located off-site. The applicant should consult with the City of Meridian to determine if that parcel also requires subdivision. ACHD should require that this applicant acquire the 50 -feet of right-of-way from the property owner of that parcel if it is to be a part of this plat. 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: H' 1. Dedicate 45 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of Popa final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right- of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #193. 2. Dedicate 35 -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. 3. Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Eagle 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. Tuscany Lakes.cirun Page 7 4. Construct Dartmoor Drive, the main entrance off Locust Grove Road, located as proposed, approximately 560 -feet south of the north property line. Dartmoor Drive shall be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and the median should be constricted a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. The applicant shall be required to dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. S Construct a center turn lane on Locust Grove Road for the Dartmoor Drive 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. 6. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the site. The ._, sidewalk shall be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Locust Grove Road. F Construct Tuscany Way, the main entrance off Victory Road, located as proposed at the east property line. Tuscany Way shall be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and the median should be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. The applicant shall be required to dedicate 54 - feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. �. Construct a center turn lane on Victory Road for the Tuscany Way intersection. The turn lane shall be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 9. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Victory Road abutting the site. The sidewalk shall be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Victory Road. 10. Provide a deposit in the amount of $600 to the Public Road Trust Fund for the cost of constructing a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the site (approximately 30 -feet). 11. Any irrigation facilities or utilities shall be relocated out of the new right-of-way on Locust Grove Road and Victory Road. 12. All streets in the subdivision shall be located to align or offset a minimum of 125 -feet from any proposed streets. L3. 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. 14. Construct all of the turnarounds to provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet. Provide a minimum of a 29 -foot street section on either side of any center islands within the turnarounds. Any medians shall be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 - square foot area. Dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. Tuscany Lakes.cmm Page 8 15. Construct two traffic circles in Dartmoor Drive located at Como Place and Ionia Way as proposed. Coordinate the size and design of the circles with Traffic Services staff. 16. Dartmoor Drive shall be constructed as a 36 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks. Parking shall be prohibited on this street segment. Coordinate the signage plan with District staff 17. Construct traffic calming devices on Turin Avenue to take the "straightness" out of the roadway, by installing traffic circles, or constricting traffic chokers in three locations on Turin Avenue. Submit anew street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. 18. Construct one traffic calming device (circle or choker) on Falcon Drive to slow vehicles on this street with front -on housing. Submit a new street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. 19. Construct Mediterranean Drive from Naples Avenue east to the Ridenbaugh Canal within 50 - feet of acquired right-of-way from the property owner of the adjacent parcel if this segment of Mediterranean Drive it is to be a part of this plat. X; If the applicant chooses not to provide the connection, provide a deposit to the Public Rights - of -Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing one-half of a bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal and Nine Mile Drain. If Mediterranean Drive is not built, the applicant shall supply a preliminary design and cost estimate of the bridge for staff review, prior to determination of the exact amount of the road trust deposit. If this segment of roadway is not construct with this application, the applicant will be required to construct a turnaround on the east side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. 20. Stub San Marino Drive to the east property line between Lot 1, Block 7, and Lot 5, Block 8 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. 21. Stub Venice Drive to the east property line between Lot 1, Block 8, and Lot 23, Block 17 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. 22. Stub Mediterranean Drive to the east property line between Lot 1, Block 20, and Lot 23, Block 17 as proposed. hlstall 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. Tuscany Lakes.cnum Page 9 ? ). Stub Mediterranean Drive to the east property line between Lot 1, Block 17, and Lot 1, Block 14 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. 24. Stub Pompei Avenue to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot 20, Block 14, and Lot 37, Block 12. Provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street, 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 and the design of the turnaround with District staff. 25. Construct Como Way to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot I 1 and Lot 13, Block 9, in alignment with the proposed Como Way on the north side of Calabria Court. 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. 26. ACHD will review the school site in the future when the plan is submitted by the school district. 27. 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 shall be required on T the final plat. Ww .; 28. No access points to Eagle Road have been proposed and none are approved with this application. 29. Other than the two public streets specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to Locust Grove Road or Victory Road is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. 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 ACRD 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 Tuscany Lakes.cmm Paee 10 action and shall include a minimum fee of S l 10.00. 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. 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. 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. Tuscany Lakes.cnun Page 1 1 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 Tuscany Lakes.cnvn Page 12 Acla Cottn1Y,_9iq4wat1 oCJWpici Judy Peavey -Derr, President v 318 East 37th Street Dave Bivens, 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 December 14, 2000 TO: Gem Park II Partnership PO Box 344 Meridian, ID 83663 FROM: Christy Richardson, Principal Development Analyst Planning & Development e. SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat: Tuscany Lakes Sub Road I?ECEIVEI) CITY OF MERIDIAN Locust Grove Road/Victory On December 13, 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 together 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 Kathy Stroschein, P.E. Briggs Engineering, Inc. 1800 W Overland Rd. Boise, ID 83705 ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Planning and Development Division Development Application Report Preliminary Plat — Tuscany Lakes/MPP-00-024 Locust Grove Road/Victory Road MAZ-00-023/MC 'P-00-052 This application has been referred to ACHD by the City of Meridian for review and comment. Tuscany Lakes is a 353 -lot residential subdivision on 152.5 -acres. The applicant is also requesting a rezone from RT to R-4 and annexation into the City of Meridian, and conditional use approval for a planned unit development. This preliminary plat includes an elementary school site. The site is located on the south side of Victory Road, east of Locust Grove Road. This development is estimated to generate 4,000 total trips based on the submitted traffic study. Roads impacted by this development: Locust Grove Road Victory Road Eagle Road ACHD Commission Date — December 13, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. Tuscany Lakes.cnirn Page I w laimm-M 0 mom LIN, --i Uc ) 0 z cn c 03 cn 0 z 0 z Z J . �.: ;. �: '�' �` '� Facts and Findings: A. General Information Owner — Kenai Partners LLC, Jean & Richardson Burnett Family Trust Applicant — Briggs Engineering RT - Existing zoning R-4 - Requested zoning 152.5 - Acres 353 - Proposed building lots 39 - Proposed common lots 3,400 - New trips generated by single family 600 - New trips generated by school 293 - Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada - Impact Fee Service Area Meridian - Impact Fee Assessment District Locust Grove Road Section line road Traffic count of 3,552 on 7-16-99 C -Existing Level of Service C -Existing plus project build -out Level of Service 1,325 -feet of frontage 55 -feet existing right-of-way (30 -feet east from centerline) 90 -feet required right-of-way (45 -feet from centerline) Locust Grove Road is improved with 25 -feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Victory Road Collector with bike lane designation Traffic count of 3,321 on 2-2-00 C -Existing Level of Service C -Existing plus project build -out Level of Service 1,050 -feet of frontage 55 -feet existing right-of-way (25 -feet south from centerline) 70 -feet required right-of-way (35 -feet from centerline) Victory Road is improved with 25 -feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. Tuscany Lakes.cmm Page 2 Eagle Road Minor arterial with bike lane designation Traffic count of 7,498 on 2-2-00 (n/o Victory Road) C -Existing Level of Service C -Existing plus project build -out Level of Service 30 -feet of frontage 50 -feet existing right-of-way (25 -feet from centerline) 96 -feet required right-of-way (48 -feet from centerline) Eagle Road is improved with two -lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. B. On November 13, 2000, the District Planning and Development staff inspected this site and evaluated the transportation system in the vicinity. On November 20, 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. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. D. Dartmoor Drive, the main entrance off Locust Grove Road, should be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and located as proposed, approximately 560 -feet south of the north property line. 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. E. The applicant should be required to construct a center turn lane on Locust Grove Road for the Dartmoor Drive intersection, because the intersection is expected to carry 1,800 vehicle trips per day according to the submitted traffic study. The turn lane should be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. F. The applicant should be required to construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the site. The sidewalk should be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Locust Grove Road. G. Tuscany Way, the main entrance off Victory Road, should be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and located as proposed at the east property line. 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. Tuscany Lakes.crrim Page H. The applicant should be required to construct a center turn lane on Victory Road for the Tuscany Way intersection, because the intersection is expected to carry 2,000 vehicle trips per day according to the submitted traffic study. The turn lane should be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. The applicant should be required to construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Victory Road abutting the site. The sidewalk should be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Victory Road. The applicant is not proposing access to Eagle Road because the site only has 30 -feet of frontage. The lot with frontage on Eagle Road will be a common lot. When the parcels to the north and south of this strip redevelop, a public street connection may be favorable through this landscape strip. K. The applicant should provide a deposit in the amount of $600 to the Public Road Trust Fund for the cost of constructing a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the site (approximately 30 -feet). L. The traffic generated by this development will more than double the volume of traffic on the west leg of the Victory Road/Eagle Road intersection. The applicant's traffic study states that a signal will be warranted by 2005. Because Victory Road and Eagle Road are section line roads ACHD will not require a road trust for this subdivision. Other subdivisions in the area were not required to provide a road trust. M. Any irrigation facilities or utilities should be relocated out of the new right-of-way on Locust Grove Road and Victory Road. N. All streets in the subdivision should be located to align or offset a minimum of 125 -feet from any proposed streets. O. The applicant should be required to construct all public roads within the subdivision as 36 -foot street sections with curb, gutter, and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of- way. P. The turnarounds should be constructed to provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet. The applicant should also be required to provide a minimum of a 29 -foot street section on either side of any center islands within the turnarounds. Any medians should be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. Dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. Q. The applicant is proposing to construct two traffic circles in Dartmoor Drive located at Como Place and Ionia Way. The applicant should coordinate the size and design of the circles with Traffic Services staff. Dartmoor Drive should be constructed as a 36 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks. Parking should be prohibited on this street segment. Coordinate the signage plan with District staff. Tuscany Lakes.cmm Pa -e 4 R. The following street segments should nonnally be designated as residential collector streets with no front -on housing, because the anticipated traffic volumes exceed 1,000 vehicle trips per day, according to the submitted traffic study. The submitted preliminary plat shows front -on housing on some segments. • Dartmoor Drive from Locust Grove Road to Naples Avenue • Naples Avenue from Dartmoor Drive to Mediterranean Avenue (plan shows front -on) • Mediterranean Avenue from Naples Avenue to Turin Avenue (plan shows front -on) • Falcon Drive from Turin Avenue to Tuscany Way (plan shows front -on) • Tuscany Way from Falcon Drive to Victory Road The applicant has requested that the District not restrict any of the streets in the subdivision to no -front on housing (with the exception of Dartmoor Drive) because when the abutting sites develop the traffic will be redistributed and according to the applicant's traffic engineer, none of the streets with have over 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The applicant is proposing to stub streets to the east with those properties having frontage on Eagle Road. Also, there is a good possibility that there will be a connection from Mediterranean Avenue to Victory Road through the undeveloped property that bisects this subdivision. S. The proposed Turin Avenue is approximately 11/4 -mile in length, and is anticipated to carry 1,000 vehicles per day, with front -on housing and direct lot access. The applicant is not proposing to construct any traffic calming on this street. Staff recommends that the applicant take the "straightness" out of the roadway, and install traffic circles, or construct traffic chokers in three locations on Turin Avenue. The applicant should submit a new street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. T. The proposed Falcon Drive is anticipated to carry 1,200 vehicles per day with front -on housing and direct lot access. The applicant is not proposing to construct any traffic calming on this street. Staff recommends that the applicant construct one traffic circle or traffic choker on this segment of roadway to slow vehicles on this street with front -on housing. The applicant should submit a new street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. U. The applicant is proposing to construct Mediterranean Drive from Naples Avenue east to the Ride nbaugh Canal across a parcel that is not a part of this preliminary plat. The City of Meridian requires an applicant to go through the fon-nal subdivision process when the applicant is dedicating right-of-way for a local road which splits a parcel. The parcel being split by this segment of roadway was not included in this preliminary plat, and this proposed segment of the roadway is located off-site. The applicant should consult with the City of Meridian to detennine if that parcel also requires subdivision. ACHD should require that this applicant acquire the 50 - feet of right-of-way from the property owner of the adjacent parcel if this segment of Mediterranean Drive it is to be a part of this plat. Tuscany Lakes.cmm Page 5 ACHD is not requiring the construction of that segment of Mediterranean Drive because it is currently off-site. If Mediterranean Drive is not constructed, the applicant should be required to provide a deposit to the Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing one-half of a bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal and Nine Mile Drain. When the abutting property develops that applicant will be required to construct Mediterranean Drive. If Mediterranean Drive is not built, the applicant should supply a preliminary design and cost estimate of the bridge for staff review, prior to determination of the exact amount of the road trust deposit. If this segment of Mediterranean Drive is not constructed with this application, the applicant should be required to provide a turnaround at the west end of Mediterranean Drive, east of the Ridenbaugh Canal. V. The applicant is proposing to construct San Marino Drive to the east property line as a stub street, located between Lot 1, Block 7, and Lot 5, Block 8. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street because it is less than 150 -feet deep. 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. W. The applicant is proposing to construct Venice Drive to the east property line as a stub street, located between Lot 1, Block 20, and Lot 23, Block 17. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street because it is less than 150 -feet deep. 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. X. The applicant is proposing to construct Mediterranean Drive to the east property line as a stub street, located between Lot 1, Block 17, and Lot 1, Block 14. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street because it is less than 150 -feet deep. 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. Y. The applicant is proposing to construct Pompei Avenue to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot 20, Block 14, and Lot 37, Block 12. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street, as proposed. 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 and the design of the turnaround with District staff. Tuscany Lakes.cmm Page 6 Z. The applicant is proposing to constrict Lucca Avenue to the north property line as a stub street, located between Lot 9, Block 6, and Lot 1, Block S. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street. 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. AA. With the exception of Pompei Avenue, the applicant is not proposing to construct any other stub streets to the south property line. Due to the irrigation ditches and canals, it is difficult to provide a stub to the south without constructing a bridge. Staff does recommend that the applicant construct Como Way to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot 11 and Lot 13, Block 9, in alignment with the proposed Como Way on the north side of Calabria Court. City of Meridian staff also indicated that they would be supportive of a stub street in this location. This stub street could serve two oddly shaped parcels with 15 -acres total. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street. 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. BB. The applicant's plat indicates a school site within the subdivision. The school district does not have an official plan for this site, and ACHD will review the school site in the future when the plan is submitted by the school district. CC. 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. DD. Based on development patterns in this area and the resulting traffic generation, staff anticipates that the transportation system will be adequate to accommodate additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. Special Recommendation to the City of Meridian: The applicant is proposing to constrict Mediterranean Avenue from Naples Avenue east to the Ridenbaugh Canal across a parcel that is not a part of this preliminary plat. The City of Meridian requires an applicant to go through the formal subdivision process when the applicant is dedicating right-of-way for a local road which splits a parcel. The parcel being split by this segment of roadway was not included in this preliminary plat, and this proposed segment of the roadway is located off-site. The applicant should consult with the City of Meridian to determine if that parcel also requires subdivision. ACHD should require that this applicant acquire the 50 -feet of right-of-way from the property owner of that parcel if it is to be a part of this plat. 2. The applicant is not proposing access to Eagle Road because the site only has 30 -feet of frontage. The lot with frontage on Eagle Road will be a common lot. When the parcels to the Tuscany Lakes.cmm Page 7 north and south of this strip redevelop, a public street connection may be favorable through this landscape strip. 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 45 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right- of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #193. 2. Dedicate 35 -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. 3. Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Eagle 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. 4. Construct Dartmoor Drive, the main entrance off Locust Grove Road, located as proposed, approximately 560 -feet south of the north property line. Dartmoor Drive shall be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and the median should be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. The applicant shall be required to dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. 5. Constrict a center turn lane on Locust Grove Road for the Dartmoor Drive 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. Tuscany Lakes.cnim Page 8 6. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the site. The sidewalk shall be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Locust Grove Road. 7. Construct Tuscany Way, the main entrance off Victory Road, located as proposed at the east property line. Tuscany Way shall be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and the median should be constricted a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. The applicant shall be required to dedicate 54 - feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. 8. Construct a center turn lane on Victory Road for the Tuscany Way intersection. The turn lane shall be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 9. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Victory Road abutting the site. The sidewalk shall be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Victory Road. 10. Provide a deposit in the amount of $600 to the Public Road Trust Fund for the cost of constructing a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the site (approximately 30 -feet). 11. Any irrigation facilities or utilities shall be relocated out of the new right-of-way on Locust Grove Road and Victory Road. 12. All streets in the subdivision shall be located to align or offset a minimum of 125 -feet from any proposed streets. 13. 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. 14. Construct all of the turnarounds to provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet. Provide a minimum of a 29 -foot street section on either side of any center islands within the turnarounds. Any medians shall be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 - square foot area. Dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. 15. Construct two traffic circles in Dartmoor Drive located at Como Place and Ionia Way as proposed. Coordinate the size and design of the circles with Traffic Services staff. 16. Dartmoor Drive shall be constructed as a 36 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks. Parking shall be prohibited on this street segment. Coordinate the signage plan with District staff. Tuscany Lakes.cmm Pace 9 17. Constrict traffic calming devices on Turin Avenue to take the "straightness" out of the roadway, by installing traffic circles, or constructing traffic chokers in three locations on Turin Avenue. Submit a new street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. 18. Construct one traffic calming device (circle or choker) on Falcon Drive to slow vehicles on this street with front -on housing. Submit a new street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. 19. Construct Mediterranean Drive from Naples Avenue east to the Ridenbaugh Canal within 50 - feet of acquired right-of-way from the property owner of the adjacent parcel if this segment of Mediterranean Drive it is to be a part of this plat. M If the applicant chooses not to provide the connection, provide a deposit to the Public Rights - of -Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing one-half of a bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal and Nine Mile Drain. If Mediterranean Drive is not built, the applicant shall supply a preliminary design and cost estimate of the bridge for staff review, prior to determination of the exact amount of the road trust deposit. If this segment of roadway is not construct with this application, the applicant will be required to construct a turnaround on the east side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. 20. Stub San Marino Drive to the east property line between Lot 1, Block 7, and Lot 5, Block 8 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. 21. Stub Venice Drive to the east property line between Lot 1, Block 8, and Lot 23, Block 17 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. 22. Stub Mediterranean Drive to the east property line between Lot 1, Block 17, and Lot 1, Block 14, 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. 23. Stub Pompei Avenue to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot 20, Block 14, and Lot 37, Block 12. Provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street, 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 and the design of the turnaround with District staff. Tuscany Lakes.cmm Page 10 24. Stub Lucca Avenue to the north property line as a stub street, located between Lot 9, Block 6, and Lot 1, Block 8, 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. 25. Construct Como Way to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot 11 and Lot 13, Block 9, in alignment with the proposed Como Way on the north side of Calabria Court. 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. 26. ACHD will review the school site in the future when the plan is submitted by the school district. 27. 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 shall be required on the final plat. 28. No access points to Eagle Road have been proposed and none are approved with this application. 29. Other than the two public streets specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to Locust Grove Road or Victory Road is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. 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 ori final decision The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Tuscany Lakes.cmm Page 11 r 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. 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACRD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 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. Tuscany Lakes.cmm Page 12 Conclusion of Law: 1. 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 December 13, 2000 Tuscany Lakes.cmm Page 13 SUBDIVISION EVALUATION SHEET Proposed Development Name Tuscany Lakes Subdivision File # PP -00-024 Date Reviewed 11/16/00 Preliminary Stage X Final Engineer/Developer Briggs Engineering The Street name comments listed below are made by the members of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE (under direction of the Ada County Engineer) regarding this development in accordance with the Boise City Street Name Ordinance. The following existing street names shall appear on the plat: "S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD" "S. EAGLE ROAD" "E. VICTORY ROAD" "E. FALCON DRIVE" "E. DARTMOOR DRIVE" The following new street names are approved for this development: "S. ADRIATIC AVENUE" "S. ADRIATIC PLACE" "S. COMO AVENUE" "S. COMO PLACE" "E. CALABRIA STREET" "E. CALABRIA COURT" "E. GENOVA STREET" "E. GENOVA COURT" "E. ISCHIA STREET" "S. NAPLES WAY" "E. SICILY STREET" "S. PALERMO AVENUE ""E. MILAN COURT" "E. BASCILICA COURT" "E. SIRACUSA COURT" "S. POMPEI AVENUE ""S. TIBER AVENUE" "E. ROME STREET" "E. VENICE DRIVE" "E. MATESE DRIVE" "S. TIBER PLACE" "S. LUCCA AVENUE" "S. ITALY AVENUE" The street name "S. TURIN AVENUE" and "S TURIN PLACE" are in alignment with "S. BRANDY'S JEWEL WAY" and shall carry that name The street name "S IONIA WAY" is in alignment with "S. BAYOU BAR AVENUE" and shall carry that name. lh- e Sfi The following street names are not approved because they are duplicates: "S. FLORENCE WAY" "E. MEDITERRANEAN DRIVE" and "E. MEDITERREAN COURT" RECEIVED DEC 0 5 2000 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE The above street name comments have been read and approved by the following agency representatives of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE. ALL of the signatures must be secured by the representative or his designee in order for the street names to be officially approved. ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE, ENTATIVES OR DESIGNEES Ada County Engineer John Priester L Date Community Planning Assoc. Sherri Pill Date o0 7 City of Meridian Cheryl Sable / Date 1!5) Meridian Fire District Representative Date - ✓ 0 d NOTE: A copy of this evaluation sheet must be presented to the Ada County Engineer at the time of signing the "final plat', otherwise the plat will not be signed !!!! Subindex Street Index 3N 1E 23 NUMBERING OF LOTS AND BLOCKS TRISUBSISM_CITY.FRM Section 'l `V*to cvo 000 otlo4, DeC-41Q%00 4:43PMi page 1 9 /t 10-1 ZED DEC 2 0 2000 CITY OP NEWMAAT MANNING & ZGMxG Jdn and Bonnie Glick 2860 E. Victory Rd. 4&ridlan, Idaho 83642 248-888-5387 December 18, 2000 -VCFIVE To: City of Meridian UEC 2 1 204 t'laanwg and Zo"*Comrnisciun city of Meridian 33 Last Idaho Street f';ity Clerk Offiele Meridian. Idaho 83642 Dear Sirs: *e have lived at the above address for almost 20 years. We have enjoyed the country atmosphere in this area. We have especially enjoyed the view of the Owyhcc Mountains south of us. We do not want to lose this asset to our living. We would like to see single story homes built on at least 3 lots directly across Victory Rd, from us. We arc concerned about traffic in this area and with this new development. Already the corners of Eagle and Victory and Eagle and Overland are a mess during the rush hours. Ilow will the county accommodate this additional influx of population when the roads are already overloaded? We would recommend yurne open space and parks in this subdivision. No open space, except for drainage ponds, has been planned for in any of the subdivisions around us. Plcasc put land aside for a park. the dltality of life in this area needs open spaces and parks to make it liveable. We arc concerned about our water supply. All the homes along Victory Rd. next to us have domestic yells. What kind of water supply will this subdivision use and can you guarantee it won't deplete uur wells? Tbank you for considering our concerns. k� 1CCSO - Request for Preliminary Plat of 156.21 Acres for 353 Building Lots and 39 Other Lots (now 349 building lots and 44 other lots on the revised plat) by Gem Park II Partnership for a Residential Subdivision in a Proposed R-4 Zone (File #PP -00-024) - Request for a Conditional Use Permit (Planned Development) for Flexible Lot Sizes, Frontage, Block Length, Cul-de-sac length, ditch tiling, and sidewalk requirements. (File #CUP -00-052) We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATIONS SUMMARY/BACKGROUND This Staff report is a revision to the 12-05-00 Staff memo regarding the subject applications. It provides a detailed analysis of the annexation, preliminary plat and planned development (CUP) applications, while the previous report dealt primarily with the annexation only. The applicant has made several modifications to the original plat, including: a. The school site has shifted north and the lot configurations around it have changed accordingly. b. The street and sewer connection between the east and west portions of the property is now below the school site and no longer crosses the Morgner property. C. Dartmoor Drive now curves for traffic calming and the roundabouts have been removed. d. The total number of building lots has been reduced from 353 to 349. e. The total number of common lots has been increased from 39 to 44. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doc HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY AWOR Robert D. CorrieCITY A Good Place to Live h n i �- 6r\GTIY C011NCIL OF MERIDI��N �BERS yrk,� �h tib, 2_00Ran Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 A' Tammy deWeerd (208) 888-4433 - FAX (208) 887-4813 YV� Cherie McCandless city Clerk Office Fax (208) 88&3218 MEMORANDUM: March 13, 2001 To: Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor & City Council =RE C E I VE From: Steve Siddoway, Planner ------ '�O j Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer CITY OF MERIDIAN Re: TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION (REVISED) CITY ri FRK t7;:FI('E - Request for Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 Acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 by Gem Park II Partnership (File #AZ -00-023) - Request for Preliminary Plat of 156.21 Acres for 353 Building Lots and 39 Other Lots (now 349 building lots and 44 other lots on the revised plat) by Gem Park II Partnership for a Residential Subdivision in a Proposed R-4 Zone (File #PP -00-024) - Request for a Conditional Use Permit (Planned Development) for Flexible Lot Sizes, Frontage, Block Length, Cul-de-sac length, ditch tiling, and sidewalk requirements. (File #CUP -00-052) We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATIONS SUMMARY/BACKGROUND This Staff report is a revision to the 12-05-00 Staff memo regarding the subject applications. It provides a detailed analysis of the annexation, preliminary plat and planned development (CUP) applications, while the previous report dealt primarily with the annexation only. The applicant has made several modifications to the original plat, including: a. The school site has shifted north and the lot configurations around it have changed accordingly. b. The street and sewer connection between the east and west portions of the property is now below the school site and no longer crosses the Morgner property. C. Dartmoor Drive now curves for traffic calming and the roundabouts have been removed. d. The total number of building lots has been reduced from 353 to 349. e. The total number of common lots has been increased from 39 to 44. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 2 SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Surrounding properties on all sides of the project include working farms and rural residential uses, zoned RUT. The area north of Victory Road includes Thousand Springs Subdivision, zoned R-4, which is the point the subject property is contiguous with existing City Limits. CURRENT OWNERS OF RECORD The Burnett Family Trust, Walter T. Sigmont, Jr., and Raymond C. Smith are the current property owners. The applicant has submitted notarized consent statements from all current property owners to clear up the ownership questions raised in the original staff report. ANNEXATION AND ZONING COMMENTS A detailed analysis of the annexation application was provided in Staffs 12-5-00 report. Our original recommendation was that "issues related to ownership, emergency access, power service, sewer and water, school siting, parks and pathways, floodplain, wetlands, and traffic should be resolved before annexing the property to the City." The current status of those issues follows: • Ownership: The applicant has submitted Affadavits of Legal Interest from the current property owners. This issue is resolved to staffs satisfaction. Emergency Access: A second emergency access is still needed. No more than 100 lots should be allowed to develop within the subdivision until a second access is provided. To accommodate this requirement without redesign of the subdivision, the "through streets" that provide access to the arterials could be graded to allow emergency access. This issue should be discussed as part of the record. The applicant should coordinate this issue with the Fire Department. • Power Service: Idaho Power has stated that they do not want to stop this project. "There is a serious lack of facilities in this area currently, however, to serve this new proposed subdivision." The subdivision cannot be served with any power until after September 1, 2001. This date is dependent on Idaho Power obtaining approval for a new substation in time for construction, prior to the 2002 summer peak electricity demand. • Sewer: The City's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan shows that the proposed subdivision would sewer via the Ten Mile Drain, with the west half draining toward Locust Grove and the east half draining toward Victory Road. The current revised conceptual sewer plans submitted with the application do not follow this plan. The sewer concept plan shows all sewer from the east crossing over into the west area draining to Locust Grove. As originally discussed, any proposal that is not consistent with the established Public Facilities Plan will have to be analyzed against the plan to determine if the final result will achieve the same desired area and level of serviceability. All costs of the analysis by the City of Meridian's Public Facilities Plan consultant shall be borne by this developer. The revised sewer concept plan was submitted to the city's consultant on March 5, 2001, for preparation of a scope of work AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 3 and cost estimate. Modeling will not be started until the estimates are completed and proper agreements are executed. • Water: Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. Copies of the revised conceptual water plans will be transmitted to the City of Meridian's Water system consultant for detailed analysis. All costs of the analysis by the City's consultant shall be borne by this developer. School Siting: Under the proposed phasing plan, the roads would not reach the school site until the final phases of development. The applicant's representative has told staff that the developer will build the roads to access the school site whenever they are ready to begin construction. This agreement needs to be made part of the record. Staff still has two concerns about the proposed school site. First, the school property has no frontage along the street, which makes the school difficult to find, in staffs opinion, and hides it, rather than making it the focal point of community development per comprehensive plan policies. Second, the proximity to the Ridenbaugh Canal is a safety concern. It should be noted that the school district does not share these concerns, so perhaps they are a non - issue. Finally, the revised layout creates a difficult turn and a possible safety hazard for busses and other vehicles coming from the north into the site. The entrance is located very near the intersection of Rome Drive and Tiber Avenue, creating, in staffs opinion, a dangerous blind intersection for vehicles pulling out of the school site. Neither ACHD nor the school district has commented on this layout. Parks & Pathways: The applicant should have met with the Parks Dept. to discuss the potential of a park site in this area, as well as the pathway requirements. The applicant should address the results of this meeting to the Commission. The applicant is proposing to construct a pathway along Ten Mile Creek, as required by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports the pathway. However, there are still unresolved issues related to development standards and dedicating the pathway to the City for public use and maintenance. These issues must be resolved. Floodplain: The developer is required to determine actual flood elevations through a detailed study. The original staff report stated that the applicant should be required to provide the City with such a study before any action is taken on the preliminary plat. This report has not yet been prepared. However, preliminary indications show that the floodplain may be confined within the banks of the creek channel. Therefore, staff agrees that the detailed study may be submitted with the final plat application for the subdivision (first phase). • Wetlands: A wetlands area exists along the south portion of the property. It appears that part of the wetlands may be filled to accommodate the S. Pompeii Avenue stub to the south. The applicant should provide the City with a letter from the Corps of Engineers regarding the status of the wetland area and any required protective measures. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 4 • Traffic: ACHD has not yet reviewed the revised plat. ACRD would like to make sure that any major design changes required by City staff and the P&Z Commission are done prior to their review. Once the major design changes have been finalized based on the City's issues, ACHD does want to review the revisions prior to sending the application to Council. The street connection no longer crosses the Morgner property, so the offsite connection issue has been resolved. ANNEXATION SITE SPECIFIC REOUIRMENTS 1. The legal description submitted with the application meets the requirements of the City of Meridian and State Tax Commission and places the parcel contiguous to existing city limits. 2. The requested zoning of R-4 is compatible with adjacent properties within the City and with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of single-family residential. 3. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. At this time it is not known whether essential city services are available to the subject property. As mentioned above, detailed analysis will need to be completed to determine if the proposed sewer routing, contrary to the City's Master Plan, will achieve the same desired area and level of serviceability as the Master Plan route. Detailed analysis will also need to be completed on the water system to determine the serviceability of the proposed development. All costs of the analysis by the City's consultants shall be borne by this developer 4. Applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Agreement with the City as a condition of annexation. 5. A condition of the Annexation/Development Agreement shall be that the project comply with the standards of the Landscape Ordinance, 12-13. 6. Detached sidewalks with a minimum 5 -foot -wide planter strip between the curb and sidewalk shall be required along the frontage of Locust Grove and Victory Road. ANNEXATION & ZONING - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 5 3. High-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. 4. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. PRELIMINARY PLAT SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. According to the applicant's calculations, the proposed plat contains the following lot sizes: • 7,000-8,000 s.f 9 lots • 8,000-9,000 s.f 67 lots • 9,000-10,000 s.f. 72 lots • 10,000-11,000 s.f. 96 lots • 11,000-12,000 s.f. 37 lots • 12,000-13,000 s.f. 32 lots • >13,000 s.f. 36 lots The proposed density is 2.29 dwelling units per acre. 2. The outstanding issues related to emergency access, power service, sewer and water, school siting, parks and pathways, floodplain delineation, wetlands, and traffic (discussed at length under the annexation comments) also apply to the plat. 3. Sanitary sewer service to this development has been proposed to all flow out to Locust Grove Road, even though the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan developed for the City shows only the western portion flowing to Locust Grove, and the eastern portion flowing to the north to Victory Road. 4. Water service to this development is proposed to be via extensions from the existing mains. 5. Applicant has indicated that the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. 6. Applicant shall be responsible to construct permanent perimeter fencing, except where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in place prior to applying for building permits. 7. The open space requirement for this plat (typically 5% for a single family residential plat) is actually 10% due to the planned development application for this project. The open space issue will therefore be handled under the Conditional Use Permit comments. All open space must be in conformance with the landscape ordinance to be included in the open space calculation. The application appears to easily meet the 5% requirement. 8. A generic landscape plan was submitted with the application, which is not in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance and is not approved. The following issues are noted for resolution: 1- The plan states that "open areas shall be grassed with the possibility of trees AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 6 and/or shrubs." Note: Trees and grass, shrubs, or other vegetative groundcover are required in all common areas to be counted as open space. 2- The plan states that "existing trees shall be removed, unless it is possible to use them for landscaping purposes." Note: All existing trees greater than four -inch caliper must be retained and protected, or mitigated for, in accordance with the Tree Preservation section of the Landscape Ordinance, 12-13-13. 9. A detailed landscape plan for the common areas, in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance, shall be submitted for review and approval with the submittal of the final plat. The plan must include sizes and species of trees, shrubs, berming/swale details, and all proposed ground cover/treatment. 10. The proposed 30 -foot -wide landscape buffers along Victory Road and Locust Grove Road are in compliance with the 25 -foot minimum in the Landscape Ordinance. The buffers shall be located beyond the required ACRD right-of-way and constructed by the developer as a condition of the plat. The landscape buffers shall be placed in separate common lots as shown. Fencing is not to encroach upon these buffers. Landscaping within the buffers is to be verified as part of the detailed landscape plan submittal with the final plat. 11. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 12. In accordance with City Ordinance 12-13-8-1, underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all common landscape areas on site. 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 common landscaped areas, prior to signature on the final plat. Applicant shall submit irrigation performance specifications to the Planning & Zoning Department in compliance with Ordinance 12-13-8-2 when applying for a Final Plat. 13. A letter from Mr. Al Malaise, dated January 10, 2001, was sent to the City regarding irrigation ditch issues. The applicant should address this issue and its resolution for the record. 14. The revised plat does not contain any of the notes, legend, easements, contours, or phasing information contained on the original plat. This information must be added to the revised plat. 15. The easement for the Nine Mile Drain is not shown on any of the submitted plans and it is possible that some of the proposed lots may encroach within this easement. Please verify the width of the easement and show it on the plat. 16. Submit ten copies of any required revisions to the preliminary plat at least ten (10) days prior to public hearing at City Council. PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 7 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. Provide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance 12-5-2.K and 12-13-10-8. 4. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 5. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project shall be tiled per City Ordinance No. 12-4-13, except as provided for under site specific requirements. The ditches to be piped should be shown on the site plans. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 6. 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. 7. Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all common landscape areas on the site. 8. Two -hundred -fifty watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 9. Indicate on the final plat map all FEMA floodplains affecting the area being platted, and detail plans for reducing or eliminating the boundary, if necessary. CUP (PUD) REQUIREMENTS 1. As part of a conditional use permit, the City of Meridian may impose restrictions and conditions in addition to current City Ordinances in accordance with 11-17-1 and 11-17-4. 2. Planned Development Regulations: As a planned development, the Tuscany Lakes Subdivision must comply with the following sections of the subdivision ordinance: 12-6-4 Procedures for Planned Developments, 12-6-6 General Regulations for Planned Development, and 12-6-7 General Standards for Planned Developments. 3. Modification of District Regulations: The primary purpose for the submittal of a Planned Development/Conditional Use Permit for this application is to request modifications to the standard ordinance requirements. The requested modifications include: AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doc r. Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 8 • Lot frontage: Many lots have less than the 80 -foot frontage requirement for the requested R-4 zone. The minimum lot frontage appears to be 70 feet on standard lots, 50 feet along street bends, and less than 40 on the bulb -out north of the school site. • Block len tgth: The 1000 -foot maximum block length is exceeded. • Cul-de-sac length: The 450 -foot maximum cul-de-sac length is exceeded by Adriatic Place and Mediterranean Court. • Lot sizes: 9 lots are less than the required 8,000 s.f minimum. Most lots exceed the minimum lot size. 200+ lots are greater than 10,000 s.f. • Ditch tiling: A waiver from ditch tiling requirements is requested for all waterways on site, including the Ridenbaugh Canal, Ten Mile Creek, Eight Mile Lateral, and Nine Mile Drain. All other ditches are proposed to be piped. • Sidewalks: Ordinance requires sidewalks to be built along both sides of Dartmoor Drive. The applicant is proposing to construct a 10 -foot -wide pathway (construction material unknown) along the north side of Dartmoor, and no walkways along the south side. Staff prefers a concrete sidewalk or meandering path on each side of the street. 4. Open Space: All Planned Developments (PD) are required to have at least 10% of the gross land area of the PD as common open space per City Ordinance Section 12-6-7-E-5. The applicant has provided staff with calculations that meet/exceed this requirement. Open space must be improved with landscaping and irrigation to count toward the open space requirement. Unimproved ditch easements and other bare ground/weed areas will not count as open space. The application states that within the major open space areas along the Eight Mile Lateral and Ten Mile Creek, the developer "would like to slope these areas to create a natural habitat between the home sites and Nampa Meridian's facilities." Please provide additional information regarding the treatment of these "natural habitat" areas. Will they be be simply left as "natural" unimproved areas, or will they be designed and planted with native species of trees, shrubs, and grasses and provided with appropriate irrigation? 5. Pathways: The applicant has stated verbally that a development feature of the subdivision will be constructed pathways along the Eight Mile Lateral and Ten Mile Creek, connected by micropaths to create a loop. These pathways do not currently show up on any of the plans. The applicant should verify this for the record during the hearing, including construction type and width. Staff supports the provision of the pathways. The pathway adjacent to Ten Mile is required per the Comprehensive Plan. Construction standards and ownership/maintenance issues must be coordinated with the Parks Department. 6. Stormwater Detention: All areas used for stormwater detention must be designed and built at least to the minimum standards of Ordinance 12-13-14. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 9 7. Open Water Features: All open water features must be approved through the Alternative Compliance process per Ordinance 12-13-18-2.H. Design details must be submitted through this process to demonstrate adequate circulation and aeration to prevent algae blooms, mosquito breeding problems, etc. Conceptually, staff supports the water features shown as part of the Conditional Use Permit. 8. All common landscape areas shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. 9. All conditions placed on this application shall run with the land and shall not lapse or be waived as the result of any change in tenancy or ownership of any or all of the lands governed by this CUP application. All such conditions shall be deemed the requirements for the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any use or structure as per City Ordinance. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS There are several Comprehensive Plan policies that both support and do not support this proposed annexation. Since the Preliminary Plat and CUP were submitted with the annexation, staff considered all requests together in this analysis. Comprehensive Plan policies that s Rport the annexationlplat/CUP include: • The subject property is designated as Single Family Residential on the Land Use Map of the current Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant is requesting an R-4 zone, which complies with the single family designation. • "Encourage new development ... of higher -density development within the Old Town area and lower -density development in outlying areas." (Land Use Chapter, 1.4U) The proposed development has a gross density of only 2.29 units per acre. • `Encourage landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors." (Community Design Chapter, 4AU) The proposed subdivision has 30 feet along Victory Road and Locust Grove • "Support a variety of residential categories ... for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." (Land Use Chapter, 2.1U) The proposed subdivision has lot sizes ranging from 7,000 s.f to over 19,000 s.f. Comprehensive Plan policies that do not syp ort the annexation/plat/CUP include: • "The following land use activities are not in compliance with the basic goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan... b. Scattered residential (sprawl or spread)." (Land Use Chapter, 1.3). The proposed development is contiguous with existing city limits for only about 480 feet and creates a large enclave of county property between the proposed development and the existing subdivisions north of Victory Road. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.d0C Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 10 • "Police protection within the city limits ...should be maintained according to the recommended service ratio of 1.6 to 1.8 police officers per 1,000 persons." (Public Services Chapter, 6.8) With an estimated current population of 41,000 and 42 sworn officers, the current ratio is approximately 1.0 officers per 1,000. An additional 28 officers would be needed today to bring the ratio up to 1.7 per 1,000. At buildout, this development alone would warrant at least one additional officer. "Housing proposals shall be phased with. ..public service and facility plans, which will maximize benefits to the residents, minimize conflicts and provide a tie-in between new residential areas and service needs." (Housing Chapter, 1.6) The proposed sewer does not follow the City's current facility plans. RECOMMENDATION The outstanding issues that may significantly affect the project design —namely sewer and water, emergency access, school siting, parks, wetlands, and canal easements should be resolved to the Commission's satisfaction; direct the applicant to make any appropriate changes to the plat to address those issues; and allow ACHD to comment on the revised plan prior to sending the project on to Council. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doc ��y Cou�nc� m June 2, 2001 Meridian City Council City of Meridian RE: Proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Dear Mayor and City Council Members: My name is Rex Young, 2950 E. Victory Road, Meridian, ID 83642. My wife Marla and I reside on the North side of Victory Road, across from the proposed exit from the subdivision onto Victory Road. We have resided there for over 30 years. The proposed exit onto Victory Road has been of extreme concern to us. A car exiting the subdivision traveling West will flash their headlights onto our front windows. We have some protection now with an 8 foot hedge but when Victory Road is widened, the hedge will have to be removed as it is within the 48 foot from centerline right-of-way that will be required. We have studied the plans and believe our problem can easily be resolved by relocating the proposed exit road to the West and lining it up with Brandys Jewell, The North exit from Thousand Springs Subdivision. On April 14, 2001, I submitted a letter to Planning and Zoning outlining our proposal. A copy of that letter is attached. I have talked with the Meridian School District about their busing policy. Their standard policy is that children residing less than 1 '/2 miles from the school site will NOT be bused. They do make exceptions on a case by case basis. Applying that policy, all children utilizing the new school site who live in Thousand Springs, Thousand Springs Village, and Woodhaven Subdivisions would not be bused. On May 24, at Mr. Ken Brown's (Briggs Engineering) invitation, we met with ACHD Planner and Traffic Engineer. The Traffic Engineer indicated that if the roads were aligned as I suggest, the intersection would meet ACHD standards. I also pointed out to them that leaving the intersection at the location as now proposed, the walking distance to and from the school each day from the North side of Victory Road would be increased by over'/4 Mile. Ladies and Gentlemen, you know better than I how important it is to plan properly and grant approvals that hopefully will not result in having to re -do projects and intersections. We certainly don't want another Curtis Road extension. My recommendations remain unchanged from my earlier letter to Planning and Zoning. !RECEIVED JUN 0 4 2001 ,CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That you deny that portion of the plan which shows the North exit on the East side of the proposed subdivision. 11 2. That you direct the North exit be moved to the West to align with Brandys Jewell which is the South exit from Thousand Springs Subdivision. 3. That necessary approvals be obtained for that exit location from ACHD. 4. That a traffic control device be included in the plans for that intersection. 5. That any necessary safety improvements be considered to improve the overall safety to that intersection. Thanks fhrxo-uriconsideration. 2950 E. Victory Meridian, ID 83( April 14, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Meridian RE: Continued Public Hearing for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision (AZ 00-023, CUP 00-052, PP 00-024) Commissioners: I am writing this letter for inclusion in the Public Record and for your consideration when you have your next meeting on the above referenced proposed subdivision. I have attached a Vicinity Map with annotations to hopefully clarify my comments. As I indicated during the earlier public hearing, we have lived on our property for over 30 years. To the north of our property, Thousand Springs, Thousand Springs Village, and Woodhaven Subdivisions have been developed. To the South now, Tuscany Lakes Subdivision will soon become a reality. We had few objections to the proposed development but were very concerned about the exit from the subdivision onto Victory Road. The proposed exit is across from our East boundary, and when our privacy shrubs are removed sometime in the future for the widening of Victory Road, the vehicle lights of those making a left turn will flash onto our front windows. This will not only be very annoying but also will adversely impact our quality of life. To remedy this problem for us, we are suggesting that the exit road be moved to the West to align with Brandys Jewell which is the exit road from Thousand Springs Subdivision. During the last public hearings there was considerable discussion concerning the school site and walking routes to and from the school. The representative from the school system made several emphatic points: (1) School Children should have an interior walking route which keeps them away from the canal; (2) Some kind of walkway from the North End of the subdivision should continue across Victory Road so children from Thousand Springs could walk to and from school; (3) Some kind of traffic control device would be needed on Victory Road for safety of children crossing the road. I have talked with planners from Ada County Highway District about Brandys Jewell exit onto Victory Road. They indicated that the exit just meets the minimum requirements for an exit. Slightly shaving the hill to the East of that exit would improve line of sight and traffic light installation would greatly improve safety of that intersection. By moving the North exit from Tuscany Lakes Subdivision to the West and aligning it with the Brandys Jewell exit from Thousand Springs Subdivision the following benefits would be realized: 1. The problem would be eliminated concerning our property and the vehicle lights striking our front windows when they exit to the West. 2. School Children would have a safe interior walking route (away from the canal) to and from school when walking from the North end of the subdivision or from Thousand Springs area. 3. A walkway would be provided through the subdivision and across Victory Road so students from Thousand Springs, Throusand Springs Village, and Woodhaven Subdivisions could walk to and from school. 4. Permit installation of a traffic light to improve safety of children crossing Victory Road and vehicles exiting both Thousand Springs and Tuscany Lakes Subdivisions. 5. Would allow some improvement to the Brandys Jewell exit as it now exists to improve the safety of that exit. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That you deny that portion of the plan which shows the North exit on the East side of the proposed subdivision. 2. That you direct the North exit be moved to the West to align with Brandys Jewell which is the South exit from Thousand Springs Subdivision. 3. That necessary approvals be obtained for that exit location from Ada County Highway District. 4. That a traffic control device be included in the plans for that intersection. 5. That any necessary safety improvements be considered to improve the overall safety to that intersection. Thanks for your consideration. Re. Yo g 2950 E. Victory R d Meridian, ID 83642 April 30, 2001 AZ 00-023 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 3, 2001 APPLICANT Gem Park II Partnership ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing -- Request for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision -- south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See previous Item Packets OTHER: Contacted: Date: ' Phone:�� - —( Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. q[PLY f0 ATTENTION Of Operations Division DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WALLA WALLA OISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS Baso Regulatory Office 304 North Eighth Street, Room 140 Boise. Idaho 83702.5820 May 1, 2001 SL BJECT: NWW No. 01100790 Mr. Kent Brown Briggs Engineering, Inc. 1800 W. Overland Road Boise, Idaho 83705-9700 Dear Mr. Brawn: RECEIVED MAY - 3 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN This concerns your request that we inspect the proposed Tuscany Estates subdivision located in southwest Boise. Sec. 29. T.3h., R. IF, , Ada County. Idaho. On April 30, 2001, 1 met with you on-site and inspected the project arca A number of w;tterways are present within the project area to include the Ridenbaugh Canal. Ten Mile Drain. Eightmile Canal. a cut-off ditch which parallels the southeast side of the Ridcnbaugh C.inal and Ten Mile Creek. The on -cite inspection revealed that wetland communities exist along all of these waterways. However, we do not consider man-made drainage% and canals which were constructed in upland% to be waters of the United States even though they may now support wetland vegetation along the banks. Based on the on-site inspection, and discussions with you, the only waterway on-site which we have jurisdiction over Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is Ten Mile Creek. If your proposes dcvelupment includes activities such as installation of buried utility lines or roadway crossings of Ten Mile Creek. then a permit from [lie Corps, of Engineers would he required prior to conducting any work below the ordinary high water mark or in adjacent wetlands of Ten Mile Creek. It you have any questions, please contact me by writing to the above address or phone (208) 345-2154. Sincerely, Gree Martinez Regulatory Project Manager To whore this MW cowerm 1.1044 111,61 t'1iJ :5?, r HUL_ UL RECEIVED MAY - 3 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN I would like to ad*ess tires Mier to thane who are makiang' the de cisir�rzc about kid uw in the li9feridic n, Idaho wea I;ww Bowe xvwoms about scrtrae qjt% decisiom duet are being mode ars to the kvid use swTovndirtg the AFargraQr Farrar. .My amain cxrmwrss are drat we as the adult chik*vn of Frank and Mirleen .Worgner art treated with die realvect and &Vnty that we deserw. !I+bf father bought this land wws ago and we wart all mb*d in dee gswA, pecrful countrysrdt. We feel that with all the developwnt and thepe" g *viakprnwnrt of all the &wd wrrvun&ng crate luted, that (here is a big c onmm abaW in1ga rlaan water, and ot&r rights theft is e as the original Jared 0"Mrs 0149k hm fatten away or chwged when der land surrawxhng becomes developed. We lova this tawd and do »m appreciate the changts that haw been aewi wv t+tthng place. 111W oitt of ani W and how bean iaiobk to attend the MWW wetbW that have W*en plw+t, but da k"P in class txar wt with taty us ers' Lttxw Kun& and l"y DeChr w&air about idea miteObW they hm been attericling. A,& broomr. anty A lorgner, who also ltws out q.std mgp" dean. I Uffon therm in their ea*av� to protect vier rights as art origfwl fho ily Ida not apprectate the facr that the developers seem to have all the CAW. We a v mare to bt akffwult. but do expect thrift our nee& and dons be Ohm hito cmmwmvarR We an wtir tang on malft the right decision tiro the best rtss Of this armkmd and dee Bilk mm .zee dot is kft In this area It is very molt far w to cow back "hopes " eareh year and see fire MOW changers that ane being M4&,' all tier new A[71 ws tar M may the Quiet cowwyn 'C, and the beautiful vww of the mow"ns dire we used to have, acid the n gy c aging by our mwr~e quids ftir+rr at all flares of dw dqv and night please t1unk ww decisions over CW011Y ,and I ask)k* W nimbi tht fight decisions based on whw is right and not ora who has the mast motity. tnkyoa, April 16, 2001 AZ 00-023 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8, ZONING MEETING April 19, 2001 APPLICANT Gem Park II Partnership ITEM NO. REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision -- south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road with related changes COct-,a kx l n (l I }} AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See previous Item Packets Contacted: &ni Rr6wn Date: 141 1L.0 Phone: 34y q-1 W Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. April 19, 2001 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission: Regarding agenda items: r'� Z /I- f-3 -�-L' ( RECEIVED APR 191001 City of Meridian City Clerk Office # 7. AZ 00-023. Request for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: # 8. PP 00-024. Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: # 9. CUP 00-052. Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: As my home, located at 1975 East Victory Road, borders a portion of the proposed subdivision, I would like to express the following concerns: 1) The property value of my home should not be adversely impacted by this development. I realize this issue is arguable, but I would not have viewed my home in the same light with a subdivision on its border and therefore, would not have paid the price that I did for it. 2) My property, and that of my neighbors, includes several acres. It does not appear that Gem Park 11 has made any attempt to blend the development densities with that of the existing neighborhood. I would like to see a limitation on the minimum lot size for those lots along the parameter of one acre. 3) I would like a guarantee that development construction dust and debris will be minimized and that neighborhood complaints will be addressed immediately and efficiently. I would like to be provided with contact names and numbers where we might direct these complaints. 4) I would also request that the subdivision separation from existing properties be addressed with each property owner as to the appropriate material acceptable for the mandated fencing. Chain link fencing will not be acceptable along my property. I would definitely be in favor of a six-foot solid wood fence mounted on top of an earthen burn. I have a small pond, approximately four foot deep, which would need protection from children. 5) The developer will deal with overgrowth of weeds and other vegetation on undeveloped subdivision property appropriately. 6) We would also like to have the bordering constructed homes limited to ranch style, single level homes, with no exceptions. This will allow for more acceptance of the compromise to our views and our privacy. 7) We are already experiencing traffic increases due to new area subdivisions. I am certain these will be considered in making your decision. Please feel free to contact me at 846-8310 if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you, i"I April 14, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Meridian ]RECEIVED APR 16 2001 City OfMeridiaII City Clerk Office RE: Continued Public Hearing for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision (AZ 00-023, CUP 00-052, PP 00-024) Commissioners: I am writing this letter for inclusion in the Public Record and for your consideration when you have your next meeting on the above referenced proposed subdivision. I have attached a Vicinity Map with annotations to hopefully clarify my comments. As I indicated during the earlier public hearing, we have lived on our property for over 30 years. To the north of our property, Thousand Springs, Thousand Springs Village, and Woodhaven Subdivisions have been developed. To the South now, Tuscany Lakes Subdivision will soon become a reality. We had few objections to the proposed development but were very concerned about the exit from the subdivision onto Victory Road. The proposed exit is across from our East boundary, and when our privacy shrubs are removed sometime in the future for the widening of Victory Road, the vehicle lights of those making a left turn will flash onto our front windows. This will not only be very annoying but also will adversely impact our quality of life. To remedy this problem for us, we are suggesting that the exit road be moved to the West to align with Brandys Jewell which is the exit road from Thousand Springs Subdivision. During the last public hearings there was considerable discussion concerning the school site and walking routes to and from the school. The representative from the school system made several emphatic points: (1) School Children should have an interior walking route which keeps them away from the canal; (2) Some kind of walkway from the North End of the subdivision should continue across Victory Road so children from Thousand Springs could walk to and from school; (3) Some kind of traffic control device would be needed on Victory Road for safety of children crossing the road. I have talked with planners from Ada County Highway District about Brandys Jewell exit onto Victory Road. They indicated that the exit just meets the minimum requirements for an exit. Slightly shaving the hill to the East of that exit would improve line of sight and traffic light installation would greatly improve safety of that intersection. By moving the North exit from Tuscany Lakes Subdivision to the West and aligning it with the Brandys Jewell exit from Thousand Springs Subdivision the following benefits would be realized: L The problem would be eliminated concerning our property and the vehicle lights striking our front windows when they exit to the West. 2. School Children would have a safe interior walking route (away from the canal) to and from school when walking from the North end of the subdivision or from Thousand Springs area. 3. A walkway would be provided through the subdivision and across Victory Road so students from Thousand Springs, Throusand Springs Village, and Woodhaven Subdivisions could walk to and from school. 4. Permit installation of a traffic light to improve safety of children crossing Victory Road and vehicles exiting both Thousand Springs and Tuscany Lakes Subdivisions. 5. Would allow some improvement to the Brandys Jewell exit as it now exists to improve the safety of that exit. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That you deny that portion of the plan which shows the North exit on the East side of the proposed subdivision. 2. That you direct the North exit be moved to the West to align with Brandys Jewell which is the South exit from Thousand Springs Subdivision. 3. That necessary approvals be obtained for that exit location from Ada County Highway District. 4. That a traffic control device be included in the plans for that intersection. 5. That any necessary safety improvements be considered to improve the overall safety to that intersection. Thanks for your consideration. eY g 27 0 E. ictory oa Meridian, ID 83642 . °e.�. i ,ti �..�. { i' �. �:(f r�A,N �. ,:fit,' �'4 � e �� ._ � � MEMORANDUM: April 13, 2001 To: Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor & City Council RECr-tIVET-4 From: Steve Siddoway, Planner Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer City of .Moridia Re: TUSCANY LAKES SUBDMSION (UPDATE) Cita' Clerk Office - Request for Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 Acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 by Gem Park II Partnership (File #AZ -00-023) - Request for Preliminary Plat of 156.21 Acres for 353 Building Lots and 39 Other Lots (now 349 building lots and 44 other lots on the revised plat) by Gem Park II Partnership for a Residential Subdivision in a Proposed R-4 Zone (File #PP -00-024) Request for a Conditional Use Permit (Planned Development) for Flexible Lot Sizes, Frontage, Block Length, Cul-de-sac length, ditch tiling, and sidewalk requirements. (File #CUP -00-052) We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATIONS SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: This Staff report is an update focused on the outstanding issues discussed during the March 15 public hearing with the Planning & Zoning Commission. All previous comments of the 3/13/01 staff report still apply to the project, except as modified by this report. Sewer: The applicant proposed significant changes to the Sewer Master Plan. Those changes have been reviewed by XB Engineers and their comments are contained in a March 22, 2001 letter to Brad Watson, which has been forwarded to Briggs Engineering (Copy attached). Additional staff comments or modifications to J -U -B's comments are forthcoming, however staff does not believe that there are any issues significant enough to recommend denial of this application. (With approval of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision, approximately 750 ERU's of the 1100 to 1200 ERU's of remaining sewer capacity in the Ten Mile Sewer Trunk are committed until the Ten Mile Relief Line, to be built by the Bear Creek Estates developer, is completed. The construction of the Ten Mile Relief Line will add approximately 1200 AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Update.doc H073 OF TREASURE VALLEY NLWOR A Good Place to Ln e LEGAL DEP_UM, ,ENT Robert D. Corrie ��� O� MERIDIAN (208) 3SS3499 • Fax 388-2501 MY COUNCIL MEMBERS "" PUBLIC % ORhS Ronlnderson 33 EAST IDAHO BLILDING DEPARTMENr (308) 887 -?11 � Fax 887-1397 Keith Bird ML- RIDIAN, IDAHO 836,42 T,unnn_• de\C'eerd (20S) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 PL.,1tii�D�G AND ZONING QieriefcGrndless City Gerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEP 1RItitENT (208) 88.1-5533 - FAX 888-6854 MEMORANDUM: April 13, 2001 To: Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor & City Council RECr-tIVET-4 From: Steve Siddoway, Planner Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer City of .Moridia Re: TUSCANY LAKES SUBDMSION (UPDATE) Cita' Clerk Office - Request for Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 Acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 by Gem Park II Partnership (File #AZ -00-023) - Request for Preliminary Plat of 156.21 Acres for 353 Building Lots and 39 Other Lots (now 349 building lots and 44 other lots on the revised plat) by Gem Park II Partnership for a Residential Subdivision in a Proposed R-4 Zone (File #PP -00-024) Request for a Conditional Use Permit (Planned Development) for Flexible Lot Sizes, Frontage, Block Length, Cul-de-sac length, ditch tiling, and sidewalk requirements. (File #CUP -00-052) We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATIONS SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: This Staff report is an update focused on the outstanding issues discussed during the March 15 public hearing with the Planning & Zoning Commission. All previous comments of the 3/13/01 staff report still apply to the project, except as modified by this report. Sewer: The applicant proposed significant changes to the Sewer Master Plan. Those changes have been reviewed by XB Engineers and their comments are contained in a March 22, 2001 letter to Brad Watson, which has been forwarded to Briggs Engineering (Copy attached). Additional staff comments or modifications to J -U -B's comments are forthcoming, however staff does not believe that there are any issues significant enough to recommend denial of this application. (With approval of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision, approximately 750 ERU's of the 1100 to 1200 ERU's of remaining sewer capacity in the Ten Mile Sewer Trunk are committed until the Ten Mile Relief Line, to be built by the Bear Creek Estates developer, is completed. The construction of the Ten Mile Relief Line will add approximately 1200 AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Update.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z April 13, 2001 Page 2 more ER Us of capacity to the Ten Mile Trunk. The 750 committed ER U's include the previously approved Bear Creek Estates and Observation Point Subdivisions.) Water: Results of water modeling have not been received as of this date. Staff believes that this could be a very significant issue for the serviceability of this development, and therefore we respectfully request that this application be held over until the May 3rd P&Z meeting. Mi rg ating Groundwater: We received a letter dated April 6, 2001 from Associated Earth Sciences, J. Evan Merrell, P.E., stating that a drainage system (cut-off drain) will control groundwater on the subdivision to a safe depth. It will also prevent shallow groundwater movement into the land north of the subdivision. The cut-off drains would be on the order of seven feet deep by outletting as deep as possible into Ten Mile Creek. Street Alignment: Christy Richardson has submitted a letter from ACRD, dated April 11, 2001 stating that they do not want to move the proposed location of Tuscany Way. The proposed location, at the east property line, is the safest. Ridenbaugh PathwaX: The Meridian Parks Dept. has determined that they do not want to require a pathway adjacent to the Ridenbaugh (in the area originally shown as Nine Mile Creek). The Applicant should note whether this area will become a common area or become part of the lots, and indicate such on the plat. In lieu of the pathway connection, staff recommends a micropath that will allow school children walking from the north to access Turin Avenue sidewalks without being forced to walk around to Tuscany Way. The pathways along Ten Mile Creek and the loop through the Eight Mile Creek area should still be required as noted in the previous staff report. School Access: At a minimum, a condition should be added to the plat to allow the school district flexibility in locating the entrance and exit, as site plans are prepared. Staff continues to feel that the current access point is unsafe and that the school is hidden, and will be difficult to find. Wetlands: The letter from the Corps of Engineers may be required prior to the (first phase) final plat. Prior staff reports have required the letter from the Corps prior to the P&Z Commission acting on this preliminary plat. Complete Plat: The applicant should submit a complete plat that includes all proposed modifications, contours, notes, legend, phasing, etc. for the Commission to review, before the project is sent forward to City Council. Prior staff reports have required the modifications to be submitted 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. Recent conversations with Mayor Corrie have made it clear that the Council wants to have the Commission review the revised plans before they go on to the City Council. AZ -00-023, PP -00.024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Update.doc rJ-U-B,i March 22, 2001 Brad Watson, P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Meridian 660 East Watertower, 2nd Floor Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Brad: J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS Regional Office 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709-0944 208-376-7330 Fax: 208-323-9336 We have reviewed the preliminary trunk sewer profiles to serve the proposed Tuscany Subdivision for compliance with the intent of the master plan. We offer the following comments. Master Plan Line Sizing Impacts As proposed in this project, Service Areas 2108, 2119, and 2113 are rerouted to serve the Locust Grove Trunk. Correspondingly, the 15 -inch Victory Road interceptor is moved to the south, within the developing area. To examine the effects of this reconfiguration, the analysis utilized peak flows predicted in the ultimate master plan model. Pipe 2108 serves the reconfigured service area and has a predicted ultimate peak flow of 1.38 cfs. This flow was added to the master planned 24" and 27" Ten Mile Trunk lines on Locust Grove and Victory Road. Flow attenuation was not accounted for; rather, peak flows were simply combined. Results of the proposed master plan revisions are summarized below and in the attached table: • The extension of the Ten Mile Trunk, north of Victory Road, is shown to be 27 -inch, rather than the master planned 15 -inch. This upsizing is not warranted. • Flow to the 27 -inch trunk from Diversion 7 upstream to Locust Grove Road was not changed; however, the proposed profile shows a slope less than the master plan. A minimum slope of 0.067% is shown rather than the model's 0.10%. The sewer needs to maintain the master plan slope for capacity. • The 27 -inch trunk south on Locust Grove Road can accommodate the additional service area change, with a higher d/D, again assuming a minimum 0.10% slope. • The master planned 24 -inch line, east of Locust Grove, will need to be upsized to a 27 -inch line downstream from where the development's 15 -inch connects. The proposed plan incorporates this requirement. Upstream of the 15 -inch, the proposed plan extends the 24 -inch trunk to the south boundary. This is still viable if the 15"-10" interceptor on Locust Grove is constructed to Amity Road. • The 15 -inch Victory Road interceptor can be revised to an 8 -inch collection sewer. Review of Service Depth Generally, the lines appear deeper than the intent of the master plan. Vertical datums do not correlate; however, elevations of the preliminary plans are five (5) feet lower than the master plan, at a common point on the existing Ten Mile Trunk. Ten Mile Trunk Extension: The proposed extension of the Ten Mile Trunk, south to Victory Road, is shown to be at depths of 24 feet to 26 feet, with a depth of 35 feet in Victory Road. A 27 -inch line size (verses 15 -inch master plan) is proposed. It is our opinion that this line size and depth is excessive. It appears that the depths are driven by collection sewers along the north project boundary, and the Victory Road sewer east of Locust Grove Road. If the proposed invert elevations at Victory and Locust Grove Roads are held, excavation depths could be reduced on downstream construction by holding minimum slopes to the existing trunk sewer. Clearance under the Ten Mile Creek crossing on Victory Road would still be achievable. Also, l rJ-U-B.A Engineers Surveyors Planners Mr. Brad Watson, P.E. March 22, 2001 Page 2 the proposed Manhole MH 8 intercepts Victory Road, at a local high point; thus, the 35 -foot depth. The master plan concept for the Black Cat Trunk moved the alignment around this hill by routing south of Victory Road. An alignment should be investigated to avoid this topography. We suggest adopting a minimum slope of 0.10% for construction practicality and capacity concerns rather than 0.067% proposed. Service depth on the 24 -inch at the south boundary of the subdivision appears to be at greater depth than the master plan. • The 15 -inch sewer extension to Eagle Road appears to be at greater depth than the intent of the master plan. Recommendations • The extension of the Ten Mile Trunk is shown to be 27 -inch rather than the 15 -inch master planned. :.`e recornimend coniforming to the raster plan lii--c' sizing of 15 -inch, and revising the sewer slopes and depths as described previously to reduce excavation depths. Soil conditions and the ability of soils to dewater vary in the valley; however, we suggest setting a practical excavation limit of 24 feet. There may be some instances where greater depths are needed to conform to the master plan intent, but it does not appear to be the case in this instance. The 35 -foot depth offers, in our opinion, very limited operation and maintenance access. We recommend investigating alignment alternatives to avoid the local high point in Victory Road, near the proposed Manhole MH 8. • Minimum slope for the 27 -inch trunk should be no lower than 0.10%. • The master plan 24 -inch portion of the Ten Mile Trunk, east of Locust Grove requires upsizing to a 27 -inch downstream of the 15 -inch line. The proposed plans appear to accommodate this requirement. • The sewer on Victory Road, east of Diversion 8, may be revised to 8 -inch. Sewering the area from Victory Road to 1/4 mile south of Victory Road, may be challenging if extended from the Victory Road sewer. We recommend extending the sewers in the Tuscany streets to the north as far as practical to assist in serving this area. • We recommend adopting a practical construction minimum slope of 0.10% for large diameter sewers, 21 -inch and larger, with exceptions only to key trunks identified in the master plan model. • The Ada County mapping project will hopefully have some mapping available this year. Once available, we encourage a review of trunk service depth in critical master plan regions with this updated topographic information. We appreciate this opportunity to assist the City in this evaluation. If we can be of further assistance or if you have any questions, please call me or Richard Wiebe at 376-7330. Sincerely, J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. �HKchbaum, Project Engineer PHK:Ihc Enclosures F:projects\11620\Tuscany subd\Tuscany - city memo.doc r- o ; r LACn ; p rn O v o W CO N N A ? pD V n N D O (D C CO O N N Cn N 'A (fl V V V co (D C Q N Q. C O O Q A C/)'O O O O O O O p Q) < Q) 0) �. O D r zi N (D 3 7 1 �7 D �T 71 rn (D I� (D �� I� Ki r �� ,`Oj n (D CD;=,(D ET c a p• m xr xi p Fj N', CD v N m0 U)C Q C a ci m v 10 41 O Z7;CL a j 0 o O. m (D co . —;—. ---- --- —� —�O . r 1 O. (D. ]:cf),, .N r ! 1 'N (D , v O -77 IiDI O O 'O O 0 (1) O SOI p.. 'i�' 0 ;O C IO Q o' O o C) p �� am 6) w. O O O m O O V O O O O A Ul p rn O v o W CO N N A ? pD V n D O (D C CO O N N N Q (fl V V V co (D CJ (D Q. C O O � O C/) � O a C/)'O O O O O O O p Q) O Q) Q � Q7 7 O O O m O O V O O O O A Ul N PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET RECEIVED APR 19 2001 City of Meridian City Clerk Office 1 WIM � immm PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME —I„C,An -, � . \ � I j !, C) , I_ A , : - L NAME FOR AGAINST March 12, 2001 AZ 00-023 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 15, 2001 APPLICANT Gem Park II Partnership ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision -- south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See previous Item Packets See attached comments Contacted: 3NMj � rl Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. January 18, 2001 Will Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 RECEIVED FEB -1 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Re: Annexation and Zoning from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Dear Commissioners: The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the annexation and zoning for the above-mentioned proposed project, however, a Land Use Change application must be filed with the Conditional Use permit. 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 C OOPY 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 Phones: Area Code 208 26 January 2001 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Gem Park II Partnership SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 2000 E. Victory Road Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Land Use Change Application — Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Dear Gem Park II Partnership: Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation District for its review on the above -referenced development. If this development is under a "rush" to be finalized, I would recommend that you submit a cashier's check, money order or cash as payment of the fees in order to speed the process up. If you submit a company or personal check, it must clear the bank before processing the application. Should this development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be owned, operated and maintained by the Irrigation District, I strongly urge you to coordinate with John P. Anderson, Water Superintendent for the Irrigation District, concerning the installation of the pressure system. Enclosed is a questionnaire that you must fill out and return in order to initiate the process of contractual agreements between the owner or developer and the Irrigation District for the ownership, operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call on me at the District's office, or John P. Anderson, at the District's shop. Sincerely, Donna N. Moore, Asst. Secretary/Treasurer NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT DNM/smc cc: File Water Superintendent Meridian City — Will Berg, City Clerk enc. APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 R(IICG MntrrT 01r UTC -- January 26, 2001 AZ 00-023 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 1, 2001 APPLICANT Gem Park II Partnership ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE, INC: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: See previous item packet INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached letter dated January 10, 2001 Contacted: Alt �1� L //�-� Date: % gt -0/ Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 17n1UUJ CI1UIIVCCM1NU1 INN. i N BRIGGS ENGINEERING, Inc. ENGWEERS / PLANNERS /SURVEYORS 1 801 Boi February 1, 2001 Commissioners Meridian Planning Commission 33 East Idaho St. Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Dear Commissioners: ker �7 WWW.br,y„ ? "`452950 P.01 SZ l .tea. FEB - 2001 Cityof Clty C1.rk Off ce We revised the preliminary plat to address some of stafl' concerns about secondary access and serviceably of sewer for the above referenced proposed development. We sent information to 1UB, the City's Consultant, and to city staff. However. staff has not had the necessary time to review die information. We met with City Parks Department and discussed the proposed park sites but have not received any new comments from them. Therefore we support staff's request to table this item until the model can be completed for sewer and water. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Sincerely, BRI GS ENGI aEXING, Inc. Kent Bro Planner KB\fc 0308\P&Z.Itr FEB 01 101 10:55 TOTAL P.01 1'�ri1QZi1 S'7G�fa onr� n, sent By: 208 888 5854; Jan -1C 2:40PM; Page 1/1 rvED JAN 10 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING January 10, 2001 Al Malaise � 3580 S. Locust Grove�CAVtr Meridian, LD 93642 A* 884-4606 �,jt y o ,®? O Ole kerlQ'j V�estpark Company, Inc. 36 E. Franklin, Suite 60 Meridian, ED 83642 Ann.; Tim Taylor, Vice President Dear Mr. Taylor; 89 per our conversation on January 4, 1 thought I would follow up with a letter. I feel I hive let this go too long and do hope to get this prOblern resolved. The property that you are developing on South Locust Grove, which you are calling Tiuscany Lakes, you had the ground leveled and our irrigation ditch was through that field. You also removed the cement head gates that were there. This makes it impossible for me to get live water now. You mentioned pressurized irrigation as a possible remedy. This would be fine with me although I would like to see it in writing from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, as they mkU need to permit me to do that. I spoke with them and they are somewhat concerned with me taking to much water at one time and depleting the upcoming sub -division neighbors share. We could divide it in two and solve that problem- I just want to make sqre everything is authorized by them as well as you, and I don't want to wait too long a0 'd find myself and you in a mess. Appreciate your willingness to resolve the problem and do look forward to hearing from y6u soon. 7 cel A,1 Malaise c4:/Meridian Planning & Zoning JAN 10 '01 14:54 208 888 6854 PAGP.P1 January 30,2001 TO: Meridian Planning and Zoning REGARDING: Tuscany Subdivision FROM: Mary Morgner DeChambeau REC'.F r" , r. PitJAN 29 ?401 Cityc e ken d - fie I am writing this letter to inform Meridian Planning and Zoning that I will not be able to attend the meeting on February 1st . We have had a recent death in our family and I will be out of town attending the funeral. Our family farm borders the Tuscany projects on the East, West and South sides. Our family has many concerns about this project. The first plan that was given to the City of Meridian showed a road going across our property. Our family was not informed about this road and we had not given or even indicated our consent to have this road built on our land. We found out through a neighbor. You can understand our wanting to be able to present our concerns in public about this project. I went to the City to see if new plans had been submitted on Friday January 26th. It was my understanding that Briggs Engineering had not submitted a new plan as of last Friday. It makes it hard to present our concerns before the Thursday meeting if the Morgner Family has not had time to see the new plans. I am asking that the Tuscany Subdivision presentation be tabled for the February 1st meeting. We still need information on property lines, drainage, roads, and plans for fences. Our family has been farming our property for over 70 years. We have been a part of the Meridian Community for a long time. We know that changes will occur in our area but feel that we would like to make sure that this new project will not make it difficult for us to farm. Thank you, Mary Morgner DeChambeau (Marleen Morgner Trust) Phone (208) 888-6674 1 ay,%w i ui i Will Berg -- ----------- ---------- From: Will Berg [bergw@ci. meridian. id. us] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 20018:49 AM To: 'TdeWeerd@aol.com' Cc: Shari L Stiles (E-mail) Subject: RE: Public Meeting for new Park Design Hi Tammy Here is information for the Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Annexation & Zoning, Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit project to consider for your response: - originally to be heard December 12th, 2000 meeting before the P & Z Commission - noticed improperly in the newspaper by our staff - re -noticed (as per the three required) for January 4th, 2001 meeting before the P & Z Commission - applicant did not post the property properly (applicant did not verify the posting) - re -noticed (as per the three required) for the February 1 st, 2001 meeting before the P & Z Commission - posting of the property is usually checked by the P & Z staff, but the applicant is required to sign an affidavit Please be careful as to discussing this particular project before it comes to you in a public hearing. ----Original Message --- From: TdeWeerd@aol.com [mailto:TdeWeerd@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 200112:49 AM To: bergw@d.meridian.id.us; stiless@d.meridian.id.us Subject: Fwd: Public Meeting for new Park Design I need to respond to this person. Can either of you offer any suggestions or comments to his questions? Have you any idea what he is referring to in regards to posting in the first paragraph? I would appreciate any help you can lend... Thanks, Tammy 1/17/01 rugciuii Will Berg From: Scott Rasmussen [sras@micron.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 10:26 PM To: TdeWeerd@aol.com Subject: Re: Public Meeting for new Park Design I would like to know why the Meridian City Council would consider a development between Victory and Amity off of Locust Grove for 380 new homes. I would also like to know why the developer did not place signs for this public notice until December 27th, when the town meeting listed was on December 12th. I would like to know how you can allow these developers to continue to get away with this type of action, and not be accountable for failure to property notify the public of their plans. I would like to know what Meridian City has planned for those of us on the south side of the freeway where growth is out of control, where our water pressure dimishes with every new house that is built (yes, I'm on city water), where the road infastructure is not able to handle the growth, and our schools are over crowded. It seems to me that the city is more interested in filling every vacant field and lot with a home, rather than planning growth in the area. As a citizen of Meridian, I am looking for some answers, I hope you will provide me with some details 1/17/01 ragciLPI i Will Berg From: TdeWeerd@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 12:49 AM To: bergw@ci. meridian. id. us, stiless@ci.meridian.id.us Subject: Fwd: Public Meeting for new Park Design I need to respond to this person. Can either of you offer any suggestions or comments to his questions? Have you any idea what he is referring to in regards to posting in the first paragraph? 1 would appreciate any help you can lend... Thanks, Tammy 1/17/01 MAY -29 01 12:1.3=Rri'1:PK57hET 5205814994 Meridian City Gotincil 33 Fast Idaho Meridian, RWia 92 Council Members: I ams wring in regard to the up coming hag on the Tuscany Lakes subdivision. As a member of the Morgner family I am aharnned that this subdivision is being considered. The city of Meridian has thousands of acres of undeveloped land within their current development boundaries without extending the impact area There is no need for development to extend beyond Victory Rand at this tine. There comes a time when decisions need to be made about how a city is going to grow, it's a little lam for Meridian, hut.you have this chance. So many odw cities would love to have this chance to redtink theix development plans. If this subdivision is approved then our farm can no longer exist as a farm and so more devekqxnent will occw. t don't think that Meridian needs more subdivisions, but they could sure use some mom open land. I urge you to deny Tusmy Lakes and keep this area for the Rttur, and for uses that will provide a grester benefit to the City of Meridian. e' �I 63 of z� _ • o IR 3�. �s a z POSITION STATEMENT Case No.: AZ -00-023 (Tuscany Lakes Subdivision AZ) Name of Applicant: Gem Park H Partnership To: Meridian City Council From: Steve Siddoway, Planner The following Findings/Recommendations should be deleted: RECEIVED JUN - 5 2001 j�/C Vv 0-5,01 14e,m Nb. la- (Fuv o[oug U (1) 1 page 3. (Note: Items 9 & 10, page 4 cover the water and sewer analyses.) § 15, page 5. (Note: ACHD has stated they will not allow a school crossing near the entrance to Thousand Springs Subdivision, so the micropath is not needed. The micropath would have allowed school children coming from the Thousand Springs area to have a more direct walking route to the school. Also, the Commission did not require the micropath.) The following Findings/Recommendations should be modified: §11, page 2. Significant or Scenic Features: Delete the existing sentence and replace it with the first two paragraphs under §I, page 6, of the December 6, 2001 staff report. Modify the last sentence of the second paragraph to state "provide the City with such a study with the first phase final plat application." Reference to the wetlands (see below) should also be made. 10, page 4. Water: Replace the entire paragraph with the following statement. "The results of the water modelling indicate that water availability is marginal. The Public Works Dept. will run the water model prior to each proposed phase to determine if water capacity exists to serve each phase. 18, page 5. Wetlands: Replace the existing paragraph with the following: "In a letter dated May 1, 2001, the Army Corps of Engineers stated that they conducted an inspection of the project area. The wetlands adjacent to the Ridenbaugh and Eight Mile Canal are not protected pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, because they are not considered to be `waters of the United States'. Ten Mile Creek and associated wetlands are protected and will require a permit from the Corps prior to any construction below the ordinary high water mark or in adjacent wetlands. The Council may determine if any of the other wetlands are significant enough to warrant protection as a scenic or natural feature. § 12, page 4. Street Alignment: Add the following sentence. "If the Council requires the applicant to align Tuscany Way with the Thousand Springs entrance, this item will have to be re -heard by the ACRD Commission for review and approval." The following Find ings/Recommendations should be added: Staff's analysis of the required Annexation Findings have not been incorporated into the Recommendation to City Council, and should be included for Council's consideration. The analysis is primarily found in the December 5, 2000 staff report and is modified with the March 13, 2001 staff report. Dated this 4th day of June, 2001. Signed: e m Copy served upon Applicant, Planning & Zoning Dept., Public Works Dept., and City Attorney.�is�sxtstr�yxe Received ' the record: 15101 By z� illiam C. Berg, Jr., City le RECEIVED JUN - 5 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN POSITION STATEMENT RECEIVED JUN - 5 2001 Case No.: CUP -00-052 (Tuscany Lakes Subdivision CUP) Name of Applicant: Gem Park II Partnership C� C- �-oi To: Meridian City Council br� , From: Steve Siddoway, Planner �E'�m ! "� 14 The following Findings/Recommendations should be modified: (pre,Vta L-�CU -13) 5 page 1. Delete the reference that the "R-4 zoning designation... requires a conditional use permit be obtained for most uses". (Note: the only use that is a conditional use in R-4 is a Planned Residential Development.) §3, page 3. Ditch Tiling: Replace "Nine Mile Drain" with "the unnamed user ditch along the east side of the Ridenbaugh Canal". (Note: It was determined during the hearings that the ditch shown as the Nine Mile Drain on the original plans is really just an unnamed user ditch.) §3, page 3. Sidewalks: Replace the last sentence with the following statement: "The Applicant shall be required to construct a concrete sidewalk or meandering concrete pathway on both sides of the street. §4, page 3. Open Space: Delete the last half of the paragraph, beginning with "The application states...". (Note: the applicant's representative testified that all open space areas will be improved with landscaping and irrigation.) Dated this 4'h day of June, 2001. Signed: Copy served upon Applicant, Planning & Zoning Dept., Public Works Dept., and City Attorney. Received ' the record: io l l p — 6 ; B91-1.1 William G. Berg, Jr., Cit Cler d" RECEIVED._ •...�� JUN - 5 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN POSITION STATEMENT RECEIVED JUN - 5 2001 Case No.: PP -00-024 (Tuscany Lakes Subdivision PP) C� �, V, t Name of Applicant: Gem Park II Partnership r —g✓D f To: Meridian City Council *41Y� NO. l3 From: Steve Siddoway, Planner (PYEYLIVSt17-)The following Findings/Recommendations should be deleted: 15, page 4. Complete plat (Note: This condition can be deleted, as the applicant submitted a complete plat for the Commission's review prior to their motion.) 16, page 4. Nine Mile Easement (Note: It was determined during the hearings process that the Nine Mile Drain does not cross the project. The user's ditch that is in the location where the Nine Mile was originally thought to be, has no easement.) §26, page 6. Off-site road connection (Note: this issue was resolved with the submittal of the revised plat. The road connection no longer crosses a property that is not associated with the project.) §64, page 11. One Entrance/Exit (Note: The temporary emergency access easement was added to address this issue.) The following Findings/Recommendations should be modified: 8 page 2. Significant or Scenic Features: (See comments under `Significant or Scenic Features' in the Annexation comments.) 1 page 2. The temporary access issue needs to be clarified to state that it is a 30 -foot wide emergency vehicle access through Lot 6, Block 1 and must be constructed sufficient to support a fire truck prior to issuance of building permits. The following Findings/Recommendations should be added: §1, page 2. The Commission's motion also included a recommendation that the Public Works Dept. run the domestic water model with each proposed phase to verify water availability to that phase. (Note: The water model showed marginal water availability to the project as a whole.) Dated this 4th day of June, 2001. Signed: e- l` ' f� Copy served upon Applicant, Planning & Zoning Dept., Public Works Dept., and City Attorney. Received ' he record: / S/ By:, �°�-- William G. Berg, Jr., City Cl rk RECEIVED JUN - 5 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN June 15, 2001 PP 00-024 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 19, 2001 APPLICANT Gem Park II Partnership ITEM NO. REQUEST Preliminary plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision - s/o Victory Road and w/o Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See previous item Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: Q CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: n � SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY � CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: Contacted: Oft* w Date: V(( Flo I Phone: 664 l EC(j Q, {� Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. June 2, 2001 Meridian City Council City of Meridian RE: Proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Dear Mayor and City Council Members: ODS My name is Rex Young, 2950 E. Victory Road, Meridian, ID 83642. My wife Marla and I reside on the North side of Victory Road, across from the proposed exit from the subdivision onto Victory Road. We have resided there for over 30 years. The proposed exit onto Victory Road has been of extreme concern to us. A car exiting the subdivision traveling West will flash their headlights onto our front windows. We have some protection now with an 8 foot hedge but when Victory Road is widened, the hedge will have to be removed as it is within the 48 foot from centerline right-of-way that will be required. We have studied the plans and believe our problem can easily be resolved by relocating the proposed exit road to the West and lining it up with Brandys Jewell, The North exit from Thousand Springs Subdivision. On April 14, 2001, I submitted a letter to Planning and Zoning outlining our proposal. A copy of that letter is attached. I have talked with the Meridian School District about their busing policy. Their standard policy is that children residing less than 1 %z miles from the school site will NOT be bused. They do make exceptions on a case by case basis. Applying that policy, all children utilizing the new school site who live in Thousand Springs, Thousand Springs Village, and Woodhaven Subdivisions would not be bused. On May 24, at Mr. Ken Brown's (Briggs Engineering) invitation, we met with ACHD Planner and Traffic Engineer. The Traffic Engineer indicated that if the roads were aligned as I suggest, the intersection would meet ACHD standards. I also pointed out to them that leaving the intersection at the location as now proposed, the walking distance to and from the school each day from the North side of Victory Road would be increased by over '/o Mile. Ladies and Gentlemen, you know better than I how important it is to plan properly and grant approvals that hopefully will not result in having to re -do projects and intersections. We certainly don't want another Curtis Road extension. My recommetR'ZCfta!V r unchanged from my earlier letter to Planning and Zoning. ED JUN 0 4 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That you deny that portion of the plan which shows the North exit on the East side of the proposed subdivision. 2. That you direct the North exit be moved to the West to align with Brandys Jewell which is the South exit from Thousand Springs Subdivision. 3. That necessary approvals be obtained for that exit location from ACRID. 4. That a traffic control device be included in the plans for that intersection. 5. That any necessary safety improvements be considered to improve the overall safety to that intersection. Thanks 2950 E. Victory Meridian, ID 83( I April 14, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Meridian RE: Continued Public Hearing for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision (AZ 00-023, CUP 00-052, PP 00-024) Commissioners: I am writing this letter for inclusion in the Public Record and for your consideration when you have your next meeting on the above referenced proposed subdivision. I have attached a Vicinity Map with annotations to hopefully clarify my comments. As I indicated during the earlier public hearing, we have lived on our property for over 30 years. To the north of our property, Thousand Springs, Thousand Springs Village, and Woodhaven Subdivisions have been developed. To the South now, Tuscany Lakes Subdivision will soon become a reality. We had few objections to the proposed development but were very concerned about the exit from the subdivision onto Victory Road. The proposed exit is across from our East boundary, and when our privacy shrubs are removed sometime in the future for the widening of Victory Road, the vehicle lights of those making a left turn will flash onto our front windows. This will not only be very annoying but also will adversely impact our quality of life. To remedy this problem for us, we are suggesting that the exit road be moved to the West to align with Brandys Jewell which is the exit road from Thousand Springs Subdivision. During the last public hearings there was considerable discussion concerning the school site and walking routes to and from the school. The representative from the school system made several emphatic points: (1) School Children should have an interior walking route which keeps them away from the canal; (2) Some kind of walkway from the North End of the subdivision should continue across Victory Road so children from Thousand Springs could walk to and from school; (3) Some kind of traffic control device would be needed on Victory Road for safety of children crossing the road. I have talked with planners from Ada County Highway District about Brandys Jewell exit onto Victory Road. They indicated that the exit just meets the minimum requirements for an exit. Slightly shaving the hill to the East of that exit would improve line of sight and traffic light installation would greatly improve safety of that intersection. By moving the North exit from Tuscany Lakes Subdivision to the West and aligning it with the Brandys Jewell exit from Thousand Springs Subdivision the following benefits would be realized: f 1. The problem would be eliminated concerning our property and the vehicle lights striking our front windows when they exit to the West. 2. School Children would have a safe interior walking route (away from the canal) to and from school when walking from the North end of the subdivision or from Thousand Springs area. 3. A walkway would be provided through the subdivision and across Victory Road so students from Thousand Springs, Throusand Springs Village, and Woodhaven Subdivisions could walk to and from school. 4. Permit installation of a traffic light to improve safety of children crossing Victory Road and vehicles exiting both Thousand Springs and Tuscany Lakes Subdivisions. 5. Would allow some improvement to the Brandys Jewell exit as it now exists to improve the safety of that exit. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That you deny that portion of the plan which shows the North exit on the East side of the proposed subdivision. 2. That you direct the North exit be moved to the West to align with Brandys Jewell which is the South exit from Thousand Springs Subdivision. 3. That necessary approvals be obtained for that exit location from Ada County Highway District. 4. That a traffic control device be included in the plans for that intersection. 5. That any necessary safety improvements be considered to improve the overall safety to that intersection. Thanks for your consideration. Re . Yo g 2550 E. VictoryR d Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Steve, RECEIVED JUN 19 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN On April 11, 2001, 1 provided you with a letter stating that the proposed location of Tuscany Way, off of Victory Road, conforms to ACHD policy. I also included in that letter that Joe Rosenlund, an ACHD traffic engineer determined that to be the best location. Kent Brown approached me again with concerns from the Planning & Zoning Commission. Last week I met with Mr. Rosenlund, Mr. Brown, and a resident who lives on the north side of Victory Road who has concerns about vehicle lights shining on to his home. It has come to my attention that a suggestion has been made to re -align Tuscany Way with the main entrance to Thousand Springs Subdivision. According to Mr. Rosenlund, that intersection grade "barely' meets our standards, but that the grade cannot be reduced in that location because of a high pressure gas line that cannot be relocated. Mr. Rosenlund again went out and evaluated the site distance problems that currently exist on Victory Road and offered the following comments: • 1 would rather have the street intersect Victory where it is presently proposed. • The alignment with the Thousand Springs access is acceptable but marginal. • In no case would I allow a school crossing at the Thousand Spring access location, it would need to be at the crest of the hill, at the currently proposed intersection or at Eagle. • Should the City of Meridian require the applicant to align Tuscany Way with the Thousand Springs entrance, this item will have to be re -heard by the ACHD Commission for review and approval. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 387-6170. If I am not available, please call Joe Rosenlund at 387-6140. Sincerely, Christy Richardson Principal Development Analyst cc: Project file Kent Brown, Briggs Engineering 2 *;9& Ada County Highway District Judy Peavey -Derr, President '11A Fact 17th Ctrcat Dave Bivens, 1 st Vice President Garden City ID 83714-6499 Sherry R. Huber, 2nd Vice President Phone (208) 387-6100 Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner FAX (208) 387-6391 David E. Wynkoop, Commissioner E-mail: tellus@ACHD.ada.id.us June 1, 2001 Steve Siddoway City of Meridian 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202 Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision PUBLIC HEARING RECEIVED SIGN-UP SHEET JUN 19 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE "�i a Icl � 7 CIL!- Nf(� 12 PROJECT NUMBER _p P ��3 _ C �2 May 31, 2001 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING .lune 5, 2001 PP 00-024 APPLICANT Gem Park II Partnership ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Preliminary plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision - s/o Victory Road and w/o Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: See attached P & Z Item Packet See attached Recommendations Contacted: key' (I bk&wkl Date: 4-10 Phone: -g7� Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. WHITE PETERSON WHITE, PETERSON, MORROW, GIGRAY, ROSsMAN, NYE & RossMAN, P.A. KEVIN E. DINIUS CHRIsTOPIm S. NYE JULIE KLEIN FLSC ER PMR A. PETERSON Wm. F. OIORAY, IE ERIC S. ROSSMAN BRENT J. JOHNSON TODD A. ROSSMAN D. SAMUEL JOHNSON DAVID M. SWARTLEY LARRY D. MOORE TERRENCE R. WHITE** WILLIAM A. MORROW NICHOLAS L. WOLLEN WILLIAM F. NICHOLS* Also admitted in OR ** Also admitted in WA To: Staff Applicant Affected Property Owner(s) Re: Application Case No. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 EAST CARLTON AVE., SurrE 31 POST OFFICE BOX1150 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150 TEL (208)288-2499 FAx (208) 288*2501 E -MAI.: @wePMG.COM May 22, 2001 PP -00-024 NAMPA OFFICE 5700 E. FRANKLIN RD., STE. 200 NAMPA I(DAHO 83687-8402 FAX (22 8) 466-9272 66.4405 PLEASE REPLY TO MERIDIAN OFFICE RECEIVED MAY 31 2001 City of Meridian City Clerk Office FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Staff, Applicant and/or Affected Property Owner(s): Please note that these Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be presented to the City Council at the public hearing on the above referenced matter by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Due to the volume of matters which the City Council must decide, and to insure your position is understood and clear, it is important to have a consistent format by which matters are presented at the public hearings before the City Council. The City Council strongly recommends: 1. That you take time to carefully review the Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and be prepared to state your position on this application by addressing the Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission; and That you carefully complete (be sure it is legible) the Position Statement if you disagree with the Findings andgRecommendations 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 (g) copies. The copies will be Cresented to the Mayor, Council, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Public Works and the ity Attorney. If you are a part of a group, it is strongly recommended that one Position Statement be filled out for the group, which can be signed by the representative for the group. Very truly yours, City Attorney's Office BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION, GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP, Applicant Case No. PP -00-024 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL 1. The property is approximately 1 S 6.21 acres in size and is generally located at the south side of Victory Road east of Locust Grove Road west of Eagle Road in Meridian, Idaho. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is the Kenai Partners LLC of Boise. 3. The Applicant is Gem Park II Partnership of Meridian, Idaho. 4. The subject property is currently zoned RT by Ada County. However, there is currently an application before Meridian City Council seeking annexation and zoning of R-4. The zoning of R-4 is defined within the City of Meridian's Zoning and Development Ordinance Section 11-7-2. 5. The subject property is within the city limits of the City of Meridian. 6. The entire parcel is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 7. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - I PRELIMINARY PLAT -TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP manner: a residential subdivision of 349 building lots and 44 other lots 8. 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, with a temporary access at the northwest corner next to Locust Grove to remain open until the north entrance onto Victory Road is complete and with the recommendation that Ada County Highway District take a second look and present comments as to moving the north entrance onto Victory Road to match the entrance to the Thousand Springs Subdivision and subject to the following: Adopt the Planning and Zoning Administrator and Assistant City Engineer Recommendations as follows: 1. According to the applicant's calculations, the proposed plat contains the following lot sizes: 7,000-8,000 s.f 9 lots 8,000-9,000 s.f 67 lots 9,000-10,000 s.f. 72 lots 10,000-11,000 s.f. 96 lots 11,000-12,000 s.f. 37 lots 12,000-13,000 s.f. 32 lots > 13,000 s.f. 36 lots 2. The proposed density is 2.29 dwelling units per acre. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT -TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP 3. The outstanding issues related to emergency access, power service, sewer and water, school siting, parks and pathways, floodplain delineation, wetlands, and traffic (discussed at length under the annexation comments) also apply to the plat. 4. Sanitary sewer service to this development has been proposed to all flow out to Locust Grove Road, even though the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan developed for the City shows only the western portion flowing to Locust Grove, and the eastern portion flowing to the north to Victory Road. 5. Water service to this development is proposed to be via extensions from the existing mains. 6. Applicant has indicated that the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. 7. Applicant shall be responsible to construct permanent perimeter fencing, except where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in place prior to applying for building permits. 8. The open space requirement for this plat (typically 5% for a single family residential plat) is actually 10% due to the planned development application for this project. The open space issue will therefore be handled under the Conditional Use Permit comments. All open space must be in conformance with the landscape ordinance to be included in the open space calculation. The application appears to easily meet the 5% requirement. 9. A generic landscape plan was submitted with the application, which is not in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance and is not approved. The following issues are noted for resolution: I - The plan states that "open areas shall be grassed with the possibility of trees and/or shrubs." Note: Trees and grass, shrubs, or other vegetative groundcover are required in all common areas to be counted as open space. 2- The plan states that "existing trees shall be removed, unless it is possible to use them for landscaping purposes." Note: All existing trees greater than four -inch caliper must be retained and protected, or mitigated for, in accordance with the Tree Preservation section of the Landscape RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT -TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP Ordinance, 12-13-13. 10. A detailed landscape plan for the common areas, in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance, shall be submitted for review and approval with the submittal of the final plat. The plan must include sizes and species of trees, shrubs, berming/swale details, and all proposed ground cover/treatment. 11. The proposed 30 -foot -wide landscape buffers along Victory Road and Locust Grove Road are in compliance with the 25 -foot minimum in the Landscape Ordinance. The buffers shall be located beyond the required ACHD right-of-way and constructed by the developer as a condition of the plat. The landscape buffers shall be placed in separate common lots as shown. Fencing is not to encroach upon these buffers. Landscaping within the buffers is to be verified as part of the detailed landscape plan submittal with the final plat. 12. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 13. In accordance with City Ordinance 12-13-8-1, underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all common landscape areas on site. 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 common landscaped areas, prior to signature on the final plat. Applicant shall submit irrigation performance specifications to the Planning & Zoning Department in compliance with Ordinance 12-13-8-2 when applying for a Final Plat. 14. A letter from Mr. Al Malaise, dated January 10, 2001, was sent to the City regarding irrigation ditch issues. The applicant should address this issue and its resolution for the record. 15. The revised plat does not contain any of the notes, legend, easements, contours, or phasing information contained on the original plat. This information must be added to the revised plat. 16. The easement for the Nine Mile Drain is not shown on any of the RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 4 PRELIMINARY PIAT -TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP submitted plans and it is possible that some of the proposed lots may encroach within this easement. Please verify the width of the easement and show it on the plat. 17. 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. 18. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 19. Provide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance 12-5-2.K and 12- 13-10-8. 20. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 21. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project shall be tiled per City Ordinance No. 12-4-13, except as provided for under site specific requirements. The ditches to be piped should be shown on the site plans. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 22. 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. 23. Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all common landscape areas on the site. 24. Two -hundred -fifty watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 25. Indicate on the final plat map all FEMA floodplains affecting the area being platted, and detail plans for reducing or eliminating the boundary, RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT -TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP r�. if necessary. Adopt the Recommendations of the Ada County Highway District as follows: Special Recommendation to the City of Meridian: 26. The applicant is proposing to construct Mediterranean Avenue from Naples Avenue east to the Ridenbaugh Canal across a parcel that is not a part of this preliminary plat. The City of Meridian requires an applicant to go through the formal subdivision process when the applicant is dedicating right-of-way for a local road which splits a parcel. The parcel being split by this segment of roadway was not included in this preliminary plat, and this proposed segment of the roadway is located off-site. The applicant should consult with the City of Meridian to determine if that parcel also requires subdivision. ACHD should require that this applicant acquire the 50 -feet of right-of-way from the property owner of that parcel if it is to be a part of this plat. 27. The applicant is not proposing access to Eagle Road because the site only has 30 -feet of frontage. The lot with frontage on Eagle Road will be a common lot. When the parcels to the north and south of this strip redevelop, a public street connection may be favorable through this landscape strip. 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: 28. Dedicate 45 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Locust Grove 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. 29. Dedicate 35 -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. 30. Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Eagle Road RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 6 PRELIMINARY PLAT -TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP 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. 31. Construct Dartmoor Drive, the main entrance off Locust Grove Road, located as proposed, approximately 560 -feet south of the north property line. Dartmoor Drive shall be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and the median should be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 - square foot area. The applicant shall be required to dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. 32. Construct a center turn lane on Locust Grove Road for the Dartmoor Drive intersection. The turn lane shall be constructed to provide a minimum of I00 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 33. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the site. The sidewalk shall be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Locust Grove Road. 34. Construct Tuscany Way, the main entrance off Victory Road, located as proposed at the east property line. Tuscany Way shall be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and the median should be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. The applicant shall be required to dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. 35. Construct a center turn lane on Victory Road for the Tuscany Way 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. 36. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Victory Road abutting the site. The sidewalk shall be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Victory Road. 37. Provide a deposit in the amount of $600 to the Public Road Trust Fund RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 7 PRELIMINARY PLAT -TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP for the cost of constructing a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the site (approximately 30 -feet). 38. Any irrigation facilities or utilities shall be relocated out of the new right-of-way on Locust Grove Road and Victory Road. 39. All streets in the subdivision shall be located to align or offset a minimum of 125 -feet from any proposed streets. 40. 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. 41. Construct all of the turnarounds to provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet. Provide a minimum of a 29 -foot street section on either side of any center islands within the turnarounds. Any medians shall be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 - square foot area. Dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. 42. Construct two traffic circles in Dartmoor Drive located at Como Place and Ionia Way as proposed. Coordinate the size and design of the circles with Traffic Services staff. 43. Dartmoor Drive shall be constructed as a 36 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks. Parking shall be prohibited on this street segment. Coordinate the signage plan with District staff. 44. Construct traffic calming devices on Turin Avenue to take the "straightness" out of the roadway, by installing traffic circles, or constructing traffic chokers in three locations on Turin Avenue. Submit a new street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. 45. Construct one traffic calming device (circle or choker) on Falcon Drive to slow vehicles on this street with front -on housing. Submit a new street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 8 PRELIMINARY PLAT -TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP 46. Construct Mediterranean Drive from Naples Avenue east to the Ridenbaugh Canal within 50 -feet of acquired right-of-way from the property owner of the adjacent parcel if this segment of Mediterranean Drive it is to be a part of this plat. If the applicant chooses not to provide the connection, provide a deposit to the Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing one-half of a bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal and Nine Mile Drain. If Mediterranean Drive is not built, the applicant shall supply a preliminary design and cost estimate of the bridge for staff review, prior to determination of the exact amount of the road trust deposit. If this segment of roadway is not construct with this application, the applicant will be required to construct a turnaround on the east side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. 47. Stub San Marino Drive to the east property line between Lot 1, Block 7, and Lot 5, Block 8 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. 48. Stub Venice Drive to the east property line between Lot 1, Block 8, and Lot 23, Block 17 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. 49. Stub Mediterranean Drive to the east property line between Lot 1, Block 17, and Lot 1, Block 14, 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. 50. Stub Pompei Avenue to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot 20, Block 14, and Lot 37, Block 12. Provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street, 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 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 9 PRELIMINARY PLAT -TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP stub street and the design of the turnaround with District staff. 51. Stub Lucca Avenue to the north property line as a stub street, located between Lot 9, Block 6, and Lot 1, Block 8, 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. 52. Construct Como Way to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot 11 and Lot 13, Block 9, in alignment with the proposed Como Way on the north side of Calabria Court. 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. 53. ACHD will review the school site in the future when the plan is submitted by the school district. 54. 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 shall be required on the final plat. 55. No access points to Eagle Road have been proposed and none are approved with this application. 56. Other than the two public streets specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to Locust Grove Road or Victory Road is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. Adopt the Recommendations of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District as specified in their correspondence of November 14, 2000, and December 5, 2000. Adopt the Recommendations of the Central District Health Department as follows: 57. 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. 58. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 10 PRELIMINARY PLAT -TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP 59. Stormwater shall be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality. 60. 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. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Fire Department as follows: 61. Common areas will need to be kept clean of trash and weeds. 62. No parking of vehicles or trailers in cul-de-sac. 63. All roads will be installed before building is started with appropriate street name signs. 64. There is only ONE entrance and exit to this subdivision. Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Recommendations\PP0024TuscanyL*es.wpd RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 11 PRELIMINARY PLAT -TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION GEM PARK I1 PARTNERSHIP April 30, 2001 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 3, 2001 APPLICANT Gem Park II Partnership PP 00-024 ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing -- Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision -- south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See previous Item Packets OYU �t, Of e -11 OTHER:X11110 y )r Contacted: Rccl I jo Date: Li 36 Phone: yy _ql C(1 Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. T7CP(.Y f0 ATTENTION OF LS.. 01. L1 01_ .. P. ISL- I-. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WALLA WALLA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS Bose Regulatory Office 304 North Eighth Street, Room 140 Boise. Idaho 83702.5820 May 1, 2001 RECEIVED MAY - 3 2001 Operations Division CITY OF MERIDIAN SUBJECT: NWW No. 0142100790 Mr. Kent Brown Briggs Engineering, Inc. 1800 W. Overland Road Boise, Idaho 83705-9700 Dear Mr. Brown: This concerns your request that we inspect the proposed Tuscany Estate subdivision located in southwest Boise. Sec. 29. T.3h., R. IF, , Ada Countv. Idaho. On April 30, 2001, 1 met with you on-site and inspected the project area A number of waterways are present within the project area to include the Ridenbaugh Canal, Ten Mile Drain, Eightmilc Canal, a cut -oft' ditch which parallels the southeast side of the Ridenbaugh Canal and Ten Mile Creek. The on-site inspection revealed that wetland communities exist along all of these waterways. However, we do not consider man-made drainages and canals which were constructed in uplands to be waters of the United States even though they may now support wetland vegetation along the banks. Based on the on-site inspection, and discussions with you, the only waterway on-site which we have jurisdiction over pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is Ten Mile Creek. if your proposed dcvelupmcnt includes activities such as installation of buried utility lines or roadway crossings of Ten Mile Creek. then a permit from the Coins of Engineers would he required prior to conducting any work below the ordinary high water mark or in adjacent wetlands of Ten Mile Creek. If you have any questions, please contact me by writing to the above address or phone (208) 345-2154. Sincerely. Grey Martinez Regulatory Project Manager April 16, 2001 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING April 19, 2001 PP 00-024 APPLICANT Gem Park II Partnership ITEM NO. S REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See previous Item Packets Contacted: V\ baa, or) Date: 'A ILP Phone: 1A4 q-lkjurin Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. A W."t!L L Y ■.,L 7u.scan-� Lalz f Sao APR 19 2001 City of Meridian City Clerk Office My name is William Patterson. I live at 4224 S Locust Grove, Meridian, Idaho, &3642.. I own property which is adjacent to the proposed development to the south. I request the Planning and Zoning Commission deny this application. I base this request on the following concerns: There is insufficient road access for large amount of traffic which this development would generate. Both Victory and Locust Grove are two lane rural roads not designed for the traffic this development would create. There are significant issues regarding sewer and water for this development_ This involves both the extension of the utility sewer and water and potential ground water issues involved in providing. service for the 350+ dwelling units. This proposed development is inconsistent with existing land use in this area south of Victory Road.. There are no developments of this scale south of Victory in this area and Victory is a good "Stop Line". As a property owner and tax payer, I am concerned that this development will cause an increase in property values and an increase in taxes. This will create undue hardship on existing property. owners. This is not a desired development. It will adversely effect the. quality of life in the immediate area, thru increased traffic, increased numbers of people and the accompanying clutter, and noise. This development will adversely effect desirable rural characteristics of this area. I respectfully request this Board, which is charged with the responsible development of Meridian and Meridian's area of impact to deny this request. —.1 April 19, 2001 N RECEIVED APR 19 2001 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission: City of Meridian City Clerk Office Regarding agenda items: # 7. AZ 00-023. Request for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: # 8. PP 00-024. Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: # 9. CUP 00-052. Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: As my home, located at 1975 East Victory Road, borders a portion of the proposed subdivision, I would like to express the following concerns: 1) The property value of my home should not be adversely impacted by this development. I realize this issue is arguable, but I would not have viewed my home in the same light with a subdivision on its border and therefore, would not have paid the price that I did for it. 2) My property, and that of my neighbors, includes several acres. It does not appear that Gem Park II has made any attempt to blend the development densities with that of the existing neighborhood. I would like to see a limitation on the minimum lot size for those lots along the parameter of one acre. 3) I would like a guarantee that development construction dust and debris will be minimized and that neighborhood complaints will be addressed immediately and efficiently. I would like to be provided with contact names and numbers where we might direct these complaints. 4) I would also request that the subdivision separation from existing properties be addressed with each property owner as to the appropriate material acceptable for the mandated fencing. Chain link fencing will not be acceptable along my property. I would definitely be in favor of a six-foot solid wood fence mounted on top of an earthen burn. I have a small pond, approximately four foot deep, which would need protection from children. 5) The developer will deal with overgrowth of weeds and other vegetation on undeveloped subdivision property appropriately. 6) We would also like to have the bordering constructed homes limited to ranch style, single level homes, with no exceptions. This will allow for more acceptance of the compromise to our views and our privacy. 7) We are already experiencing traffic increases due to new area subdivisions. I am certain these will be considered in making your decision. Please feel free to contact me at 846-8310 if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you, April 14, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Meridian g,ECEF APR 16 200' City of Merid.iet, City Clerk 0 f`ic RE: Continued Public Hearing for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision (AZ 00-023, CUP 00-052, PP 00-024) Commissioners: I am writing this letter for inclusion in the Public Record and for your consideration when you have your next meeting on the above referenced proposed subdivision. I have attached a Vicinity Map with annotations to hopefully clarify my comments. As I indicated during the earlier public hearing, we have lived on our property for over 30 years. To the north of our property, Thousand Springs, Thousand Springs Village, and Woodhaven Subdivisions have been developed. To the South now, Tuscany Lakes Subdivision will soon become a reality. We had few objections to the proposed development but were very concerned about the exit from the subdivision onto Victory Road. The proposed exit is across from our East boundary, and when our privacy shrubs are removed sometime in the future for the widening of Victory Road, the vehicle lights of those making a left turn will flash onto our front windows. This will not only be very annoying but also will adversely impact our quality of life. To remedy this problem for us, we are suggesting that the exit road be moved to the West to align with Brandys Jewell which is the exit road from Thousand Springs Subdivision. During the last public hearings there was considerable discussion concerning the school site and walking routes to and from the school. The representative from the school system made several emphatic points: (1) School Children should have an interior walking route which keeps them away from the canal; (2) Some kind of walkway from the North End of the subdivision should continue across Victory Road so children from Thousand Springs could walk to and from school; (3) Some kind of traffic control device would be needed on Victory Road for safety of children crossing the road. I have talked with planners from Ada County Highway District about Brandys Jewell exit onto Victory Road. They indicated that the exit just meets the minimum requirements for an exit. Slightly shaving the hill to the East of that exit would improve line of sight and traffic light installation would greatly improve safety of that intersection. By moving the North exit from Tuscany Lakes Subdivision to the West and aligning it with the Brandys Jewell exit from Thousand Springs Subdivision the following benefits would be realized: I . The problem would be eliminated concerning our property and the vehicle lights striking our front windows when they exit to the West. 2. School Children would have a safe interior walking route (away from the canal) to and from school when walking from the North end of the subdivision or from Thousand Springs area. 3. A walkway would be provided through the subdivision and across Victory Road so students from Thousand Springs, Throusand Springs Village, and Woodhaven Subdivisions could walk to and from school. 4. Permit installation of a traffic light to improve safety of children crossing Victory Road and vehicles exiting both Thousand Springs and Tuscany Lakes Subdivisions. 5. Would allow some improvement to the Brandys Jewell exit as it now exists to improve the safety of that exit. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That you deny that portion of the plan which shows the North exit on the East side of the proposed subdivision. 2. That you direct the North exit be moved to the West to align with Brandys Jewell which is the South exit from Thousand Springs Subdivision. 3. That necessary approvals be obtained for that exit location from Ada County Highway District. 4. That a traffic control device be included in the plans for that intersection. 5. That any necessary safety improvements be considered to improve the overall safety to that intersection. Thanks for your consideration. e Y g 27 0 E. ictory oa Meridian, ID 83642 OVA W I . J1 malt few W.ft No, MAYOR Robert D. Corrie CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Ron Anderson Keith Bird Taznnry deWeerd Clbeerie McCandless 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 Office Fax (208) 888-4218 To: Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor & City Council LEGAL DEPARIMENT (208) 288-2499 - Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORDS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533, FAX 888-6854 April 13, 2001 RECEIVE, From: Steve Siddoway, Planner *wr--_ APR 16 2001 Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer J4 City of Meridian Re: TUscANY Lmas SUMMSION (UPDATE) City Clerk Office Request for Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 Acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 by Gem Park R Partnership (File #AZ -00-023) - Request for Preliminary Plat of 156.21 Acres for 353 Building Lots and 39 Other Lots (now 349 building lots and 44 other lots on the revised plat) by Gem Park II Partnership for a Residential Subdivision in a Proposed R-4 Zone (File #PP -00-024) - Request for a Conditional Use Permit (Planned Development) for Flexible Lot Sizes, Frontage, Block Length, Cul-de-sac length, ditch tiling, and sidewalk requirements. (File #CUP -00-052) We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATIONS SU_ MMARYBACKGROUND: This Staff report is an update focused on the outstanding issues discussed during the March 15 public hearing with the Planning & Zoning Commission. All previous comments of the 3/13101 staff report still apply to the project, except as modified by this report. Sewer: The applicant proposed significant changes to the Sewer Master Plan. Those changes have been reviewed by JUB Engineers and their comments are contained in a March 22, 2001 letter to Brad Watson, which has been forwarded to Briggs Engineering (Copy attached). Additional staff comments or modifications to J -U -B's comments are forthcoming, however staff does not believe that there are any issues significant enough to recommend denial of this application. (With approval of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision, approximately 750 ERU's of the 1100 to 1200 ERU's of remaining sewer capacity in the Ten Mile Sewer Trunk are committed until the Ten Mile Relief Line, to be built by the Bear Creek Estates developer, is completed The construction of the Ten Mile Relief Line will add approximately 1200 AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Update.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z April 13, 2001 Page 2 more ERU's of capacity to the Ten Mile Trunk. The 750 committed ERU's include the previously approved Bear Creek Estates and Observation Point Subdivisions.) Water: Results of water modeling have not been received as of this date. Staff believes thatthis his could be a very significant issue for the serviceability of this development, and therefore we respectfully request that this application be held over until the May 3rd P&Z meeting. Miaratine Groundwater: We received a letter dated April 6, 2001 from Associated Earth Sciences, J. Evan Merrell, P.E., stating that a drainage system (cut-off drain) will control groundwater on the subdivision to a safe depth. It will also prevent shallow groundwater movement into the land north of the subdivision. The cut-off drains would be on the order of seven feet deep by outletting as deep as possible into Ten Mile Creek. Street Alignment: Christy Richardson has submitted a letter from ACRD, dated April 11, 2001 stating that they do not want to move the proposed location of Tuscany Way. The proposed location, at the east property line, is the safest. Ridenbaugh Pathway: The Meridian Parks Dept. has determined that they do not want to require a pathway adjacent to the Ridenbaugh (in the area originally shown as Nine Mile Creek). The Applicant should note whether this area will become a common area or become part of the lots, and indicate such on the plat. In lieu of the pathway connection, staff recommends a micropath that will allow school children walking from the north to access Turin Avenue sidewalks without being forced to walk around to Tuscany Way. The pathways along Ten Mile Creek and the loop through the Eight Mile Creek area should still be required as noted in the previous staff report. School Access: At a minimum, a condition should be added to the plat to allow the school district flexibility in locating the entrance and exit, as site plans are prepared. Staff continues to feel that the current access point is unsafe and that the school is hidden, and will be difficult to find. Wetlands: The letter from the Corps of Engineers may be required prior to the (first phase) final plat. Prior staff reports have required the letter from the Corps prior to the P&Z Commission acting on this preliminary plat. CoWlete Plat: The applicant should submit a complete plat that includes all proposed modifications, contours, notes, legend, phasing, etc. for the Commission to review, before the project is sent forward to City Council. Prior staff reports have required the modifications to be submitted 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. Recent conversations with Mayor Corrie have made it clear that the Council wants to have the Commission review the revised plans before they go on to the City Council. AZ -00-023, PP -00024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Update.doc If March 22, 2001 Brad Watson, P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Meridian 660 East Watertower, 2"d Floor Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Brad: J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS Regional Office 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709-0944 208-376-7330 Fax: 208-323-9336 We have reviewed the preliminary trunk sewer profiles to serve the proposed Tuscany Subdivision for compliance with the intent of the master plan. We offer the following comments. Master Plan Line Sizing Impacts As proposed in this project, Service Areas 2108, 2119, and 2113 are rerouted to serve the Locust Grove Trunk. Correspondingly, the 15 -inch Victory Road interceptor is moved to the south, within the developing area. To examine the effects of this reconfiguration, the analysis utilized peak flows predicted in the ultimate master plan model. Pipe 2108 serves the reconfigured service area and has a predicted ultimate peak flow of 1.38 cfs. This flow was added to the master planned 24" and 27" Ten Mile Trunk lines on Locust Grove and Victory Road. Flow attenuation was not accounted for; rather, peak flows were simply combined. Results of the proposed master plan revisions are summarized below and in the attached table: • The extension of the Ten Mile Trunk, north of Victory Road, is shown to be 27 -inch, rather than the master planned 15 -inch. This upsizing is not warranted. • Flow to the 27 -inch trunk from Diversion 7 upstream to Locust Grove Road was not changed; however, the proposed profile shows a slope less than the master plan. A minimum slope of 0.067% is shown rather than the model's 0.10%. The sewer needs to maintain the master plan slope for capacity. • The 27 -inch trunk south on Locust Grove Road can accommodate the additional service area change, with a higher d/D, again assuming a minimum 0.10% slope. • The master planned 24 -inch line, east of Locust Grove, will need to be upsized to a 27 -inch fine downstream from where the development's 15 -inch connects. The proposed plan incorporates this requirement. Upstream of the 15 -inch, the proposed plan extends the 24 -inch trunk to the south boundary. This is still viable if the 15"-10" interceptor on Locust Grove is constructed to Amity Road. • The 15 -inch Victory Road interceptor can be revised to an 8 -inch collection sewer. Review of Service Depth Generally, the lines appear deeper than the intent of the master plan. Vertical datums do not correlate; however, elevations of the preliminary plans are five (5) feet lower than the master plan, at a common point on the existing Ten Mile Trunk. Ten Mile Trunk Extension: The proposed extension of the Ten Mile Trunk, south to Victory Road, is shown to be at depths of 24 feet to 26 feet, with a depth of 35 feet in Victory Road. A 27 -inch line size (verses 15 -inch master plan) is proposed. It is our opinion that this line size and depth is excessive. It appears that the depths are driven by collection sewers along the north project boundary, and the Victory Road sewer east of Locust Grove Road. If the proposed invert elevations at Victory and Locust Grove Roads are held, excavation depths could be reduced on downstream construction by holding minimum slopes to the existing trunk sewer. Clearance under the Ten Mile Creek crossing on Victory Road would still be achievable. Also, rJ u -B A Engineers Surveyors Planners Mr. Brad Watson, P.E. March 22, 2001 Page 2 the proposed Manhole MH 8 intercepts Victory Road, at a local high point; thus, the 35 -foot depth. The master plan concept for the Black Cat Trunk moved the alignment around this hill by routing south of Victory Road. An alignment should be investigated to avoid this topography. We suggest adopting a minimum slope of 0.10% for construction practicality and capacity concerns rather than 0.067% proposed. Service depth on the 24 -inch at the south boundary of the subdivision appears to be at greater depth than the master plan. • The 15 -inch sewer extension to Eagle Road appears to be at greater depth than the intent of the master plan. Recommendations The extension of the Ten Mile Trunk is shown to be 27 -inch rather than the 15 -inch master planned. :4'e recommend conforming to t'le master plain Ui.e sizing cf 15• inch, and revising the sewer slopes and depths as described previously to reduce excavation depths. Soil conditions and the ability of soils to dewater vary in the valley; however, we suggest setting a practical excavation limit of 24 feet. There may be some instances where greater depths are needed to conform to the master plan intent, but it does not appear to be the case in this instance. The 35 -foot depth offers, in our opinion, very limited operation and maintenance access. We recommend investigating alignment alternatives to avoid the local high point in Victory Road, near the proposed Manhole MH 8. Minimum slope for the 27 -inch trunk should be no lower than 0.10%. • The master plan 24 -inch portion of the Ten Mile Trunk, east of Locust Grove requires upsizing to a 27 -inch downstream of the 15 -inch line. The proposed plans appear to accommodate this requirement. • The sewer on Victory Road, east of Diversion 8, may be revised to 8 -inch. Sewering the area from Victory Road to 1/4 mile south of Victory Road, may be challenging if extended from the Victory Road sewer. We recommend extending the sewers in the Tuscany streets to the north as far as practical to assist in serving this area. • We recommend adopting a practical construction minimum slope of 0.10% for large diameter sewers, 21 -inch and larger, with exceptions only to key trunks identified in the master plan model. • The Ada County mapping project will hopefully have some mapping available this year. Once available, we encourage a review of trunk service depth in critical master plan regions with this updated topographic information. We appreciate this opportunity to assist the City in this evaluation. If we can be of further assistance or if you have any questions, please call me or Richard Wiebe at 376-7330. Sincerely, J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. i lip H. K ichbaum, Project Engineer PHK:lhc Enclosures F: projects\11620\Tuscany subd\Tuscany - city memo.doc rn iN A Ln N � 10 CD 7 (D; -+ I C cy I cl N A Ln. I I 1 � 7 NI �� G 1 O g O " g O (�//' 1 M. ICD CDG I p > > a iOI I a' toCD Inc x > x > fo 0 j o 0 0 N G 'i 7 I< c n o c CD N Q 7 a O o o I I I I WI co O001 rn 0D O- v - CD -. O -C-1' I C/) '.. Nv ,I CTI IAi NI N N i 1-4CJI.. iV cn O. . OIPI) O O CND O •O O O cri p _ N coo v _ rn O v ,� o 00 N ? 00 V CD O O O O Cn CD N C2 N N N lD .o CD CJI �1 v V W O cn 'U O 'O O 'CA O O v m V A I � a D O O CD '.O 0, (P A (A A' V '.N V A CJI RECEIVED PUBLIC HEARING APR 19 2001 SIGN-UP SHEET City of MeridianCity Clerk Office DATE Al Y (( A 7001 � PROJECT NUMBER rr Co om-- PROJECT NAME -Tv s(art ba k -e -S NAME FOR AGAINST L Cts � `J C�-�- �-✓ � 1 >(1 March 12, 2001 PP 00-024 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 15, 2001 APPLICANT Gem Park II Partnership ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision -- south of Victory Road and west of Eaale Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See previous Item Packets Contacted: n 1 k ` ► Date: -.,. I Phone: -2q l -q-f Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. January 26, 2001 PP 00-024 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 1, 2001 APPLICANT Gem Park II Partnership ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE, INC: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: See previous item packet INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached letter dated Janu Contacted: `IM ary 10, 2001 Date: , Phone: 3 Y7 JA)0 Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. FEB -01-2001 09:08 104GGS ENGINEERING, INC. ENGINEERS / PLANNERS / SURVEYORS February 1, 2001 Commissioners Meridian Planning Commission 33 East Idaho St. Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: Tuscany Lakes Suhdivision i)ear Commissioners: ^ '^452950 P.01 �sZ 180f Boi °l ker R \ FEB ` 12001 City of City C1erlk p face We revised the preliminary plat to address some of staff' concerns about secondary access and serviceably of sewer for the above referenced proposed development. We sent information to JUB, the City's Consultant, and to city staff. However. staff has not had the necessary time to review the information. We met with City Parks Department and discussed the proposed park sites but have not received any new comments from them. Therefore we support staff's request to table this iter until the model can be completed for sewer and water. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Sincerely, BRI GS ENGI EIUNG, Inc. Kent Bro Planner KB\fc 0308\P&L.Itr TOTAL P.01 FEB 01 '01 10:55 12083452950 PAGE.01 January 10, 2001 lulul lulu4.4urivii raye i / i Al Malaise 3580 S. Locust Grov R°RD JAN 10 2001 CI'T'Y OF MERIDIAN PLANNING 81; ZONING e �l �l� Meridian, ID 83642 ",Ml 1 - r') 8844606 cCttt, y Cly & O et. Westpark Company, Inc. free 36 E. Franklin, Suitc 60 Meridian, ID 83642 Aitn.; Tim Taylor, Vice President t Dear Mr, Taylor; As per our conversation on January 4, I thought I would follow up with a letter. 1 feel i hive let this go too long and do hope to get this problem resolved. The property that you are developing on South Locust Grove, which you are calling Tuscany Lakes, you had the ground leveled and our irrigation ditch was through that field. You also removed the cement head gates that were there. This makes it impossible for me to get live water now. Yiou mentioned pressurized irrigation as a possible remedy. This would be fine with me although I would like to see it in writing from Nampa Meridian irrigation District, as they v-611 need to permit me to do that. T spoke with them and they are somewhat concerned vcfith me taking to much water at one time and depleting the upcoming sub -division neighbors share. We could divide it in two and solve that problem. I just want to make sgre everything is authorized by them as well as you, and I don't want to wait too long aid find myself and you in a mess. 1 oppreciate your willingness to resolve the problem and do look forward to hearing from y►u soon. Malaise ct/Meridian Planning & Zoning JAN 10 101 14:54 '-)PQ 000 GOC7A onrr n, .-I January 30,2001 TO: Meridian Planning and Zoning REGARDING: Tuscany Subdivision FROM: Mary Morgner DeChambeau I am writing this letter to inform Meridian Planning and Zoning that I will not be able to attend the meeting on February 1st. We have had a recent death in our family and I will be out of town attending the funeral. Our family farm borders the Tuscany projects on the East, West and South sides. Our family has many concerns about this project. The first plan that was given to the City of Meridian showed a road going across our property. Our family was not informed about this road and we had not given or even indicated our consent to have this road built on our land. We found out through a neighbor. You can understand our wanting to be able to present our concerns in public about this project. I went to the City to see if new plans had been submitted on Friday January 26th. It was my understanding that Briggs Engineering had not submitted a new plan as of last Friday. It makes it hard to present our concerns before the Thursday meeting if the Morgner Family has not had time to see the new plans. I am asking that the Tuscany Subdivision presentation be tabled for the February 1st meeting. We still need information on property lines, drainage, roads, and plans for fences. Our family has been farming our property for over 70 years. We have been a part of the Meridian Community for a long time. We know that changes will occur in our area but feel that we would like to make sure that this new project will not make it difficult for us to farm. Thank you, Mary Morgner DeChambeau (Marleen Morgner Trust) Phone (208) 888-6674 .vm R/ia m rr r F k a � r � Ir a r 7RIrE I"LW I men 7 YlAI'!' f aLd! l Y:0 AA 3 nfK C RN' i7/ ■ � w rw rm , CIV n zl .a fl / u J • I a I n �� _ rw � _ a Y • a ] I I >, ■ F Iwl n ■ R. w YI I / ■ w n / w • r 74 I� I I % Y k 1l , YSOi n R l u w rt •' 1 u ] ! I J ➢1 Vti71' E tl'J� / I , . sla n h _ _ _ _ 7 t7Y11_ F vw wine I —_--__--- �fT11'• IaR I i7/ ■ m n k MP riY zl .a / k n I • K i IED t! ■ ] ➢ I rw ra Y k s I s R A� tj'V I M I I' / YNIII I 1 % 1] = I1 R 1f � Il k k A R 1] 9 t A R x R ■ 8 R x 11 n" n _ _ - _ _ n rt rt rt _ _ _ _ _ rt n DIY .E 1 A k$y y• R#] k 1 R R S k x p 11 k 1! R I] k N I I� I3 ' TUSCANY MIYM IYINlWIq FFIG SUBDIVISION (II FUNNED urour _ _ ]� • ('+m t q/!I/pt p �IAYY '�1. � I0p• .. ^.M . �R.r., M.1 «p a TUSCANY rww ooam,r•, ale. SUBDIVISION ■nl a mREVISED e jayma us M•.,aa .. Mw: ,�r•r�:,em i I ■�N Nr`r 411 I _ r a i n i - sal7E1S[IDAf b''- = e "'•' s..YlfE Ima• h a • to I � aoa s- _ a r _ • T u I �_ , h h r I , w !• _ x A y D �-r a y I I i Y n 9 a,hl i f w a001, Y • p , Y l • w - x add w 1 a TV • h � u / w ■ I, \ a asa II , - • II 1 ■ I aY � D � A a w 1 a , ? i I•a � � aaot, � M I.iv' • IaTAI' 1u I3 TUSCANY rww ooam,r•, ale. SUBDIVISION ■nl a mREVISED e jayma us M•.,aa .. Mw: ,�r•r�:,em So"C I-II• aawfeN S!E M•F IRIf 1 C�,(� N �r • rc nr � S I `4 ' 1 • y • 1 •` 1 � `a w 1 I'1 i • w • n M � NDYt II . w1M fl bb � kl w - }, M 11 p n k / TIf I _ wRI / } I R fnF • r ! yc / b wa - aYffa-mow- # I w I 1 / 1 / 1 ail 6iN RtYn• [ nsr` / F 'm` ° II EV11• L cwP /7 � N !]1'11' • I3ESY Qb•s/ i 11 k I at Y k N a k k S k wlOal I Tl # B 10na R k w I 1 I # I 19 1 1 k m I a k O Ibbb>rrr 1 k 1 I / v I.F .i wNUS n n 1 �, / w r r N w • u r k 1 p IS 9 II li ! U >0 I M 9 n Y w k w e w I; N II q 1 a N x x Y x x n # # s w pl wP1l. w ' W N IISIYM• N Lmw I� I TUSCANY rwo. ff.a.Y arlq.w a SUBDIVISION Selo m cvlSee uvour �, R URT E. VIC-TORY RD. N RT D U O J m MERIDIAN CITY LIMITS BOUNDARY TUU XV lUn BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. QI�INEEPoI� BRIGGS INC. (208) 3449700 1800 W. OVERLAND ROAD BOISE, IDAHO 83705 RT RT UUP_ 1�U� I �-.- � % NVISIONE' u] SUBD vi RT RT RT 800 0 800 �716 0 1 2400 Feet VICINTY MAP REVISION TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION 2g PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 29, T.3N., R.1E., B.M., JAN 6 2001 ADA COUNTY, IDAHO SHEET 10F1 DESIGN DRAFT SCALE DATE DWG. NO. BKB 1" = 800' 01/26/01 0308 \0308.APR i January 2, 2001 PP 00-024 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 4, 2001 APPLICANT Gem Park II Partnership ITEM NO. 11 REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE, INC: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: See attached comments See attached comments Public safety concerns See attached comments No comment No comment No comment See attached comments ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached comments IDAHO POWER: See attached comments US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached letter from resident, see attached subdivision evaluation Contacted: % 1" Date:Phone:a Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. AWOR Robert D. Corrie CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Ron Anderson Keith Bird Tarmm deWeerd Cherie Nfccandless MEMORANDUM: HUB OF I RI:4,SURE VALLEY 10-11t A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDLAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 - FAX (208) 887-4813 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 To: Planning & Zoning Commission / Mayor & City Council From: Re: Steve Siddoway, Planner BruceFreckleton, Assistant to City Engineer i4 LEGAL DEPUM, U,4i T ('08)288-2499 • Fas -',38-:501 PLBLIC WORM BUILDLtiG DEP.9RTNfF-,Tr (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 PL AI NNG AND ZOMNG DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • FAX 888-6854 December 5, 2000 c'I- Of of 0 y Cle &eD��oe TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION - Request for Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership (File #AZ - 00 -023). Request for Preliminary Plat of 353 Lots by Gem Park H Partnership for a residential subdivision in a proposed R-4 zone (File #PP -00-024). Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development by Gem Park II Partnership for flexible lot sizes, frontages, and block length (File #CUP -00-052). We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: . APPLICATIONS SUMMARY The subject applications propose to annex and preliminarily plat approximately 156 acres consisting of 353 single-family buildable lots, 39 common lots, and a school site; with a Planned Development for flexible lot sizes, frontages, block length, and cul-de-sac length. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Surrounding properties on all sides of the project include working farms and rural residential uses, zoned RUT. The area north of the section that extends to Victory Road includes Thousand Springs Subdivision, zoned R-4. CURRENT OWNERS OF RECORD The Burnett Family Trust and Kenai Parners, LLC are listed on the Warranty Deeds submitted with the application and have submitted consent for the applications. However, the deed for the Kenai Partners property has not been recorded. According to the County Assessor's office, the property shown on that deed is actually owned by Walter T. Sigmont, Jr. and Raymond C. Smith, not by Kenai Partners nor by the Wanner -Buckner Partnership, who is shown as the grantor on AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Sub.AZ.PP.CUP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z December 5, 2000 Page 2 the unrecorded deed. The applicant needs to clarify the current ownership, by submitting a recorded deed and notarized consent from the owners. ANNEXATION AND ZONING — SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, states that both the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed (annexation] in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment." Staffs analysis of each required finding is as follows: A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; There are several Comprehensive Plan policies that both support and do not support this proposed annexation. Since the Preliminary Plat and CUP were submitted with the annexation, staff considered all requests together in this analysis. Comprehensive Plan policies that support the annexation/plat/CUP include: • The subject property is designated as Single Family Residential on the Land Use Map of the current Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant is requesting an R-4 zone, which complies with the single family designation. • "Encourage new development ... of higher -density development within the Old Town area and lower -density development in outlying areas." (Land Use Chapter, 1 AU) The proposed development has a gross density of only 2.3 units per acre. • "Encourage landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors." (Community Design Chapter, 4AU) The proposed subdivision has 25 feet along Victory Road and 30 feet along Locust Grove. • "Support a variety of residential categories ... for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." (Land Use Chapter, 2.1U) The proposed subdivision has lot sizes ranging from 7,000 s.f to over 19,000 s.f. Comprehensive Plan policies that do not support the annexation/plat/CUP include: • "Police protection within the city limits ...should be maintained according to the recommended service ratio of 1.6 to 1.8 police officers per 1,000 persons." (Public Services Chapter, 6.8) With an estimated current population of 41,000 and 42 sworn officers, the current ratio is approximately 1.0 officers per 1,000. An additional 28 officers would be needed today to bring the ratio up to 1.7 per 1,000. At buildout, this development alone would warrant at least one additional officer. • "Housing proposals shall be phased with. ..public service and facility plans, which will maximize benefits to the residents, minimize conflicts and provide a tie-in between new residential areas and service needs." (Housing Chapter, 1.6) The proposed sewer does not follow the City's facility plans. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Sub.AZ.PP.CUP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z December 5, 2000 Page 3 B. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area; Thousand Springs Subdivision extends to Victory Road, making the proposed annexation contiguous with existing city limits and making the annexation feasible. On the other hand, surrounding land uses are nearly all farming and rural residential, making this proposed subdivision somewhat of an island. No improvements are currently planned for Victory Road in the next 20 years (in the 2020 plan); Locust Grove will get an overpass, but no widening south of the interstate, and Eagle Rd. has no planned improvements south of the interstate. C. Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area; Staff recognizes that the "essential character of the area" will change in the future and that the change will involve residential development. While the proposed subdivision is not harmonious with the existing rural character, it is in compliance with the intended character of future single-family residential use. D. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; The main potential disturbance is between the residents of the proposed subdivision and the existing surrounding agricultural uses, which may be adequately addressed through the Right -to -Farm clause in Idaho State Code. The applicant needs to be aware of the Right -to -Farm issues with the surrounding properties. E. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse dispcsal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services; Power: The Idaho Power Company has submitted a letter, dated November 20, 1999 stating that they cannot serve the subdivision with power without significant upgrades to their system. I also have a more specific letter, dated December 4, 2000 stating that the subdivision cannot be served from Locust Grove (where the phasing plan is proposed to begin) until after September 1, 2001. This date is dependent on Idaho Power obtaining approval for a new substation in time for construction, prior to the 2002 summer peak electricity demand. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Sub.AZ.PP.CUP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z December 5, 2000 Page 4 Sewer Facilities: The Public Facilities Plan developed by the City of Meridian shows that the proposed subdivision would sewer via the Ten Mile Drain, with the west half draining toward Locust Grove and the east half draining toward Victory Road. The conceptual sewer plans submitted with the application do not follow this plan. The sewer concept plan shows all sewer crossing a parcel north of the proposed school site, that is not a part of this annexation. Any proposal that is not consistent with the established Public Facilities Plan will have to be analyzed against the plan to determine if the final result will achieve the same desired area and level of serviceability. All costs of the analysis by the City of Meridian's Public Facilities Plan consultant shall be borne by this developer. Water: The water connection also crosses the same parcel north of the proposed school site, that is not a part of this annexation. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. Copies of the conceptual water plans have been transmitted to the City of Meridian's Water system consultant for detailed analysis. All costs of the analysis by the City's consultant shall be borne by this developer. Pressurized Irrigation: The applicant has not indicated how the operation, ownership, or maintenance of the pressurized irrigation system will be managed (i.e. Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District or homeowners association). 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. School Facilities: Policy 3.3, pg. 14, of the School Facilities Chapter states, "School sites should be reserved for future acquisition in advance of development of planned land use. Approval of subdivision plats may be withheld if adequate school facilities or sites are not available to serve the proposed subdivision." In their November 9, 2000 comment letter regarding Tuscany Lakes Subdivision, Wendel Bigham of the School District states that Mary McPherson Elementary School is over capacity, Lake Hazel Middle School is at capacity, and Meridian High School is over capacity. The applicant is proposing an elementary school site as part of the project and is in negotiations with the school district regarding the purchase of the property, but the school district does not yet own the site. No solution to the middle school is currently on the horizon. A new high school will soon be under construction with the recently approved bond. The roads will not reach the proposed elementary school site until phases 8 & 9 (out of 9) of the subdivision. In other words, most of the subdivision will be built out before the roads will provide access to the school site. Also, by placing the school at the center of AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Sub.AZ.PP.CUP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z December 5, 2000 Page 5 the section, school traffic is forced to travel the farthest distance possible along neighborhood streets before reaching the school. School siting policy 3.1, page 13 states that schools should be planned with two concerns in mind: a. Schools should be protected from incompatible land uses; and b. Elementary and intermediate primary schools should be the focal point of community development. Staff agrees that the school is protected from incompatible land uses—all surrounding property is single-family residential. However, staff feels that placing the school behind residential lots, with no street frontage makes the schools difficult to find and hides them, rather than making them the focal point of community development. School siting policy 3.2 states that school sites should be selected to avoid limiting physical features and other hazards detrimental to the safety of children. While the wetlands (see item I below) could be a unique interpretive feature of the proposed school site, staff has safety concerns about placing an elementary school adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal. The Ridenbaugh is one of the largest, high-volume canals in the City's impact area. The applicant should address all of these school siting issues with Wendel Bigham of the Meridian School District. Parks and Pathways: The applicant has had a phone conversation on December 5, 2000 with Tom Kuntz of the Meridian Parks Dept. regarding parks and pathway needs. However, the park -related issues have not been resolved to the Parks Department's satisfaction at this time. The City's Comprehensive Plan shows a pathway planned along Ten Mile Creek through this proposed subdivision. The draft Parks Master Plan shows a need for a 20-25 acre park in the area proposed for this subdivision. The applicant should meet with the Parks Dept. to discuss the provision of a park site in lieu of impact fees, or the sale of a park site to meet the City's park needs in this area; as well as the pathway requirements. Roads & Traffic: As of this report, staff has not received a final ACHD report to incorporate specific comments from However, staff has been told that additional traffic calming devices (i.e. roundabouts or chokers) will be required, as well as other modifications that may affect the layout of the subdivision. The section of road (Mediterranean Dr.) that connects the east half to the west half of the subdivision, as well as providing a route for sanitary sewer and water, crosses a parcel of land is not a part of this application. Luann Kuntz, trustee for the E. M. Morgner Trust, owner of the parcel that the road crosses, has stated that they have no intention of granting an easement or selling the property to allow that connection to take place. Police: As already noted, the Police Dept. has public safety concerns about not having enough officers to meet the needs of the current population as well as the increase that would be generated by the proposed 353 lots. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Sub.AZ.PP.CUP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z December 5, 2000 Page 6 Fire and Ememencv Medical Services: The main issue is accessibility. With the road connection through the Morgner parcel not a reality, each side of the subdivision has only one way in and one way out. This can create a problem for emergency crews if the single entrance is blocked. A second emergency access for each side is needed. At a minimum, no more than 100 lots should be allowed develop within the subdivision until a second access is provided. F. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; The proposed subdivision would certainly not create any more additional requirements or costs to the City than other residential uses. G. Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; The additional traffic contributed by a 353 -house subdivision would certainly add to the adjacent roadway's congestion. It will not create any foreseeable noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. It is more likely that the existing agricultural uses will have these types of impacts on the proposed subdivision. H. Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; Until the City receives a report from ACHD, this finding is difficult to calculate. The ACHD Commission's hearing date on Tuscany Lakes Subdivision has, of this report, not been scheduled. Staff recommends any decision on this application be continued until a final ACHD report is available. I. Will not result in the destruction, loss ordamage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance; and The site has several healthy, mature trees along the canals that must be protected during construction. It is unclear if the proposed layout affects any of these trees. The City Comprehensive Plan, page 32, states that "throughout the Meridian area are outstanding natural tree and shrub corridors along the creeks and drains. These vegetation resources are critical to wildlife and aesthetic values. It is essential that community leaders protect and preserve natural vegetation along all creeks and drains within the Meridian area." The City now has an ordinance to back up that policy in the new landscape ordinance, under `Preservation of Existing Trees'. The applicant should verify the location of existing healthy trees in relation to the proposed subdivision layout. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Sub.AZ.PP.CUP.doc Mayor, Council and p&Z December 5, 2000 Page 7 The floodplain along Ten Mile Creek must be protected. Comprehensive Plan policy 3-1U, page 33, states that the City is to "manage and prevent unsutable uses along drainageways and protect the floodplain of creeks and drains." Policy 1.1U, page 32, states that the City is to "control and preserve the natural beauty of Ten Mile Creek..." The preliminary plat shows the 100 -year floodplain crossing several lots on the east side of Ten Mile Creek. According to Fred Eisenbarth of the Idaho Dept. of Water Resources, the floodplain is shown as a zone A. `Zone A' means that no base flood elevations have yet been determined, and the developer of any subdivision at least 5 acres or 50 lots in size is required to determine the actual flood elevations through a detailed study. The applicant should be required to provide the City with such a study before any final action is taken on the preliminary plat. It has been brought to our attention that a potential wetlands site exists in the southwest comer of the proposed school site. The applicant should provide the City with a letter from the Corps of Engineers regarding the status of the wetland area and any required protective measures. J. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. (Ord. 592, 11-17-1992) Issues related to ownership, emergency access, power service, sewer and water, school siting, parks and pathways, floodplain, wetlands, and traffic should be resolved before annexing the property to the City. ANNEXATION & ZONING - GENERAL COMMENTS I. The legal description submitted with the application meets the requirements of the City of Meridian and State Tax Commission and places the parcel contiguous to existing city limits. 2. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 3. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 4. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Sections 11-13-4.C. and 12-5-2.M. 5. 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. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Sub.AZ.PP.CUP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z December 5, 2000 Page 8 6. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 7. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the City of Meridian Ordinance 11- 13 for use of property. 8. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-14 of the City of ,Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. No temporary signage, flags, banners or flashing signs will be permitted. 9. Provide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 12-5-2.K. 10. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 11. All landscaping shall conform to the requirements of City Ordinance 12-13. PRELIMINARY PLAT & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COMMENTS Because there are so many outstanding issues that directly affect the design of this subdivision that still need to be resolved, (and may require a re -design of the subdivision), staff is not providing detailed comments on the plat or the CUP at this time. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Sub.AZ.PP.CUP.doc BR/GGS ENG/NEER/NG /nc, �,Z ENGINEERS/ PLANNERS /SURVEYORSI eel January 3, 2001 Mr. Berg Meridian City Clerk 33 East Idaho St. Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Dear Mr. Berg: We have meet with City Staff, and are now preparing additional information about the sewer distribution system and secondary access to the site. We wish to address these issues raised by staff and seek some settlement prior to proceeding to the Planning and Zoning hearing. We are hereby requesting that Commission continue our application until the next available Planning and Zoning meeting so we can provide that information to City Staff . If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Sincerely, GGS ENGINEERING, Inc. 7: Kent Br Planner KB\ 0308\P&Z-hold-ltr Kristy Vigil From: Steve Siddowa siddowa SY L s@ci.meridian.id.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 8:19 AM To: 'Kristy Vigil' Subject: FW: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision C,lvED �' S aoo ri TechT�l.gif City �,� l�k �,ffic Citi �- Kristy, FYI for your file. Steve -----Original Message ----- From: Georgeson, Keith[mailto:KGeorgeson@idahopower.com] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 4:16 PM To: 'Siddowas@ci. meridian. id. us, Cc: Slusser, Mark; Sikes, David; Dodson, Layne Subject: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Steve, After looking at the new load projections in the area of Victory and Locust Grove Roads, no capacity remains to serve new loads from Locust Grove Road in Tuscany Lakes subdivision until after September 1, 2001. A new substation is currently being looked at in the area that will fix this situation, but this cannot be built until early 2002. These limits are for the summer peak of 2001. Loads in this area are lower in the winter so some new homes could be served after this date. These will be evaluated as these requests are received. This September 1, 2001 date is dependent on obtaining approval of a new station site in time for construction prior to the 2002 summer peak. Keith Georgeson Planning Engineer Idaho Power Company 388-2034 kag5014(a)idahopower com <maiIto: kag5014(@idahopower com> I �' IDAHO POWER COMPANY Layne Dodson DAM Community Relations Representative 000WR P0. BOX 70 (208 Office ( 388-6477 6907 BOISE, IDAHO 83707 Fax (208) 388- Cell. (208) 880-43734373 November 20, 2000 Will Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 Re: PP -00-024 Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Dear Will, f?BCE1V-ED N O V 2 1 2000 CITY OF MERIDIAN Idaho Power Company is unable to serve this application without significant system upgrades. The applicant should contact the local Idaho Power Company Operations Center for details. The engineering and construction contact for this project would be the Meridian Team at 388-2021. Sincerely, Layne Dodson November 14, 2000 FKEIvED N 0 V 2 0 2000 CITY OF MERIDIAN 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Will Berg, City Clerk SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 Re; PP -00-024 Preliminary Plat for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Dear Commissioners: The Tenmile Drain courses through the above-mentioned proposed project. The Tenmile Drain is a contract Drain with the Bureau of Reclamation. The easement on the facility is 100 feet, 50 feet from the center each way. The Eightmile Lateral also courses through this project, the Bureau of Reclamation has an easement or fee title of 90 feet, 45 feet from the center each way, however the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has an 80 foot easement, 40 feet from the center each way. The Ridenbaugh Canal courses along a portion of the south boundary, the easement of the Ridenbaugh Canal is 100 feet, 50 feet from the center each way. All easements and right-of-ways must be protected and all storm drainage must be retained on site. Sincerely, Bill Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT BH: din Cc: File — Shop File — Office Water Superintendent APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 REC-ErVEJ) DEC - g 2000 CITY OF MEHIDLIY '1'la�tr�ia 8c %12ez�diacy s7ytigciti4a Z)C4.etiCt 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 December 5, 2000 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Meridian City Hall SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4; Preliminary Plat approval in a proposed R-4 zone and a Conditional Use Permit to construct a planned unit development for proposed Tuscany 4 Lakes Subdivision Dear Commissioners: The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the rezone for the above- mentioned proposed project, however any encroachments on the District's Ridenbaugh Canal or the Tenmile Drain without written approval are unacceptable. 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 CI CENTRAL DISTRICT CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT 'HEALTH Environmental Health Division Return to: DEPARTMENT ❑ Boise ❑ Eagle Rezone # ❑ Garden City Conditional Use # Meridian Preliminary / Final / Short Platy —OCD ❑ Kuna ❑ ACZ Ll Star Li i. vve nave No objections to this Proposal. N 0 V 14 2000 ❑ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. MY OF MERIDM ❑ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ❑ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ❑ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ❑ high seasonal ground water ❑ waste flow characteristics ❑ or bedrock from original grade ❑ other ❑ 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or surface waters. ❑ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. 8. After wriftep approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: central sewage ❑ community sewage system ❑ community water well ❑ interim sewage A central water ❑ individual sewage ❑ individual water 4 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 Kcentral water 410. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ❑ 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ❑ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. L313. 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. / A'i � � .yrs—. �,E ,t� �,�r w .� Date: Itl coo Xe ca rnfi ew --,Z Reviewed BY: CDHo9=ke R, CENTRAL •• DISTRICT WHEALTH DEPARTMENT MAIN OFFICE - 707 N. ARMSTRONG PL. • BOISE, ID 83704-0825 • (208) 375-5211 - FAX 327-8500 Tit prevent and treat disease and disability; to promote healthy lifestyles; and to protect and promote the health and gualit-v of our enviromnent. 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. Bose, ID 83704 Enviro. Health: 327-7499 Family Planning: 327-7400 Immunizations: 327-7450 Senior Nutrition: 327-7460 WIC: 327-7488 FAX 327-8500 Serving Valley, 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. 1st Street P.O. Box 1448 McCall, ID. 83638 Ph. 634-7194 FAX: 634-2174 C�/ �.�e '\ / Preparing ZO I Today's 911 Meridian Students for n 83642 • (208) 888-6701 • Fax (208) 888-6700 Tomorrow's Challenges. moo` � Fogle , Mer*Xd�o� SUPERINTENDENT Christine H. Donnell November 9, 2000 Joint School District No. 2 911 Meridian Street • Meridian, Idaho 83642 • (208) 888-6701 • Fax (208) 888-6700 City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian,Idaho 83642 Dear Councilmen: REICIEWED N 0 V ? 4 2000 CITY OF MERIDIAN Enclosed for your review is general information relative to schools located in the proposed project area. If you have any questions, please contact Wendel Bigham at 888-6701. Reference: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Elementary School: Mary McPherson Elementary School Middle School: Lake Hazel Middle School High School: Meridian High School Comments and/or Recommendations: Mary McPherson Elementary School is over capacity. The school district is currently busing students from new developments to schools outside Mary McPherson Elementary School's attendance boundary. Lake Hazel Middle School is at capacity. At this point the school district is dealing with growth by providing portable classrooms. Meridian High School is over capacity, but with the passage of the General Obligation Bond Election on September 19th a new high school will soon be under construction. We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house one hundred twenty five (125) elementary aged children, ninety-four (94) middle school aged children, and sixty-three (63) senior high aged students. Sincerely, Wendel Bigham, Supervisor of Facilities & Construction WB:gr Dear Steve, RECEIVED JUN 19 2001 CITY OF MERIDIAN On April 11, 2001, 1 provided you with a letter stating that the proposed location of Tuscany Way, off of Victory Road, conforms to ACHD policy. I also included in that letter that Joe Rosenlund, an ACHD traffic engineer determined that to be the best location. Kent Brown approached me again with concerns from the Planning & Zoning Commission. Last week I met with Mr. Rosenlund, Mr. Brown, and a resident who lives on the north side of Victory Road who has concerns about vehicle lights shining on to his home. It has come to my attention that a suggestion has been made to re -align Tuscany Way with the main entrance to Thousand Springs Subdivision. According to Mr. Rosenlund, that intersection grade "barely" meets our standards, but that the grade cannot be reduced in that location because of a high pressure gas line that cannot be relocated. Mr. Rosenlund again went out and evaluated the site distance problems that currently exist on Victory Road and offered the following comments: • 1 would rather have the street intersect Victory where it is presently proposed. • The alignment with the Thousand Springs access is acceptable but marginal. • In no case would I allow a school crossing at the Thousand Spring access location, it would need to be at the crest of the hill, at the currently proposed intersection or at Eagle. • Should the City of Meridian require the applicant to align Tuscany Way with the Thousand Springs entrance, this item will have to be re -heard by the ACHD Commission for review and approval. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 387-6170.. If I am not available, please call Joe Rosenlund at 387-6140. Sincerely, Christy Richardson Principal Development Analyst cc: Project file Kent Brown, Briggs Engineering 2 } Ada County Highway District Judy Peavey -Derr, President 318 East 37th Street Dave Bivens, 1st Vice President Garden City ID 83714-6499 Sherry R. Huber, 2nd Vice President Phone (208) 387-6100 Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner FAX (208) 387-6391 David E. Wynkoop, Commissioner E-mail: tellus@ACHD.ada.id.us June 1, 2001 Steve Siddoway City of Meridian 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202 Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision May 31, 2001 AZ 00-023 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 5, 2001 APPLICANT Gem Park II Partnership ITEM NO. REQUEST Annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision - s/o Victory Road and w/o Eagle Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: �. SETTLERS IRRIGATION: 1 COMMENTS See attached Recommendations IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: See attached from Luanne Kuntz and Monty Morgner Contacted: kkC'CMf jN- Date: Phone: Gam, Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. WHITE PETERSON WHITE, PETERSON, MORROW, GIGFAY, RossMAN, NYE & RossMAN, P.A. KEVIN E. DIN1US CHRISTOPHER S. NYE JLW KLEIN FtscIE3R PHILIP A. PETERSON Wm. F. GtoRAY, la ERIC S. Ro&%m BRENT J. JOHNSON TODD A. ROSsMAN D. SAMUEL, JOHNSON DAVID M. SwARTLEY LARRY D. MOORE TERRIIIE R. WHM** WILLIAM A MoRRow NICHOLAS L. wOLLEN WILLIAM F. NICHOLS* Also admitted in OR "" Also admitted in WA To: Staff Applicant fected Property Owner(s) Re: Application Case No. ATTORNEYS AT LAw 200 EAST CARLTON AvE., SurrE 31 POST OFFICE BOX 1150 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150 TEL (208)288-2499 FAX (208) 288.2501 E-MAiL:@wppmG.com May 18, 2001 AZ -00-023 NAMPA OFFICE 5700 E. FRANKLIN RD., STEL 200 NAMPA IDAHO 83687-8402 TEL.(208)466-4272 FAX (208) 466-4405 PLEASE REPLY TO MERIDIAN OFFICE RECEIVEM MAY 3 12001 City of Meridian City Clerk Office FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Staff, Applicant and/or Affected Property Owner(s): Please note that these Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zonin Commission shall be presented to the City Council at the public hearing on the above reference matter by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Due to the volume of matters which the City Council must decide, and to insure your position is understood and clear, it is important to have a consistent format by which matters are presented at the public hearings before the City Council. The City Council strongly recommends: 1. That you take time to carefully review the Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and be prepared to state your position on this application by addressing the Findings and Recommendations of t e Planning and Zoning Commission; and 2. That you carefully complete (be sure it is le ible) the Position Statement if you disagree with the Findings anWRecommendations 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 (S) copies. The copies will be Cresented to the Mayor, Council, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Public Works and the ity Attorney. If you are a part of a group, it is strongly recommended that one Position Statement be filled out for the group, which can be signed by the representative for the group. - ly yours, City Attorney's Office BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 156.21 ACRES FOR TUSCAN LAKES SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP Case No. AZ -00-023 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL I . The property is approximately 15 6.21 acres in size and is located at the south side of Victory Road east of Locust Grove Road west of Eagle Road. The property is designated as Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is the Kenai Partners LLC, of Boise, Idaho. 3. Applicant is Gem Park Il Partnership, of Meridian, Idaho. 4. The property is presently zoned by Ada County as RT, and consists of agricultural uses. 5. The Applicant requests the property be zoned as R4. 6. The subject property is bordered on all sides by working farms and rural residential uses, zoned RUT and by Thousand Springs Subdivision zoned R-4 by Meridian. 7. The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 1 ANNEXATION AND ZONING - TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION - GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: a residential subdivision of 349 building lots and 44 other lots. 10. The Applicant requests zoning of the subject real property as R-4 which is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map which designates the subject property as Single Family Residential. 11. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that affect the consideration of this application. 12. The Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes the concerns of Jon and Bonnie Glick, Mr. and Mrs. G. Webb, William Patterson, Mary Morgner DeChambeau, and Al Malaise, RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the requested annexation and zoning as requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application, subject to the following: Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning and Engineering Staff as follows: RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING - TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION - GEM PARK 11 PARTNERSHIP 1. A detailed analysis will need to be completed to determine if the proposed sewer routing, contrary to the City's Master Plan, will achieve the same desired area and level of serviceability as the Master Plan route. Detailed analysis will also need to be completed on the water system to determine the serviceability of the proposed development. All costs of the analysis by the City's consultants shall be borne by this developer. 2. Applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Agreement with the City as a condition of annexation. 3. A condition of the Annexation/Development Agreement shall be that the project comply with the standards of the Landscape Ordinance, 12- 13. 4. Detached sidewalks with a minimum 5 -foot -wide planter strip between the curb and sidewallc shall be required along the frontage of Locust Grove and Victory Road. 5. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 6. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 7. High-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. 8. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Additional comments were received from Planning and Zoning and Engineering RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 3 ANNEXATION AND ZONING - TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION - GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP following the continuation of the hearing. 9. Sewer: The applicant proposed significant changes to the Sewer Master Plan. Those changes have been reviewed by JUB Engineers and their comments are contained in a March 22, 2001 letter to Brad Watson, which has been forwarded to Briggs Engineering (Copy attached). Additional staff comments or modifications to J -U -B's comments are forthcoming, however staff does not believe that there are any issues significant enough to recommend denial of this application. (With approval of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision, approximately 750 ER Us of the 1100 to 1200 ERU's of remaining sewer capacity in the Ten Mile Sewer Trunk are committed until the Ten Mile Relief Line, to be built by the Bear Creek Estates developer, is completed. The construction of the Ten Mile Relief Line will add approximately 1200 more ERU's of capacity to the Ten Mile Trunk. The 750 committed ER Us include the previously approved Bear Creek Estates and Observation Point Subdivisions. 10. Water: Results of water modeling have not been received as of this date. Staff believes that this could be a very significant issue for the serviceability of this development, and therefore we respectfully request that this application be held over until the May 3rd P&Z meeting. 11. Migrating Groundwater: We received a letter dated April 6, 2001 from Associated Earth Sciences, J. Evan Merrell, P.E., stating that a drainage system (cut-off drain) will control groundwater on the subdivision to a safe depth. It will also prevent shallow groundwater movement into the land north of the subdivision. The cut-off drains would be on the order of seven feet deep by outletting as deep as possible into Ten Mile Creek. 12. Street Alignment: Christy Richardson has submitted a letter from ACRD, dated April 11, 2001 stating that they do not want to move the proposed location of Tuscany Way. The proposed location, at the east property line, is the safest. 13. Ridenbaugh Pathway: The Meridian Parks Dept. has determined that they do not want to require a pathway adjacent to the Ridenbaugh (in the area originally shown as Nine Mile Creek). RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 4 ANNEXATION AND ZONING - TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION - GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP .-- loo^%, 14. The Applicant should note whether this area will become a common area or become part of the lots, and indicate such on the plat. 15. In lieu of the pathway connection, staff recommends a micropath that will allow school children walking from the north to access Turin Avenue sidewalks without being forced to walk around to Tuscany Way. 16. The pathways along Ten Mile Creek and the loop through the Eight Mile Creek area should still be required as noted in the previous staff report. 17. School Access: At a minimum, a condition should be added to the plat to allow the school district flexibility in locating the entrance and exit, as site plans are prepared. Staff continues to feel that the current access point is unsafe and that the school is hidden, and will be difficult to find. 18. Wetlands: The letter from the Corps of Engineers may be required prior to the (first phase) final plat. Prior staff reports have required the letter from the Corps prior to the P&Z Commission acting on this preliminary plat. 19. Complete Plat: The applicant should submit a complete plat that includes all proposed modifications, contours, notes, legend, phasing, etc. for the Commission to review, before the project is sent forward to City Council. Prior staff reports have required the modifications to be submitted 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. Recent conversations with Mayor Corrie have made it clear that the Council wants to have the Commission review the revised plans before they go on to the City Council. NOTE: The Conditional Use Permit Recommendations contain the requested conditions of the Ada County Highway District. Ey/ZAWorkV&Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Recommendations\AZOO23TuscanyLakes.wpd RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 5 ANNEXATION AND ZONING - TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION - GEM PARK 11 PARTNERSHIP RECEIVED May 24, 2001 MAY 2 5 2001 City of Meridian CITY OF MERIDIAN City Council Members 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Application Please accept my written comments on the pending application of Gem Park Il Partnership for the proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. I have conflicts on June 5, 2001 that will prevent me from attending the hearing that evening. I am the trustee for the Morgner property located at 2015 East Victory Road Meridian, Idaho. This property is adjacent to the proposed subdivision on the north and west. The property is currently being used for agricultural purposes and our present plan is to continue to use it in that manner. After attending three different Meridian Planning and Zoning meetings, I still have some concerns regarding the approval of this subdivision. My biggest concern is that we will be able to continue our farming operations without problems from the developers, builders or future residents. My experience with developers and builders has been that once they have the approval to build they do not have to be considerate of any adjacent landowners. Once these homes are built the residents living in the subdivision seem to feel that any open space is available to them for all kinds of recreational purposes and they can trespass at will. These same people want to live in the country but then they complain about burning ditches, spraying, smell, noise, dust, weeds, etc. I would like to see some written assurances from the developer on several issues which I have listed below. I would also like to have the name and phone number of a person we can contact if we have problems that need resolved. 1. The developer has assured us that they will be installing fences along the perimeter of the subdivision. We would like to see this done before they start work on this subdivision. We need to be assured that we can still burn ditches without destroying anyone's wooden or vinyl fences. We would like to have a type of fencing that is acceptable to our renter and will capture as much building debris and trash as possible. 2. The canal access needs some kind of fencing or barricade so that the workers and/or homeowners don't use the canal easement through our property as a means of accessing Victory and Locust Grove Roads. 3. Something more substantial than a barricade needs to be placed at any location the developer puts a stub for their proposed roads across our property. We would like to prevent as much trespassing as possible by future residents of the subdivision. We definitely do not want people driving or biking over the property and we want to prevent children from playing in the canal and playing in the crops and fields. 4. The back portion of our place is very wet and we have to be assured that the proposed ponds, etc. do not make this portion of the property even wetter so that it cannot be farmed. Although the developer did have a consultant examine this problem and submit a report to Planning and Zoning we have never been able to make contact with this person so that we can ask questions or get additional information on his recommendations. We were given only a brief summary of his proposed plan. In addition, he was supposed to meet with our renter about this problem but that didn't happen either. 5. When the Sherbrooke Subdivision ( across Victory Road from our property) was being built the phone lines to my mother's home were damaged. For months both the developer and the phone company claimed that it wasn't their problem while we had barely operable phone service. If any damage occurs to our property as they are building this subdivision, I would like to see the developer rectify it immediately. 6. I realize that the developer does not do the actual building but someone should be cleaning up the trash on a regular basis. We cannot have construction debris scattered all over our farm ground. Once again this has been a big problem with the Sherbrooke Subdivision and needs to be addressed. 7. Homeowners need to be advised prior to purchasing property that trespassing on the canal easement as well as the adjacent farmland is illegal and they can be prosecuted. They also need to be informed that we have a right to farm our property and that presently our property is located in the county rather than the City of Meridian. These same items need to be addressed in the homeowner's covenants and given to each homeowner. 8. If and when we may decide to sell our property for development we would like to be assured that sewer and city water can be accessed, providing capacity is available. This was mentioned at one of the Meridian Planning and Zoning meetings but when I brought this question up at a later meeting it was totally ignored and I did not receive an answer. 9. Hopefully, a survey of all the outside property lines will have to be completed and then marked. We own a very small chunk of property east of the Ridenbaugh Canal at one end. I do not want to see this incorporated into some homeowner's backyard so that we have problems with our land title if we should decide to sell as some future time. I realize that more development is going to occur in this area but it seems to me that this is really a "leap frog" development when the first phase to be developed is not even inside the Meridian area of impact. It would seem more orderly to develop the first phases in the part of the property directly across Victory Road from Thousand Springs subdivision which is actually part of the area of impact. The Ridenbaugh Canal would serve as somewhat of a buffer ( at least temporarily) for our farming operations as well as a big share of the other people with acreages that abut this proposed development. As a taxpayer, I object to having a big portion of Victory Road east to Locust Grove Road and Locust Grove Road south to the subdivision entrance torn up to provide sewer and water lines. That section of Locust Grove Road was resurfaced only about 3 years ago. I don't consider a patch job being as good if not better that what was in existence prior to the construction. In addition, I think that traffic impacts, entrances to the subdivision and the strange school location need to be re-examined. With all of the articles written about the City of Meridian needing to "catch-up" with their services, I would think that a good dividing line for delaying development to the south would be Victory Road. Delaying development in this area might give the city a chance to improve services. I feel that it is going to be nearly impossible to farm when we are surrounded with all of these homes. Most of the people living in them have no understanding of agriculture. I feel great sadness at seeing all of the good farm land being covered with homes even though I understand the reasons farmers sell. One of them is that subdivision residents generally are not good neighbors. Our property has been a working farm for 100 years but I guess we too are slowly being forced into making the developers happy. I want to thank you for allowing me to express my concerns about this subdivision. I hope that you will consider denying this application at this time. Luann Kuntz Trustee for the Eva Marleen Morgner Living Trust 4800 West Holmes Street Boise, Idaho 83706-2207 I W AAJ des Farnis Feed America I America Loses over 1 million acres of farmland to sprawling development every year! for future generations, You can help save our nation's farmland Contact: American Farmland Trust 1200 1 sth Street, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 1-800-431-1499 www.farmland.org January 2, 2001 AZ 00-023 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 4, 2001 APPLICANT Gem Park II Partnership ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Si ihdivision south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE, INC: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: See attached comments See attached comments Public safety concerns See attached comments No comment No comment No comment See attached comments See attached comments No objections to this proposal See attached comments See attached comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached letter from resident Contacted: 'l 1" Date: 2, oPhone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. /rte' BRIGGS ENG/NEER/NGS /nom yz O ENGINEERS/ PLANNERS/ SURVEYORS CA, or 4 January 3, 2001 Mr. Berg Meridian City Clerk ✓,4 33 East Idaho St. Cif * Meridian, Idaho 83642 Coe RE: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision A Dear Mr. Berg: We have meet with City Staff, and are now preparing additional information about the sewer distribution system and secondary access to the site. We wish to address these issues raised by staff and seek some settlement prior to proceeding to the Planning and Zoning hearing. We are hereby requesting that Commission continue our application until the next available Planning and Zoning meeting so we can provide that information to City Staff . If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Sincerely, IGGS ENGINEERING, Inc. Kent Br Planner KB\ 0308\P&Z-hold-ltr NL YOR Robert D. Come C= COUNCIL NM20BERS Ron _lnderson Keith Bird Tarnaw deWeerd Cherie INIcCandless MEMORANDUM: HUB OF TRbASI NE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MEREDLAN 33 EAST IDAHO NI RIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 • FA -K (208) 887-4813 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 LEGAL DEPARTNME� (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORkS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (2(8) 887-2211 - Fax 887-1297 PL)\1N`ING AND ZONING DEP.ARTti EN'r (208) 884-5533 - FAX 888-6854 December 5, 2000 To: Planning & Zoning Commission / Mayor & City Council' C T`�IlZ) DEC From: Steve Siddoway, Planner---- D 6 ZOOS Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer city o fv Re: TUSCANY LAKES SI7BDIVI vjty eli keo ft ti SION e - Request for Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership (File #AZ - 00 -023). - Request for Preliminary Plat of 353 Lots by Gem Park II Partnership for a residential subdivision in a proposed R-4 zone (File #PP -00-024). - Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development by Gem Park II Partnership for flexible lot sizes, frontages, and block length (File #CUP -00-052). We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council. APPLICATIONS SUMMARY The subject applications propose to annex and preliminarily plat approximately 156 acres consisting of 353 single-family buildable lots, 39 common lots, and a school site; with a Planned Development for flexible lot sizes, frontages, block length, and cul-de-sac length. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Surrounding properties on all sides of the project include working farms and rural residential uses, zoned RUT. The area north of the section that extends to Victory Road includes Thousand Springs Subdivision, zoned R-4. CURRENT OWNERS OF RECORD The Burnett Family Trust and Kenai Parners, LLC are listed on the Warranty Deeds submitted with the application and have submitted consent for the applications. However, the deed for the Kenai Partners property has not been recorded. According to the County Assessor's office, the property shown on that deed is actually owned by Walter T. Sigmont, Jr. and Raymond C. Smith, not by Kenai Partners nor by the Wanner -Buckner Partnership, who is shown as the grantor on AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Sub.AZ.PP.CUP.doc ►'1 Mayor, Council and P&Z December 5, 2000 Page 2 the unrecorded deed. The applicant needs to clarify the current ownership, by submitting a recorded deed and notarized consent from the owners. ANNEXATION AND ZONING — SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, states that both the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed [annexation] in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment." Staff s analysis of each required finding is as follows: A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; There are several Comprehensive Plan policies that both support and do not support this proposed annexation. Since the Preliminary Plat and CUP were submitted with the annexation, staff considered all requests together in this analysis. Comprehensive Plan policies that support the annexation/plat/CUP include: • The subject property is designated as Single Family Residential on the Land Use Map of the current Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant is requesting an R-4 zone, which complies with the single family designation. • "Encourage new development ... of higher -density development within the Old Town area and lower -density development in outlying areas." (Land Use Chapter, 1.4U) The proposed development has a gross density of only 2.3 units per acre. • "Encourage landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors." (Community Design Chapter, 4.4U) The proposed subdivision has 25 feet along Victory Road and 30 feet along Locust Grove. • "Support a variety of residential categories ... for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." (Land Use Chapter, 2.11J) The proposed subdivision has lot sizes ranging from 7,000 s.f. to over 19,000 s.f. Comprehensive Plan policies that do not support the annexation/plat/CUP include: • "Police protection within the city limits ...should be maintained according to the recommended service ratio of 1.6 to 1.8 police officers per 1,000 persons." (Public Services Chapter, 6.8) With an estimated current population of 41,000 and 42 sworn officers, the current ratio is approximately 1.0 officers per 1,000. An additional 28 officers would be needed today to bring the ratio up to 1.7 per 1,000. At buildout, this development alone would warrant at least one additional officer. • "Housing proposals shall be phased with ... public service and facility plans, which will maximize benefits to the residents, minimize conflicts and provide a tie-in between new residential areas and service needs." (Housing Chapter, 1.6) The proposed sewer does not follow the City's facility plans. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Sub.AZ.PP.CUP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z December 5, 2000 Page 3 B. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area; Thousand Springs Subdivision extends to Victory Road, making the proposed annexation contiguous with .existing city limits and making the annexation feasible. On the other hand, surrounding land uses are nearly all farming and rural residential, making this proposed subdivision somewhat of an island. No improvements are currently planned for Victory Road in the next 20 years (in the 2020 plan); Locust Grove will get an overpass, but no widening south of the interstate, and Eagle Rd. has no planned improvements south of the interstate. C. Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area; Staff recognizes that the "essential character of the area" will change in the future and that the change will involve residential development. While the proposed subdivision is not harmonious with the existing rural character, it is in compliance with the intended character of future single-family residential use. D. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; The main potential disturbance is between the residents of the proposed subdivision and the existing surrounding agricultural uses, which may be adequately addressed through the Right -to -Farm clause in Idaho State Code. The applicant needs to be aware of the Right -to -Farm issues with the surrounding properties. E. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services; Power: The Idaho Power Company has submitted a letter, dated November 20, 1999 stating that they cannot serve the subdivision with power without significant upgrades to their system. I also have a more specific letter, dated December 4, 2000 stating that the subdivision cannot be served from Locust Grove (where the phasing plan is proposed to begin) until after September 1, 2001. This date is dependent on Idaho Power obtaining approval for a new substation in time for construction, prior to the 2002 summer peak electricity demand. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Sub.AZ.PP.CUP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z December 5, 2000 Page 4 Sewer Facilities: The Public Facilities Plan developed by the City of Meridian shows that the proposed subdivision would sewer via the Ten Mile Drain, with the west half draining toward Locust Grove and the east half draining toward Victory Road. The conceptual sewer plans submitted with the application do not follow this plan. The sewer concept plan shows all sewer crossing a parcel north of the proposed school site, that is not a part of this annexation. Any proposal that is not consistent with the established Public Facilities Plan will have to be analyzed against the plan to determine if the final result will achieve the same desired area and level of serviceability. All costs of the analysis by the City of Meridian's Public Facilities Plan consultant shall be borne by this developer. Water: The water connection also crosses the same parcel north of the proposed school site, that is not a part of this annexation. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. Copies of the conceptual water plans have been transmitted to the City of Meridian's Water system consultant for detailed analysis. All costs of the analysis by the City's consultant shall be borne by this developer. Pressurized Irri ag tion: The applicant has not indicated how the operation, ownership, or maintenance of the pressurized irrigation system will be managed (i.e. Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District or homeowners association). 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 fmal 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. School Facilities: Policy 3.3, pg. 14, of the School Facilities Chapter states, "School sites should be reserved for future acquisition in advance of development of planned land use. Approval of subdivision plats may be withheld if adequate school facilities or sites are not available to serve the proposed subdivision." In their November 9, 2000 comment letter regarding Tuscany Lakes Subdivision, Wendel Bigham of the School District states that Mary McPherson Elementary School is over capacity, Lake Hazel Middle School is at capacity, and Meridian High School is over capacity. The applicant is proposing an elementary school site as part of the project and is in negotiations with the school district regarding the purchase of the property, but the school district does not yet own the site. No solution to the middle school is currently on the horizon. A new high school will soon be under construction with the recently approved bond. The roads will not reach the proposed elementary school site until phases 8 & 9 (out of 9) of the subdivision. In other words, most of the subdivision will be built out before the roads will provide access to the school site. Also, by placing the school at the center of AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Sub.AZ.PP.CUP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z December 5, 2000 Page 5 the section, school traffic is forced to travel the farthest distance possible along neighborhood streets before reaching the school. School siting policy 3. 1, page 13 states that schools should be planned with two concerns in mind: a. Schools should be protected from incompatible land uses; and b. Elementary and intermediate primary schools should be the focal point of community development. Staff agrees that the school is protected from incompatible land uses—all surrounding property is single-family residential. However, staff feels that placing the school behind residential lots, with no street frontage makes the schools difficult to find and hides them, rather than making them the focal point of community development. School siting policy 3.2 states that school sites should be selected to avoid limiting physical features and other hazards detrimental to the safety of children. While the wetlands (see item I below) could be a unique interpretive feature of the proposed school site, staff has safety concerns about placing an elementary school adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal. The Ridenbaugh is one of the largest, high-volume canals in the City's impact area. The applicant should address all of these school siting issues with Wendel Bigham of the Meridian School District. Parks and Pathways: The applicant has had a phone conversation on December 5, 2000 with Tom Kuntz of the Meridian Parks Dept. regarding parks and pathway needs. However, the park -related issues have not been resolved to the Parks Department's satisfaction at this time. The City's Comprehensive Plan shows a pathway planned along Ten Mile Creek through this proposed subdivision. The draft Parks Master Plan shows a need for a 20-25 acre park in the area proposed for this subdivision. The applicant should meet with the Parks Dept. to discuss the provision of a park site in lieu of impact fees, or the sale of a park site to meet the City's park needs in this area; as well as the pathway requirements. Roads & Traffic: As of this report, staff has not received a final ACHD report to incorporate specific comments from. However, staff has been told that additional traffic calming devices (i.e. roundabouts or chokers) will be required, as well as other modifications that may affect the layout of the subdivision. The section of road (Mediterranean Dr.) that connects the east half to the west half of the subdivision, as well as providing a route for sanitary sewer and water, crosses a parcel of land is not a part of this application. Luann Kuntz, trustee for the E. M. Morgner Trust, owner of the parcel that the road crosses, has stated that they have no intention of granting an easement or selling the property to allow that connection to take place. Police: As already noted, the Police Dept. has public safety concerns about not having enough officers to meet the needs of the current population as well as the increase that would be generated by the proposed 353 lots. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Sub.AZ.PP.CUP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z December 5, 2000 Page 6 Fire and Emergency Medical Services: The main issue is accessibility. With the road connection through the Morgner parcel not a reality, each side of the subdivision has only one way in and one way out. This can create a problem for emergency crews if the single entrance is blocked. A second emergency access for each side is needed. At a minimum, no more than 100 lots should be allowed develop within the subdivision until a second access is provided. F. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; The proposed subdivision would certainly not create any more additional requirements or costs to the City than other residential uses. G. Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; The additional traffic contributed by a 353 -house subdivision would certainly add to the adjacent roadway's congestion. It will not create any foreseeable noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. It is more likely that the existing agricultural uses will have these types of impacts on the proposed subdivision. H. Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; Until the City receives a report from ACRD, this finding is difficult to calculate. The ACHD Commission's hearing date on Tuscany Lakes Subdivision has, of this report, not been scheduled. Staff recommends any decision on this application be continued until a final ACHD report is available. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance; and The site has several healthy, mature trees along the canals that must be protected during construction. It is unclear if the proposed layout affects any of these trees. The City Comprehensive Plan, page 32, states that "throughout the Meridian area are outstanding natural tree and shrub corridors along the creeks and drains. These vegetation resources are critical to wildlife and aesthetic values. It is essential that community leaders protect and preserve natural vegetation along all creeks and drains within the Meridian area." The City now has an ordinance to back up that policy in the new landscape ordinance, under `Preservation of Existing Trees'. The applicant should verify the location of existing healthy trees in relation to the proposed subdivision layout. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Sub.AZ.PP.CUP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z December 5, 2000 Page 7 The floodplain along Ten Mile Creek must be protected. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.1U, page 33, states that the City is to "manage and prevent unsutable uses along drainageways and protect the floodplain of creeks and drains." Policy 1.1U, page 32, states that the City is to "control and preserve the natural beauty of Ten Mile Creek..." The preliminary plat shows the 100 -year floodplain crossing several lots on the east side of Ten Mile Creek. According to Fred Eisenbarth of the Idaho Dept. of Water Resources, the floodplain is shown as a zone A. `Zone A' means that no base flood elevations have yet been determined, and the developer of any subdivision at least 5 acres or 50 lots in size is required to determine the actual flood elevations through a detailed study. The applicant should be required to provide the City with such a study before any final action is taken on the preliminary plat. It has been brought to our attention that a potential wetlands site exists in the southwest corner of the proposed school site. The applicant should provide the City with a letter from the Corps of Engineers regarding the status of the wetland area and any required protective measures. J. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. (Ord. 592, 11-17-1992) Issues related to ownership, emergency access, power service, sewer and water, school siting, parks and pathways, floodplain, wetlands, and traffic should be resolved before annexing the property to the City. ANNEXATION & ZONING - GENERAL COMMENTS The legal description submitted with the application meets the requirements of the City of Meridian and State Tax Commission and places the parcel contiguous to existing city limits. 2. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 3. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 4. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Sections 11-13-4.C. and 12-5-2.M. 5. 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. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Sub.AZ.PP.CUP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z December 5, 2000 Page 8 6. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 7. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the City of Meridian Ordinance 11- 13 for use of property. 8. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-14 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. No temporary signage, flags, banners or flashing signs will be permitted. 9. Provide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 12-5-2.K. 10. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 11. All landscaping shall conform to the requirements of City Ordinance 12-13. PRELIMINARY PLAT & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COMMENTS Because there are so many outstanding issues that directly affect the design of this subdivision that still need to be resolved, (and may require a re -design of the subdivision), staff is not providing detailed comments on the plat or the CUP at this time. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes Sub.AZ.PP.CUP.doc EcElvED ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT DEC - g 2000 Planning and Development Division CITY OF MERIDIAN Development Application Report Preliminary Plat — Tuscany Lakes/MPP-00-024 Locust Grove Road/Victory Road MAZ-00-023/MCUP-00-052 This application has been referred to ACHD by the City of Meridian for review and comment. Tuscany Lakes is a 353 -lot residential subdivision on 152.5 -acres. The applicant is also requesting a rezone from RT to R-4 and annexation into the City of Meridian, and conditional use approval for a planned unit development. This preliminary plat includes an elementary school site. The site is located on the south side of Victory Road, east of Locust Grove Road. This development is estimated rV to generate 4,000 total trips based on the submitted traffic study. Roads impacted by this development: Locust Grove Road Victory Road Eagle Road ACHD Commission Date — December 13, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. Tuscany Lakes.cnun Page 1 41 Facts and Findings: A. General Information F Owner — Kenai Partners LLC, Jean & Richardson Burnett Family Trust Applicant — Briggs Engineering RT - Existing zoning R-4 - Requested zoning 152.5 - Acres 353 - Proposed building lots 39 - Proposed common lots 3,400 - New trips generated by single family 600 - New trips generated by school 293 - Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada - Impact Fee Service Area Meridian - Impact Fee Assessment District Locust Grove Road Section line road Traffic count of 3,552 on 7-16-99 C -Existing Level of Service C -Existing plus project build -out Level of Service 1,325 -feet of frontage 55 -feet existing right-of-way (30 -feet east from centerline) 90 -feet required right-of-way (45 -feet from centerline) Locust Grove Road is improved with 25 -feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Victory Road Collector with bike lane designation Traffic count of 3,321 on 2-2-00 C -Existing Level of Service C -Existing plus project build -out Level of Service 1,050 -feet of frontage 55 -feet existing right-of-way (25 -feet south from centerline) 70 -feet required right-of-way (35 -feet from centerline) Victory Road is improved with 25 -feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. Tuscany Lakes.cmm Page 2 Eagle Road Minor arterial with bike lane designation Traffic count of 7,498 on 2-2-00 (n/o Victory Road) C -Existing Level of Service C -Existing plus project build -out Level of Service 30 -feet of frontage 50 -feet existing right-of-way (25 -feet from centerline) 96 -feet required right-of-way (48 -feet from centerline) Eagle Road is improved with two -lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. B. On November 13, 2000, the District Planning and Development staff inspected this site and evaluated the transportation system in the vicinity. On November 20, 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. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. D. Dartmoor Drive, the main entrance off Locust Grove Road, should be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and located as proposed, approximately 560 -feet south of the north property line. 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. E. The applicant should be required to construct a center turn lane on Locust Grove Road for the Dartmoor Drive intersection, because the intersection is expected to carry 1,800 vehicle trips per day according to the submitted traffic study. The turn lane should be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. F. The applicant should be required to construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the site. The sidewalk should be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Locust Grove Road. G. Tuscany Way, the main entrance off Victory Road, should be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and located as proposed at the east property line. 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. H. The applicant should be required to construct a center turn lane on Victory Road for the Tuscany Way intersection, because the intersection is expected to cant' 2,000 vehicle trips per day according to the submitted traffic study. The turn lane should be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. Tuscany Lakes.cnvn Page I. The applicant should be required to construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Victory Road abutting the site. The sidewalk should be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Victory Road. J. The applicant is not proposing access to Eagle Road because the site only has 30 -feet of frontage. The lot with frontage on Eagle Road will be a common lot. K. The applicant should provide a deposit in the amount of $600 to the Public Road Trust Fund for the cost of constructing a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the site (approximately 30 -feet). L. The traffic generated by this development will more than double the volume of traffic on the west leg of the Victory Road/Eagle Road intersection. The applicant's traffic study states that a signal will be warranted by 2005. Because Victory Road and Eagle Road are section line roads ACHD will not require a road trust for this subdivision. Other subdivisions in the area were not required to provide a road trust. M. Any irrigation facilities or utilities should be relocated out of the new right-of-way on Locust Grove Road and Victory Road. N. All streets in the subdivision should be located to align or offset a minimum of 125 -feet from any proposed streets. O. The applicant should be required to construct all public roads within the subdivision as 36 -foot street sections with curb, gutter, and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of- way. P. The turnarounds should be constructed to provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet. The applicant should also be required to provide a minimum of a 29 -foot street section on either side of any center islands within the turnarounds. Any medians should be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. Dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. Q. The applicant is proposing to construct two traffic circles in Dartmoor Drive located at Como Place and Ionia Way. The applicant should coordinate the size and design of the circles with Traffic Services staff. Dartmoor Drive should be constructed as a 36 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks. Parking should be prohibited on this street segment. Coordinate the signage plan with District staff. R. The following street segments should nonnally be designated as residential collector streets with no front -on housing, because the anticipated traffic volumes exceed 1,000 vehicle trips per day, according to the submitted traffic study. The submitted preliminary plat shows front -on housing on some segments. • Dartmoor Drive from Locust Grove Road to Naples Avenue • Naples Avenue from Dartmoor Drive to Mediterranean Avenue (plan shows front -on) • Mediterranean Avenue from Naples Avenue to Turin Avenue (plan shows front -on) Tuscany Lakes.cnnn Page 4 • Falcon Drive from Turin Avenue to Tuscany Way (plan shows front -on) • Tuscany Way from Falcon Drive to Victory Road The applicant has requested that the District not restrict any of the streets in the subdivision to no -front on housing (with the exception of Dartmoor Drive) because when the abutting sites develop the traffic will be redistributed and according to the applicant's traffic engineer, none of the streets with have over 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The applicant is proposing to stub streets to the east with those properties having frontage on Eagle Road. Also, there is a good possibility that there will be a connection from Mediterranean Avenue to Victory Road through the undeveloped property that bisects this subdivision. S. The proposed Turin Avenue is approximately'/4-mile in length, and is anticipated to carry 1,000 vehicles per day, with front -on housing and direct lot access. The applicant is not proposing to construct any traffic calming on this street. Staff recommends that the applicant take the "straightness" out of the roadway, and install traffic circles, or construct traffic chokers in three locations on Turin Avenue. The applicant should submit a new street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. T. The proposed Falcon Drive is anticipated to carry 1,200 vehicles per day with front -on housing and direct lot access. The applicant is not proposing to construct any traffic calming on this street. Staff recommends that the applicant construct one traffic circle or traffic choker on this segment of roadway to slow vehicles on this street with front -on housing. The applicant should submit a new street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. U. The applicant is proposing to construct Mediterranean Drive from Naples Avenue east to the Ridenbaugh Canal across a parcel that is not a part of this preliminary plat. The City of Meridian requires an applicant to go through the formal subdivision process when the applicant is dedicating right-of-way for a local road which splits a parcel. The parcel being split by this segment of roadway was not included in this preliminary plat, and this proposed segment of the roadway is located off-site. The applicant should consult with the City of Meridian to determine if that parcel also requires subdivision. ACHD should require that this applicant acquire the 50 - feet of right-of-way from the property owner of the adjacent parcel if this segment of Mediterranean Drive it is to be a part of this plat. ACHD is not requiring the construction of that segment of Mediterranean Drive because it is currently off-site. If Mediterranean Drive is not constructed, the applicant should be required to provide a deposit to the Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing one-half of a bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal and Nine Mile Drain. When the abutting property develops that applicant will be required to construct Mediterranean Drive. If Mediterranean Drive is not built, the applicant should supply a preliminary design and cost estimate of the bridge for staff review, prior to determination of the exact amount of the road trust deposit. If this segment of Mediterranean Drive is not constructed with this application, the applicant should be required to provide a turnaround at the west end of Mediterranean Drive, east of the Ridenbaugh Canal. V. The applicant is proposing to construct San Marino Drive to the east property line as a stub street, located between Lot 1, Block 7, and Lot 5, Block 8. District staff supports the location of Tuscany Lakesxnm-i Page 5 the stub street. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street because it is less than 150 -feet deep. 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. W. The applicant is proposing to construct Venice Drive to the east property line as a stub street, located between Lot 1, Block 20, and Lot 23, Block 17. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street because it is less than 150 -feet deep. 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. X. The applicant is proposing to construct Mediterranean Drive to the east property line as a stub street, located between Lot 1, Block 17, and Lot 1, Block 14. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street because it is less than 150 -feet deep. 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. Y. The applicant is proposing to construct Pompei Avenue to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot 20, Block 14, and Lot 37, Block 12. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street, as proposed. 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 and the design of the turnaround with District staff. Z. With the exception of Pompei Avenue, the applicant is not proposing to construct any other stub streets to the south property line. Due to the irrigation ditches and canals, it is difficult to provide a stub to the south without constructing a bridge. Staff does recommend that the applicant construct Como Way to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot 11 and Lot 13, Block 9, in alignment with the proposed Como Way on the north side of Calabria Court. City of Meridian staff also indicated that they would be supportive of a stub street in this location. This stub street could serve two oddly shaped parcels with 15 -acres total. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street. 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. AA. The applicant's plat indicates a school site within the subdivision. The school district does not have an official plan for this site, and ACHD will review the school site in the future when the plan is submitted by the school district. BB. 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. Tuscany Lakes.cmm Page 6 CC. Based on development patterns in this area and the resulting traffic generation, staff anticipates that the transportation system will be adequate to accommodate additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. Special Recommendation to the City of Meridian: The applicant is proposing to construct Mediterranean Avenue from Naples Avenue east to the Ridenbaugh Canal across a parcel that is not a part of this preliminary plat. The City of Meridian requires an applicant to go through the formal subdivision process when the applicant is dedicating right-of-way for a local road which splits a parcel. The parcel being split by this segment of roadway was not included in this preliminary plat, and this proposed segment of the roadway is located off-site. The applicant should consult with the City of Meridian to determine if that parcel also requires subdivision. ACHD should require that this applicant acquire the 50 -feet of right-of-way from the property owner of that parcel if it is to be a part of this plat. 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 45 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right- of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #193. 2. Dedicate 35 -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. Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Eagle 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. Tuscany Lakes.cnun Page 7 4. Construct Dartmoor Drive, the main entrance off Locust Grove Road, located as proposed, approximately 560 -feet south of the north property line. Dartmoor Drive shall be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and the median should be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. The applicant shall be required to dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. Construct a center turn lane on Locust Grove Road for the Dartmoor Drive 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. 6. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the site. The sidewalk shall be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Locust Grove Road. 7. Construct Tuscany Way, the main entrance off Victory Road, located as proposed at the east property line. Tuscany Way shall be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and the median should be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. The applicant shall be required to dedicate 54 - feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. S. Construct a center turn lane on Victory Road for the Tuscany Way intersection. The turn lane shall be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 9. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Victory Road abutting the site. The sidewalk shall be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Victory Road. 10. Provide a deposit in the amount of $600 to the Public Road Trust Fund for the cost of constructing a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the site (approximately 30 -feet). 11. Any irrigation facilities or utilities shall be relocated out of the new right-of-way on Locust Grove Road and Victory Road. 12. All streets in the subdivision shall be located to align or offset a minimum of 125 -feet from any proposed streets. 13. 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. 14. Constrict all of the turnarounds to provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet. Provide a minimum of a 29 -foot street section on either side of any center islands within the turnarounds. Any medians shall be constricted a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 - square foot area. Dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. Tuscany Lakes.cmm Page 8 15. Construct two traffic circles in Dartmoor Drive located at Como Place and Ionia Way as proposed. Coordinate the size and design of the circles with Traffic Services staff. 16. Dartmoor Drive shall be constructed as a 36 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks. Parking shall be prohibited on this street segment. Coordinate the signage plan with District staff. 17. Construct traffic calming devices on Turin Avenue to take the "straightness" out of the roadway, by installing traffic circles, or constructing traffic chokers in three locations on Turin Avenue. Submit a new street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. 18. Construct one traffic calming device (circle or choker) on Falcon Drive to slow vehicles on this street with front -on housing. Submit a new street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. 19. Construct Mediterranean Drive from Naples Avenue east to the Ridenbaugh Canal within 50 - feet of acquired right-of-way from the property owner of the adjacent parcel if this segment of Mediterranean Drive it is to be a part of this plat. If the applicant chooses not to provide the connection, provide a deposit to the Public Rights - of -Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing one-half of a bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal and Nine Mile Drain. If Mediterranean Drive is not built, the applicant shall supply a preliminary design and cost estimate of the bridge for staff review, prior to determination of the exact amount of the road trust deposit. If this segment of roadway is not construct with this application, the applicant will be required to construct a turnaround on the east side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. 20. Stub San Marino Drive to the east property line between Lot 1, Block 7, and Lot 5, Block 8 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. 21. Stub Venice Drive to the east property line between Lot 1, Block 8, and Lot 23, Block 17 as proposed. Install a sign at the tenninus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. 22. Stub Mediterranean Drive to the east property line between Lot 1, Block 20, and Lot 23, Block 17 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. Tuscany Lakes.cnim Page 9 /"IN 23. Stub Mediterranean Drive to the east property line between Lot 1, Block 17, and Lot 1, Block 14 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. 24. Stub Pompei Avenue to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot 20, Block 14, and Lot 37, Block 12. Provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street, 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 and the design of the turnaround with District staff. 25. Construct Como Way to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot 11 and Lot 13, Block 9, in alignment with the proposed Como Way on the north side of Calabria Court. 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. 26. ACHD will review the school site in the future when the plan is submitted by the school district. 27. 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 shall be required on -- the final plat. 28. No access points to Eagle Road have been proposed and none are approved with this application. 29. Other than the two public streets specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to Locust Grove Road or Victory Road is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. Standard Requirements: O 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 r,A 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 Tuscany Lakes.cnun Page 10 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. 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. -00 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. 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. Tuscany Lakes.cn-►m Page ] 1 Conclusion of Law: 1. 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 bv: Commission Action: Planning and Development Staff Tuscany Lakes.cnun Page 12 Ada CottntVWiv4wavWrict 13 C.,n4 1)7fk C#roof Judy Peavey -Derr, President Dave Bivens, 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 December 14, 2000 TO: Gem Park II Partnership PcElv:ED PO Box 344 0 E C 18 2000 Meridian, ID 83663 CITY OF MERIDIAN FROM: Christy Richardson, Principal Development Analyst Planning & Development d. � e.d SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat: Tuscany Lakes Sub Locust Grove RoadNictory Road On December 13, 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 together with the payment of fee charged for the manufacturing and installation of all street signs. 2 1�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 Kathy Stroschein, P.E. Briggs Engineering, Inc. 1800 W Overland Rd. Boise, ID 83705 ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Planning and Development Division Development Application Report Preliminary Plat — Tuscany Lakes/MPP-00-024 Locust Grove Road/Victory Road MAZ-00-023/MCUP-00-052 This application has been referred to ACHD by the City of Meridian for review and comment. Tuscany Lakes is a 353 -lot residential subdivision on 152.5 -acres. The applicant is also requesting a rezone from RT to R-4 and annexation into the City of Meridian, and conditional use approval for a planned unit development. This preliminary plat includes an elementary school site. The site is located on the south side of Victory Road, east of Locust Grove Road. This development is estimated to generate 4,000 total trips based on the submitted traffic study. Roads impacted by this development: Locust Grove Road Victory Road Eagle Road ACHD Commission Date — December 13, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. Tuscany Lakes.cn-in Page 1 O O O N O O O I . M ■ Facts and Findings: A. General Information Owner — Kenai Partners LLC, Jean & Richardson Burnett Family Trust Applicant — Briggs Engineering RT - Existing zoning R-4 - Requested zoning 152.5 - Acres 353 - Proposed building lots 39 - Proposed common lots 3,400 - New trips generated by single family 600 - New trips generated by school 293 - Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada - Impact Fee Service Area Meridian - Impact Fee Assessment District Locust Grove Road Section line road Traffic count of 3,552 on 7-16-99 C -Existing Level of Service C -Existing plus project build -out Level of Service 1,325 -feet of frontage 55 -feet existing right-of-way (30 -feet east from centerline) 90 -feet required right-of-way (45 -feet from centerline) Locust Grove Road is improved with 25 -feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Victory Road Collector with bike lane designation Traffic count of 3,321 on 2-2-00 C -Existing Level of Service C -Existing plus project build -out Level of Service 1,050 -feet of frontage 55 -feet existing right-of-way (25 -feet south from centerline) 70 -feet required right-of-way (35 -feet from centerline) Victory Road is improved with 25 -feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. Tuscany Lakes.cmm Page 2 Eagle Road Minor arterial with bike lane designation Traffic count of 7,498 on 2-2-00 (n/o Victory Road) C -Existing Level of Service C -Existing plus project build -out Level of Service 30 -feet of frontage 50 -feet existing right-of-way (25 -feet from centerline) 96 -feet required right-of-way (48 -feet from centerline) Eagle Road is improved with two -lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. B. On November 13, 2000, the District Planning and Development staff inspected this site and evaluated the transportation system in the vicinity. On November 20, 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. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. D. Dartmoor Drive, the main entrance off Locust Grove Road, should be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and located as proposed, approximately 560 -feet south of the north property line. 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. E. The applicant should be required to construct a center turn lane on Locust Grove Road for the Dartmoor Drive intersection, because the intersection is expected to carry 1,800 vehicle trips per day according to the submitted traffic study. The turn lane should be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. F. The applicant should be required to construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the site. The sidewalk should be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Locust Grove Road. G. Tuscany Way, the main entrance off Victory Road, should be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and located as proposed at the east property line. 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. Tuscany Lakes.cnn i Page 3 H. The applicant should be required to construct a center turn lane on Victory Road for the Tuscany Way intersection, because the intersection is expected to carry 2,000 vehicle trips per day according to the submitted traffic study. The turn lane should be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. I. The applicant should be required to construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Victory Road abutting the site. The sidewalk should be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Victory Road. The applicant is not proposing access to Eagle Road because the site only has 30 -feet of frontage. The lot with frontage on Eagle Road will be a common lot. When the parcels to the north and south of this strip redevelop, a public street connection may be favorable through this landscape strip. K. The applicant should provide a deposit in the amount of $600 to the Public Road Trust Fund for the cost of constructing a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the site (approximately 30 -feet). L. The traffic generated by this development will more than double the volume of traffic on the west leg of the Victory Road/Eagle Road intersection. The applicant's traffic study states that a signal will be warranted by 2005. Because Victory Road and Eagle Road are section line roads ACHD will not require a road trust for this subdivision. Other subdivisions in the area were not required to provide a road trust. M. Any irrigation facilities or utilities should be relocated out of the new right-of-way on Locust Grove Road and Victory Road. N. All streets in the subdivision should be located to align or offset a minimum of 125 -feet from any proposed streets. O. The applicant should be required to construct all public roads within the subdivision as 36 -foot street sections with curb, gutter, and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of- way. P. The turnarounds should be constructed to provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet. The applicant should also be required to provide a minimum of a 29 -foot street section on either side of any center islands within the turnarounds. Any medians should be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. Dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. Q. The applicant is proposing to construct two traffic circles in Dartmoor Drive located at Como Place and Ionia Way. The applicant should coordinate the size and design of the circles with Traffic Services staff. Dartmoor Drive should be constructed as a 36 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks. Parking should be prohibited on this street segment. Coordinate the signage plan with District staff. Tuscany Lakes.cn-m Page 4 R. The following street segments should normally be designated as residential collector streets with no front -on housing, because the anticipated traffic volumes exceed 1,000 vehicle trips per day, according to the submitted traffic study. The submitted preliminary plat shows front -on housing on some segments. • Dartmoor Drive from Locust Grove Road to Naples Avenue • Naples Avenue from Dartmoor Drive to Mediterranean Avenue (plan shows front -on) • Mediterranean Avenue from Naples Avenue to Turin Avenue (plan shows front -on) • Falcon Drive from Turin Avenue to Tuscany Way (plan shows front -on) • Tuscany Way from Falcon Drive to Victory Road The applicant has requested that the District not restrict any of the streets in the subdivision to no -front on housing (with the exception of Dartmoor Drive) because when the abutting sites develop the traffic will be redistributed and according to the applicant's traffic engineer, none of the streets with have over 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The applicant is proposing to stub streets to the east with those properties having frontage on Eagle Road. Also, there is a good possibility that there will be a connection from Mediterranean Avenue to Victory Road through the undeveloped property that bisects this subdivision. S. The proposed Turin Avenue is approximately'/4-mile in length, and is anticipated to carry 1,000 vehicles per day, with front -on housing and direct lot access. The applicant is not proposing to construct any traffic calming on this street. Staff recommends that the applicant take the "straightness" out of the roadway, and install traffic circles, or construct traffic chokers in three locations on Turin Avenue. The applicant should submit a new street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. T. The proposed Falcon Drive is anticipated to carry 1,200 vehicles per day with front -on housing and direct lot access. The applicant is not proposing to construct any traffic calming on this street. Staff recommends that the applicant construct one traffic circle or traffic choker on this segment of roadway to slow vehicles on this street with front -on housing. The applicant should submit a new street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. U. The applicant is proposing to construct Mediterranean Drive from Naples Avenue east to the Ridenbaugh Canal across a parcel that is not a part of this preliminary plat. The City of Meridian requires an applicant to go through the formal subdivision process when the applicant is dedicating right-of-way for a local road which splits a parcel. The parcel being split by this segment of roadway was not included in this preliminary plat, and this proposed segment of the roadway is located off-site. The applicant should consult with the City of Meridian to determine if that parcel also requires subdivision. ACHD should require that this applicant acquire the 50 - feet of right-of-way from the property owner of the adjacent parcel if this segment of Mediterranean Drive it is to be a part of this plat. Tuscany Lakes.cmm Page 5 ACHD is not requiring the construction of that segment of Mediterranean Drive because it is currently off-site. If Mediterranean Drive is not constructed, the applicant should be required to provide a deposit to the Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing one-half of a bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal and Nine Mile Drain. When the abutting property develops that applicant will be required to construct Mediterranean Drive. If Mediterranean Drive is not built, the applicant should supply a preliminary design and cost estimate of the bridge for staff review, prior to determination of the exact amount of the road trust deposit. If this segment of Mediterranean Drive is not constructed with this application, the applicant should be required to provide a turnaround at the west end of Mediterranean Drive, east of the Ridenbaugh Canal. V. The applicant is proposing to construct San Marino Drive to the east property line as a stub street, located between Lot 1, Block 7, and Lot 5, Block 8. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street because it is less than 150 -feet deep. 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. W. The applicant is proposing to construct Venice Drive to the east property line as a stub street, located between Lot 1, Block 20, and Lot 23, Block 17. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street because it is less than 150 -feet deep. 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. X. The applicant is proposing to construct Mediterranean Drive to the east property line as a stub street, located between Lot 1, Block 17, and Lot 1, Block 14. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street because it is less than 150 -feet deep. 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. Y. The applicant is proposing to construct Pompei Avenue to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot 20, Block 14, and Lot 37, Block 12. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street, as proposed. 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 and the design of the turnaround with District staff. Tuscany Lakes.cnim Page 6 Z. The applicant is proposing to construct Lucca Avenue to the north property line as a stub street, located between Lot 9, Block 6, and Lot 1, Block 8. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street. 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. AA. With the exception of Pompei Avenue, the applicant is not proposing to construct any other stub streets to the south property line. Due to the irrigation ditches and canals, it is difficult to provide a stub to the south without constructing a bridge. Staff does recommend that the applicant construct Como Way to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot 11 and Lot 13, Block 9, in alignment with the proposed Como Way on the north side of Calabria Court. City of Meridian staff also indicated that they would be supportive of a stub street in this location. This stub street could serve two oddly shaped parcels with 15 -acres total. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street. 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. BB. The applicant's plat indicates a school site within the subdivision. The school district does not have an official plan for this site, and ACHD will review the school site in the future when the plan is submitted by the school district. CC. 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. DD. Based on development patterns in this area and the resulting traffic generation, staff anticipates that the transportation system will be adequate to accommodate additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. Special Recommendation to the City of Meridian: The applicant is proposing to construct Mediterranean Avenue from Naples Avenue east to the Ridenbaugh Canal across a parcel that is not a part of this preliminary plat. The City of Meridian requires an applicant to go through the formal subdivision process when the applicant is dedicating right-of-way for a local road which splits a parcel. The parcel being split by this segment of roadway was not included in this preliminary plat, and this proposed segment of the roadway is located off-site. The applicant should consult with the City of Meridian to determine if that parcel also requires subdivision. ACHD should require that this applicant acquire the 50 -feet of right-of-way from the property owner of that parcel if it is to be a part of this plat. 2. The applicant is not proposing access to Eagle Road because the site only has 30 -feet of frontage. The lot with frontage on Eagle Road will be a common lot. When the parcels to the Tuscany Lakes.cnini Page 7 north and south of this strip redevelop, a public street connection may be favorable through this landscape strip. 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 45 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right- of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #193. 2. Dedicate 35 -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. 3. Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Eagle 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. 4. Construct Dartmoor Drive, the main entrance off Locust Grove Road, located as proposed, approximately 560 -feet south of the north property line. Dartmoor Drive shall be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and the median should be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. The applicant shall be required to dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. Constrict a center turn lane on Locust Grove Road for the Dartmoor Drive 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. Tuscany Lakes.cnnn Page 8 6. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the site. The sidewalk shall be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Locust Grove Road. 7. Construct Tuscany Way, the main entrance off Victory Road, located as proposed at the east property line. Tuscany Way shall be designed with a minimum 21 -foot street sections on either side of a center median and the median should be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area. The applicant shall be required to dedicate 54 - feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. 8. Construct a center turn lane on Victory Road for the Tuscany Way intersection. The turn lane shall be constructed to provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. 9. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Victory Road abutting the site. The sidewalk shall be located 2 -feet within the new right-of-way of Victory Road. 10. Provide a deposit in the amount of $600 to the Public Road Trust Fund for the cost of constructing a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the site (approximately 30 -feet). 11. Any irrigation facilities or utilities shall be relocated out of the new right-of-way on Locust Grove Road and Victory Road. 12. All streets in the subdivision shall be located to align or offset a minimum of 125 -feet from any proposed streets. 13. 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. 14. Construct all of the turnarounds to provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet. Provide a minimum of a 29 -foot street section on either side of any center islands within the turnarounds. Any medians shall be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 - square foot area. Dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. 15. Construct two traffic circles in Dartmoor Drive located at Como Place and Ionia Way as proposed. Coordinate the size and design of the circles with Traffic Services staff. 16. Dartmoor Drive shall be constructed as a 36 -foot street section with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks. Parking shall be prohibited on this street segment. Coordinate the signage plan with District staff. Tuscany Lakes.cnmi Page 9 17. Construct traffic calming devices on Turin Avenue to take the "straightness" out of the roadway, by installing traffic circles, or constructing traffic chokers in three locations on Turin Avenue. Submit a new street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. 18. Construct one traffic calming device (circle or choker) on Falcon Drive to slow vehicles on this street with front -on housing. Submit a new street design to Planning & Development staff for review and approval prior to submitting a final plat. 19. Construct Mediterranean Drive from Naples Avenue east to the Ridenbaugh Canal within 50 - feet of acquired right-of-way from the property owner of the adjacent parcel if this segment of Mediterranean Drive it is to be a part of this plat. If the applicant chooses not to provide the connection, provide a deposit to the Public Rights - of -Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing one-half of a bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal and Nine Mile Drain. If Mediterranean Drive is not built, the applicant shall supply a preliminary design and cost estimate of the bridge for staff review, prior to determination of the exact amount of the road trust deposit. If this segment of roadway is not construct with this application, the applicant will be required to construct a turnaround on the east side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. 20. Stub San Marino Drive to the east property line between Lot 1, Block 7, and Lot 5, Block 8 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. 21. Stub Venice Drive to the east property line between Lot 1, Block 8, and Lot 23, Block 17 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. 22. Stub Mediterranean Drive to the east property line between Lot 1, Block 17, and Lot 1, Block 14, 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. 23. Stub Pompei Avenue to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot 20, Block 14, and Lot 37, Block 12. Provide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of the stub street, as proposed. Install a sign at the ternzinus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street and the design of the turnaround with District staff. Tuscany Lakes.cmm Page 10 24. Stub Lucca Avenue to the north property line as a stub street, located between Lot 9, Block 6, and Lot 1, Block 8, as proposed. Install a sign at the tenninus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff. 25. Construct Como Way to the south property line as a stub street, located between Lot 11 and Lot 13, Block 9, in alignment with the proposed Como Way on the north side of Calabria Court. 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. 26. ACHD will review the school site in the future when the plan is submitted by the school district. 27. 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 shall be required on the final plat. 28. No access points to Eagle Road have been proposed and none are approved with this application. 29. Other than the two public streets specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to Locust Grove Road or Victory Road is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. 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. 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 Tuscany Lakes.cnun Page 11 Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #193, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 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. 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. Tuscany Lakes.cmm Page 12 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 December 13, 2000 Tuscany Lakes.cnvn Page 13 Kristy Vigil From: Steve Siddoway [siddowas@ci.meridian. id.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 8:19 AM To: Xristy Vigil' C IVr, Subject: FW: Tuscany Lakes Subdivisions pE� p 5 2000 oerOfa Clty r-1,rk TechTool.gif Cii�J Kristy, FYI for your file. Steve -----Original Message ----- From: Georgeson, Keith[mailto:KGeorgeson@idahopower.com] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 4:16 PM To: 'Siddowas@ci.meridian.id.us' Cc: Slusser, Mark; Sikes, David; Dodson, Layne Subject: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Steve, After looking at the new load projections in the area of Victory and Locust Grove Roads, no capacity remains to serve new loads from Locust Grove Road in Tuscany Lakes subdivision until after September 1, 2001. A new substation is currently being looked at in the area that will fix this situation, but this cannot be built until early 2002. These limits are for the summer peak of 2001. Loads in this area are lower in the winter so some new homes could be served after this date. These will be evaluated as these requests are received. This September 1, 2001 date is dependent on obtaining approval of a new station site in time for construction prior to the 2002 summer peak. Keith Georgeson Planning Engineer Idaho Power Company 388-2034 kag5014(d)idahopower.com<maiIto: kag5014(d-)idahopower.com> i Preporing Today's Students for Tomorrow's Challenges. Ng/e. Mer\a\o�. SUPERINTENDENT Christine H. Donnell November 9, 2000 Joint School District No. 2 911 Meridian Street • Meridian, Idaho 83642 • (208) 888-6701 • Fax (208) 888-6700 City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian,Idaho 83642 Dear Councilmen: gUCETVEI) N 0 V 1 4 2000 CITY OF MERIDIAN Enclosed for your review is general information relative to schools located in the proposed project area. If you have any questions, please contact Wendel Bigham at 888-6701. Reference: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Elementary School: Mary McPherson Elementary School Middle School: Lake Hazel Middle School High School: Meridian High School Comments and/or Recommendations: Mary McPherson Elementary School is over capacity. The school district is currently busing students from new developments to schools outside Mary McPherson Elementary School's attendance boundary. Lake Hazel Middle School is at capacity. At this point the school district is dealing with growth by providing portable classrooms. Meridian High School is over capacity, but with the passage of the General Obligation Bond Election on September 19th a new high school will soon be under construction. We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house one hundred twenty five (125) elementary aged children, ninety-four (94) middle school aged children, and sixty-three (63) senior high aged students. Sincerely, Wendel Bigham, Supervisor of Facilities & Construction 9M HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY MAYOR LEGAL DEPARTMENT Robert D. Come A Good Place to Live (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT Ron Anderson (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 j� (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 �Pi�NNING AND ZONING Tammy deWeerd '�Cr"�' ARTMENT Cherie McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 A/ (208) 884 Fax 888-6854 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT INJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: Transmittal Date: November 6, 2000 File No.: AZ -00-023 December 5, 2000 Hearing Date: December 12, 2000 Request: Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision By: Gem Park II Partnership Location of Property or Project: SW corner of Victory and Eagle Sally Norton, P/Z Bill Nary, P/Z Jerry Centers, P/Z Richard Hatcher, P/Z Keith Borup, P/Z Robert Corrie, Mayor Ron Anderson, C/C Tammy deWeerd, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Cherie McCandless, C/C Water Department Sewer Department Sanitary Service Building Department Fire Department Police Department City Attorney City Engineer City Planner Parks Department (Resides Gen - 26 PP/FP/PFP - 30 AZ - 27 Meridian School District Meridian Post Office (FP/PP) Ada County Highway District Community Planning Assoc. Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP) U.S. West (FP/PP) Intermountain Gas (FP/PP) Ada County (Annexation) Idaho Transportation Department Your Concise Remarks: /4' / 3'' C) December 5, 2000 Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, ID 83642 J?FGETVEI) DEC - 9 2000 CITY OF 1WRIDLAIN 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Re: Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4; Preliminary Plat approval in a proposed R-4 zone and a Conditional Use Permit to construct a planned unit development for proposed Tuscany 4 Lakes Subdivision Dear Commissioners: The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the rezone for the above- mentioned proposed project, however any encroachments on the District's Ridenbaugh Canal or the Tenmile Drain without written approval are unacceptable. Sincerely, Bill Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT BH: din Cc: File — Shop File— Office Water Superintendent APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 FF"TvED DEC 2 2 2000 CITY OF MERIDIAN 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 December 21, 2000 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Will Berg, City Clerk SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Annexation and Zoning from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Dear Commissioners: The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the annexation and zoning for the above-mentioned project, however, any encroachment on a District facility must be approved in writing before construction can begin. Sincerely, Bill Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT ffliffelme Cc: File — Shop File — Office Water Superintendent APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 November 14, 2000 Will Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 F.FcElvED NOV 2 0 2000 CITY OF NIER,IOIAN 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Re: AZ -00-023 Annexation and Zoning from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Dear Commissioners: The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the annexation and zoning for the above-mentioned application. Sincerely, E6111`72 nt. Water Superintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT Ffflwl Me Cc: File — Shop File — Office Water Superintendent APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 208 888 6854; Dec-: )0 4:43PM; Page 1/1 DEC 2 0 2000 TTV OF PLAT -NNG ZONTX(j Jdn and Bonnie Glick 2860 E. Victory Rd. Meridlan, Idaho 83642 248-888-5387 Decernbcr 18, 2000 �-vcF-WED yv DEC 2 1 2000 To: City of Meridian eridian Ylaaaing and Zon4Cornmissiun City of 33 Last Idaho Street pity Clerk Office Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Sirs: 1*e have lived at the above address for almost 20 years. We have enjoyed the country atmosphere in this aiea. We have especially enjoyed the view of the Owyhec Mountains south of us. We do not want to lose this asset to our living. We would like to see single story homes built on at least 3 lots directly across Victory Rd. from us. We arc concerned about traffic in this area and with this new development. Already the corners of Eagle a0d Victory and Eagle and Overland are a mess during the rush hours. Iiow will the county accommodate this additional influx of population when the roads are already overloaded? We would recommend some open space and parks in this subdivision. No open space, except for drainage ponds, has been planned for in any of the subdivisions around us. Please put land aside for a park. the quality of life in this area needs open spaces and parks to make it liveable. We are concerned about our water supply. All the homes along Victory Rd. next to us have domestic vjells. What kind of water supply will this subdivision use and can you guarantee it won't deplete oru wells? "Thank you for considering our concerns. nP �A Baa ,c•�o ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ** AS OF JAN 04 101 14:57 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 24 01/04 14:56 208 888 6854 EC --S 00'21" 001 181 OK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLANNERS / stmvEYORS y�U4 January 3, 2001 Mr. Berg Meridian City Clerk 33 Bast Idaho St. Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE. Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Dear Mr. Berg: 40'r� d O,rj� A,Q We have meet with City Staff, and are now preparing additional information about rhe Qpu,pt- diStrlhii inn evct— —a it pri hear ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ** DATE TIME TO/FROM 25 01/04 14:59 208 888 6854 AS OF JAN 04 '01 14:59 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS EC --S 00'20" 001 179 OK RE: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision ENCAGERS / SURVEYORS 1800 West Overland Road Boise, Idaho 83705 — 3142 Voice (208) 344-9700 Fax (208) 345-2950 E-mail kentb@briggs- engineering.com December 7, 2000 Mr. Siddoway on. Meridian Planning Dept 33 East Idaho St. 9 Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ** DATE TIME TO/FROM 25 01104 14:59 208 686 6854 -------------------------- AS OF JAN 04 '01 14:59 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS EC --S 00'20" 001 179 OK filyGGS ENC'INE>ERM/ ENGANEERS /PLANNERS] SURVEYORS 1800 West Overland Road Boise, Idaho 83705 — 3142 Voice (208) 344-9700 Fax (208) 345-2950 E-mail kentb@bri gs- engineering.com December 7, 2000 Mr. Siddoway Meridian Planning Dept 33 East Idaho St. Meridian, Idaho 83642 ,RE. Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Dear Steve: Ccs OFCO A Per our conservation about sewer, school, park site and secondary access issues on the site we wish to meet with Staff and discuss the issues raised and seek some thing settlement prior to proceeding to the Planning and Zoning hearing. We are hereby requesting that Commission continue our application until the next available Planning and Zoning meeting so we can meet with City Staff and discuss what information they need for the sewer and what our options are for secondary access . If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Sincerely, BRIGGS ENGINEERING, Inc. Kent Brown Planner 0308\P&Z-hold-itr rep-ul-ul 1u:11H ine westpar^K uo 2088889947 AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST STATE OF IDAHO } ss COUNTY OF ADA ) I. Wa Lr Name %ase City yzzS ,v,9- 'Vo 9 I- W X'O 83 7 0 �1 State/Zip being duly sworn upon oath, depose and say: 1. That I am the record owner of the property described on the attached, and I grant my (1 permission to: (� lam► Qx�n��c-�� � `�. � , 3 (tee) (address) to submit the accompanying application pertaining to that property. P.02 a =r11 ��i 2. 1 agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Meridian 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 Dated this 1 day of t�,e b2vA4 , 20o I ,11192916060, (Signature) '�.••`'w•••;, ,p'•• *% i SOT AR Y Z ACKNOWLEDGMENT — Partnership = = sem= STATE OF IDAHO ) %* _. PUBA, o ;' '••, V� ••••0000•••• Q►�••', County of Ada )ss �'•o4 i �0F �.��,• On this l4 day of 7 Vwafl 1 _ in the year of 2001 , before me �� a notary public, personally appear�ed'�i� known or identified to me to be theL��y of the partnership that executed the within instrument on behalf of said partn shf%,Ad acknowledged to me that such partnership executed the same and acknowledged that the same was signed as a free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this 1ipf .2001 o� Pubyefor the State of Idaho Residing at `S , Idaho My Commission Expires: l il- wee parK c.o 2088889947 P.O3 CONSENT TO ANNEXATION h` C' hQ� (-'doees p hereby consent to for the annexation of Tu5 cA k y L,4 -,-E 5 Subdivision for the purpose of annexing our property(ies) generally located vo erg fiz[-P- o 7,-" ,S�c,Sa,v z9 ,s 7-3AI �W STATE OF IDAHO } County of Ada )ss On this �_ day of � �- , in the year of 2001x , before me t V; c ) , a notary public, personally appeared known or identified to me to be the �0�1114giVlfi jam_ of the partnership that executed the within instrument on behalf of said partnership, and acknowledged to me that such partnership executed the same and acknowledged that the same was signed as a free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this � ay of �� 2001 the State of Idaho Residing at My Commission Expires: /y -g-6- 0(0 Idaho reo-ul-ul 1V:1LH ine we�tpark Co 2088889947 CONSENT TO ANNEXATION TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO , does hereby consent to the City of Meridian for the annexation of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision for the purpose of annexing our property(ies) generally located east of Locust Grove Road and south of Victory Road. KNOWLEDGMENT - Partnership STATE OF IDAHO } County of Ada ss ) On this l5fi day of Febcumw , in the year of 2001 before me��� 1, \ , �,� �� , a notary public, personally appeared Sb— �/�r��'�� known or identified to me to be the W-unc\bP C' of the partnership that executed the within instrument on behalf of said partnership, and acknowledged to me that such partnership executed the same and acknowledged that the same was signed as a free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this WIR 5 ••. % - lt�O ; S � �C.) v$"' STATE �4.•''� for the State of Idaho My Commission P_04 J AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST STATE OF IDAHO ) } ss COUNTY OF ADA } Kathryn A. McPEAK, a n /I e 1'k- m- 2/--/ */&1 ►- �d . I, .I_— 'in f « r n XMOND 4MTT14 Name Address Idaho City State/Zip being duly sworn upon oath, depose and say: 1. That I am the record owner of the property described on the attached, and I grant my permission to: Greg Johnson P.O. Box 344, Meridian, ID 83680 () (add) to submit the accompanying application pertaining to that property. 2. I agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Meridian and ft'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. Dated this -'7 day of y , 2001 . G (Si ure) ACKNOWLEDGMENT — Personal STATE OF IDAHO } )ss County of Ada ) of 0before me On this � _ day of in �_ �.�� • year ___01 � a notary public, personally appeared r,- , , known or idea ' ed to me to be that person that executed the within instiunlent, and acknowledged to me that such executed the same and acknowledged that the same was signed as a free and voluntary act M410. 4N for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. o' y-4Is Given under my hand and official seal this day of , 200 Wx-.•'•••a ., Notary Publie, for the State Residing at V a, My Commission Expires: _ CONSENT TO ANNEXATION TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO Kathryn A. McPEAK, AMem", 4c i? e i ro{ for RAYMOND C. SMITH L_ , does hereby consent to the City of Meridian for the annexation of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision for the purpose of annexing our property(ies) generally located east of Locust Grove Road and south of Victory Road. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - Personal STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss County of Ada ) 4n this -ID day of , in the year of before me f�� ndo rs %� < <l , a notary public, personally appeared known or identified to me to be that persona that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such person executed the same and acknowledged that the same was signed as a free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this L — day of ., , 2001 Notary Public, for the State of Idaho Residing at , e , Idaho My Commission Expires: G S9b AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST STATE OF IDAHO ) ss COUNTY OF ADA ) I, Walter T. Sigmont 3817 Star Valley St. Name Address Boise Idaho 83709 City State/Zip being duly sworn upon oath, depose and say: That 1 am the record owner of the property described on the attached, and I grant my permission to: Greg Johnson P.O. Box 344, Meridian, ID 83680 (name) (address) to submit the accompanying application pertaining to that property. 2. I agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Meridian 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. Dated this t C1 t! day of January , 20 (S' ure) ACKNOWLEDGMENT — Personal STATE OF IDAHO } )ss County of Ada ) On this 19 day of in the year of 2001 before me a notary public, ppers6fially appeared wi 1„ known or identified to me to be that person that executed the within instrument, wA acknowledged to me that such execute .Aaho and acknowledged that the same was signed as a free and voluntary act and deed foq*s&Ypurpases herein mentioned. G;&cA der my hand^at d official seal this day of 22001 Nary Public for the State of Idaho Residing at ,Idaho * { My Commission Expires: a� ,I `[�T .i Jr. ray /'i �;♦ a�� CONSENT TO ANNEXATION TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO Walter T. Sigmont , does hereby consent to the City of Meridian for the annexation of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision for the purpose of annexing our property(ies) generally located east of locust Glove Road and south of Victory Road. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - Personal STATE OF IDAHO } ) ss County of Ada ) On this _G 9 day of , in the year of 2001 , before me , a notary public, personally appeared known or identified to me to be that persona that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such person executed the same and acknowledged that the same was signed as a free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this fj — day of , 2001 '161161 'A� 3Z d Z•s y Notary Public, for the State of Idaho Residing at , Idaho OF 10 1 My Commission Expires: nzza 6 ♦ � i T • ♦ l t• •,f�f4latttS . NL1YOR Robert D. Come Crnr COUNCIL N EbBERS Run .Anderson Keith Bird Tanaw deWeerd Cherie McCandless MEMORANDUM: HUB OF TREASURE yAI I Ey A Good Place to Lire � CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 - F.10X (208) 887-4813 City Cleric Office Fax (208) 888-4218 Rofjn,�-� zmlli a )5t =1 ►4cm mc).5 March 13, 2001 To: Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor & City Council RE CEIVE From: Steve Siddoway, Planner cwt 14 290 11 Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer CITY OF MERIDIAN Re: TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION (REVISED) CITY rri FRK ()'ZP1 `E - Request for Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 Acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 by Gem Park H Partnership (File #AZ -00-023) - Request for Preliminary Plat of 156.21 Acres for 353 Building Lots and 39 Other Lots (now 349 building lots and 44 other lots on the revised plat) by Gem Park II Partnership for a Residential Subdivision in a Proposed R-4 Zone (File #PP -00-024) - Request for a Conditional Use Permit (Planned Development) for Flexible Lot Sizes, Frontage, Block Length, Cul-de-sac length, ditch tiling, and sidewalk requirements. (File #CUP -00-052) We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATIONS SUMMARY/BACKGROUND This Staff report is a revision to the 12-05-00 Staff memo regarding the subject applications. It provides a detailed analysis of the annexation, preliminary plat and planned development (CUP) applications, while the previous report dealt primarily with the annexation only. The applicant has made several modifications to the original plat, including: a. The school site has shifted north and the lot configurations around it have changed accordingly. b. The street and sewer connection between the east and west portions of the property is now below the school site and no longer crosses the Morgner property. C. Dartmoor Drive now curves for traffic canning and the roundabouts have been removed. d. The total number of building lots has been reduced from 353 to 349. e. The total number of common lots has been increased from 39 to 44. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 2 SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Surrounding properties on all sides of the project include working farms and rural residential uses, zoned RUT. The area north of Victory Road includes Thousand Springs Subdivision, zoned R-4, which is the point the subject property is contiguous with existing City Limits. CURRENT OWNERS OF RECORD The Burnett Family Trust, Walter T. Sigmont, Jr., and Raymond C. Smith are the current property owners. The applicant has submitted notarized consent statements from all current property owners to clear up the ownership questions raised in the original staff report. ANNEXATION AND ZONING COMMENTS A detailed analysis of the annexation application was provided in Staffs 12-5-00 report. Our original recommendation was that "issues related to ownership, emergency access, power service, sewer and water, school siting, parks and pathways, floodplain, wetlands, and traffic should be resolved before annexing the property to the City." The current status of those issues follows: • Ownership: The applicant has submitted Affadavits of Legal Interest from the current property owners. This issue is resolved to staff's satisfaction. • Emergency Access: A second emergency access is still needed. No more than 100 lots should be allowed to develop within the subdivision until a second access is provided. To accommodate this requirement without redesign of the subdivision, the "through streets" that provide access to the arterials could be graded to allow emergency access. This issue should be discussed as part of the record. The applicant should coordinate this issue with the Fire Department. • Power Service: Idaho Power has stated that they do not want to stop this project. "There is a serious lack of facilities in this area currently, however, to serve this new proposed subdivision." The subdivision cannot be served with any power until after September 1, 2001. This date is dependent on Idaho Power obtaining approval for a new substation in time for construction, prior to the 2002 summer peak electricity demand. • Sewer: The City's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan shows that the proposed subdivision would sewer via the Ten Mile Drain, with the west half draining toward Locust Grove and the east half draining toward Victory Road. The current revised conceptual sewer plans submitted with the application do not follow this plan. The sewer concept plan shows all sewer from the east crossing over into the west area draining to Locust Grove. As originally discussed, any proposal that is not consistent with the established Public Facilities Plan will have to be analyzed against the plan to determine if the final result will achieve the same desired area and level of serviceability. All costs of the analysis by the City of Meridian's Public Facilities Plan consultant shall be bome by this developer. The revised sewer concept plan was submitted to the city's consultant on March 5, 2001, for preparation of a scope of work AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 3 and cost estimate. Modeling will not be started until the estimates are completed and proper agreements are executed. • Water: Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. Copies of the revised conceptual water plans will be transmitted to the City of Meridian's Water system consultant for detailed analysis. All costs of the analysis by the City's consultant shall be borne by this developer. School Sitine: Under the proposed phasing plan, the roads would not reach the school site until the final phases of development. The applicant's representative has told staff that the developer will build the roads to access the school site whenever they are ready to begin construction. This agreement needs to be made part of the record. Staff still has two concerns about the proposed school site. First, the school property has no frontage along the street, which makes the school difficult to find, in staffs opinion, and hides it, rather than making it the focal point of community development per comprehensive plan policies. Second, the proximity to the Ridenbaugh Canal is a safety concern. It should be noted that the school district does not share these concerns, so perhaps they are a non - issue. Finally, the revised layout creates a difficult turn and a possible safety hazard for busses and other vehicles coming from the north into the site. The entrance is located very near the intersection of Rome Drive and Tiber Avenue, creating, in staffs opinion, a dangerous blind intersection for vehicles pulling out of the school site. Neither ACHD nor the school district has commented on this layout. • Parks & Pathways: The applicant should have met with the Parks Dept. to discuss the potential of a park site in this area, as well as the pathway requirements. The applicant should address the results of this meeting to the Commission. The applicant is proposing to construct a pathway along Ten Mile Creek, as required by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports the pathway. However, there are still unresolved issues related to development standards and dedicating the pathway to the City for public use and maintenance. These issues must be resolved. Floodplain: The developer is required to determine actual flood elevations through a detailed study. The original staff report stated that the applicant should be required to provide the City with such a study before any action is taken on the preliminary plat. This report has not yet been prepared. However, preliminary indications show that the floodplain may be confined within the banks of the creek channel. Therefore, staff agrees that the detailed study may be submitted with the final plat application for the subdivision (first phase). • Wetlands: A wetlands area exists along the south portion of the property. It appears that part of the wetlands may be filled to accommodate the S. Pompeii Avenue stub to the south. The applicant should provide the City with a letter from the Corps of Engineers regarding the status of the wetland area and any required protective measures. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUPYRdoc Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 4 • Traffic: ACRD has not yet reviewed the revised plat. ACRD would like to make sure that any major design changes required by City staff and the P&Z Commission are done prior to their review. Once the major design changes have been finalized based on the City's issues, ACRD does want to review the revisions prior to sending the application to Council. The street connection no longer crosses the Morgner property, so the offsite connection issue has been resolved. ANNEXATION SITE SPECIFIC REOUIRMENTS The legal description submitted with the application meets the requirements of the City of Meridian and State Tax Commission and places the parcel contiguous to existing city limits. 2. The requested zoning of R-4 is compatible with adjacent properties within the City and with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of single-family residential. 3. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. At this time it is not known whether essential city services are available to the subject property. As mentioned above, detailed analysis will need to be completed to determine if the proposed sewer routing, contrary to the City's Master Plan, will achieve the same desired area and level of serviceability as the Master Plan route. Detailed analysis will also need to be completed on the water system to determine the serviceability of the proposed development. All costs of the analysis by the City's consultants shall be borne by this developer 4. Applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Agreement with the City as a condition of annexation. 5. A condition of the Annexation/Development Agreement shall be that the project comply with the standards of the Landscape Ordinance, 12-13. 6. Detached sidewalks with a minimum 5 -foot -wide planter strip between the curb and sidewalk shall be required along the frontage of Locust Grove and Victory Road. ANNEXATION & ZONING - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.d0C Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 5 3. High-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. 4. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. PRELIMINARY PLAT SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. According to the applicant's calculations, the proposed plat contains the following lot sizes: • 7,000-8,000 s.f 9 lots • 8,000-9,000 s.f 67 lots • 9,000-10,000 s.f. 72 lots • 10,000-11,000 s.f. 96 lots • 11,000-12,000 s.f. 37 lots • 12,000-13,000 s.f. 32 lots • >13,000 s.f. 36 lots The proposed density is 2.29 dwelling units per acre. 2. The outstanding issues related to emergency access, power service, sewer and water, school siting, parks and pathways, floodplain delineation, wetlands, and traffic (discussed at length under the annexation comments) also apply to the plat. 3. Sanitary sewer service to this development has been proposed to all flow out to Locust Grove Road, even though the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan developed for the City shows only the western portion flowing to Locust Grove, and the eastern portion flowing to the north to Victory Road. 4. Water service to this development is proposed to be via extensions from the existing mains. 5. Applicant has indicated that the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. 6. Applicant shall be responsible to construct permanent perimeter fencing, except where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in place prior to applying for building permits. 7. The open space requirement for this plat (typically 5% for a single family residential plat) is actually 10% due to the planned development application for this project. The open space issue will therefore be handled under the Conditional Use Permit comments. All open space must be in conformance with the landscape ordinance to be included in the open space calculation. The application appears to easily meet the 5% requirement. 8. A generic landscape plan was submitted with the application, which is not in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance and is not approved. The following issues are noted for resolution: 1- The plan states that "open areas shall be grassed with the possibility of trees AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doe Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 6 and/or shrubs." Note: Trees and grass, shrubs, or other vegetative groundcover are required in all common areas to be counted as open space. 2- The plan states that "existing trees shall be removed, unless it is possible to use them for landscaping purposes." Note: All existing trees greater than four -inch caliper must be retained and protected, or mitigated for, in accordance with the Tree Preservation section of the Landscape Ordinance, 12-13-13. 9. A detailed landscape plan for the common areas, in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance, shall be submitted for review and approval with the submittal of the final plat. The plan must include sizes and species of trees, shrubs, berming/swale details, and all proposed ground cover/treatment. 10. The proposed 30 -foot -wide landscape buffers along Victory Road and Locust Grove Road are in compliance with the 25 -foot minimum in the Landscape Ordinance. The buffers shall be located beyond the required ACHD right-of-way and constructed by the developer as a condition of the plat. The landscape buffers shall be placed in separate common lots as shown. Fencing is not to encroach upon these buffers. Landscaping within the buffers is to be verified as part of the detailed landscape plan submittal with the final plat. 11. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 12. In accordance with City Ordinance 12-13-8-1, underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all common landscape areas on site. 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 common landscaped areas, prior to signature on the final plat. Applicant shall submit irrigation performance specifications to the Planning & Zoning Department in compliance with Ordinance 12-13-8-2 when applying for a Final Plat. 13. A letter from Mr. Al Malaise, dated January 10, 2001, was sent to the City regarding irrigation ditch issues. The applicant should address this issue and its resolution for the record. 14. The revised plat does not contain any of the notes, legend, easements, contours, or phasing information contained on the original plat. This information must be added to the revised plat. 15. The easement for the Nine Mile Drain is not shown on any of the submitted plans and it is possible that some of the proposed lots may encroach within this easement. Please verify the width of the easement and show it on the plat. 16. Submit ten copies of any required revisions to the preliminary plat at least ten (10) days prior to public hearing at City Council. PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 7 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. Provide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance 12-5-2.K and 12-13-10-8. 4. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project shall be tiled per City Ordinance No. 12-4-13, except as provided for under site specific requirements. The ditches to be piped should be shown on the site plans. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 6. 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. 7. Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all common landscape areas on the site. 8. Two -hundred -fifty watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 9. Indicate on the final plat map all FEMA floodplain affecting the area being platted, and detail plan for reducing or eliminating the boundary, if necessary. CUP (PUD) REQUIREMENTS 1. As part of a conditional use permit, the City of Meridian may impose restriction and conditions in addition to current City Ordinances in accordance with 11-17-1 and 11-17-4. 2. Planned Development Regulation: As a planned development, the Tuscany Lakes Subdivision must comply with the following section of the subdivision ordinance: 12-6-4 Procedures for Planned Developments, 12-6-6 General Regulation for Planned Development, and 12-6-7 General Standards for Planned Developments. 3. Modification of District Regulations: The primary purpose for the submittal of a Planned Development/Conditional Use Permit for this application is to request modifications to the standard ordinance requirements. The requested modifications include: AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 8 • Lot frontage: Many lots have less than the 80 -foot frontage requirement for the requested R-4 zone. The minimum lot frontage appears to be 70 feet on standard lots, 50 feet along street bends, and less than 40 on the bulb -out north of the school site. • Block length: The 1000 -foot maximum block length is exceeded. • Cul-de-sac length: The 450 -foot maximum cul-de-sac length is exceeded by Adriatic Place and Mediterranean Court. • Lot sizes: 9 lots are less than the required 8,000 s.f minimum. Most lots exceed the minimum lot size. 200+ lots are greater than 10,000 s.f. • Ditch tiling: A waiver from ditch tiling requirements is requested for all waterways on site, including the Ridenbaugh Canal, Ten Mile Creek, Eight Mile Lateral, and Nine Mile Drain. All other ditches are proposed to be piped. • Sidewalks: Ordinance requires sidewalks to be built along both sides of Dartmoor Drive. The applicant is proposing to construct a 10 -foot -wide pathway (construction material unknown) along the north side of Dartmoor, and no walkways along the south side. Staff prefers a concrete sidewalk or meandering path on each side of the street. 4. Open Space: All Planned Developments (PD) are required to have at least 10% of the gross land area of the PD as common open space per City Ordinance Section 12-6-7-E-5. The applicant has provided staff with calculations that meet/exceed this requirement. Open space must be improved with landscaping and irrigation to count toward the open space requirement. Unimproved ditch easements and other bare ground/weed areas will not count as open space. The application states that within the major open space areas along the Eight Mile Lateral and Ten Mile Creek, the developer `would like to slope these areas to create a natural habitat between the home sites and Nampa Meridian's facilities." Please provide additional information regarding the treatment of these "natural habitat" areas. Will they be be simply left as "natural" unimproved areas, or will they be designed and planted with native species of trees, shrubs, and grasses and provided with appropriate irrigation? 5. Pathways: The applicant has stated verbally that a development feature of the subdivision will be constructed pathways along the Eight Mile Lateral and Ten Mile Creek, connected by micropaths to create a loop. These pathways do not currently show up on any of the plans. The applicant should verify this for the record during the hearing, including construction type and width. Staff supports the provision of the pathways. The pathway adjacent to Ten Mile is required per the Comprehensive Plan. Construction standards and ownership/maintenance issues must be coordinated with the Parks Department. 6. Stormwater Detention: All areas used for stormwater detention must be designed and built at least to the minimum standards of Ordinance 12-13-14. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 9 7. Open Water Features: All open water features must be approved through the Alternative Compliance process per Ordinance 12-13-18-2.H. Design details must be submitted through this process to demonstrate adequate circulation and aeration to prevent algae blooms, mosquito breeding problems, etc. Conceptually, staff supports the water features shown as part of the Conditional Use Permit. 8. All common landscape areas shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. 9. All conditions placed on this application shall run with the land and shall not lapse or be waived as the result of any change in tenancy or ownership of any or all of the lands governed by this CUP application. All such conditions shall be deemed the requirements for the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any use or structure as per City Ordinance. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS There are several Comprehensive Plan policies that both support and do not support this proposed annexation. Since the Preliminary Plat and CUP were submitted with the annexation, staff considered all requests together in this analysis. Comprehensive Plan policies that apport the annexation/plat/CUP include: • The subject property is designated as Single Family Residential on the Land Use Map of the current Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant is requesting an R-4 zone, which complies with the single family designation. • "Encourage new development ... of higher -density development within the Old Town area and lower -density development in outlying areas." (Land Use Chapter, 1.4U) The proposed development has a gross density of only 2.29 units per acre. • "Encourage landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors." (Community Design Chapter, 4AU) The proposed subdivision has 30 feet along Victory Road and Locust Grove • "Support a variety of residential categories ... for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." (Land Use Chapter, 2.1U) The proposed subdivision has lot sizes ranging from 7,000 s.f to over 19,000 s.f. Comprehensive Plan policies that do not support the annexation/plat/CUP include: "The following land use activities are not in compliance with the basic goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan... b. Scattered residential (sprawl or spread)." (Land Use Chapter, 1.3). The proposed development is contiguous with existing city limits for only about 480 feet and creates a large enclave of county property between the proposed development and the existing subdivisions north of Victory Road. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doc Mayor, Council and P&Z March 13, 2001 Page 10 "Police protection within the city limits ...should be maintained according to the recommended service ratio of 1.6 to 1.8 police officers per 1,000 persons." (Public Services Chapter, 6.8) With an estimated current population of 41,000 and 42 sworn officers, the current ratio is approximately 1.0 officers per 1,000. An additional 28 officers would be needed today to bring the ratio up to 1.7 per 1,000. At buildout, this development alone would warrant at least one additional officer. "Housing proposals shall be phased with ...public service and facility plans, which will maximize benefits to the residents, minimize conflicts and provide a tie-in between new residential areas and service needs." (Housing Chapter, 1.6) The proposed sewer does not follow the City's current facility plans. RECOMMENDATION The outstanding issues that may significantly affect the project design—namely sewer and water, emergency access, school siting, parks, wetlands, and canal easements should be resolved to the Commission's satisfaction; direct the applicant to make any appropriate changes to the plat to address those issues; and allow ACHD to comment on the revised plan prior to sending the project on to Council. AZ -00-023, PP -00-024, CUP -00-052 Tuscany Lakes.AZ.CUP.PP.doc FILE Corr BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 156.21 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF VICTORY ROAD EAST OF LOCUST GROVE ROAD WEST OF EAGLE ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP, C/C 06-19-01 Case No. AZ -00-023 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for public hearing on June 5, 2001, and continued until June 19, 2001, at the hour of 6:30 o'clock p.m., Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, and Gary Smith, Pubic Works Director, appeared and testified, and appearing and testifying on behalf of the Applicant was: Kent Brown of Briggs Engineering, Inc., and appearing and testifying with comments/concerns or in opposition were: Herman Pullman, Rex Young, Mary DeChambeau, and Greg Johnson, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter therefore makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL / GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP - PROPOSED TUSCANY LAKES SUBDMSION (AZ -00-023) FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The notice of public hearing on the application for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearing scheduled for June 5, 2001, and continued until June 19, 2001, before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice having been mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred (300') feet of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing and with the notice of public hearing having been posted upon the property under consideration more than one week before said hearing; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having been duly considered by the City Council at the June 5, 2001, and continued until June 19, 2001, public hearing; and the applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence. 2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code §§ 67-6509 and 67-6511, and §§1 1-2-416E and 11-2-417A, Municipal Code of the City of Meridian. 3. The City Council takes judicial notice of its zoning, subdivisions and development ordinances codified at Title 11, Municipal Code of the City of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL / GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP - PROPOSED TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION (AZ -00-023) Meridian, and all current zoning snaps thereof, and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ordinance No. 629, January 4,1994, and maps and the ordinance Establishing the Impact Area Boundary. 4. The property is approximately 156.21 acres in size and is located at the south side of Victory Road east of Locust Grove Road west of Eagle Road. The property is designated as Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. 5. The owner of record of the subject property is the Kenai Partners, LLC of Boise, Idaho. 6. Applicant is Gem Park II Partnership of Meridian, Idaho. 7. The property is presently zoned by Ada County as (RT) Rural Transitional, and consists of agricultural uses. 8. The Applicant requests the property be zoned as Low Density Residential District (R-4). 9. The subject property is bordered on all sides by working farms and rural residential uses, zoned RUT and by Thousand Springs Subdivision zoned R-4 by Meridian. 10. The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 11. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL / GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP - PROPOSED TUSCANY LAKES SUBDMSION (AZ -00-023) 12. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: a residential subdivision of 349 building lots and 44 other lots. 13. The Applicant requests zoning of the subject real property as R-4 which is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map which designates the subject property as Single -Family Residential. 14. The Meridian City Council recognizes and takes notice of the concerns of Jon and Bonnie Glick, Mr. and Mrs. G. Webb, William Patterson, Mary Morgner DeChambeau, and Al Malaise. 15. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that affect the consideration of this application. 16. The proposed development would pose a high demand for police and fire services, as the services are presently inadequate to serve the proposed development. 17. It is found to not be in the best interests of the City of Meridian to annex the subject property, at this time, given the subject development proposal. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The City of Meridian has authority to annex real property upon written request for annexation and the real property being contiguous or adjacent to city boundaries and that said property lies within the area of city impact as provided by Idaho Code Section 50-222. The Municipal Code of the City of Meridian Section 1I - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL / GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP - PROPOSED TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION (AZ -00-023) 2-417 provides the City may annex real property that is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The City Council may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 3. The City of Meridian has exercised its authority and responsibility as provided by "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975', codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code by the adoption of `Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ord. No. 629, January 4, 1994. 4. The requested zoning of Low Density Residential District, (R- 4), are defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-7-2 C. as follows: (R-4) Low Density Residential District: Only single-family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for planned residential development and public schools. The purpose of the R-4 District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwelling, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible nonresidential uses. The R-4 District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal water and sewer systems of the City. 5. That in § 11-2-417 A it provides in part that: "If the Commission and Council approve an annexation request, the Commission and Council shall insure that said annexation is in accord with this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan." 6. Idaho Code § 67-6511(c) provides in matters where the City Council is considering a zoning designation application as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL / GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP - PROPOSED TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION (AZ -00-023) "If the request is found by the governing board to be in conflict with the adopted plan, or would result in demonstrable adverse impacts upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services, including school districts, within the planning jurisdiction, the governing board may require the request to be submitted to the planning or planning and zoning commission or, in absence of a commission, the governing board may consider an amendment to the comprehensive plan pursuant to the notice and hearing procedures provided in section 67-6509, Idaho Code. After the plan has been amended, the zoning ordinance may then be considered for amendment pursuant to section 67-6511(b), Idaho Code." 7. Idaho Code § 67-6512 (a) provides the authority to grant special and/or conditional use permits" .... when it is not in conflict with the plan." [referring to the Comprehensive Plan.] 8. The City's authority to make and enforce ordinances are confined to within the City's boundaries as provided in Article XII § 2 of the Constitution of the State of Idaho. 9. The provisions of I.C. § 50-222 govern the conditions upon which the City may exercise its authority to annex territory, but the exercise of that authority is discretionary as determined by the City Council. DECISION AND ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby order and this does order: 1) That the application for annexation is denied for the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL / GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP - PROPOSED TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION (AZ -00-023) a. Development of the road infrastructure within the proposed subdivision is inadequate in its present design and layout. b. The proposed subdivision would extend police and fire services farther south beyond Victory Road, and which services would then be beyond an acceptable service area for response for emergency service at this time. C. The parcel is contiguous to the City limits, but the proposed phasing of the development would begin construction at a portion of the property farthest away from the existing City limits. d. The City Council determined, at their June 19, 2001 meeting, that the annexation of the property is not in the best interest of the City of Meridian at this time. 2) Based upon the section set forth in item no. 1 the application for zoning designation is dismissed. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the denial of the annexation and zoning may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of 2001. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL / GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP - PROPOSED TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION (AZ -00-023) ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN ANDERSON COUNCILMAN BIRD COUNCILWOMAN deWEERD COUNCILWOMAN McCANDLESS MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) DATED: VOTED 01�4� VOTED VOTED Mwr VOTED MOTION: APPROVE -.e. DISAPPROVED: Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department and the City Attorney. r M ,� �' ! $- - �j IfCity Clerk Dated: Z.\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Tuscany Lakes Sub AZ -00-023 PP -00-024 CUP 023DENIAL.doc FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL / GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP - PROPOSED TUSCANY LAKES SUBDIVISION (AZ -00-023) Page 8 Certified Mailing Returns Project Name File No(s) jSWW(� . j-4— hzt7-tzz 1-1 If, Date of Hearing Name Address Reason for Return °� �il,ux Mar 15 01 12:08p March 12, 2001 Administrator ..+. Marty Goldsmith Farwest Developers 4550 West State Street Boise, ID 83703 RE Dear Mr. Goldsmith: Salove Collector Analysis 338-3790 p.2 J -IJ -B ENGINEERS, Inc. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS - PLANNERS Regional Office 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709-0944 208-376-7330 Fax: 208-323-9336 RBCETVZT)MAR 1.5 200t CITY OF MERIDIAN This letter is to summarize the results of the collector analysis on the Salove 40 -acre property adjacent to the Tuscany Lakes project. You are in receipt of Concept "A" (120 lots) and Concept `B" (114 lots). Concept "A" was drafted and did not take into account the location of the elementary school. Concept "A" warrants a collector only at the main entrance. Concept "B" was drafted with an additional collector street to convey the school traffic. Concept "B" deletes six lots and adds approximately 400 feet of collector roadway. trips per day and direct lot access is prohibited. Please note this estimate is prelim Collector roadway designation is required for streets carrying in excess of 1,000 vehicle inary and subject to review and approval by ACHD. Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. Matthew B. Schultz, P.E. Project Engineer MBS: the cc: Gerald H. Flatz, P.E., J -U -B f:\projects\11735\admin\collector analysis.doc S. LAGLE FOAD o f�n6ii� r' � ti 0 :Vq=�""`46°.°;�'� SALOVA PROPERTY .E away CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN F - FARWEST DEVELOPERS J -U-8 ENGINEERS. Inc. 7 M MM ICE000M AWNK �p 7rro iqMsr- L 2 617M -07N' 'rAXM -523t -7S10 j IAL 20i-337-i73i 7i r r\� I� 0 S EAGU ROM _ $ a 6 s o on CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN R � T N (] �( N h N O SALOVA PROPERTY J -U -B ENGWEERS, IRc. 270 f0(IM app AYDaI[ 7Yn IIL 201 201 �oaE, CWM) ane,-oau CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FARWEST DEVELOPERS (MORE: 20tr�77L-TSb iAIO 2aaa2!-�vs T NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on February 1, 2001, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the applications of: B and A Development for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 3 -story, 87 - room hotel for proposed Ameritel Inn in an L -O zone generally located at Magic View Drive and Allen Street west of Eagle Road; Mountain West Bank for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a branch bank with a drive-thru teller in an L -O zone generally located west of Eagle Road, north of Magic View Drive; Johnson Architects for a Conditional Use Permit for temporary placement of an office trailer to serve as Sonntag Eye Associates office during construction generally located at Gentry Way and Allen Street; Gem Park II Partnership for Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision; furthermore the applicant also requests Preliminary Plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone and a Conditional Use Permit to construct a planned residential development in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision generally located south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road; Gem Star Properties for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 generally located at Black Cat Road and Cherry Lane; PUBLISH January 12th and January 26th, 2001 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 Avenue, Meridian, Idaho at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on February 1, 2001, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of Gem Park II Partnership for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision; Furthermore, the applicant also requests Preliminary Plat approval for 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone and a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision generally located south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road . A more particular description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, and is available for inspection during regular business hours, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. A copy of the application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Written testimony may be submitted seven (7) days prior to the above hearing date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to the hearing. DATED this 10th day of January, 2001 WILLIAM G. BERG, JR.,6TYCLERK ,ttitliFl"llI/t� PUBLISH January 12th and January 26th, 200" �� f EAL �v�, ,O 9 - Pub. Dec.15,29,2000 9063, ** TX CONFIR. ION REPORT ** DATE TIME TO/FROM 04 01/03 18:09 12083452950 ------------------------ Dear Applicant: AS OF JAN 03 101 1e:10 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS EC --S 00'58" 002 134 OK ---------------------- As the applicant/applicant's representative for one of the projects listed below, you are aware that the public hearings previous scheduled for December 12, 2000, were renoticed for the January 4, 2001 P&Z Commission meeting. A memo dated December 11, 2000, from William G. Berg, Jr., Meridian City Clerk, informed you of your responsibility to report the property one week prior to the new hearing date. if the property was not reposted, any application runs a greater risk of being overturned for not following the proper procedure if there is opposition to the application. CUP 00-049 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a branch bank with drive- thru teller by Mountain West Bank — Magic View Office Complex: CUP 00-050 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a sales and project information office in a temporary trailer for Ashford Greens No. 4 by the Brighton Corporation -- Black Cat Road and north Waggle PIace: CUP 00-053 Request fo 1 Use Permit for ro tract a 3-sto - hotel P Po rte Inn by B and A pment — Magi w ive/Allen Stree of Eagle Road: CUP 00-054 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct the new Meridian City Police Station by Lombard -Conrad Architects — south of Franklin Road and west of Locust Grove Road: CUP 00-055 Request for Conditional Use Permit for temporary placement of an office trailer to serve as Sonntag Lye Associates office during construction by Johnson Architects — Gentry Way and Allen Street: PP 00-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for Autumn Faire No. 2 by Gem Star Properties — east of BIack Cat and south. of Ustick Road: AZ 00-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: CUP -00-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development in a proposed R-4 zone to permit variance from lot size, frontage, and cul-de-sac and block length requirements for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: PP 00-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park U Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Dear Applicant: As the applicant/applicant's representative for one of the projects listed below, you are aware that the public hearings previous scheduled for December 12, 2000, were renoticed for the January 4, 2001 P&Z Commission meeting. A memo dated December 11, 2000, from William G. Berg, Jr., Meridian City Clerk, informed you of your responsibility to repost the property one week prior to the new hearing date. If the property was not reposted, any application runs a greater risk of being overturned for not following the proper procedure if there is opposition to the application. CUP 00-049 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a branch bank with drive- thru teller by Mountain West Bank — Magic View Office Complex: CUP 00-050 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a sales and project information office in a temporary trailer for Ashford Greens No. 4 by the Brighton Corporation -- Black Cat Road and north Waggle Place: CUP 00-053 Request fo 1 Use Permit truct a 3 -story.- m hotel for propo n e Inn by B and A pment —Magi w rive/Allen Stree of Eagle Road: CUP 00-054 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct the new Meridian City Police Station by Lombard -Conrad Architects — south of Franklin Road and west of Locust Grove Road: CUP 00-055 Request for Conditional Use Permit for temporary placement of an office trailer to serve as Sonntag Eye Associates office during construction by Johnson Architects — Gentry Way and Allen Street: PP 00-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for Autumn Faire No. 2 by Gem Star Properties — east of Black Cat and south of Ustick Road: AZ 00-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: CUP -00-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development in a proposed R-4 zone to permit variance from lot size, frontage, and cul-de-sac and block length requirements for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: PP 00-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park H Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: RZ 00-008 Request for Rezone of 5.17 acres from L -O to R-4 by JUB Engineers for proposed Devlin Place No. 2 — south of Devlin Place between Sunburst Subdivision and Sunnybrook Farms: PP -00-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 building lots and 4 other lots on 5.17 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by JUB Engineers for proposed Devlin Place No. 2 — south of Devlin Place between Sunburst Subdivision and Sunnybrook Farms: Please sign and have the following statement notarized and return to the Meridian City Clerk prior to the public hearing on 1/04/01. I, , the undersigned, acknowledge my responsibility to post the property for public hearing one week prior to the hearing date. Failure to properly post the property will increase the possibility of any approval being overturned should the application be contested. I am aware that to proceed with a public hearing without posting of the property as required by Idaho Code would be at my own risk. Signature Title: Date: STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of ) On this day of January, 2001, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared , known or identified to me to be the authorized agent of , who duly acknowledged to me that (s)he executed the within instrument on behalf of said (individual/corporation/partnership) and that said (individual/corporation/partnership) executed the same. Notary Public for Idaho Residing at Commission Expires:_ MAYOR Robert D. Come CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Ron Anderson Keith Bird Tammy deWeerd Cherie McCandless HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208)288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208)887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: December 5, 2000 Transmittal Date: November 6, 2000 Hearing Date: December 12, 2000 File No.: AZ -00-023 Request: Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision By: Gem Park II Partnership Location of Property or Project: SW corner of Victory and Eagle Sally Norton, P/Z Bill Nary, P/Z Jerry Centers, P/Z Richard Hatcher, P/Z Keith Borup, P/Z Robert Corrie, Mayor Ron Anderson, C/C Tammy deWeerd, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Cherie McCandless, C/C Water Department Sewer Department Sanitary Service Building Department Fire Department _K Police Department City Attorney City Engineer City Planner Parks Department (Resides Gen - 26 PP/FP/PFP - 30 AZ - 27 Meridian School District Meridian Post Office (FP/PP) Ada County Highway District Community Planning Assoc. Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP) U.S. West (FP/PP) Intermountain Gas (FP/PP) Ada County (Annexation) Idaho Transportation Department Yniir (r)nrica Ramnrkc- EC�EI) Nw 1 4 MA Cieridiau ty of Mk offic ,ity clerk cIO CENTRAL DISTRICT CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT HEALTH Environmental Health Division Return to: DEPARTMENT ❑Boise ❑ Eagle Rezone # ❑ Garden City Conditional Use # Omeridian Preliminary / Final / Short Plat ❑ Kuna ❑ ACZ uStA/✓�r L A�l S ❑ Star 1. We have No Objections to this Proposal. N 0 V 14 2000 ❑ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. C1TY ®F WRIDLkN ❑ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ❑ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ❑ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ❑ high seasonal ground water ❑ waste flow characteristics ❑ or bedrock from original grade ❑ other ❑ 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or surface waters. ❑ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. ❑ 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: ❑ central sewage ❑ community sewage system ❑ community water well ❑ interim sewage ❑ central water ❑ individual sewage ❑ individual water ❑ 9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: ❑ central sewage ❑ community sewage system ❑ community water ❑ sewage dry lines ❑ central water ❑ 10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ❑ 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ❑ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ❑ 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ❑ food establishment ❑ swimming pools or spas ❑ child care center ❑ beverage establishment ❑ grocery store ❑ 14. Date: Reviewed By: CDHD 90 kc Review Sheet EO*3SUd MAYOR Robert D. Come bbL0b8880Z CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Ron Anderson Keith Bird Tammy dcWeerd Chcric McCandless HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to hive CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 - Fax (208) 887-4813 City Clerk Officc Fax (208) 888-4218 22:9T 00, OE noN LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 283.2499 - Fax 283.2501 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887.2211 - Paz 337.1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884.5533 - Fax 988-6354 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: December 5, 2000 Transmittal Date: November 6, 2000 Hearing Date: December 12, 2000 File No.: AZ -00-023 Request: Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for ProPosed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision By: Gem Park If Partnership Location of Property or Project: SW corner of Victory and Eagle ----.Sally Norton, P/Z Bill Nary, P/Z Jerry Centers, P/Z Richard Hatcher, P/Z Keith Borup, P/Z Robert Corrie, Mayor Ron Anderson, C/C Tammy deWeerd, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Cherie McCandless, C/C ?� Water Department Sewer Department Sanitary Service Building Department Your Concise Remarks: Fire Department Police Department City Attorney City Engineer City Planner ._� Parks Department (Reside, Gen -26 PP/FPiPFP-30 A7.-27 Meridian School District Meridian Post Office (FP/PP) Ada County Highway District Community Planning Assoc. Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP) U.S. West (FP/PP) Intermountain Gas (FP/PP) Ada County (Annexation) Idaho Transportation Department IfEc�I'ED NO V 2 0 2000 CITY OF 3ERIDIAN SA/Z tad t7t7L9bPP9&Z=a I M31b'M31S V1J M NH T R i li=w r_ r. r-, r 60.30Ud "22t7e880F MAYOR HUB OF TREASUR,6 VALLEY Robcrt D. Corrie A Good Place to Live CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY OF MERIDIAN Ron Andcrson Keith Bird Tammy deweerd Cherie McCandless 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 883.4433 - Fax (208) 887-4313 Ciry Clerk Office Fax (208) 888.4218 8z:9T 00, OE SON LEGAL DEPARTMENT (los) 2SS-2499 - Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (20S) 887.2211 - Fax 837-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • Fax S88-GS54 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: December 5, 2000 Transmittal Date: November 6, 2000 Hearing Date: File No.: AZ -00-023 December 12, 2000 Request: Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision By: Gem Park II Partnership Location of Property or Project: SW corner of Victory and Eagle Sally Norton, P/Z Bill Nary, P/Z Jerry Centers, P/Z Richard Hatcher, P/Z Keith Borup, P/Z Robert Corrie, Mayor Ron Anderson, C/C Tammy deWeerd, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Cherie McCandless, C/C Water Department ?r Sewer Department -Sanitary Service Building Department Fire Department Police Department City Attomey City Engineer City Planner Parks Department (Reside, Gen -26 PP1FP!P:P.30 4Z-27 Meridian School District Meridian Post Office (FP/PP) Ada County Highway District Community Planning Assoc. Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP) U.S. West (FP/PP) Intermountain Gas (FP/PP) Ada County (Annexation) Idaho Transportation Department Your Concise Remarks: FF"IvED N 0 v 2 0 2000 MY OF MERIDIAN 0 i /G&d 17tPLA178880Z=a I 2f3_LHM3_LSb'M NH T rt T u�W +.� . n r ., 11/17/2000 07:39 2088885052 SANITARY SERVICE PAGE 12 - . -.11-----..--.--,—..—.-,..-",... �•1011%, . MAYOR Robert D. Corrie CITY COONCIL MEMBERS Ron Anderson Keith Bird Tammy deWeerd Cherie vlcCandle55 HUB OF TREASURE VAGLEy A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887.4813 City Clerk office Fax (208) 888-4218 LEG.YL DEFART\tENT (208) '38.2x90 • Fax 288-^-501 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMEVT (208) 887.2211 • Fax 887. i 1,9 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 88 i 5;3. Fax 388 GS51 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall Attn; Will Berg, City Clerk, by: December 5, 2000 Transmittal Date: November 6, 2000 Hearing Date: December 12, 2000 File No.: AZ -00-023 Request: Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision* By: Gem Park 11 Partnership Location of Property or Project: SW corner of Victory and Eagle Sally Norton, P/Z Bill Nary, P/Z Jerry Centers, P/Z Richard Hatcher, P/Z Keith Borup, P/Z Robert Corrie, Mayor Ron Anderson, C/C Tammy deWeerd, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Cherie McCandless, C/C Water Department Sewer Department Com_ Sanitary Service Meridian School District Meridian Post Office (FP/PP) Ada County Highway District Community Planning Assoc. Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District _ Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co, (FP/PP) U.S. West (FP/PP) Intermountain Gas (FP/PP) Ada County (Annexation) Idaho Transportation Department Building Department Y vise Remarks: Fire Department Police Department City Attorney City Engineer City Planner Parks Department (Resldentlai Applications only) Gen . 26 PP(FP PPP . 30 AZ - 2t NOV 17 '00 06:51 .KPJ WEID N 0 V 1 7 2000 CITY OF MEE7DIAN 2088885052 PAGE.12 ** TX CONFIRMr-i ON REPORT * DATE TIME TO/FROM 30 12/11 08.43 PUBLIC WORKS 31 12/11 08:48 206 886 6854 AS OF DEC 11 '00 08=53 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS OF --S 04'37" 011 050 OK EC --S 05'01" 011 050 OK C�IVED ' ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT DEC - 9 2000 Planning and Development Division m [ "4K C11+i10F DmT �*r •���-�� Development Application Report �WJ't'Lr Preliminary Plat — Tuscany Lakcs/MPP-00-024 Locust Grove Road/Victory Road MAL -00-023 /MCUP-00-052 This application has been referred to ACHD by the City of Meridian for review and comment. Tuscany Lakes is a 353 -lot residential subdivision on 152.5 -acres. The applicant is also requesting a rezone from RT to R-4 and annexation into the City of Meridian, and conditional use approval for a §2,.: planned unit development. This preliminary plat includes an elementary school site. The site is < located on the south side of Victory Road, east of Locust Grove Road. This development is estimated ,..: to generate 4,000 total trips based on the submitted traffic study. Roads impacted by this development: Locust Grove Road Victory Road Eagle Road P -- SwWAI� ACHD Commission Date — December 13, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. Tuscany Lakes.cnun Page 1 ** TX CONFIR... ION REPORT ** AS OF DEC 22 '00 15:09 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD#S STATUS 11 12/22 15 08 PUBLIC WORKS OF --S 00'11" 001 196 OK 12 12/22 15:09 208 868 6854 EC --S 00'20" 001 196 OK RE�E'�'ED D E C 2 2 2909 CITY OF MERIDIAN 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 December 21, 2000 Phones: Area Cade 208 OFFICE: Nampo A66-7861 SHOP: Nampo 466.0663 Will Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, ID 63642 Re: Annexation and Zoning from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Dear Commissioners: The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the annexation and zoning for the above-mentioned project, however, any encroachment on a District facility must be approved in writing before construction can begin. Sincerely, Bill Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT BH: din Cc: File — Shop File — Office Water Superintendent APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOC/ RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40.000 BRIGGS ENGINEERING. Ince December 7, 2000 Mr. Siddoway Meridian Planning Dept 33 East Idaho St. Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Dear Steve: 1800 West Overland Road Boise, Idaho 83705 — 3142 Voice (208) 344-9700 Fax (208) 345-2950 E-mail kentb@briggs- engineering.com Per our conservation about sewer, school, park site and secondary access issues on the site we wish to meet with Staff and discuss the issues raised and seek some thing settlement prior to proceeding to the Planning and Zoning hearing. We are hereby requesting that Commission continue our application until the next available Planning and Zoning meeting so we can meet with City Staff and discuss what information they need for the sewer and what our options are for secondary access . If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Sincerely, BRIGGS ENGINEERING, Inc. Kent Brown Planner 0308\P&Z-hold-ltr 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 January 4, 2001, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of Gem Park II Partnership for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision; Furthermore, the applicant also requests Preliminary Plat approval for 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone and a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision generally located south of Victory Road and west of Eagle 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 12th day of December, 2000 ILLIAM G. BERG, JR., Y LERK th PUBLISH December 15�k6117 Dece r�2000. 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 January 4, 2001, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the applications of: Gem Star Properties for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 generally located at Black Cat Road and Cherry Lane; Mountain West Bank for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a branch bank with a drive-thru teller in an L-0 zone generally located west of Eagle Road, north of Magic View Drive; Brighton Corporation for a Conditional Use Permit for a sales and project information office in a temporary trailer in an R-4 zone in Ashford Greens No.4 at Black Cat Road and North Waggle Place; Lombard -Conrad for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the new Meridian City Police Department in an R-8 zone generally located south of Franklin and west of Locust Grove Road; Johnson Architects for a Conditional Use Permit for temporary placement of an office trailer to serve as Sonntag Eye Associates office during construction generally located at Gentry Way and Allen Street; JUB Engineers for Rezone of 5.17 acres from L -O to R-4 for proposed Devlin Place Subdivision No. 2; furthermore, the applicant also requests Preliminary Plat approval of 16 building lots and 4 other lots on 5.17 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Devlin Place Subdivision No. 2 generally located south of Devlin Place between Sunburst Subdivision and Sunnybrook Farms; Gem Park II Partnership for Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision; furthermore the applicant also requests Preliminary Plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone and a Conditional Use Permit to construct a planned residential development in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision generally located south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road; Potter Land Surveying for rezone of .25 acres from R-8 to C -G for general commercial use for proposed Tranquility Ponds generally located at East 3rd Street and Fairview Avenue; Hubble Engineering, Inc. for Annexation and Zoning of 20.20 acres from RT to C -G for proposed Sparrowhawk Subdivision; furthermore the applicant also requests Preliminary Plat approval of 3 building lots on 20.20 acres in a proposed C -G zone for proposed Sparrowhawk Subdivision generally located on the northeast corner of Nola Road and Franklin Road. PUBLISH December 15" and 291h, 2000 n ** TX CONFIR" ION REPORT ** DATE TIME TO/FROM 09 12/11 17:07 12083452950 AS OF DEC 11 dO 17:08 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS EC --S 00'33" 001 110 OK MAYOR Robert 10. Corric HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY n Good PLince to Livc CITY COUNCU, MEMBERS CITY OF MERIDIAN Ron Anderson 33 LAST IDAHO Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Tammy deWeerd (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887.4813 Cherie McCandless City Clerk Officc Fax (208) 888-4218 December 11, 2000 Applicants for Projects. Dear Applicant CUP 00-049 Mountain West Bank CUP 00-050 Ashford Greens #4 Subdivision CUP 00-053 Ameritel Inn CUP 00-054 Meridian Police Station CUP 00-055 Sonntag Eye Associates PP 00-023 Autumn Faire #2 Subdivision AZ 00-023 Tuscany Lakes Subdivision CUP 00-052 Tuscany Lakes Subdivision PP 00-024 Tuscany Lakes Subdivision RZ 00-008 Devlin Place #2 Subdivision PP 00-025 Devlin Place #2 Subdivision ,'^ AL DEPARTMENT S" Fax 268-2501 I � , Due to the incorrect Notice of Public Hearings being published in the Idaho Statesman for the above listed projects, these projects have been rescheduled for Thursday, January 4, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers in the Meridian City Hall. The notices will be re -noticed for the new public hearing date. These projects will need to be reposted one week prior to the new hearing date. We are sorry for the inconvenience. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely JKZZ William G. Berg, Jr. City Clerk ** TX CONF1, FION REPORT ** AS OF NOV 20 �j0 14:30 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM 16 11/20 14:29 PUBLIC WORKS 17 11/20 14:29 LEGAL DEPARTMENT 18 11/20 14:30 208 868 6854 MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS OF --S 00111" 001 169 OK EC --S 00'21" 001 169 OK EC --S 00120" 001 169 OK R CEWED N 0 V 2 0 2000 CITY OF MERIDIAN 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-A395 FAX # 208.463-0092 November 14, 2000 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa A66-7861 Will Berg, City Clerk SHOP: Nampo A66-0663 City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 Re: AZ -00-023 Annexation and Zoning from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision Dear Commissioners: The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the annexation and zoning for the above-mentioned application. Sincerely, �yn ii Hens ,�Waterperintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT BH: dln Cc: File — Shop File — Office Water Superintendent APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER PLOW R)GHTS • 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS • 40,000 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 December 12, 2000 for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of Gem Park II Partnership for Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision; Furthermore, the applicant also requests Preliminary Plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone and a Conditional Use Permit to construct a planned unit development consisting of 353 building lots and 39 other lots generally located at the southwest corner of Victory Road and Eagle Road for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. 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 7th day of November, 2000 ILLIAM G�,EfC,,,�1R. I CLERK OF PUBLISH November 24th and December 8th, 2000. SQL aa�N�' $o n m C-- ? C) U q .0 _ ENEc.i O j c $ Ec o ow�E�. O .4¢ m m L 7 ° L . ° i-hm. U�. _= rn m O m E m mD , E a LL Cc, m G O �Z'O m > = a m .^ Emow o 40 �LL I HE�cc a$avaa I .c °'rnma x V O �w m E > N - y Um Q t0 O= DLL _coEBoa Dw mO c 1 c m y -.0 m Qw I t0 I O n M M Q) CO OD E' c o c m �J ''[[�� 'p '[� - E -0 i9 - N U C Z O m D d C d❑❑ m d m o m m c '] = U O .� c c� m . 4 E HN ID - o mho m 2 2 0D (b i G3 Z � °c a m E um c > m c E ` ° c �7j C m � c�omH��`0d m > >Qj 2mmmm`9m O �- �� 0Lcmi5Ecc 6 o ¢ ��n�O�in i a ^ .m m ij {Tl o Q W W w w x w Wp� m ; (AA +-+ {A 'v ami,�-i Ln �Zy I� O dam" 4 �G„ 2 E w N Ln N N N M M et n !!f LNn N M m ~ O � 0 T x U m y 0 m U w c U m ` m d ❑ ��❑ i' m E U U a0 d d5E m cts cd CO cd wIn N C}CI V 'U E p n+ p 7 LL 47 .20 z m 9 t 3 oa 0 `m a m d Ea v v m Z > � d V N _ H Q n IV s C UL` y 11" W Q Z _m O D � 0 (n ` C m m aU) c ! Cl) E�w m z� E Za O '- I N CO I V In Co I I� co I (M � N M r LL T T T � J 0 .Q nii FaV� m N — U LL _ N mi Q c 9 O L O LL ma cm m m O - c m 0. CC CC0 c Q LfD a cc 0 m m � N lo C >il 11 c m E Q Z V � m m > m w U r" G LL! 7 E 0 'm - c9 ma cm m m O - c m 0. CC CC0 c Q LfD a cc 0 N t U N � S LIO 0 H E Q Z 3: w 3:uj LL! 7 E •- J .m'+ 14 Ln NLp ^W Ln d' Ln G�0 n c ! d 1�1 a 2 d F- aj J Cid o ❑ o m T atS — •_ C>d 0 _ 2 � $Ct�� C7 otS C dS •. o 'C ��0p LA Vl CLm H m N Tao -O N LU a:C OU m m U U CD ❑�[ a E N t U N � S ZE Y C m L p -2 E Q Z u y {9 7 o m c a m 7 E •- J F � a c ! d 1�1 a 2 d F- aj J Cid o ❑ z '2 T atS — •_ C>d 0 _ 2 � $Ct�� C7 otS C dS •. o 'C ��0p LA a E mTO 0 o a N N m m E c � Z Q � O H I N t U N � S ZE Y C m L p -2 E Q Z u y {9 7 o m c a m 7 Za`o •- J "I"I-IL"I0I-Icol C3)I-0Ir a _ m � E m w o m m E'mo.�� xE!L mo E o wE a m u o c O c c � t U o E m aC 'C° ° m `m d H E c E c c U m a m o y E > E _o m m N U .0 Sxo.E$oa cw�0 = d H = E .m=cmE E �aci��o0 C pO T24 m N a m a c c E 9 m C• w E > C O m O C° A > o `o oL0~�3a Z3omN�,E=a m � m m m m m v o c 4. f = .-Oiin Y m m `o m m o a 7 F � a a ! d a o V rn H � � m a u Q m CL m y °0 E U) M Z.0 E o` L T J a '0 r _ o a° Cn W N - p cD m v rn cn A W N 1 pD y 3 �C ° ai m W NQ m d ao m 4 a a H C y o a '> 0 � D L''A CD y iIs 3 �. C QC CD �a 3 N � � y m < Z (D D n 3 m c .9m m o y o z O� n fD y � Z Ste' � D D f/f � �i � � °' w � •p3 °' = d N 20 20 20 qo 2o O 3 d 7p O 3 �y L C TY�±.j. > cif lD d cam_ 7c pgj a 3 -i G m m a a � y CD w m x ID cl m Q m � c ca 'R om a m y 0 j m t V w NJ Co Ln ID II3 F t V �' o c�Lqo❑❑❑❑ Ul i 7 77C i17 (!f `.� e7' 01 �p d a o ID a ;. p rF Gl G7 G1 .fir ' m� 3 m i � a a �- mi09'�.0 -a (D i d o O n'(06 c.0m d l N i'70 b d j� m n 2 � y m m 3.om y 0 S 3 y m c �o*oOc m fDCL !DC NA m aya�c�. a 7 Ol � 7 � 7 7 7 7 7 _ � ❑❑ ��, CD _ m ao n W C7cn fD mho �c 2 ow p� o m cr M c m 1 o _ o• /yy�� W �a �i 0° c� W c a S% G .0 Sr an ,�� V ( V m 2 . j N-4 N N N N Ol N N ►+ N N N N v y m x a m o m D O m N y y O m 3 w I -n a? d O' G� ne�'3mw m y N _ o o m u) O n n c 'o 0 2 phi I m� ���N� mmm�°in3 �c3doo, c0x ry � y �c a C, C7 m j p o? m " 3 y C m^ _ 3 o Q^ 3 CL N o N d 3 nm O sy. D' m in - n• .7 X (D X 90 N N W n S X W 0) CO a1 (D 07 1 c H n fl N c v' CL N 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 August 8, 2000, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the applications of: Gem Star Properties for Preliminary Plat approval of 16.4 acres with 30 building lots and 2 other lots in an R-4 zone for Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 generally located at Black Cat Road and Cherry Lane; Mountain West Bank for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a branch bank with a drive-thru teller in an L -O zone generally located in the Magic View Office Complex west of Eagle Road, north of Magic View Drive; B and a Development for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 3 -story, 87 - room hotel for proposed Ameritel Inn in an L-0 zone generally located at Eagle Road and Interstate -84; Brighton Corporation for a Conditional Use Permit for a sales and project information office in a temporary trailer currently in an R-3 zone in Ashford Greens NoA at Black Cat Road and North Waggle Place; Lombard -Conrad for a Conditional Use Permit to construct the new Meridian City Police Department in an R-8 zone generally located south of Franklin and west of Locust Grove; Johnson Architects for a Conditional Use Permit for temporary placement of an office trailer to serve as Sonntag Eye Associates during construction generally located at Gentry Way and Allen Street; JUB Engineers for Rezone of 5.17 acres from Light Office to R-4 for proposed Devlin Place Subdivision No. 2; furthermore, the applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval of 16 building lots and 4 other lots on 5.17 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Devlin Place Subdivision No. 2 generally located south of Devlin Place between Sunburst Subdivision and Sunnybrook Farms; Gem Park II Partnership for Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision; furthermore the applicant also requests Preliminary Plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone and a Conditional Use Permit to construct a planned unit development consisting of 353 building lots and 39 other lots generally located at the southwest corner of Victory Road and Eagle Road for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. PUBLISH November 24th and December 8th, 2000 Meridian Planning and Zoning Coma, -__ion Meeting ` May 3, 2401 Pg. 30 Borup: I'm going to vote Aye. I feel that with the aspect of a Conditional Use Permit it can be reviewed if there's any non-compliance — the Conditional Use can be revoked. TIEBREAKER VOTE: 2 AYES, 1 NAYE, 2 ABSENT Centers: That's why I put 12 on there for Item 13, the maximum of 12. 1 tried to split the difference with the applicant. Borup: So it's two to one in favor then. I would like to thank everyone for coming. We mentioned earlier there will be another Public Hearing at City Council. Everyone that received would receive a notice again as before. Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Do we want to take a short break now or move into the next one? We do need one. Five minute break. Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2001: AZ 00-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from RT +,, R-4 £ resed T . cany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2001: PP 00-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2001: CUP 00- 052 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a planned residential development in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park 11 Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Borup: Okay we would like to reconvene our meeting this evening. Anyone is welcome to continue their discussions out in the foyer, outside. We're reverting back to the original schedule and it will be Items 4, 5, and 6 which are Continued Public Hearings from April 19th. First for the request for annexation and zoning. Can we not have a fight in here please? Mr. Van Nees? The first Item was a request for annexation and zoning for 156 acres R -T to R-4 for Tuscany Lakes. The second was a Pre?iminary Plat on the sarne project and third was a Conditional Use Perm;:, or a planned residential de,.-�lopment' ag Jn by tj:°-; same Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Po. 31 Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park 11 Partnership. We continued this item at our last meeting to receive information on three items. One was the water model that the Public Works Department was going to do. The other was we asked for some revisions on the plat and the third was the wetlands issue for asking for a letter from the (inaudible) of engineers. I need to make a break here just in case. I don't know if anyone's here for the Cell Tower. Was anyone here on the Cell Tower issue? That item has been withdrawn so we didn't want someone to be waiting all night for something that was not going to be on the agenda. Those are the three items so again I would like to begin with the staff report. Siddoway: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission I think Mr. Chairman you pretty much covered my staff report. We did have the three outstanding issues. The water, the wetlands getting a complete plat. I will save the water for Bruce. We did receive a letter from the Corp of Engineers regarding the wetlands stating there are wetlands on-site however they are not regulated by the Corp. of Engineers. So they are not protected wetlands except along the Ten Mile Creek specifically but the area that we were concerned with down in the south corner parcel it's not a regulated wetlands area. The complete plat was submitted yesterday, I believe it's stamped May 2"d. We had not been able to corporate that into the presentation so you still see the previous one. My understanding of most of the — the basic layout is exactly the same. This stub into the school shifts down to mid block and the extra distance that was along the Riddenbaugh now has been given to those lots. I have not had a chance to do any detailed review of the plat so I'll let Mr. Brown — I believe they also did the emergency access out to Locust Grove that was asked for. I'll let Mr. Brown cover the changes that were made during his presentation. Site photos — seen them there the general area for anyone in the audience that's not familiar with the project. On the south side of Victory Road from Eagle to Locust Grove touches Thousand Springs Subdivision on the north — ***End Of Side Three*** Siddoway: -- on the south side of Victory Road from Eagle to Locust Grove south of Thousand Springs. That's all I have. I will turn it over to Bruce for comments on the water model. Freckleton: Thanks Steve. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission first of all I would like to apologize to Mr. Brown. We had talked at our last meeting about getting this water model done and I had stated that I didn't see any problem getting results and my goal was to try and give him at least a week to review the analysis results. I did not provide that to him so I apologize. I got the memorandum from our consultant at 3:30 this afternoon so it did come in pretty late. The analysis did reveal that the City of Meridian's water system is adequate to provide service to the first phases at least to this develo:e rent. It's our .inderstanding that the development is going to start on Locust Grove and Meridian Planning and Zoning Co nmissron Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 32 proceed east in six phases before they reach the Riddenbaugh Canal. The analysis was pretty detailed but I'll just kind of summarize that a main extended down Locust Grove from the Sherbrooke Hollows Subdivision and then into Tuscany with a 12 -inch line as a backbone can provide the service required in the necessary fire flows. With each phase, as those Final Plats come in, I would propose that we just kind of go back and do a re -check on the model. Mr. Brown had indicated that there expect timeframe is about a three year timeframe for those first six phases before they get to the Riddenbaugh Canal. As you all know a lot of development can happen in three years and there water systems nct going to be the same in three years as it is today. I would just propose that with each phase as they come in with their Final Plats we kind of do a re -check and re-evaluate things. At this point in time we do have positive, good results. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Mr. Brown have you got any additional comments you would like to make? Go ahead stand up. Brown: Kent Brown, 1800 West Overland Road with Boise, Idaho is the business address. Borup: Would you like to maybe just explain — we have the plat up here but maybe just for the benefit of the plat adjustments that you made. Brown: On our north cul-de-sac against Locust Grove, adjacent to Locust Grove staff Steve particu! rly hid �ck.ed that gAfe put in an emergency access. We would expect that that lot would have a deed restriction or a non -build on it to provide a secondary means of access into that development. That's very typical in dealing with a singular access. Then when we make our connection around the Riddenbaugh Canal and connect back to Victory that we would then remove that temporary access and that would become a buildable lot. Centers: Do you have it in here now? Brown: It's on the drawing yes. It's shown on there at 20 -foot temporary, secondary access. I just make note of that. We also moved the entrance to the school down. It seems there — we were willing to work with the school and we were continually willing to move that around. We plopped the school on there but obviously the School District would massage that how best serves them. We've just kind of taken their architectural drawing and plopped it on there. So if they need to move it or they need a second access that best serves for their parking lot and busses we would do that but I think as I recall I told you just for qrins I would move it down if that would make you feel better about it. Then we removed the 20 feet along the east side of the Riddenbaugh and added those footages to the lots. I believe that that's all that you asked for. I did meet on a sui-Ii',I (? _, with Greg Martinez and we went out and looked at the �3ie land s area than was in concern. He reiterated that they're concerned abet natural strearns r-, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 33 which would be Ten Mile and Eight Mile. Eight Mile is a manmade one and they said that's what makes the difference. There was a question about why Butch got in trouble and I would imagine it's because it's along the Boise River that's supposedly a natural stream. So there — any changing of that would constitute (inaudible). Are there any questions? Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Yes Mr. Young. Young: My name is Rex Young I live at 2950 East Victory Road, Meridian. I don't want to go over a bunch of information we've already discussed but I've got three items — Borup: -- thank you. Young: -- that I wanted to bring up. It's concerning the relocation of the roadway to the west so that it ties in with Brandy's Jewel. Based on the testimony at the last meeting, Mr. Johnson indicated one of the reasons that he was not interested in moving that roadway to the west was because of the steep grade or the steep slope there. That property slopes to the south and it also slopes to the west and grade would not be a problem. Another item that was brought up was that the Traffic Engineer, from the way I understand it — that the Ada County Highway District said he would approve no location other than the one that was proposed by the developer. The people at Ada County Highway District indicated to me that the Brandys Jewel exit, which I'm suggesting that the exit from this subdivision tie in with met the minimum standards. For a Traffic Engineer to if you will ignore standards set by his organization and say that he isn't going to approve something at a location that meets his standards seems ridiculous to me. The other item that 1 wanted to bring up is, that Mr. Johnson indicated that the policy of Meridian School District and bussing laws that they buss people who are outside of the section involved. I talked with the people at the Buss Transportation Office and they indicated that the Meridian School District bussing policy is that they buss anyone who lives in access of one and one-half mile from the school. Then I called the district office to see if I got the same answer from them and I talked with a Mr. Bruce Guestrom and he re- arrirmed that policy that the Meridian School District poiicy is that they buss anyone who is greater than one and one-half miles away. With that being the case eve yone in Thousand Springs is going to be walking to school who uses that school. There has got to be provisions made and with the current plan without a road tying in with Brandys Jewel or at least a walkway there and some kind of a traffic control it's going to be a very dangerous and untenable situation for the children concern. That's all I have do I have any questions? orup: Any questions for Mr. Young? Did the School District indicate — did they say that aas the only conditions under which they wr,;:.i d h,iss or — Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 34 Young: --no — Borup: -- just over a mile and half they definitely will? Young: They definitely will. Now they went on to indicate that they do take a look at individual cases if there are extenuating circumstances that they will lock and consider bussing people less than that distance. Their standard policy is one and one-half miles. Borup: Yes and I think that's been standard for a long time. I was trying to remember what Mr. Bingham had said when he was here. I and maybe someone else can (inaudible) — I thought he had said that if the traffic warrant says that they do — but I think like you said they look at it on a case-by-case basis. Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to testify? De Chambeau: My name is Mary De Chambeau and I reside on the Mortener farm, 2015 East Victory Road. You can tell everyone's pretty discouraged by the amount of attendance you have here tonight to testify but I'm here. What we were concerned about was they did a study on you're talking about the City water but we still have concerns about the flow of the irrigation water. 1 don't think that's been addressed. I know you gave me that study and the guy said it was okay. When I tried to call him there was no answer, he has no answering machine, I looked it up in the phone book and there was no name of business. I could not get a hold of him because I wanted to ask him a few questions because generally how that back part of that property worked was we would ask our neighbors to hold off irrigating until we could get our final crop off. That's how that worked and I just haven't been able to get any response. I want it on record so that if our crops do flood out that someone is going to be held accountable as a concern. 1 don't know if that's been answered by anyone. 1 think we're still in confusion of it. It's hard when you don't get reports until the last minute for us to study them and make a testimony for it. Borup: So you're saying the way it is now the property that — who was it you were asking to hold off irrigating the Sod farm or someone else? De Chambeau: No the place behind us. That's the way it's always been (inaudible). Borup: So if they've got a crop on there they can't water their crop you're saying? De Chambeau: They never had a crop on there. That whole pathway ,vas nothing but pasture. He ran cows on that the whole time I was growing up because — Borup: -- okay that's what I was trying to undersiai-ire i40,!- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 35 De Chambeau: -- so we just asked him not to irrigate until we got our crop off. Borup: So at this point there's no — De Chambeau: -- according to the study — Borup: -- there's no drainage on that property then to — drain (inaudible). De Chambeau: Well I'm just saying I don't know how this is going to work out. This is still — this is zoned agricultural area still. You're asking to annex this and we're still in the process of farming and will continue to farm for a while. That is our major concern and we want to make sure it's on record that — Borup: -- but the way it is right now if that property is irrigated then it runs off onto your property? De Chambeau: That is correct and I did check with Jim Patterson the person that farms there. I do want to make a statement concerning a question that someone (inaudible) to me. They asked if I actually farmed the land. I don't know what that — how to do it. Let me explain that my father has been gone since 1976 and we have had help farming that property since 1976. So this isn't just a recent thing that we've had somebody helping us farming the land we have held onto it all of those years. This is not an unusual thing for us. Also, I don't know if you're aware, my mother is still living and 1 am representing her in these testimonies. We are abiding by her wishes. This isn't just a bunch of kids that want to make trouble for people. We know that eventually things are going to change in the area but until they do this is still agricultural property. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman. De Chambeau: And I do have a letter to submit from two of my other siblings. Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Frecklei:on: Mary I understood that the main concern was migrating ground water? De Chambeau: Yes. Freckleton: Is there a circus water runoff problem too? De Chambeau: Yes. I did not — yes because 1 was talking to Jim Patterson about that and he said you need to make that really clear. He said who are you going after? Somebody has to be made accountable and you by�tter put it on record. If somebody said it's sprinkling — I don't know. I don't know how this Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 36 works I'm not a water expert but I just know in the past when there are no houses (inaudible). That's how it works we're taught that for years. Freckleton: During — Borup: -- go ahead Bruce I'm sorry. Freckleton: During the design process there is -- and we do require that a Soil Scientist prepare those reports and do the groundwater studies to try and determine what the issues are and how to rectify them. They are licensed professionals. The Licensed Professional Engineer that's with Briggs Engineering, he's going to be putting his stamp on those drawings. They are going to have to build some cutoff drains like they said in the report that will pick up the migrating ground water. De Chambeau: So this is an engineer that works for Briggs is that correct? Freckleton: No. De Chambeau: That's their own engineer? Freckleton: No, the guy that did the report is with Associated Earth Sciences De Chambeau: Yes right and I tried to get a hold —1 couldn't find any information on him. I mean I left him a message even though 1 had — Freckleton: Yes and perhaps Mr. Brown could get you in contact with him. Between the two of those individuals they are the ones that are responsible to come up with a design that will ensure that that ground water is not a problem. De Chambeau: So I guess my question is how can we be assured of that. Once that development is in there, hey there's not a whole lot we can do? Borup: I guess one of my questions and concerns would be if someone else owns that property and wants to farm it and have a crop that needs irrigated on a regular basis — De 19hambeau: We work with them. We do, we work with them. It's never been a problem in the past. Borup: Yes because it's been pasture. It's not a crop that's going to die if it doesn't get water. De Chambeau: That's right. r -P-�, Mendian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3. 2001 Pg. 37 Borup: But if someone — you're saying you wouldn't want a farmer in there either. De Chambeau: Well a guy did farm it as you recall but the land is so bad. There's a reason why it was only pasture for years and years and years. Borup: It won't grow crops? De Chambeau: Not real good. It's not real good let's just put it that way. The way it looks different is because the previous owner brought in soil and elevated that. I don't know if that was (inaudible) or not but — Borup: -- but 1 don't have — De Chambeau: -- it maybe — farmers do kind of work together. They kind of know when one crop is — they do. It's kind of the old ethic I guess the old — the way things used to be done. Borup: Well I don't have anything scientific but I've lived in Meridian since 1965 so I've seen a lot of (inaudible) irrigate and I've done that in my time. There's just a lot of runoff that comes from farming. Ce Charr:beau: Yes. Borup: That's the way you have to irrigate which is something you don't see in a subdivision. You don't have the runoff because there controlled. People that want to pay for more water than they need to on watering their lawns. I think as far as — I don't know how it's going to exactly effect the ground water but as far as runoffs I think you're going to be better off than someone irrigating that property. De Chambeau: I'm also — probably shouldn't say this but I've just became recently aware that you're a Building Constructor and I just thought that was kind of interesting. Borup: How so? De Chambeau: Well I know you're building houses across the street so this is probably an advantage to you to continue to develop is that correct? Borup: No. I don't km;w why that's really pertinent but — (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) De Chambeau: Well I knew you would and I shouldn't have done it but it does concern me. I'm wandering conflict of interest — is that? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 38 Borup: Well we're real aware of conflict of interest and there have been times in the past there has been that I've stepped down. You need to be aware of what conflict of interest regulations say. Yes, we're very aware of that, all of us are. If there is any, those individuals will step down at that time. De Chambeau: Yes, I know. I apologize I know it didn't make any favor here but it's probably why there's no one else here to testify. People are discouraged. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Any final comments Mr. Brown? Commissioners? Shreeve: I move we close the Public Hearing. Borup: All three of them? Shreeve: All three of them yes do I need to read those? Borup: Just I think — just mention all three of them. Shreeve: I move that we close the Public Hearing for request for annexation AZ 00-023, request for Preliminary Plat PP 00-024, and a Conditional Use Permit CUP 00-052. Centers: I second. Borup: Motion second, all in favor? Any discussion? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Before we — Shreeve: I've got a couple of comments that certainly I would like to make. Two of the, probably in my opinion certainly of the biggest issues is the intersection coming off on Victory Road. I still believe and have driven that and have looked at that, that I think that provisions could be made to move that. I think in the future there could be some real headaches having basically three major intersections. Victory — or excuse me Thousand Springs is a big subdivision with lots of traffic. Tuscany Lakes with the school will also generate a lot of traffic. Then of course you've got the intersection of Victory and Cloverdale. Yes it's true that there's a blind section there on Victory Road but I think with some construction. Even without construction there are minimal standards that certainly were acceptable during the Thousand Springs point. I don't believe that that road is located in the best interest to the City nor of the surrounding communities — or excuse me property subdivisions. Secondly, is the school. I am concerned about the school location. Not only the location but also having is Meridian Planning and Zoning Cornmrssion Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 39 inferior to lots. I know there have been discussions on that but again my opinion is that I don't like it behind property. Those are basically the two comments that I have in relationship to this project. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: For the staff, in previous comments and of course this project or these three applications have been before us for a few months now. You're comments were no comment until we get this, this, this and this. Are you totally satisfied now with what you have? I guess you know what I'm referring to. I looked back on your comments and you weren't willing to make a recommendation because you needed something. Do you have all of the something's? Freckleton: Commissioner Centers, from Public Work's perspective we've addressed the sewer, we've addressed the water, we have computer.analysis on both of those. That issue is addressed. I do — this groundwater issue is a very serious issue. I've had — I've done work with Associated Earth Science. I think that that's the best approach is to have a Soil Scientist doing the analysis and working directly with the Civil Engineer on the job. I think that the — well that's required. I think that the problem that's out there is not unsolvable with the .o.��., ���:,a��..,�., � �: ,. ��.,.,L:� have been addressed. As far as a recommendation I don't know if I want to go there. Centers: Well the only other thing I would add and in due respect to my colleague here I'm not prepared to second-guess the highway — the County Highway -- the Ada County Highway District I'm not prepared the School District who recommended the site and stood up here and raved about the site. 1 may disagree with it but I'm not prepared to second-guess him or the Highway District. That would be my only comment. Borup: I think I've got the same concern on the entrance. Did you have another comment Steve, I'm sorry? Siddoway: I was just going to say that all of the missing pieces of data that we've been asking for are now here. So it's complete in that sense. We still maintain that we don't want the school site wrapped around with housing. All of the issues that k,%/e've kind of gone over and over there's a question in the annexation about all of the out parcels that it created — it creates an enclave of County property and whether that's a good thing. It is complete. We st ` have Goocerns but all of those concerns are spelled out in the staff report. The application is complete and it's up to the Commission to make your recommendation based on all. of the facts. Meridian Planning and Zoning Comr—ston Meeting May 3, 2401 Pg. 40 Centers: There again to reiterate on the School Districts or the school site that was you as a Planner's personal opinion or your personal opinions disagreeing with the School District Representative correct? Siddoway: That's correct. Borup: I guess I would have the same comment. I don't know how we can second-guess the School District. We asked some pretty direct questions to him when he was here. I'm wandering how much thought ACHD put into a different location. I'm not sure. They're requiring stacking tapers on both directions from that Victory entrance and that maybe part of the consideration too. I don't know if that effects it much either way. Again we've got a fairly .lengthy report from ACHD but that doesn't mean we can't make another recommendation separate from what they recommended. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: I don't think we've seen a good report on how that grad would effect things either. It may be even more dangerous to be coming out of the subdivision on the street (inaudible) where you can't see what's coming either direction. I don't know that we have the information — but that's the same concern coming out of the subdivision going up hili not being able to see what's coming the other way. Maybe that's what they're thinking on the taper lanes would help alleviate some of that stuff too. Centers: Well I was starting to say, they of course don't appear here. They don't give their vision to us but I know what they're paid to do. They've submitted a report and as I said I'm not prepared to contradict them. Borup: I think didn't we have the letter and then last time we had a separate letter in addition to the report where they had been asked that very question? I know it's in this stack somewhere. Mr. Shreeve, you were going to — Shreeve: Well you know the thing is again even though ACHD studies it it's their department, they're the professionals and it's their roads. Certainly you can prove anything by studies. Again, not having studied it quote unquote, but certainly having looked at it the grade I don't believe, would be a major issue in coming right off of the Thousand Springs. Why make something worse? What 1 mean by that is I truly believe in a non -study fashion but having thought about it considerably these last couple of weeks that if you've got basically three major intersections you're going to have children waiking from Thousand Springs. You're going to have a lot of commuting from the Thousand Springs area that -- I think that there's going to be problems. If you've got school lights, you're going to have school lights at three major intersections right there close to each other. To have the entrance from Tuscany come off of — adjacent to Thousand Springs, basically you would have one light. Now the blind hill now wculd to the tme to Meridian Planning and Zoning Comn.—ion Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 41 take care of that blind hill period. Now would be the time to get ir,. there and work out what needs to be happened for the benefit for Tuscany Lakes, for the benefit of Thousand Springs, for the benefit of everybody that runs up and down Victory Road. Borup: I was referring to the blind hill coming out of Tuscany. You're going to be coming up out of hill there also. Shreeve: Well but it levels off when you come off — you're required to come up to a plateau as you would enter on to Victory. 1 don't foresee that that should be a problem. Borup: Yes that should be (inaudible). Centers: See that's my point, Commissioner Shreeve. The Highway District knew Thousand Springs was there when they made their recommendation and their study. I just — they are the professionals not me. That's just my view. Borup: I don't know if I have any other comments at this point. That's something you could certainly include in a motion Mr. Shreeve. Shreeve: Well and let me make another comment that Steve did remind me of quite frankly in terms of another thought is just simply the expansion. I think just expanding much further out and with the County enclave there is also a concern of mine in terms of managing the development of the City. With that I am prepared to make a motion. Borup: Okay. Shreeve: I propose that we deny the application for Tuscany Lakes. The request for annexation AZ 00-023, also deny the Preliminary Plat PP 00-024, and also deny the Conditional Use Permit 00-052 for the Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. Borup: Do we have a second? Seeing none, that motion (inaudible) in lack of a second. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I would move that we recommend for app_•<ov- I to the City Council the request for annexation and zoning AZ 00-023, 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park 11 Partnership including all staff comments. That would do it on the -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Comr.,.—ion Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 42 Borup: -- on the annexation. I take it Mr. Shreeve you're not open to seconding that? 1'ii second tihat. Discussion. 'Nfa have a rnotion tv secorld, any other discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE NAYS, TWO ABSENT Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers, Centers: We would like to make a motion to approve and recommend to the City Council for approval request for Preliminary Plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership which is PP 00-024. The temporary access to remain until the City allows it to be removed which is located in the northwest corner of the said plat. I believe in lots 7 and 8. 1 couldn't determine the block number but I think that's the specific location. In addition the City shall do a water model after each phase to determine the sufficient water and including all of staff comments. Borup: Okay we have a motion. Mr. Centers would you be open to maybe some wording to perhaps have ACHD take a second look at the entrance on Victory Road? Centers: I would he very open to that. 1 would like to recommend that the Ada County Highway District take a second look based on the recommendations provided to this Commission over the many hearings, present those comments to the Commission and the Highway District and see what their views are. Borup: About moving the entrance. Centers: But I don't want to recommend a location. I'm not the expert but I would certainly be open and I think the developer should be open to them listening and if they determine that it would be in their best interest to move then move it. That would be part of my motion if you've got that? Unidentified Speaker: Yes in general. Borup: I would second that then. Motion is second, any discussion? All in favor. MOTION CARRi—CC: TWO AYES, ONE NAYE, TWO ABSENT Centers: Mr. Chairman I would recommend that we make a motion and recommend to the City Council for approval CUP 00-052 request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a planned residential development it .A Meridian Panning and Zoning Comi, pion Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 43 proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park 11 Partnership with all staff comments and conditions. Borup: I'll second that. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE NAYE, TWO ABSENT Borup: Okay all three. I just maybe — it's going to be a few years before we get over to that entrance so I would — since it is starting from Locust Grove. I hope that would be enough time for ACHD to thoroughly look at the situation. Shreeve: That's only hopeful thinking though. Borup: Well it all depends on the market place. That was the previous testimony. I do think having a subdivision there would be a help to ground water. I guess the other thing that influenced me was the neighbors testified that they are planning someday to develop their property also. They are planning on wanting to put in the subdivisions and it kind of works both ways. Centers: Well it's contiguous right now. Borup: Well then that's the other thing. Even though it is at the outskirts of the City it can be serviced with existing sewer lines. Some of the projects that we have that are close in don't have the sewer lines and we're not going anywhere on those. Item 8. Public Hearing: RZ 01-004 Request for a rezone of 8.29 acres from L -O to C -G for Waltman Court Subdivision by John Goade — south of Troutner Business Park, between Waltman Lane and Ten Mile Road: Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 01-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots and 1 other lot o-; '3.29 iln a proposed C -G zone for proposed Waltman Court Subdivision by John and Sandra Goade — south of Troutner Business Park, between Waltman Lane and Ten Mile Road: Borup: Next Item No. 8, Public Hearing for a request for a rezone of 8.29 acres from L -O to C -G for Waltman Court Subdivision by John Goade south of Troutner Business Park. Also related that is a Preliminary Plat on the same project for 6 building lots and 1 other lot on the same project. I would like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Have we seen this before us before? Was the previous one for — in fact what was the previous one for? Siddoway: This was previously before you to be annexed and zoned. It was given two different zoning districts. You can see the general commercial zone A_%, Meridian Planning and Zoning Comms- .,n Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 2 any of the applications. We will start the testimonies with those people that have signed up on those sheets. Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2001: AZ 00-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 01-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Christian Ministry for office space and an Aftercare/Transitional home for men, serving as a group - living environment for 14 men and 1 live-in House Supervisor in an R-4 zone for Whole Life Restoration House by B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries, Inc — 1304 West 1 St Street: Borup: The first item is a Continued Public Hearing from our April 19th meeting on Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. Is the developer or any of the representatives here this evening yet? I know they were planning on it. If it's alright with the other Commissioners why don't we go ahead to Item No. 7 and then come back to this after that point. That should leave, I would think time for — and if not then we'll take a look at it at that point and see how we need to proceed. Does that sound alright with the staff? How many do we — did we have anyone else besides Mr. Young that was here to testify on Tuscany Lakes? Thank you. If it looks like it's going to be long we will probably look at taking your testimony rather than waiting until the very end which it may be. if they don't show up it's going to be continued I would assume. Item No. 7 which is the next on the agenda. The request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Christian Ministry office space and an Aftercare/Transitional home for men. This is that R4 zone at 1304 West 1St Street. We would like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Chairman Borup and Commissioners this application is for — it's called the Whole Life Restoration House. It's a request for a Conditional Use Permit by B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries. You should have our staff report dated April 13, 2001 and we'll just briefly touch on the main issues. First of all the location as you can see on the screen is on the corner of West 1St and Cherry Avenue. This would be Meridian Road from this location and it sits on this corner. This is a photo of the house as it is today. We have some other site photos of the. surrounding properties looking kiddy corner and looking north down West 1St. 1 yarning looking south and also west of the home across the street. You can see the general residential character of the neighbor;,iood. This is the proposed site plan, the existing horse sifting on to ,e lot. They do have an alley in the rear and will be proposing five parking spaces off of that alley. This is a rendering of what the house would look like after the garage is remodeled into Meridian Planning and Zoning Comr. on Meeting May 3, 2C01 Pg. 3 meeting room I believe, a multi-purpose classroom. The proposed home is a transitional home for men who have been recently discharged from Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities, trying to integrate them into a normal life. The home can hold up to 14 men and one live-in supervisor. They also have a propose office within the basement of the home to run the ministry that (sic) B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries from. We already talked about the modification of the garage. Page 3 of our report, we start to go through the findings for a Conditional Use. Under A on the last paragraph, the professional office that's requested to run the ministries out of here we find is specifically prohibiting the R- 4 zone. It would not actually constitute a Conditional Use under City policy. Professional offices are prohibited in R-4 zoning. The remaining use as — which is an institution, basically is not defined in the schedule of use control so they could apply for a Conditional Use Permit for that use. The next finding which is B, whether it — actually I'm going to skip ahead a little bit. Which is that it will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. We are just suggesting as staff that we rely on the public testimonies tonight to determine that. Under V, the conversion of the garage to a classroom is a problem. Our Ordinance does require that all houses and all single-family zones maintain a two -car garage so converting it to a classroom would actually violate the Ordinance. In terms of potential public facilities, ACRD has stated that it can work but they are requiring paving of the alley up to where they are plus the driveways. Under site specific comments No. 1 on Page 5, they are proposing a sign a 12 inch by 14 inch black brass plaque which isn't very large but the Zoning Ordinance does prohibit the use of all signs in residential zones for home occLtpations. There is an issue on No. 4 regarding tree mitigation. They are proposing removing some very large trees that were showing the (inaudible). The Landscape Ordinance required mitigation of the trees unless they are deemed as hazard trees. They would have to coordinate that with the (inaudible) and the Park's Department where they are growing in the power lines. I don't know if they would deem that hazard tree status or not but to just point that out. The last thing would be the requirement to bring the house into full compliance with the American Disabilities Act as it would be a public facility and that would require several modifications see the stairs in front of the house, the restrooms are going to have to be modified, et cetera. So with that I believe that covers all of the issues that I have to present at this time. Borup: Okay, thank you. Any questions from any of the Commissioners for staff at this time. Is the applicant here this evening and would like to come forward and present your application? Durham: Hello, my name is Mike Durham and I'm the Executive Director for B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries. I'm the property owner as well. My wife Sandy and I own the property. We have proposed this transitional aftercare facility for men coming out of substance abuse (inaudible). 7o tell you a little bit about B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries we are a non-profit organization established approximately two years ago. For the last year we have baen focusing on the /%� Meridian Planning and Zoning Comr, m Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 4 start-up of this transitional aftercare home in Meridian. We have a nine -member board of directors and basically the mission and purpose of our ministry is to facilitate transitional aftercare for substance abusers that are coming out of treatment environments. In the Meridian area there are currently no aftercare facilities for substance abusers and in the Boise area there are very few. One of the things that's very important to the future development of our communities is dealing with the substance abuse issue in a very proactive way. I have a number of years of experience in this area. I have struggled much of my own life with substance abuse issues and for the last 13 years have been drug and alcohol free and in recovery myself. For the last 7 years I have been involved in working with substance abusers as the chaplain at the Boise Rescue Mission. Both the guest services chaplain and the program chaplain at the Boise Rescue Mission. I currently am employed with the Nampa Salvation Army as the Director of Family Shelter Services and then involved in a Shelter Program over in Nampa and the capital campaign and the building of a brand new shelter facility in Nampa. With that said I don't want there to be any confusion with regard to my own occupations as B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries at no time currently or in the future has any plans of trying to start a homeless shelter in Meridian, Idaho. An aftercare facility is part of the continuum of care or dealing in effective matter of substance abuse issues. Substance abuse is a scourge to our community. We don't have to go very far outside our front doors to see that there is a substance abuse issue in Meridian, Idaho. Two blocks away just a few weeks back, a major drug bust, a cash of weapons were found. I have good contact with police and the probation of parole officials in town and there are a number of addresses that they're keeping an eye on within just a couple of blocks from where we're located. Substance abuse is a very real issue in this community and we need to help to address this issue in a proactive way. Aftercare is essential. When people come out of substance abuse treatment they need to have clean, safe and sober environments to live and to transition back into our community. Our program is a very structured program, we're talking about men who are required to work full time, they are required to plug into local churches in the community. They are required to have a mentor and they are required to be financially accountable in paying their own way. That is very important in the transition process. We moved into the house last May, the end of last May. We have been there for about the last 11 months doing a trial program in the house. We are based on the Oxford model. Many of you may not be familiar with what the Oxford house model is but the Oxford house model is a very successful transitional aftercare program that now operates 725 facilities throughout the country. Fifty-five of those facilities are in the State of Oregon, 74 of those facilities are in the State of Washington. Currently Idaho does not have any aftercare, any Oxford house models operating we want to be the first. Our program is based on the Oxford house model in that there are three major requirements. The three major requirement is that it is a self-governing house; a self-supporting house and t,,iat if you use you're out. Men, are held strictly accountable in this type of environment. Frequent urine analysis, drug tests and breathalyzer tests are given and the men are required to work full time and ti Meridian Planning and Zoning Comn )n Meeting May 3. 2001 Pg. 5 recover meetings in the community. They are also encouraged to plug into civic organizations and churches. That's how they begin to rebuild their life. Very important, very important to our community. I'm a husband, I'm a father, I'm a property owner in this community and when I think of the fact that we don't have facilities to help deal with this issue in an effective manner, I'm very discouraged. There are very few in the whole State of Idaho, very few of these programs and they're very needed. Now the Oxford house model is a model that is by our understanding protected under the Fair Housing Act of 1988 in R-4 zone neighborhoods. We believe that we have legal standing to be in this neighborhood. Now I want to address very quickly the neighborhood. There's a Grade School a block and a half away. The men who will come into this house are screened. Background investigations are done on these men. This is what's called an NCIC investigation. It's pulled of check. It's pulled of any criminal background or history. That NCIC check will reveal if there's a background, what criminal or background they might have. No individual who has a history of violence or sexual misconduct will ever be allowed into this house. We believe that we can run a structured program in this house. Our tests over the last 11 months has been with three to ten individuals and during the last 11 months there has not been one incident where there has been — the police have been called for any reason to the house. We've lived in harmony in this community for the last 11 months, running a quiet program under the Oxford house model and have not had any incident or any problem with our neighbors. We believe that we can continue to do that with regard to the office and with regard to the garage enclosure. We would be willing to withdraw those from our Conditional Use application if that's impossible to do so. If it is in violation of the R-4 zoning process. Perhaps what we needed to do there if we wanted to have those was we went the wrong routes then we should have applied for a rezone on the property rather than just the Conditional Use Permit alone. We would be willing to withdraw that from the application if it would be in violation to the R-4 zone. The reason that we wanted to have the education in the garage area and the classroom space is so that we could enhance our programs. The reason that we wanted to have the office space in the basement was truly so that there would staff onsite at all times and once again enhance the supervision and the services offered in our program. Basically that's it, that's our proposal and we would encourage you to vote in favor of our Conditional Use for the transitional aftercare facility. We would be willing to amend our application to bring it in line with the Planning and Zoning requirements in any way we can. One more thing I would like to say. We desire to have a facility in a home that enhances the neighborhood and is an asset to the neighborhood and not something that's going to bring down the property values. Whenever you're starting something of this nature there's a thought that comes in it's known as NIMB, not in my backyard. Not in our backyards, if we're not taking steps in our own backyards to address this issue in a positive and proactive manner than in whose backyard are we going to do it? I thank you for your time. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Durum? Meridian Planning and Zoning Comn ,n Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 6 Centers: I have a number of questions. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Thank you. No. 1 why are you coming to us tonight if you've been there for 11 months, what prompted you to see us? Durham: Really the thought that we want to do the education center in the garage. We want to do the basement, classroom area. We want to do the parking to enhance the facility and those are some of the issues that are (inaudible). Centers: What is the maximum number of occupants that you proposed? Durham: We're asking for 15, which (sic) would be 14 individuals and 1 live-in house supervisor. Centers: What's the square footage of the home or the living area? Durham: The living area as it stands right now is about 2,700 square feet. That square footage might seem small for the number of people that we're talking about. This house is laid out in such a way that there are three family rooms, six bedrooms, a very large dining room and it's laid out and it's very — Centers: -- is that 1,700 square feet above ground? Durham: Yes, it's not including the basement. Centers: Or the garage? Durham: Not including the basement or the garage. Centers: Then if you were to give up the garage you were going to convert to a classroom correct? if you were to give that up and give up the office space are you going to have enough room? Durham: Well right now what we're doing with the house is we're using the three family rooms. We've got a living room in front, a back family room and an upstairs family room. We're using those as our classroom spaces. Centers: But my point is if you're willing to give up the garage that you wanted to convert and give up the office space is that the right location for your proposed home? Durham: We believ-: so. Meridian Planning and Zoning Comn :n Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 7 Centers: Because you're giving up space already that you were hoping to get for a classroom meeting room. Durham: We believe so. The classroom would have enhanced the program and given us the opportunity to set up — we've had eight computers donated for a computer lab for the guys. We've had eight computers donated for that purpose and we would like to be able to hold regular meetings for the guys and we would be giving that up if we weren't able to convert the garage. Centers: How long have you owned the property? Durham: We took possession of the property in May of last year. Centers: So you purchased it with this intention? Durham: That's all I have thank you. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: Of course you've been running this operation now for several months. Why all of a sudden now come before us when theoretically it's been not legal to begin with? Durham: We don't believe that it's been illegal at all. We believe that these houses are permitted under the Fair Housing Act of 1988 in an R-4 neighborhood and that's been our understanding. There are 725 models of this throughout the nation right now. Shreeve: So you're basing you right on then the Fair Housing Act which I'm not familiar with — that's all I have. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: One follow-up. I am familiar with the Fair Housing Act, parts of it but it's — you said it's your understanding. If that were the case do you have a copy of the section that you're referring to? Durham: I can obtain that for you. Borup: Could you go ahead and paraphrase that? Durhan-;- I can't at this time I apologize. My understanding comes through our affiliation with Oxford House Incorporateri. Oxford House i,icorporated is a Meridian Planning and Zoning Com n Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 8 national organization that has been helping with the startup of these homes throughout the country for a long time. They have in fact defended the right of these homes to be in R-4 neighborhoods throughout the nation all the way to the Supreme Court level on several occasions. My understanding comes through our affiliation with them. Centers: With all due respect I think you should have brought a copy of that with you — Durham: --I do apologize. Centers: -- and you would have been a little further ahead but that's alright. Borup: Thank you. Durham: This is the first of two meetings I understand. Borup: The next one will be at City Council. I have a couple of questions for staff. One on the — how is this different from a group home? Is it considered a different — Siddoway: -- a beehive house (inaudible) with the seniors? Borup: Yes, I mean those — well go ahead. Siddoway: I'm not sure if they are different. They are different in terms of age and reason for being there but they aren't both group homes. Certainly the senior housing has been allowed in all zones including R-4 -- the beehive homes existed — Borup: -- that's what I was just thinking of some of those group homes — some of them are senior, some of them are handicapped and that type of thing too. Both physical and mental I believe. Siddoway: Yes, if there's a difference it might be the counseling nature -- Borup: Yes I can see some differences. They are going to have more, not necessarily nursing care but that type of care where here they're a little more independent. I'm wandering on the zoning — Siddoway: -- senior group care homes are permitted in really any zone including R-4. Bcrup: That's why I was after the testimony. That's why I was wandering how this was any different than that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Comm, n Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 9 Siddoway: I don't know, legally you can't say — Borup: -- that maybe is going back to the housing act, maybe referring to the same thing. Isn't that what that group care homes are based on the same act? Siddoway: Yes there may even be an Idaho State Code referring to them. I would defer to Legal Counsel on that one. Borup: Question on the — well that same thing on the group care. It seemed like some of the ones that came before us they had some type of office for the staff to be in. Some type of a room for the staff to be in. I wander what the definition of office space is as far as our Ordinances. Siddoway: I mean if it were just a desk for the staff person of this house I don't necessarily be an issue. Our understanding was that it was more than that that it was for all of B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries services not just for (inaudible). Borup: Okay, we can get clarification on that. Then the garage you mentioned that is in an all — we're out of the Old Town area. Siddoway: Yes you're out of Old Town 20 miles — Borup: Just barely? Siddoway: Yes, Meridian Road is the changing point. Borup: It just seems like there's — on Meridian Road. I know there's a lot of houses on Meridian Road that don't have garages and I don't know how many west of Meridian Road fall in that situation. Siddoway: I don't know I haven't (inaudible) — Borup: Okay, Mr. Durham are you familiar? Does everybody around your neighborhood all have garages? Durham: No, there are a number of houses that don't have garages and there area a number of houses that don't have two car garages they have single garages also. Borup: My assumption is that that happened before the Zoning Ordinance went into effect and they were grand fathered is what I would suspect. The office use that you were planning on was Mr. Siddoway correct that was to run the whole organization or just an office for this building — this house? Durham: Our whole organization i ght now is — �o-•. 10�1 Maddian Planning and Zoning Comn n Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 10 Borup: —is that building? Durham: -- is a very small organization is that building and the whole purpose behind our organization is what we're doing in that — Borup: -- so it would not be an office for off-site use or any other areas? Durham: Our goal in the future would be to establish other houses in the area but that is not the case at this time. Borup: Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? Center: One last question, excuse me. Did you read the Fire Departments issue with the property? Durham: I read through the entire — Center: -- regarding the basement and two exits out, one direct to the outside? That's not a problem for you I take it? Durham: Well we want to do whatever we could to comply there and we would go to up that expense if it was necessary. Borup: Was the Fire Department assuming — what use — was it going to be to use in the basement other than the office? Durham: That was it. Borup: So it wasn't a sleeping quarters or anything? I don't know whether the Fire Department understood that. The building code thing is — you showed — was this what you felt you needed for parking spaces? It shows five off of the alley and l guess four in the driveway it looks like is what you could get? Durham: Yes, we wanted to insure that there would be adequate parking for the house. Most of the individuals that live in the house do not have drivers licenses or vehicles. Borup: Okay so either a bicycle or — Durham: -- bicycles and some have their own vehicles but a ministry van would be available for those who don't. Borup: That's what I was wandering how that was handled as far as the parking. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, one more questions. Also just iooki l at the Police Department and I don't know if this is necessarily what they are asking but Meridian Planning and Zoning Coma n Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 11 maybe to rephrase it my way any ivay is how long would these gentlemen be in the home? Durham: In an Oxford house model the average is about one year. We do not — this type of program because you're talking about a number of different individuals, personal issues with regard to finances and other things that are necessary to work through. It would be an open ended program but the average has been about one year for a successful transition. Shreeve: Then what do you do review their progress at that point or intermittently I'm sure there's a review process? Durham: There's actually a weekly review that's going on, a progress report that's going on reviewing financial accountability, keeping track of the meetings that are being attended. There's a constant process that's taking place on a weekly basis and the individuals in the house get a weekly report that would tell them what their progress is and the areas that they're falling short or what areas that they need to work on. Borup: Thank you. There were several people that had some questions I'm sure that you may need to be answering. Not now, I think some — we don't know what the questions are yet just that several people have put down on their list. We would like to start with public testimony and we have quite a number who have signed up who would like to speak first and favor. I don't know if there's anyone — if there is someone that would be a spokesman for everyone that would be a nice way to go. If not — well maybe I'll ask that question first. Do we have one especially — a (inaudible) for those that are speaking in favor of and there's quite a number? Is there a spokesman that would be speaking for those people or do all of you want to come up one at a time? Hughes: I've been elected. Borup: Your name sir? Hughes: My name is Jim Hughes I am the Chairman of Board of B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries. I'm the Development Director for the Idaho Council in Economic Education in my real life. I would like to just acknowledge those people that indicated that they wanted 'to speak in favor of this just by standing for a second here. I've been elected as their spokesperson you can go ahead and sit down now. Borup: Yes, I was going to ask you to do that anyway so I appreciate you having them stand up. Hughes: We don't want to take all evening. If there's a question I will go ahead and answer it now. I would like to just say that as Chairman of the Board, this 4lerd'ar. punning and Zoning Corer. in Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 12 organization came into being a couple of years ago out of what we felt is a real need in this area in Ada County. To provide, not a homeless shelter, not anything like that but a terserary kind of care level where you see so many times where people don't ever quite make it out of the cycle of substance abuse. They don't ever quite get it together; they don't ever quite become really substantially out on their own and make it out of this into the cycle of real life positively. This kind of model we felt was really necessary. I come to it as a fund raiser, that's my background and I just wanted to make the point that some of the things that you've talked about in terms of this particular house we saw would be things that we would go to foundations, corporations, businesses and individuals that support our ministry to try and take care of. We weren't sure exactly what (inaudible) were going to be required but we come to you now in anticipation of the needs that this particular home and also other homes that might be called for in Ada County area. I personally write grants to organizations like that and we've done a little of that so far not with great success mostly because we're not really established very much yet. So I just come to you saying that this is a self- supporting faith based ministry and I guess the last thing want to say personally is that if we're not part of the solution then (inaudible) part of the problem. We all know what kind of problems are in Ada County with regard to substance abuse problems with alcohol and drugs. I just say to you we're here to want to be worked with. We're willing to do this we would like you to tell us what you need to have in order for us to exist so that we can really be part of the solution. ?afih than (inaudible) just wanting to have approval, we want to see if whether or not we can mesh positively into the community, address the concerns the ®��hors have, address the concerns that neighbors could have and really work with the Meridian community in doing this. I really can't say anymore except our Board of Directors is very dedicated to wanting to see this happen. Obviously this is a small step in what we see is a giant problem in the community to really stem substance abuse problems. Again, maybe the last thing I want to say is that this is a male ministry right now, it serves males with this issue. (Inaudible) ultimately we would like to see the same kind of thing working with people in Ada County to do the same thing with the female population. Obviously not in Meridian, we don't know where that might be but as the ministry grows and becomes self-sufficient and it becomes financially able to take care of that we would like to work with those providers of care, other people in the community to try to work that out for the female population as vi,30. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Hughes? Hughes: Other questions that I might not have addressed very well? Borup: Thank you sir. Hughes: Thank you. rte. Mendian Planning and zoning Cc mn A Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 13 F_-1 Borup: Did we have anyone — did Mr. Hughes cover the comments — is there anyone else that is speaking in favor of that still wishes to come up? Come on sir. Peters: My name is Gene Peters and I live just a little bit to the northeast on Meridian Street of this property. Borup: What is — Peters: Pardon me? Borup: Yes can we go ahead and get your address? Peters: 1323 North Meridian Road and I'm here tonight — I'm not affiliated anyway with this organization that's asking to run this program. I'm here — I went to the open house as a neighbor and I like what I see. I'm going to try to explain why I say that as a neighbor. First off I want to let you know I'm a family man. I have a wife, I have two daughters, I have three grandkids that are at my house quite often. I have little or no concern about them being in any way, in any harms way of any of this going on behind here like I feel like some of the neighbors do. I don't know if any of the neighbors here tonight who aren't for this went to the open house or not. I would like to address before I say anything else about that I have lived in my home for approximately 11 years this spring and we have a definite problem in this (inaudible) Subdivision with people not taking care of their property. This home has been a pile of debree and junk for a long, long time and I am tickled to death to see someone come in who gives a care about — and it's very obvious already. When I was there at the open house, Mike, the owner of the home showed me that he had paint in the corner waiting for the first even 70 degree chance that he had he's going to put everybody to work. They're painting, they're fixing the yard, they're willing to do stuff in the alley as you have seen with this asking for the parking and so on. I am very happy to see that. I fought with Century 21 people when they tried to sell that home for about I would guess 6 months or more. The police can come out and pick up the garbage. If you want to sell something make it look presentable. The man that — I even got a hold of the Real Estate Board of Commissioners and finally we got something done but it took a lot of work. I picked up barrels, garbage barrels and barrels of debree and set them out on my own so I could get the garbage people to haul it off. Including there was oil and everything else. Anyway, No. 1 1 am tickled to see that someone is trying to come in and take care of this place. I want to also mention something. I've got a list of addresses. I hope I don't have to go there with them. There are so many places in this neighborhood that are trash and people have shown no effort whatsoever of taking care of anything. It's absolutely no concern to them how their place looks and how it's presented from the front or the back. It's very annoying to me as I try to live in this. I ta.ke c:.: re of that entire alley generally but that's neither here nor there. That', a choice I made no ones forcing me to do that I just want to pick up and keep it ►:;:: ; Meridian Planning and Zoning Corni on Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 15 Borup: Thank you ma'am. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Does Mr. Newberry still wish to come forward? Newberry: I live over on West 2`6. Borup: You need to go ahead and repeat your name and address for the record. Newberry: Richard Newberry, 1337 West 2nd and I feel a lot like the lady just said the school close and people (inaudible) and get off in there didn't want cars and money or something -- going and looking for them. Basically are my concerns. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Did Mr. Wills still wish to come forward? Wills: My name is Ben Wills I'm 1336 West 2nd Street across the street from Mr. Newberry. I feel really strongly that this should not go in. We currently have I don't know what you call it a group home or a senior citizens home behind us right now and had had many problems with that place. That just really makes me not want to have something else go into there as well as what other people have said. What if they do decide to relapse and I really do think it will only take one time with the school being that close. Kids walk by there every day going back .and forth to school which my son will he going there not this fall but the following fall. I just strongly feel against that, I mean it will only take one time for one of those guys to get desperate enough because obviously they are in desperate situations and if they feel they need to do something they're going to do it. Borup: What are you concerned they're going to do? Wills: Either molestation or what not they could do anything. Borup: I'm just wandering how that ties in your mind with what one of them mentioned that after the police check that there was no one that would have any history — Wills: Yes but just because they don't have a history that doesn't mean that they're not going to do it or have not done it before and just not got caught for it either. Borup: So you're saying the same thing applies to them as anybody on your street then? Wil,s: I Fore or less. It's the sa,- a- thing but these gays are in .a little b,� j y,e o i desperate situation. Meridian Planning and Zoning Comn n Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 16 Borup: You would feel more secure with having a neighbor that can drink and have all of the drugs they want as opposed to someone that's tested every week? Wills: No, I'm not saying that. There are a lot of problems in the neighborhood — ***Gnri Of SirIP nne*** Meridian Planning and Zoning Comn�`n Meeting May 3. 2001 ! i Pg. 14 IoW decent. My concern on that regard is that when someone comes in, a group or a person or a family or anybody we should probably not condemn them in regard to sc much as to what they're planning on doing. Especially with this organization looking to me like it's very well put together. They told us, I did not even know what was going on as far as the type of organization but I've met a couple of these men in my alley way and I've enjoyed visiting with them. All of them have told me where they worked. I haven't become close friends or anything with them but I see absolutely no threat to them being there whatsoever. As a human being who has my own problems and who's had my own problems in life, I've got an open heart — let's give these people a second chance to make something happen. Our neighborhood, our neighbors in the entire City of Meridian which is growing leaps and bounds we do need to look at some of these programs. The old saying is you know I don't have an alcohol problem I don't go to those meetings. That's truer (sic) than we realize it. Meridian's full of a need for this type of thing. There are a lot of people that probably would qualify to be asking for help if there probably ended up being a place like that. That's really all I have to say. I just feel that this is not a threat to our neighborhood and I love to see the idea that someone's here trying to improve it. That tickles me because we need some improvement in here. Borup: Thank you Mr. Peters. Peters: Thank you. Borup: Does Gayle Wilde still have — you mentioned you had some questions Wilde: My name is Gayle Wilde, we own the duplex across Meridian Road 1319 and 1317 on West 1St. I can see the house out my kitchen window and I do agree with Mr. Peters that the place looks much better than it did when it was sitting there collecting trash with the for sale sign in front of it. I didn't go to the open house because I didn't know anything about it. I really realize there is a definite need€or some kind of post substance abuse treatment transition homes but I do have some doubts about potential neighborhood problems if one of the residents should decide to relapse and look for a vehicle and money with which to do so as well as a possible decline in property values my husband expressed. ur, �-ziin addressed many of the questions than I has on mea 10.3t. one that he didn't was the professional or academic background of the live-in counselor that will be working with the residents day after day. Another one I had was, do they have liability insurance including coverage for any acts that the residents might commit? While we annlaud what thAv'ra rininn nnA --- 4-a— _ _ - _, 101%, Meridian Planning and Zoning Comp on Meeting May 3. 2001 Pg. 17 after school program at Meridian Elementary. I guess I'm here torn in several different ways. I've been a Social Worker for 20 years. I'm familiar a little bit with the Oxford house model. From what Mr. Durham presented it just sounds like a really well thought out plan so I think I support it that way. There is of course a slightly paranoid side as I said I have a child at the after school program. I also spent 6 years working for a local Sexual Abuse Treatment Agency and I currently do a lot of assessments for the Ada County Court system. I guess what I need as a parent is clarification probably from Mr. Durham and perhaps a request that this might be a condition if you choose to approve. On those background checks Mr. Durham said no history of violence or sexual misconduct. I guess I need to know more because when I look at background checks I can see what the individual was charged with originally and what perhaps a good attorney — nothing against Mr. Moore, I like attorneys. A good attorney can get a sexual abuse charge an L and L charge flea bargained down to a non -sexual charge like a battery or an assault. I guess I would want some assurance that he is — Mr. Durham and his people are looking at the total record and realize that things do get flea bargained to non -sexual charges. So that they are indeed looking at the history not just the conviction. They are looking at the charges there. That would make me feel a lot better. I think it would make probably the school and the after school program staff feel a lot better. I guess that would be my request if that could be made a condition not just a — I'm sure Mr. Durham's a nice man but I just would feel better if that was a condition if you chose to approve it. Questions for me? Borup: Questions for — in your — you said you've had some experience with — Social Worker and stuff. Is there a correlation between alcohol abuse and sexual molestation? Atkinson: That's a good question. I'm not sure I have the definitive answer. Borup: I hadn't — that's why I was wandering. I don't know either. Everyone seems to be implying that and I'm wandering if there's any correlation at all. Atkinson: I don't know. My concern was just some people have multiple problems and I just wanted clarification there. Don't say Social Worker like it's a dirty word okay? Eorup: I didn't. I was trying to remember what it was you had said, I was thinking. Rhonda Englander did you still wish to come forward? Shelly Breton you mentioned you had sorne questions? Breton: Good evening gentlemen. Yes I do I have several questions. Centers: What's your name and — Borup: --yes. J-1.1 Meridian Planning and Zonins(. .nmission Meering May 3, 2001 Pg. 18 Breton: My name is Shelley Breton. I live at 133 West Cherry Avenue. I'm about one house away from this location. I can appreciate the concerns brought forward by the folks that are questioning this. I commend Mr. Durham for what he's trying to put together. I do have some questions. I would like to know how many of his staff, of his board, his board of nine is going to live within the one - mile radius of this place. I guess I would also like to know from — where are these drug and alcohol rehab programs? Are they locally within the state, are they coming from the state prison system? Are they coming from the Ada County corrections people? Are they coming out of voluntary programs? I guess 1 want to know a little bit more about what kind of programs they're coming out of. I would like to know if these gentlemen, when they move into this house if they're required to be employed before moving in. There are some concerns about — I realize that they are proposing parking places in the alley and there's room to park in the driveway. I just wander if there can be a limit put on a number of cars so that there's a parking spot for every car. Potentially, if they're all doing well towards the end of their first year, all 15 people can have an automobile, where are they going to park. 1 understand his referral to the nimbi, not in my backyard and 1 have to say that yes I'm sure that we are all feeling a little bit of that. I think that might be a little less of a reaction maybe if his numbers were a little bit smaller, maybe half. I would like to know if these gentlemen are on a curfew. Are they required to come in before it gets to be very late in the evening and we have a lot of extra traffic that's waking up children or people that are — I would assume that they were coming in early because obviously they are going to be employed. I guess I just want to know, kind of back to what Mr. Wills was saying, are we going to have lots of late night noise? Make sure I've covered all of the things I wanted to ask here. 1 guess I want to know, is this program being subsidized by the State of Idaho, I would like to know that. Borup: I'm not sure how that's pertinent. Breton: I understand that it's supposed to be a non-profit organization and he said something that the house is supposed to be self supporting. 1 guess my question is, is it completely self supporting based on these gentlemen working or are they being funded by some outside source? Bor?;r: Well I u° derstand the question but I'm not sure how it's pertinent I said. Centers: As a neighbor how is that relevant? Breton: Then that's basically exactly — because they are proposing to bring a business into our residential neighborhood basically that's why I wa adered. Then 1 would jest like to speak to the fact of being a single mother, there are children val ':g ba:.'.-. and forth there. Over the last 10 rnlo. ,ths I have noticed individuals that 1 did not recognize walking up and down the -s]dle alks. Becaus._� ! 1or,'t recognize these people as somebody that 1 know, _.;`k,.l J }hat person lives across Meridian Planning and Zoning C. nission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 20 sticking a flyer in the door and telling us hey we're here and we hope you like it. That's essentially what happened, nobody's come to sell this program. Borup: And you said you had some questions? Dalrymple: I do. A lot of these — I'm working with some doctor's right now to put a similar type hospital for children somewhere else. All of these children are funded by the state, every one of them. The numbers you have are 15 men, why do you have that number? Borup: That's your first question? Dalrymple: That's my first question. We're not going to respond here, we're just going to ask questions? Borup: If you're done will get an answer. Dalrymple: That's the first question is why do we have a number of 15. The next question is most of these organizations, most of the reasons these are put together is because somebody's paying some money. Somebody's paying for these guys to be there. I want to know where the funding is coming from and if they're running to — moving into a residential district and running a business. I'm not — don't get me wrong I'm not necessarily against them, I don't know enough about them and that's really the point. I think that Mr. Durham's works cut out for him here. I've listened to the neighbors and the majority of them don't seem to know really what's going on and they're not for it whatever it is. So I'm going to let it go at that. Borup: If you hurry. Carrel: My name is Rusty Carrel and I live just kiddy corner. I'm one on of the pictures that they were referring to earlier. Borup: What was your address? Carrel: 1231 it's the house on the left right there. 1231 West 1St yes. Anyway, my concern is — and I would like to just make a few comments on some of the things that everybody else talked about as far as I'm concerned about the school being a block and a half away. I bought ,, "'1 house there about five years ago. I bought it because there '/as an Elementary School close by. I know some of the houses weren't maintained but they're older houses, 50 years old or better and there's character in that neighborhood. I feel like if anybody wants to buy these homes they can develop that. I'm not taking away the fact that the homeowners now right there — I mean I'm glad to see they're fixing it up and stuff but i think anybody could do that with that house. I'm concerned really with the niurnber of people they got corning in there, everybody's mentioned that already. I've got a Meridian Planning and Zoning C,. mission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 21 six-year-old daughter. She likes to run around in the sprinkler in her swimming suit in the summer and I don't know the background of these guys. I do have a question and that is they did have a director there awhile back and I just meant Mike a few days ago when he was handing out the pamphlets for the open house. I met him Saturday and the open house was Sunday. Before that I hadn't seen him. There was a guy by the name of Mac they called him Grandpa Mac, he was an older guy. I would like to know what happened to him. I didn't know him, I never talked to him but rumor has it he got fired because he helped one of the guys that was wanted or relapsed. He helped him to the bus station so he could get away so I kind of have a lot of questions towards the ability of this program in this zoned area. I don't know — I mean the program I think is a needed program but I don't know that this is the location that would really be ideal for the program. That's where I'm coming from. Borup: Thank you sir. Mr. Durham? Durham: I will try to address — Borup: Well that's what I was going to ask. Have you got notes or do you want me to go through my list? Durham: We could go through your list if you would like. Borup: Either way. Durham: I don't think I remember. Let's do your list. Borup: Okay. Durham: And anyone who's interested we had guidelines for our program and we would be willing to (inaudible) guidelines and packets so that everyone can everyone can understand what our program entails, what the level of structure and supervision is for the program and just what — how the program works. Borup: You might want put (inaudible). Yes why don't we — since you mentioned that we probably want to get that on part of our record too. Durham: I think I did turn in a copy of the guideline to Planning and Zoning so (inaudible). Borup: Okay the first question was the professional background of the supervisor. Durham: Right now we are in the process of replacing our house supervise.;;. I am living on-site right now myself. I've already addressed my own profe.>sional background. We are looking for an individual, because this is =i Christian ministry Meridian Planning and Zoning C, Assion Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 22 we're looking for an individual who ha: individual who has worked closely with mission environment or in a substance number of people who have shown an individual yet. If I may — pastoral background and possibly an substance abusers in either a rescue abuse treatment program. We have a interest. We haven't found the right Borup: -- does that lead into Grandpa Mac? Durham: -- yes if I may go ahead and explain that. The rumor is correct. I wanted to tell you that Mac McKinley was our house supervisor and we had an instance where a young man who was on the program relapsed into drug and alcohol use. That young man was on probation, we reported him to his probation officer. That young man had been court ordered to complete our program and he failed to do so. His probation officer was about to what's called, violate him and take him to jail and take him back before the judge with regard to his treatment issues there. Mr. McKinley, our house supervisor did in fact aid and abet this young man in packing up his stuff. He wasn't living at the house he had already been terminated from our program, packing up his stuff and taking him to the bus station. The young man basically absconded from supervision. Because of that issue I did terminate Mr. McKinley as our house supervisor. Centers: You just said you had previously terminated him. Durham: No, I terminated the young man from our program. I terminated the young man from our program and he had already — he was living elsewhere. Mr. McKinley I guess was fond of this young man and did ask that — this young man did ask him to help him get his stuff to the bus station and that was just unacceptable behavior on our part. I wouldn't tolerate that and I did have to ask for Mr. McKinley's resignation. He did so and parted company with the ministry. We believe that we have to have a very close working relationship with those in the treatment environment, those in the probation or parole and those in the police department. We have to cooperate for the good of our clients and Mr. McKinley messed up and the consequence was that he was asked to separate himself from this ministry. Borup: There's a question on liability insurance? Durham: Yes and v,-1 are covered right now as 1,000,000 dollars and we also have directors and officers insurance for our Board of Directors. Borup: That covers any of the residents? Durham: Yes it covers anyone who's living in the house and the immediate area of the property. Meridian Pianning and Zoning G. iission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 23 Borup: Question on the background checks on whether they were just on the convictions or on their original charts and previous history. Durham: I'm pretty familiar with reading an NCIC investigation and you can generally tell if something has been flea bargained down. Usually if it's a sexual crime it would be flea bargained down but it would be flea bargained down to an assault or another crime that would be considered violent and therefore also exclude that individual from our programs. Would it be alright if I addressed something? You asked if th.ere was a correlation earlier between substance abuse and alcoholism and drug abuse? I am not aware of any studies whatsoever that link sexual abuse to drug abuse or alcoholism. I think that to do so in this hearing is inflammatory. I think that there are men in this house that feel in a way violated by that assumption that somehow because they have substance abuse issues that somehow that turns them into child molesters and everything else. Now we don't have to go very far in our neighborhoods to see that there are people carrying in 12 packs of cases of beer into their home every evening. We don't have to go very far in our neighborhood to see that there's a substance abuse problem not very many doors down right in front of us. I think it's completely and totally unfair to somehow use this inflammatory content to somehow skew this hearing. I think it's wrong. Borup: That's why I asked that. I was not aware of any correlation at all. A question was what programs — other question what programs will they be coming from? Durham: Port of Hope, the Walker Center, and the VA Treatment Center. The Ada County Jail has a SAP program, Substance Abuse Program and North Idaho Correctional Institute through their what they call their Writer Program also has a Substance Abuse Program. Those are the programs thus far that we have accepted referrals from. Borup: On employment you said they need to employed — the question was is that before they come into your home or — Durham: Many times they're coming straight from Substance Abuse Treatment environments — Borup: -- so they have a time period? Durham: -- so they have about a two-week time frame and we work with them to get them employed and work out their transportation issues back and forth to work and all of those things. Borup: Is there any curfew? � .�. Meridian Planning and Zoning c nission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 24 Durham: Yes there is a curfew. The curfew is 10:30 on weekdays and 11:30 on weekends. There's a daily structure to the house. On weekdays all of the men wake up at 5:30 in the morning and there's a daily devotion at 5:45 in the morning. The house structure, the daily structure of the program moves on from there. Getting up at 5:30 in the morning — Borup: -- you're definitely ready to go to bed by 10:00. Durham: -- a lot of time for the nightlife. Weekends our wake up is at 9:00 am and we have a 9:30 devotion time in the morning, Borup: Is there any subsidies or anything else was — Durham: Where was the money coming from? B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries is a Christ centered non-profit organization. We've received at this time no federal, state or local government money and we're not asking for any. The programs that we offer are supported through Christian charity. We are going to be gong after some foundational grants and things of this nature to help enhance and support our programs but the house itself, the living area where the guys live, each one of these guys pays his own way in the house. The house contribution is 75 dollars a week — Centers: --for man. Durham: Per man and that pays for his room and his board. His laundry and everything. That 75 dollar a week fee covers the cost of elaborating the house. Right now that house has about a monthly budget of 2,800 dollars a month. With 10 guys in the house that 300 -dollar a month figure would leave a 200 -dollar a month surplus for programming and staff. Part of the reason we want to have 15 guys is so that we can offer more in the way of programming and staff. Centers: Is that the max 15? Durham: 14 would be the number of programmed participants with one house supervisor. Borup: How about visitors? Do thea need to make visits here or ;people go home or — Durham: Both, this is not a lock down facility. Most of the guys in the house go to the homes of their friends and family members and yes we do have people visiting the house on a regular basis. We encourage that we want them to be making that connection in the community with friends and family members. We haven't seen a huge amount of traffic that's created a parking problem at the house. With regard to the parking, Planning and Zoning when I was talking with them indicated one parking slot was needed for every sleeping room and there r1. r� Meridian Planning and Zoning C. ,fission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 25 are a total of six sleeping rooms in the house. Those sleeping rooms are five rOOnlriayi 7titr'i7i5, sv�:C i`vUti t�1C7t 'vii` `.•t..0 Liji+t tt uL :: iiia;" a 'v'u to six mars It's a large master bedroom that we would like to convert to a dormitory style room and one single room for the house supervisor. Borup: That was all of the questions that I had. Do any of the other Commissioners have any? Any notes or questions? Centers: I have one question Mr. Chairman. Your Liability Insurance just really is that an extended Homeowners Policy is what it is? Durham: Yes it is. Centers: You're not covering these men when they go off the property? Durham: It just said the mediate area of the property. Centers: For the property. Durham: For the property itself not onto the neighbors properties at all no. Centers: That's all. Borup: Doesn't that normally cover — I mean a Homeowners Policy usually covers damage done by someone at the residence to a neighboring property doesn't it? Durham: My understanding is that it covers our property — any damage that might be occurred on our property. Centers: I guess the question it should be specific. If one of these individuals went off of your property and caused damage to an adjoining landowner, property owner would you have insurance to cover that? Durham: I don't believe we do at this time. But then I don't believe that most people insure that way either. Borup: So it would be the same as any other situation that the person would have an opportunity to sue. Any (inaudible) comments you have Mr. Durham? Durham: Not at this time. I just — Borup: —well this is probably going to be your last time so that's WJ I'm asking. Meridian Planning and Zoning C )ission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 26 Durham: Well I would just encourage you to work with us here. As 1 say we really desire to create something that is going to be a benefit to this community and not harm the community. We will be diligent to do so. Borup: Thank you. Durham: I'll set these back on the back table. Borup: Please do. Any other comments from staff? Do you have any more thoughts on the difference between this type of group home and other group homes that — Centers: -- I have a question for staff. If they were not requesting the office space in order to merge into the garage would we be here tonight? Siddoway: I believe so. The — as an institutional use, it's not defined in the schedule of use control. In the past all uses that are defined specifically in the schedule of use control have been deemed Conditional Uses. Borup: What's the definition of institutional use? And Mr. Moore I think maybe look for your opinion on — Moore: The opinion here that I have is, the Supreme Court case that Mr. Dunley's talking about is not a case that says you can go into any community that you want and plop down one of these homes. It simply says that you cannot keep them out of an R-4 zone, that they are allowed to be in those zones. They still have to come before this Commission and apply for a Conditional Use Permit to put such a place up which they have not done it to this point. Siddoway: The definition of an institution, building and land designed to eight individuals in need of mental, therapeutic, rehabilitative, counseling, or other correctional services. Borup: So how is that different — would that be different from the other group homes we were talking about then? Siddoway: Yes I think so because I don't know the group homes are necessarily aimed at correctional services. Borup: But the counseling part probably not. Thank you. Commissioners? Centers: Hi, I have another question for Legal Counsel. By coming tonight for the CUP have they made application -- satisfactory application for tt; : permit? Moore: To establish such a home I believv so yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning C�nission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 27 Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: Just one more question for staff. Were you aware that they were housing these gentlemen for the past 11 months or not until they came forward at this time? Siddoway: We were not aware. Not until they came forward and asked for a permit. Borup: Would we like some discussion at this time? The Public Hearing is still open at this point. Centers: I guess I would move to close the Public Hearing Mr. Chairman. Shreeve: I second that. Borup: Motion second to close the Public Hearing? All in favor? Any discussions all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 3 Ayes, 2 Absent Centers: I guess, Mr. Chairman 1 would not hesitate to go first here. I kind of listed 43 names of people that were notified and I count six or seven that really aren't totally against this. They like the concept and they like what they're doing. It is the nimbi 1 guess and I guess I can understand that without a doubt. We have one individual that's a close neighbor that just — he welcomes them. I'm concerned about the square footage for the number of people. Fifteen for 2,700 square feet is 180 square feet per person. However, I guess if it works it works. I think at the outset Mr. Durham said that if they were willing to drop the office and the garage conversion then I ask the question would we be here? We still would but they would have to get a permit. This is a tough situation. I think the applicant and the people in the audience know that. That's all of the comment I have. Borup: Questions for staff. On the office question is — that was just used strictly for the in-house supervisor, would that be in the same category as you — Siddoway: No, I don't think it would be. if it's the same thing as me having a desk to run my house, pay my bills type thing. If they're running other houses and additional ministry services out of that then it becomes a — if they're commuting to the house. I think the concern was — Borup: -- that's what I thought that it was referring to — Meridian Planning and Zoning G Fission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 28 Siddoway: -- use it as an office and (inaudible) resident that's different but if they are commuting to it as an office that is prohibited. Borup: So it looks like as far as those two aspects the garage is really need — on the other — and there's not really any — there's not provision for relaxing that is there? Any comments Keven? Shreeve: My only comment would be, probably when it's all said and done with would be just the zoning issue just keeping the integrity of the zoning alive. Centers: My comment Keven would be that the zoning does allow for it with a Conditional Use Permit correct? It doesn't allow for the office space or the conversion of the garage. I know of other similar homes so to speak in new subdivisions very close by in an R-4 zone. Would you comment on that staff or I think you know the subdivision I'm talking about? Siddoway: I'm sorry I really don't know what you are asking the — Centers: — well the zoning does allow it with a permit. As long as they're not wanting to go for an office — Siddoway: -- it is not defined specifically in the scheduled use control. In the past for him neither is cell towers defined in the scheduled use control. It's been determined that uses that are not defined require a Conditional Use Permit for consideration. Borup: I think maybe that's something that needs to be pointed out. This is a Conditional Use Permit this is something that can be revoked. In fact that's always standard wording. That wasn't mentioned in here but isn't it 10 days? Isn't that the standard verbiage? Siddoway: The standard comments yes the Conditional Use Permit can be revoked upon 10 days notification to the applicant. Borup: -- of anything of violation? Siddoway: Yes, if they're in violation of a Condition of Approval they have 10 days to bring it into compliance or it can be revoked. Borup: One of the staff comments had suggested maybe also a review period? You said that would be conducted by the City? No. 13 under — Siddoway: What page? Borup: Page 6. Under site specific for — r � Meridian Planning and Zoning G .fission Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 29 Siddoway: -- yes that's getting at what — Borup: -- with which is in addition to what's usually — Siddoway: -- yes this is an additional requirement and it's not usually placed on a Conditional Use Permit because of the type of use. We were suggesting that there would be an annual review by the City to make sure they are in compliance with the conditions of approval and not in violation of anything. Borup: The normal would be unless — would be initiated by a complaint — Siddoway: --a complaint — Borup: -- from someone usually. Siddoway: Yes. Borup: Well as far as — and it looks to me like the office would not be an issue. I guess it would just need to be stated that the office was for that specific building for (inaudible) not for any off-site. Yes there's no really provision to allow any variance there is there. Siddoway: The standard is 11-10-6. All single-family detached housing units shall have a garage capable of housing at least two standard size automobiles at a minimum. I guess you could debate whether this is a single-family detached housing unit but that is the wording that is in the Ordinance. Borup: I think it currently is and it could become that again. Commissioners? (Inaudible) make a motion one-way or the other. Centers: Mr. Chairman I'll jump right out. I would like to make a motion and recommend to the City Council that the Conditional Use Permit 01-014 request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Christian ministry without specific office space and an aftercare/transitional home for men serving as a group living environment for a maximum of 12 men and one supervisor be allowed in the R-4 zone with no conversion of the garage. I move that we approve as I submitted. Borup: Including other staff comments? Centers: Including all other staff comments I'm sorry. Borup: I'll second that. For sake at least for sake of discussion. Do we have any — wait it's been moved to second do we have any discussion? Seeing none we need to vote, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 1 YE, 1 NAYF, 2 ASSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning C Assion Meeting May 3, 2001 Pg. 30 Borup: I'm going to vote Aye. I feel that with the aspect of a Conditional Use Permit it can be reviewed if there's any non-compliance — the Conditional Use can be revoked. TIEBREAKER VOTE: 2 AYES, 1 NAYS, 2 ABSENT Centers: That's why I put 12 on there for Item 13, the maximum of 12. 1 tried to split the difference with the applicant. Borup: So it's two to one in favor then. I would like to thank everyone for coming. We mentioned earlier there will be another Public Hearing at City Council. Everyone that received would receive a notice again as before. Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Do we want to take a short break now or move into the next one? We do need one. Five minute break. Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2001: AZ 00-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park 11 Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Item S. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2001: PP 00-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 19, 2001: CUP 00- 052 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a planned residential development in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of -agle Road: Borup: Okay we would like to reconvene our meeting this evening. Anyone is welcome to continue their discussions out in the foyer, outside. We're reverting back to the original schedule and it will be Items 4, 5, and 6 which are Continued Public Hearings frcm April 19th. First for the request for annexation and zoning. Can we not have a fight in here please? Mr. Van Hees? The first Item was a request for annexation and zoning for 156 acres R -T to R-4 for Tuscany Lakes. The second was a Preliminary Plat on the same project and third was a Conditional Use Permit for a planned residential development again by the same Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 32 Norton: Then the rest of the language that Becky Bowcutt hadplanned out according to Shari's letter, then we all agree on that? Centers: Ok, Norton: To include that in the motion. Centers: Okay. Borup: That was a long motion. Mr. Moore did you have them all except for that first one? Moore: All of them except for the changes that you made on number two. Norton: Okay. Moore: I'll get a copy of that. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. we have a motion. Centers: I'll second it. Borup: Any discussion? I think we've covered that all ready. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Thank you Sam. Borup: Yes, thank you, Sam. Okay. Are we ready to go ahead or would the Commission like a short break? Borup: We're fine? Okay. Item 7. Continued Public Hearing from March 15, 2001 AZ 00- 023 Request for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership — south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: (Inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Borup: Item No. 7, is part of a continued Public Hearing and let's go ahead and open all three, No.7, the Continued Public Hearing for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres for proposed Tuscany Lakes and Co-insiding with that would be Preliminary Plat, Item No. 8 and Conditional Use Permit on item No. 9 for the same Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park 11 Partnership. I think we were Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 33 waiting for some additional information at the last meeting. That hearing has been opened. I'd like to start with a staff report. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Norton: Mr.— Borup: I had – Commissioner Norton do you – I had seven items on my list. Norton: Just to let the audience know that our staff recommended that this be delayed to May the 3rd because of the results from the water modeling had not been received to this date. The staff had recommended that this be continued to May 3rd because the water modeling had not been received. Is that correct? Centers: That's correct. Borup: Any comment on that, Mr. Freckleton? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. We had a meeting with our consultant yesterday. He's working on it. He didn't think he would have results for tonight's meeting. I expect those real shortly. We did want to have them in time for the applicant to be able to review them before we come before this board. We do have the results of the sewer study, included comments in there regarding that the italicized text below the sewer comments are just for your consideration, just informational only. I think most of you were involved in the approval process of another development that is taking some of the capacity from that Ten Mile Sewer Trunk service area. This just gives you some up to date numbers of what kind of remaining capacity we have left in that sewer trunk. Borup: Anything else? Freckleton: Not at this time. Borup: Mr. Siddoway, any additional report? Siddoway: I'm assuming everyone's fairly familiar with the project by now. Maybe Mr. Shreeve is or is not. I can give kind of a brief orientation up on the screen. The proposed annexation is south of Victory Road, basically stretching from Eagle Road to Locust Grove. It's contiguous with existing City limits at this one point right here in Thousand Spring subdivision. This is kind of a blow-up of the proposed plat. These are some site photos to get you somewhat a feel of the site. Basically -- currently used as farmland and a turf farm. It does have several canals and creeks that cross through the project, including the Ridinbough, which the photo on the right hand side is where the Riddenbaugh crosses Ten Mile Creek. It's actually a great separated crossing of two separate waterways. Also the Eight Mile Creek and some other drains that belong just to the properties are Meridian City Council Meeting April % 2001 Pg. 34 on the site. It does have some significant vegetation, as you can see. It should be made clear that it needs to be protected as per the new Landscape Ordinance. That's the basic orientation. You should have an updated staff report where we tried to focus on the remaining issues that were currently the points of discussion at the last hearing. It's dated April 13th 2001 from Bruce and myself. We go through the sewer and water issues that Bruce just explained. The migrating ground water was a significant issue at the last hearing. We do have a letter from Associated Earth Sciences that, they are able to design a drainage system that will allow the ground water to be intercepted. If you have specific questions, we can maybe direct those to the applicant. I don't know if Bruce has more information. The street alignment was a big issue. There was a discussion of whether that should be shifted. We do have a letter from ACHD stating they do not want to move the location of proposed Tuscany Way. That the current proposed location is the safest. There was also quite a bit of discussion about the pathway adjacent to the Riddenbaugh Canal. It was being called the Nine Mile Creek pathway, but it wasn't really the Nine Mile Creek. The Parks Department has determined they do not want to require that pathway. The future that they are planning on will most likely be on the side. That area that's now left over should be shown on the plat as to whether it becomes a common area or whether it goes to the lots that are adjacent to it. Without the pathway, any students coming to the, that are walking, to the school that's on the site — Let me go back to the plat, coming from the north, to get to the school, without a pathway connection that goes along here to the school site. We'd like to see at least a micro path connection to allow people to get into the sidewalks of the subdivision and get to the school along this route so they're not forced around to Tuscany Way. Borup: You're saying a micro path from Victory? Siddoway: Yes. That's correct. Then just a note that of course the other pathways already talked about are still required, even though this one along the Riddenbaugh is not. School access is an issue. The location makes it, and the street system makes it somewhat securitis route to get to the school site. I've heard it said that while the main access will be coming from Eagle Road in this direction, I've seen a concept plan of what's being proposed here. It's also securitis route, it's not very direct. The main issue that this brings up is just the location next to a blind corner. Should that be shifted down? I put in that at a minimum, a condition should be added to give the School District flexibility in locating the entrance and potentially an exit, as site plans are prepared. Then, as staff, we feel strongly about trying to make these school sites an amenity to the community and giving them, making them more visible by giving them frontage. We would like to see the lots in along the front of the school site eliminated and bringing that school out to the street. We've brought this up in every staff report that the School District doesn't see it as a do or die thing, but as staff, we feel pretty strongly about it. I want to bring that up and push that button one more time. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 35 Centers: The staff feels that having the school site open directly on a street is — Siddoway: A good thing. Centers: -- a good thing? Siddoway: Yes, as long as it's not an arterial, but yes. Its on a local street, it makes it an open space, visual amenity for everyone rather than just the people who — Borup: There's not a safety concern? Siddoway: Well that's the debate. I actually think it's safer to have more people watching it than to have it completely surrounded by back yards. School District likes the idea of having a single access point. It's a debate for sure. Borup: Okay. Centers: Well, when the representative from the School District was here at this application, he was very adamant that he liked the site where it was, if I recall. Siddoway: That's right. Centers: Here, you're — Siddoway: I'm just saying as Planning and Zoning Staff, our recommendation is different. Centers: I think he liked -- (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Centers: The security of the houses around it, but I think he also said he was open to moving the entrance to an alternate location. Siddoway: Yes. Centers: That's something they said they would look at in doing the site design. Would that still be coming back to us, the site designs for the school? Borup: It would be determined with the plat as far as the entrance, which — Siddoway: Right, the location, the actual shape of the lot and the location of the entrances, yes. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 36 Borup: (Inaudible) Siddoway: That's done as part of the plat. Borup: Right. Centers: Maybe that's what it was. He said if the developer felt they wanted to move that they — Borup: Well and we don't have the complete plat. Centers: -- would probably be okay with it. Centers: Okay continue, Steve. I'm sorry. Siddoway: We'll move on. Wetlands -- the original staff report said that we needed some clarification on this before acting on the Preliminary Plat. I have since been convinced that we could make that a requirement to be submitted prior to the first phase of the Final Plat. That way, if there are significant issues, I mean it might. It seems fairly unlikely that there will be significant issues arising from that because. That's the reason for allowing it. I still think, I mean, there's ground. You've seen the photos. I don't have, the photos weren't in this set. There's an area full of ground water, full of water all winter long. It's not just fed by the canals. We felt like that should be investigated and got a report from the Corp. of Engineers. The applicant feels that they have sufficient room to handle that, even if it means shifting a street a little bit but wouldn't require major modifications even if it did have to be protected. Based on that, I've changed my recommendation to allow it to, to not require it before acting on it at the Preliminary Plat stage. We would have to have some response before the first Final Plat. Then the last issue is we need a complete plat before we send it on to the City Council. We need one that shows all of the required modifications, contours, the notes, et cetera, et cetera. It's all listed out there, before this sent on. That is all I have. Centers: From the way I determined it, there are really mainly three issues that there was some concern on. One, the location of the school entrance, the complete plat and the water model study. Is that the three items? Anything in addition to that? Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I'd still like to add that road entrance. Do we have a letter from Christi Richardson, that letter that's documented? Either I misplaced it Centers: Didn't you get a copy? Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg, 37 Borup: We got our draft copy from ACHD. They were pretty emphatic on their recommendations. Shreeve: I've misplaced that one then. Siddoway: I have a copy of it here. If you don't, I can get it to you. We do have a written letter. Shreeve: Right, we had a draft. Was that ever formalized, then? Siddoway: This is just a one -paragraph letter specifically about the location of the entrance. Were you asking about a full letter? Shreeve: Well, specifically, I'm after the entrance. Siddoway: Yes, this is just kind of a single -issue letter from ACHD that deals with that issue only. Shreeve: Did she give any reasoning? I don't have that letter. Siddoway: 1 can just read it to you. It's pretty short. The ACHD, well, let me start at the beginning. The issue has been raised regarding proposed location of Tuscany Way, off of Victory Road. The proposed location conforms to ACHD policy. An ACHD Traffic Engineer has evaluated the situation and determined that the proposed location at the east property line appears to be the safest. If the roadway is moved to the west, then sight distances become a problem and the traffic engineer will not approve this roadway in any other location. Centers: I didn't see that letter either. Borup: So, their final word was they would not approve it at any other location? Siddoway: Yes. They want the road left where it is. The road access point. Borup: Was there anything else to add to that? I had three items, water model study, flexibility on school access and a complete plat. ***End Of Side Two*** Siddoway: — the micro path issue — Borup: Right. Siddoway: -- as long as those tweaks are included in that comment, then yes. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 38 Borup: Okay would the applicant representative here like to come forward, comment on — Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, could I — Borup: Oh, yes. Freckleton: -- add something before we move on to that? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Something that doesn't happen very often, but Steve and I disagree on one subject here. That is the issue of the wetlands. I guess my feelings differ because I feel that the Mayor and Council have made it clear that they want a clean plat, Preliminary Plat from this Commission before it moves on to Council. I hate to send this forward and let it get clear to the first phase Final Plat before we nail done this wetlands issue. I mean, I think that's the intent of a Preliminary Plat is to nail these type of issues down. The applicant's representative here tonight may have some information on the wetlands issue already. I just throw that out. I feel — Borup: Okay. Freckleton: -- pretty strongly that we probably should still include it as part of the Preliminary Plat. Borup: So, you're saying that letter from the — Freckleton: From the Corp. Borup: -- Army Corp. So noted, Mr. Brown Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, Briggs Engineering representing Gem Park Il. My address is 1800 west Overland, business address. Borup: Okay. I think as I was trying to — We've got three, possibly four items that looks like still in question. I don't know if you've got comments on anything else, but hopefully on those items. Brown: In the previous meeting, Wendell Bingham asked for the flexibility on the school location. At that meeting, I think you'll remember that we agreed to work with them to come up with what. You know if they end up needing two entrances or whatever, we were willing to work with them on that. Borup: I think the staff also had some concern on the location at the curve. You know some of the safety aspects of it. Meridian City Council Meiling April 19, 2001 Pg. 39 Brown: And that was what Mr. Bingham was speaking to when he spoke last time. If you will recall, he said that might be a problem, but they would have to place their school site on that site and they might need some flexibility in how they locate their parking and everything else according to that site. We're willing to work with them. I mean this is part of the latter phase and they also in this last meeting stated that they didn't need that school at that time. That they would be building one to the east of this prior to that time. Borup: I think part of the concern was, if we approve a plat layout, who reviews the new entrance location? How would that determine then? Brown: Mr. Chairman Borup: Is that between you and the school district? Brown: — with us and the School District — Borup: And the staff? Brown: -- I would imagine your concern is, that the School District has something that's safe and works with their school site. We've agreed to work with the School District and come up with what's best for them. Borup: They didn't seem to have as much concern as staff did. Brown: That's correct. Borup: So, maybe that's my question. Will there be some staff review on that on that location placement — Brown: Well, say — Borup: -- or is it going to be strictly up to the developer and the School District? Brown: Let's say that the School District wants it five plots down, it really, I mean does that require an entire review by staff? Borup: Well, no. I don't think so. It sounds like staff s comment mainly is, further south. He'd rather see it further south than where it's at. Siddoway: Yes that's part of it. Brown: He also wants it on the street. Borup: Well, right. -- Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 40 Brown: Mr. Chairman? Borup: -- that's kind of two — Siddoway: -- It at least needs to be further south. Borup: -- separate issues. Shreeve: If you're designating it as two separate issues, I'd actually just be reminded why the school wanted it behind the lot lines and not on a street. I would tend to agree with staff, having the school on a lot line. I would like to therefore just be reminded what the school said about that, why they wanted it behind the lot lines like that. If anybody can recall to remind me. Borup: Mr. Brown, maybe you want to be the best one for that. Brown: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. From our experiences with the School District in the past, this is their preferred method of locating their schools. Valley View takes, I would say -- Steve's and your opinion that they should be out on the major, or on roads period. The School District feels it's safer to be behind those homes. They have a less of ability for people to have access to their school. They would have to fence that like they have done with the middle school on other sites. They feel that it's safer behind the homes. Borup: That is mainly a safety concern — Brown: I believe so. Borup: -- people can't drive up to the school ground and grab a kid or whatever and kids wander off easier and that kind of thing. Brown: He also made it very clear that he did not want that pathway, as you recall, going behind there just for the purpose of just having the wrong kind of people just sitting out there and staring at the kids. I think that that's, at least that's the way I interrupted what he told us. Brown: So, that makes kind of sense as to why they like it behind the houses. Shreeve: Thank you. Brown: The wetlands issue, we have made numerous attempts to try to meet with the Corp. As you look at our site, even if we removed all of the wetland area that was there, we're creating three or four times that amount. Generally that is acceptable. If you remove one wet lands and create another. They'll allow you, for example, when you go in with a permit and you have an area that they deem Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 41 as being wetlands and you straighten it out, tile it, as long as you create that same amount of wetland area, that's the process you go through in removing a wetland area. Centers: Butch Otter didn't find that to be true. Brown: 1 don't think that Mr. Otter proved up that that was a wetland area to begin with — Centers: You know what I'm saying. Brown: -- Commissioner Centers. I do. Borup: What has been the delay with meeting with the Army Corp? Are they backed up? Brown: Them not meeting with us Borup: What, they haven't been able to schedule a time, or what? Brown: That's correct. Borup: Are they that busy? Brown: I don't know. With a few sunny days, we thought they might want to get out of the office, but we've been unable to make our schedules work. Centers: That's not nice. Brown: Completion of the plat, we've kind of left it at this point because we didn't really know what you were going to act upon and if you were going to ask for changes. That's the reason that it's not here before you. The requirement, or the recent conversations with Mayor Carrie, I think you're kind of stuck with what your Ordinance says not what conversations with the Mayor has to say. That's my personal opinion. You are required to make recommendations and send them forward. I don't know if they don't, if the Mayor doesn't trust Steve to review what you guys approve. That would be the only thing that I could see. Steve's the one that's going to accept what you make the recommendations for and require that we put that on there. We would ask that whatever you make your recommendations that we provide to staff and then allow this item to go forward. Borup: You still have two issues though. The water and the wetlands, even if we agreed with the other two. Brown: To nail down — Meridian City Council Meeting APril 19, 2001 Pg. 42 Borup: The water modeling and the wetlands report. Brown: If you look at the area where they're talking about the wetlands being, we might end up having to move the road over one more lot or maybe two lots. As I suggested, as I discussed it with Steve, we would maybe have to make that lot bigger. Once again even if we totally eliminated it and tiled that area, it's an exchange, wet lands for wetlands and we would be creating a wetland with the ponds that we're putting on our site. Centers: What about the water modelings? Brown: The water model, -- Borup: That's out of their hands. Brown: -- it's like what I told you last time, I would take care of the items that you assigned me. As we left it the last time, the water wet lands was not an issue that I was to resolve. It was something that I would before my first phase but I have made an effort to try to do that. I told you when I was here, I can't make your staff and I can't make your staffs consultants work any faster. I would handle what I could and I did. Borup: Any concern on making those adjustments to the plat concerning the pathway and the other items that staff has talked about? Brown: Other than, moving the school to a location that the school might not like, we agreed at the last hearing to put the micro path after Mr. Bingham made a comment to putting that out the cul-de-sac. We offered to do that. Borup: And another one to Victory Road? Brown: To Victory Road, out of the northern cul-de-sac there in that portion. Borup: Right. Brown: We agreed to do that. Borup: And the other would be eliminated along the canal? Brown: Right. We would add that space to those lots. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Shreeve: Mr. Chairman? Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 43 Borup: Mr. Shreeve. Shreeve: I just want to come back for the record, on the road issue. I don't claim to be a Traffic Engineer by any stretch of the imagination. I personally live in Thousand Springs. Chances are my kids will be going to this school. I've driven that Victory Road many times and the entrance from Victory Road, from Thousand Springs to Victory Road is, there is a blind spot there, very subtle. A suggestion that was made in a letter by Mr. Young about possibly skimming off that mound, and there's just a very slight mound, that's a very good possibility of doing that. Drainage, I think, would not be a problem as the road is already fairly much above it. On the north side you might start getting below the ground but it falls off and I don't perceive that drainage would be an issue. I just think having a lighting structure there, you know, a letter by Mrs. Richardson, may have been a great letter but I just can't believe that a whole lot of thought didn't go into it. I may be wrong, but, to me, I think that that is an issue that is not resolved in my mind. I think we really need to look at possibly making those intersection match up. 1 know my kids are going to be walking to that school some day and to have those intersections and a lighting structure and a cross walk, in my opinion, is certainly a lot safer than having two major intersections off center from each other. Brown: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners Borup: Mr. Brown Brown: When we met with the Traffic Engineer from Ada County Highway District our Traffic Engineer met with him. The verbiage that was in that letter came strictly from their Traffic Engineer. He knew that intersection very well and that's why he took the tone. I don't think that she added anything to his comments, to her. He did not want those together. He felt that it was safer, them being apart. He realizes that they have a problem and I think that the school district and the Thousand Springs' Homeowners Association could work to make that a safer intersection, especially if they need a child's crossing there in the future. Borup: Anything else from the Commission? Thank you, Mr. Brown. I'd like to continue with any testimony. As this is a Continued Public Hearing, we'd like to hear something new that has not been stated in the past. We have past testimony on record. We have the minutes to that effect. We have several letters that have been in, so it would be open for any new or additional testimony at this time. Young: My name is Rex Young. I live at 2950 East Victory Road. I have a letter in the file and 1 won't go back and go over any of those things again, except I do want to make a comment or two about that intersection. Of course, when the letter was read there, which was very definitive, the traffic engineer said he Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 44 wouldn't approve that. I was wondering what precipitated that letter? I called Ada County Highway District before I wrote the letter in to you folks and talked with one of the planners there. They told me, or she told me, that that intersection the way it exists now, Brandy's Jewel, where it intersects with Victory Road, that it only met the bare minimums when it was approved initially. When I made the suggestion to her that maybe this was the time that that needs to be straightened up by shaving that hill off and installing a traffic light to improve the safety, her attitude at the time was, well that would cost a little bit of money to do that and we just don't think that we want to do it. Well, we've got an intersection there that was approved that needs to be improved. Now, there's going to have to be a traffic light installed there anyway, even if there is a micro pathway put in so that the children will have a way to cross that Victory Road in a safe manner. Just because we've got a Traffic Engineer that says he won't approve it, I think we've got a situation there that needs to be further addressed and I just don't think that we can accept that letter as final. I understand that they may have the hammer, but I think that you folks have got the hammer too and I think that us, as citizens out there, that we also have some input. You know really, Ada County Highway District, they work for us. Any questions? Borup: Questions for Mr. Young? Centers: I have one. Do you remember who it was that you talked to? Young: I don't remember and I didn't write it down. I know it was a lady and when I called there the first time I didn't talk with that lady because they told me that that lady was the one that was knowledgeable about that area. Centers: Okay. Young: So, then I had to call back another time. Centers: Okay to get the right one. The question I really had was your statement she said that it, that Brandy's Jewel intersection met the bare minimum. — Young: Bare minimum requirements established by Ada County Highway District. Centers: Do you have any — did they explain what that meant? Young: No. She did not explain what that was. Only that it just barely met the bare minimums. Centers: So, you don't know what requirement it was that it barely met? Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg_ 45 Young: No I do not. I assumed distance or something like that and sight distance but I don't know exactly. Centers: Or, you think that maybe it's maybe the hill and line of sight and that. Young: Yes. Centers: Did you think that's what she was referring to? Young: I think so because when I suggested you know, that that hill could be shaved off just a little bit. It wouldn't even need to be shaved that much to improve the sight distance considerably. Improve the safety of that total intersection, her immediate response was, well you know that would cost considerable money to do that. I don't think it would cost that much money and what's one life worth? Centers: Now, did she say — and then the comment on the light, did that come from ACRD, felt that they would need a light there eventually? Young: No. I don't, as I recall, no. — Centers: (Inaudible) Young: -- I think that was from me -- Centers: Okay. Young: --more than them. Centers: Okay. Centers: Anyone else for Mr. Young? Thank you sir. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward? J. Patterson: My name is John Patterson. I would like to submit this testimony on behalf of my father, William Patterson. My name is William Patterson. I live at 4224 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian Idaho 83642. 1 own property, which is adjacent to the proposed development to the south. I request the Planning and Zoning Commission deny this application. I base this request on the following concerns. There is insufficient road access for large amount of traffic, which this development would generate. Both Victory and Locust Grove are two lane rural roads not designed for the traffic that this development would create. There are significant issues regarding sewer and water for this development. This involves both the extension of the utility sewer and water and potential ground water issues involved in providing service for the 350 plus dwelling units. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 46 This proposed development is inconsistent with existing land use in this area south of Victory Road. There are no developments of this scale south of Victory in this area and Victory is a good stopping point. As a property owner and taxpayer, I am concerned that this development will cause an increase in property value and an increase in taxes. This will create undo hardship on existing property owners. This is not a desired development. It will adversely effect the quality of life in the immediate area through increased traffic; increased numbers of people, and the accompanying clutter and noise. This development will adversely effect the desirable rural characteristics of this area. I respectfully request this board, which is charged with the responsible development of Meridian and Meridian's area of impact, to deny this request. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Patterson? Give that to the clerk. You made one statement that the roads were not designed for this traffic. Do you what is the capacity of the roads? J. Patterson: I'm going to refer this to my father. Borup: Which would be okay. W. Patterson: (inaudible) Borup: You need to come up to speak to the microphone, sir. W. Patterson: I would refer that to the Highway Board. Borup: Could you say your name? W. Patterson: Oh, my name is William Patterson. My son was speaking for me. I would refer that question to the Highway Department. I can testify that the roads are not designed to handle the amount of traffic that is on them currently and I know that — Borup: That was my question, what are they designed to handle? W. Patterson: I again would refer that to the Highway Department. Borup: Okay that's what I was kind of getting to. When you said you can testify that their not designed, but how do you know that? W. Patterson: Okay. Can I testify that the roads are not designed to handle the additional traffic that that's going to — Borup: That's what I'm asking, How do you know that they're not designed? Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 47 W. Patterson: I don't believe that the time those roads designed that they anticipated the extent of traffic that was going to be on them. Maybe, and that's my own testimony. Borup: You just feel that it's not. It's not based on any knowledge or any thing specific. That's what I wanted to determine here. W. Patterson: I can't say it's not based on any knowledge. It's based on my personal knowledge. Borup: As far as road capacity? W. Patterson: Yes. Borup: What is the road capacity then? W. Patterson: I don't not know that. Borup: Okay. Thank you sir. Norton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes, Commissioner. Norton: Mr. Patterson, how long have you lived at your residence? W. Patterson: I have lived at that residence since 1992. I'm a long time resident, native of the area. Norton: Okay thank you. Borup: Thank you sir. Anyone else? Malaise: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Alan Malaise. I live at — Borup: Last name again? Malaise: Malaise. I live at 3580 south Locust Grove Meridian. I am just directly north of their property line. I just have two concerns I'd like to address. If this request is granted and 300 plus homes are built, They're going to be irrigating, as I understand in this high water table. My concern is that it would create a problem with water possibly seeping under my house and causing damage there. I'm just I don't know how many feet from their property line but I'm very, very close. Meridian City Council Meering April 19, 2001 Pg. 48 Borup: Your concern then is that watering the lawns is going to create more water than farming the ground will? Malaise: Yes, yes. Borup: Okay. Malaise: No, I don't know what the remedy could be but I just thought I'd address it and bring it up beforehand and maybe there's something they can do, maybe there isn't. That could be a huge problem for me and I would just rather bring it up at this time. The other concern I had was, Gem Park, they acknowledged, I believe it was last month. My irrigation water situation, I wrote a letter and I was concerned with they removed my water rights. They filled the ditch in and removed the head gates and leveled everything out — Borup: You're concerned that they would remove your water rights? Malaise: They already did. To my knowledge — Borup: Jim Clark said this? Malaise: -- that's against the State Law. Yes they leveled that area out. Borup: They don't own the property yet. Malaise: Excuse me? Borup: I don't believe they even own the property yet. Malaise: Well — Borup: Somebody did that? Malaise: -- somebody did. Borup: Okay. Malaise: Anyway, they said they'd bring pressurized irrigation, that that could be a possibility to bring to my property. I got to thinking about it and they didn't say whether or not they'd pay to do anything else, have it installed and this is creating, it's what they created, a new problem for me. If I want to say it's a problem, it's going to create a cost to me and maybe the remedy to that would be giving me back live water. That would mean bringing a ditch across before hand, I'd rather bring it up now rather than find out when they build a bunch of houses there that now all of a sudden they have to put a ditch through it. This is my other concern, whether or not that would be a possibility, or maybe they'd want to Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 49 pay to hook up my pressurized irrigation. 1 don't know, but I know you just can't level things out turn your back to a guy and leave him hanging. I've tried to meet with them and I never get any phone calls back. I thought I'd better make it a public record — ( Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Malaise: -- because it could be a big problem down the road. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Malaise? Malaise: That's all I have. Borup: I've got a couple, sir. Did you have something, Sally? Norton: After you. Borup: I'm concerned about your statement that they removed your head gate and buried your ditches. How many acres do you have? Malaise: I've just got under three there. Borup: Three acres? Malaise: They're property originated with mine. Borup: You're north of them? Malaise: Yes, where your lights are at. Borup: About right in that area? Malaise: Exactly. Borup: So, you had a live ditch that someone has removed the head gate and buried the ditch. Malaise: Yes, sir. Borup: So, you have no irrigation at your property at this time? Malaise: Yes sir. Borup: At this point you're not sure who did that? Malaise: Well, it was the people that own that, that bought that property. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 50 Borup: Okay. Malaise: I believe it was Buckner. I don't know it could have been. Borup: We can get an answer to that. I don't believe it's Gem Park at this point. I could be wrong. So, whoever owns it now has done that then? The present owner of the property? (inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Did you contact them to ask them? Malaise: They're aware of it. To my knowledge, they've never gotten back with me and said they'd do anything about it. Borup: Did you contact the Irrigation District? Malaise: Yes. Borup: Who is that? Which district? Malaise: Nampa Meridian Irrigation. Borup: Have you talked to them? Malaise: Yes sir. Borup: What did they say? Malaise: They said that they can't do that and they said I'd better get with them and make a big paper trail of it or something may not happen. Borup: Did you contact somebody then? Malaise: Yes, I spoke with Tim Taylor and this other gentleman here about it. Borup: Did they say were the ones that removed the head gate? Or did they say they didn't know anything about it? Malaise: They knew about it but they didn't come right out — I don't know personally who is responsible. Borup: We'll continue that. I will get some answers. Malaise: It wasn't very long ago that they did that. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 51 Borup: Just this year? Malaise: Well, it's been, -- Borup: -- or last irrigation season? You had water last season? Malaise: It's been a couple of years all ready. Borup: How did you irrigate your property last year then? Malaise: I didn't. Borup: I think Commissioner Norton had a question too. Norton: Yes. Mr. Malaise, do you live just south of the Howard property? Malaise: Yes. Norton: All right. You didn't irrigate last year? Malaise: No Ma'am. Borup: How about the year before? Norton: Have you ever used the irrigation water since you've been there? Malaise: Well, we haven't used it. It doesn't mean, you know it was available to me. Norton: Right. It has flowed through your property before? Malaise: Yes. Borup: Did it end at your property or did it continue? Malaise: It ended at my property. Borup: Okay. Malaise: The ditch is still there next to my home, but then all my pasture, where it comes across into the pasture, that's where they eliminated it. So there's no way to get it there. Borup: So, you don't have a run off ditch to? Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 52 Malaise: When they irrigate the field, the water runs across my property into the Ten Mile. Borup: Okay. Malaise: I can't stop it in anyway. Borup: All right, thank you. Any other questions? Thank you sir. ( Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) L. Kuntz: My name is Luanne Kuntz and I'm the trustee for the Mortener property at 2015 east Victory. My personal residence is 4800 West Holms in Boise. I just want to make sure everyone is really clear that if you approve this. I certainly want to see something in black and white about the type of fences that are going to border our farmland. I also want to make sure that these people, if it's approved, know that we have the right to farm and they can't complain about dust and fertilizer and burning and all of this kind of stuff. Also I assume that when the water study was in, whenever that's finally finalized, we will know whether that's going to impact our farm or ability to farm. If it does, what is going to be done about that? I would certainly think that that needs to be really — Borup: The water study was on City water so they were looking at the City's water capacity -- L. Kuntz: What we were talking — Borup: -- not irrigation water. L. Kuntz: We were talking about to the drainage ponds last time, flooding out part of ours and not being able to farm. I understood that was supposed to be part of the water migration study. Borup: That study, I thought you were talking about the other study. L. Kuntz: No, no. I'm not talking about the City Water Study. Also last time, we talked a little bit about if, at some point and time, we do want to sell our farmland for development would sewer be able to come in there? Now, I did not have a copy of the staff report because my sister and I have both been out of town. I don't know if that was addressed but I know that that was brought up last time. I didn't hear any comment on that. Micro paths and stuff are really great for the people that live in the subdivision but I guess my, you know, you're going too make that all the way out to Victory Road so that all the kids can come on down Victory Road and come on the other side of the canal and then jump in and drown. This is a real big concern. I mean, I'm not against them having the paths, they're nice things in the subdivision. What is going to prevent those Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 53 children or adults or anybody else because people already think that that's parkland on the other side, we're plagued continually with people — Borup: Did you understand what they were talking about the path? L. Kuntz: Well, if you make it out — Borup: Somewhere at the end of this cul de sac? L. Kuntz: Yes, so you can just come right around on Victory Road and come on down the other side of the canal where's there's access. You know there's access for irrigation. Borup: Yes. It would have the same access if they didn't have a path. L. Kuntz: Well, I'm not saying they wouldn't, but right now there are not homes -- You know there are already homes across the street so you've got to cross Victory Road. There — Borup: I just was having a hard time understanding what you were saying there. L. Kuntz: -- Yes, well, do you want me to show you? Borup: Well, no. You're concerned about the canal? L. Kuntz: Yes. Borup: I don't see the connection between a micro path and the canal. L. Kuntz: Well, I'm just saying that if you make the micro path all the way out so that it accesses Victory Road. Then how easy will that be for kids to come on down Victory Road on their bicycles, go on down and come in on the other side of the canal, is what I'm trying to say? Borup: It's just as easy now coming down this sidewalk and going down Victory Road. L. Kuntz: Well, but at least with Thousand Springs somebody has to cross Victory Road, and go across it. What I'm saying is that you can go along the edge of the bank. I'm just throwing this out as a suggestion. Borup: Okay. L. Kuntz: You know, that this is a problem that we are currently faced with. I think, you know you make sidewalks and more paths and have more people that make it easier to access — Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 54 Borup: The sidewalks already going to be there, with or without the path. L. Kuntz: -- well, yes, I understand that. You know I'm just throwing this out because — Borup: Okay. L. Kuntz: You know. I want this on record because when somebody tries to sue us because their children have fallen in the canal and drown. I think this is a real big problem with this subdivision. Borup: Excuse me, Ma'am. L. Kuntz: Yes. Borup: I think we might have some questions. L. Kuntz: Sure. Centers: What was your name again? I missed it. L. Kuntz: Luanne Kuntz, Kuntz. Centers: The migrating ground water, -- L. Kuntz: No. Centers: Were you aware of the report that the City received the staff? L. Kuntz: Well, I was unclear when he was speak — Borup: Let me read it to you. L. Kuntz: Yes I didn't think one had been obtained. Borup: Let me read it. From Associated Earth Sciences, J. Evan Merle. Stating that a drainage system cutoff drain will control ground water on the subdivision to a safe depth. It will also prevent shallow ground water movement into the land north of the subdivision. You're north? L. Kuntz: Yes. Borup: The cutoff drains would be on the order of 7 feet deep by out -letting as deep as possible into Ten Mile Creek. I wanted you to know that. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 55 L. Kuntz: I just want — Borup: Professional Engineer. L. Kuntz: Will this be put in writing and what if this does not work? Borup: He put it in writing to us. L. Kuntz: -- Then what recourse will we have? Then what recourse do we have as a landowner if this does not solve the problem? Borup: I'm not an attorney. L. Kuntz: Did anybody else have questions? I thought somebody else said they did. Borup: Thank you. De Chambeau: My name is Mary De Chambeau, I live at 2015 east Victory, so I live on the Mortener property. A couple of things, I know you were confused on my sister's concerns about the canal. I get to ask people — Borup: I'm concerned about -- I don't think the question was a concern about the canal because that's definitely -- you know, it's there. My question was — De Chambeau: Well, let me put it this way. The houses are not built yet. The school is not built yet, right. I'm already, every day I ask people to please leave our property, every day. What they're doing is, the subdivision across from our house, they get in their pick-ups and they put their dogs and they drive all the way down and they park in our little road and they do their thing. Now, these are adults, okay? The thing of it is, we're very concerned about you know when you put a little path along there, you know your point, the kids are going to have to cross that Victory Road as the slope goes down. I also sit every day and watch the policeman stop people and give them tickets. What he does is he chases them and they go all the way down to my house before he can stop them. They are going that fast. You know when kids are trying to cross that to go into the school. You can probably shave it off a little bit, but there's just enough of a hump that they accelerate down from 35 to 50. Most of the time I clock them at 65 because it's a straight a way there. I've called the Highway Department and asked them to lower the speed limit and they said they wouldn't do it until we had more development meaning our place. Even though this doesn't have anything to do with our place, I'm very concerned about putting a path there so the kids have to cross over, I mean, I think that's a major concern. I'm also like practicality, you know, I know you have to have a school, a central location for the school. Personally, I just think this is the worst possible place for a school. I'm just astounded that the school board thinks this is a great place with all those Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 56 ditches. Even when I was growing up I wasn't allowed on that canal, wasn't even allowed to get close to it because it's very swift. if you notice that little connecting road down there, it looks large in the picture, but there's really not a very large piece of property there. What is to stop the kids from going around and walking and coming and getting on that canal bank from both sides, There's two ways those kids are going to be able to get on that canal system. The other thing is they talked about you know having crazy people stand and look over the school, unless that fence is really really tall, they can stand on the canal bank and look right into the school yard on our side. The other thing that I think, and I may be confused a little bit, but you're talking about the pathway, the City would actually, like the pathway on our side, I guess. That's news to us, but I guess that's what they're thinking. I mean, isn't that what they were talking about? Isn't that the comment that I heard? Borup: That's correct. De Chambaeu: I mean they're assuming a lot because we haven't got that far with what we're doing with our property yet. I guess these are just common sense concerns, I mean the design, 1 don't know. The other thing is I just moved from a place where the school was located in a subdivision, let me tell you the mothers, they're concerned about their kids not getting hit, but let me tell you, they would whip through there so fast that the homeowners would go out there and wave at them saying slow down, slow down, slow down. They agreed, the City I was from, said they would probably never do that again because it -- they just whip in and out because they're in a hurry. It's something to think about. You know, I mean I know you can't tell the school board what to do but. I mean it's just a thought. The other thing is I am concerned about you said that the flow of the water, what I understood last time that you were suppose to get with Jim Patterson who farms our place and he said he had not been contacted yet to have them walk and check out our irrigation system and I haven't been contacted. He called me last night and said he had not been contacted either. Is that something you plan to do? Freckleton: That's something that, excuse me, we would have the consultant work with your tenant, your farmer -- De Chamdeau: Okay. Freckleton: -- in the design process. This report that we have in our file is not a real in-depth design type report. He talks about -- it's fairly broad -- talks about the ground water, talks about the migration of the ground water, talks about potential remedies for the ground water. De Chambeau: Yes, Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 57 Freckleton: Once they get into the nuts and bolts of the design, that's when things need to be really pinned down -- De Chambeau: Okay. Freckleton: -- as to the locations and that sort of thing. De Chambeau: One other further concern I have is good neighbors. They always say they're good neighbors. Sunday afternoon, Sunday morning I decided I would get up and pick up the trash along our property. I thought 1'd be out an hour. I was out there from 9:00 until 3:00. Now, you're probably thinking it's just normal trash, but most of it is contractor's stuff. You know I'd like, you know maybe in the future there may be stricter rules about if this development goes in that they have the contractors clean up after themselves. I mean, it is bad. Everyday I pick up trash and that was 9:00 in the morning until 3:00 in the afternoon and I had ten garbage bags full and that's just our property. I know some of it's just regular people just throwing their stuff out but most of it I observed, you know, I know where it's coming from because it's a cement bag, it's — Borup: It's coming from the west because that's the way that wind blows. De Chambeau: -- yes and it's cement bags and it's shingle bags. You know things that have you know things to do with construction. Just a thought. I'd appreciate it. Borup: Thank you. De Chambeau: Does anybody have any questions? Norton: Mr. Commissioner or — Borup: Commissioner Norton Norton: Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name. De Chambeau: It's Mary. Norton: Mary. You've made a comment that you clock cars going 65 miles an hour on Victory? De Chambeau: Yes. Norton: How do you clock the cars? Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 58 De Chambeau: You know how I know that? Let me tell you, I tried it one time. They get right on my bumper, okay because when I go to turn into my property, they don't think anybody's turning that way. They expect them on the other side but they don't on that side. One time I wanted to see how fast this person was right behind me. I was going 65, you know and then I slowed down and they passed me up, four of them before I could get even turned into my driveway. That's how I know. Plus I also know the policeman. He stops and laughs because I asked him to be a little more -- you know, watch that and whenever he needs his quota, he just sits there and I've seen him like two hours just pick up car after car. Norton: Hmm, interesting. Thanks. How long have you lived on the Mortener Property? De Chambeau: Well, I was born there. I mean, we were brought home from the hospital there and I've been away for a couple of years and then I came back, so, to help take care of the property. Norton: Okay and how long have you been back then? De Chambeau: Let's see, a year. Norton: A year? Okay and this is your family homestead -- De Chambeau: Oh yes, yes. Oh yes. Norton: Family property? De Chambeau: We've been here for seventy years. Norton: Okay, thank you. Centers: How many acres? De Chambeau: What have we got? Seventy-two give or take. We're still kind of; property lines have not been determined yet. Borup: Thank you, Ma'am. De Chambeau: So, no questions? Shreeve: One other question. Do you have it leased, do you farm it or what? De Chambeau: Jim Patterson farms it. Shreeve: Okay, so you lease it? Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 59 De Chambeau: Yes, to him. He's doing us a favor. He does a great job. Shreeve: Has he had it for a number of years? De Chambeau: Yes, yes. Shreeve: Very good. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this? Pullman: My name is Herman Pullman. I live at 4010 south Locust Grove Road, which is right on the southwest corner of the development. One thing I would like, and it's been talked before but 1 would like to bring it up, that the water table is very very high there. So extreme that when they've irrigated the field that runs between my place and the Malaise place, which is north of us, within a half a day there's water running out into my driveway, under my house, filling up my sewer Borup: That's when they irrigate the farm property? Pullman: That's right I don't see any change in that happening when they put in a subdivision with everyone watering daily as opposed to irrigating a field every two to three weeks. I want to make sure that the design includes drainage for that along the south perimeter and also on the north perimeter because the same thing happens to the Malaises. Borup: I think may be we can get some comment from staff that previous testimony has stated that ground water has a tendency to decrease when a subdivision goes in, that the farm ground creates more than a subdivision does. Pullman: Well, that's possible but I stili don't think you can decrease it enough to alleviate the problem that I have. This is, the property is probably a foot, foot and a half above my driveway and the water runs out probably six inches below the surface. It just runs right out of the ground. Whatever it takes to alleviate that problem, I think it needs to be included in the design of the drainage design. Also I don't know if this is the place to get a variance for a privacy fence, but I've discussed this with Mr. Brown and Mr. Taylor. We've somewhat agreed to share the cost of a privacy fence, like a plastic fence, a basket weave or whatever rather then a chainlink fence along there because — Borup: Along the property or along the canal? Pullman: No, this — Borup: -- along the property — Meridian City Council Muting April 19, 2001 Pg. 60 Pullman: -- this doesn't have anything to do with the canal. Borup: Okay, just along your property? Pullman: Along my property line, yes. Borup: A fence is required so there's no variance needed. Pullman: Well, I understood there was a variance needed for the material, the type of material. Borup: I don't believe in, not on a perimeter fence — Pullman: Is that correct? Okay, well — Borup: -- just on an area that there would be burning maintenance that. Pullman: (Inaudible) Borup: It's Nampa Meridian that that would be a concern with. Pullman: Okay. One other thing I noticed that during all this discussion about a micro path from Victory to the school and fences along the canal, there's been no discussion about the kids that are going to be walking from the west, from the Locust Grove side to the school. There's two ditches, Eight mile, Ten mile and, or three ditches, Riddenbaugh canal along there. It really, next down right there where it comes across the end of the Mortener property to where — Borup: 1 think it's because it's presumed that they'll walk on the sidewalks. Pullman: Presumed, yes. That's something that I don't think we should ever do is presume that a kid will do anything. Borup: Well, but that's why they're there. That's what a sidewalk's for. Pullman: Well, sure but what about fences? Is there any discussion about fences to keep them away from the water? Borup: Off of the canal? Pullman: The canal, yes. Borup: I think that's a good question. Pullman: I haven't heard anything about that. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 61 Borup: Okay. Anything else sir? Pullman: That's all I have. Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Pullman? Thank you sir. Anyone else? ***End Of Side Three' Allen: -- 3040 east Victory. Could you move the map this way just a little? Borup: You mean the map, oh. Allen: Okay, go back to that one. Borup: The one that has the whole — right there? Allen: That one right there would do. I live at 3040 east Victory which is the funny shaped next direction, go up, over to your left. Borup: This one? Allen: West, west, that one. Where is this micro path going to be? It's not going to work, gentlemen. That's the way to control population growth. The lady said that the traffic comes through there at 65 miles an hour, believe me, it does. I've stood at my place for five minutes trying to get across the road to get the mail. I hope you didn't run over me. Its bad from about seven in the morning until 9:30. Then it's bad again from about 3:30 until 7:30 at night and it's going to get worse. Any questions? Borup: Thank you sir. Allen: Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Have we gone through everybody? Mr. Brown, have you got —well, Mr. Johnson maybe? Johnson: My name is Greg Johnson. I live at 2433 CanAda Road, Melba. The question of this gentleman on the three acres, it would be the northwest corner of the project there along Locust Grove. Apparently, three years prior to us optioning this ground, that field was leveled and there used to be a ditch that ran across the middle of it that took water to his property. The people that sold either him or the previous owner that three -acre parcel took that ditch out and they're telling me that that was part of the deal. I don't know. It's an illegal split. It does not contain the minimum that the county requires. That was done prior to us Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 62 buying this parcel and we have offered as a solution to it, to provide him pressure irrigation stub to his property. We will pay for the stub into his property. We are not willing to pay for a sprinkler system for his three acres though. If he wants to put in a sprinkler system, that's up to him. Borup: What size of a stub -in were you talking about? Johnson: Whatever Nampa Meridian will allow. Borup: Something a little bit larger than would go to a single lot? Johnson: Well, Nampa Meridian will probably require it to be two or three. Borup: Oh, big one then? Johnson: Well, no. Two or three-quarter — Borup: Oh, two or three stubs — Johnson: -- we went through this on the City Park. They will not — Borup: Two or three separate stubs, is that what you're saying? Johnson: Yes, that's what they'll probably require because they don't want him to drain the pressure irrigation by irrigating it all at once -- Borup: Okay. Johnson: -- and that type of thing. Whatever they will allow us to do, we will provide for him. If he wants to go back on the previous owners that took out the ditch and settle that with them, he's welcome to do that. Borup: Now, are you the deeded owner at this time, then? Johnson: We are buying it under contract. Borup: Okay. Johnson: Sigmont is still the deeded owner — Borup: So, he's the one that removed it — Johnson: -- and Walt Warner had purchased it from him and we've purchased it from Walt. I think Walt is the one that leveled it, but I'm not sure. Borup: That was about three years ago? Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 63 Johnson: I think it's been three full years. It was leveled approximately the same time as that piece was split off. Centers: Give me the location of that piece again. Johnson: Well, it's — Borup: Is it this piece here? Johnson: It's that piece right there. Centers: Which would be the northwest Johnson: It was part of this parcel prior to us — Borup: Okay. So, they split off three acres? Johnson: They split off three acres — Borup: Three acres and a house, I assume? Johnson: Yes, yes. Borup: Without County approval to your understanding? Johnson: I think they just surveyed it and gave him a deed. Borup: Any other questions for -- Norton: Did you want to ask him about fences? Borup: Well, yes. Commissioner Norton was asking about fences. I mean, the City, that's already part of — Johnson: Yes, -- Borup: -- the agreement. Johnson: -- those canals that they're talking about, the Riddenbaugh, the — Borup: No, they're talking about perimeter fence, I think aren't you? Norton: Well, sure, but if you want to talk about the Riddenbaugh fence too. Borup: Well, let's one at a time. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 64 Johnson: All the major canals and that, we have to fence with chainlink fence, non -climbable, non-combustible fence. I think that's our only option other than may be wrought iron. I think we're allowed to use wrought iron. Borup: Right. I think (inaudible) talking about the perimeter fence around the subdivision too then. Johnson: Normally, we're required for that to be non-combustible — Borup: Around the canals? Johnson: No, if it butts up against farmland because they burn and that so you normally don't want cedar or plastic or — Borup: Most of the ones I've seen have been cedar. Johnson: That's — Borup: Isn't that what you've usually been doing at your other subdivisions? Johnson: Normally we've used either cedar or vinyl on the collector roads, on the outside where we're not coming up against somebody. If somebody's farming, we use chainlink or wrought iron. Borup: Okay. Is there a concern, a problem with doing a privacy type fence with the neighbors? Johnson: With his piece, where he's, you know we'll probably enter into an agreement that he won't burn that'll have to -- Borup: Right. Okay Johnson: We've agreed to build that on. I don't have a problem with that. From our standpoint it's nicer for the homes to have the privacy fence. Usually we are required, I can't, Steve, isn't it a requirement where we — where the subdivision boundary butts up against farm ground where they could burn that it has to be a non-combustible fence? Siddoway: 1 think it just says perimeter fencing. We've allowed chainlink fence adjacent, in fact, we've had some farmers say that they prefer chainlink fence because some of the stuff — Borup: Trash won't go over it. Siddoway: -- doesn't blow over, it blows into the fence. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 65 Borup: It collects it. Siddoway: We don't require one or the other. We just require — Borup: (inaudible) Johnson: Okay. Okay Siddoway: Permanent six-foot perimeter fencing — Johnson: If the Mortener's want to burn on their property, we would probably request a wrought iron fence there because of the price of these homes. Borup: Okay. Any comment on the fence? You mentioned you're required to fence the canal. Johnson: Yes. Borup: What does Nampa Meridian allow on fencing access to canal from the street? Johnson: We usually fence it off and gate it. They have to have access to it — Borup: Right. Johnson: -- so we install gates. Borup: Okay. You were plan on putting gates along there? Johnson: Yes. Borup: I think that was a concern a lot of the people. That was a — Johnson: Where ever those roads cross and it — Borup: (Inaudible) Johnson: -- crosses their access road, we gate those and it ties into the bridge. Borup: So, the only way for someone to get in is going to be — Johnson: They can climb — Borup: -- dig under the fence or climb over the fence? Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 66 Johnson: --climb over. Yes. Borup: Which — Johnson: Yes. They do. Borup: Yes. Johnson: They'll probably tie off to the bridge and be surfing on it too. Borup: But, it's going to happen no matter what. Centers: Mr. Johnson, have you ever seen any studies or what's your experience with high water irrigating compared to homes and sprinkled lawns? Johnson: We had high water in Sherbrook Subdivision prior to us developing it. We had the same concern with our neighbor to the north of it. We did put in a cutoff drain tile with it. With Sherbrook once we had installed the sewer lines, they were installed on an average of 10, 12 feet deep, that whole system drained and we really haven't had water above 6 feet there since the sewer lines went in. Yes, some people do over water their lawns. With pressurized irrigation it's not measured and sometimes we grow mushrooms but it is surface water and it is substantially less than what you get with flood irrigation. Every one of those lines that go through tends to become a channel. You know, you bed the sewer pipe with rock all around it and it becomes a conduit and an under ground river that eventually crosses one of the drains and that water does disappear. In general, it does reduce. Mr. Merrill, who wrote the report, has monitored this property for water level for two years now, two complete cycles. We've got a lot of water surrounding it; there is a lot of water that percolates out of those canals. That's why you see the Eight Mile and the Riddenbaugh tiled in several places. That's why we've designed those lakes up against in the corner and that with channels all the way out to the Ten Mile Drain to allow that water to free flow from the lake system into the Ten Mile at the level that the Ten Mile runs currently. That will lower that significantly, 3 or 4 feet in those areas. Plus we will use the material out of the lakes to build up the overall level of the property approximately a foot and a half. It's similar to the — are you familiar with the subdivisions down here by the river in Eagle? You notice all those ponds and that? Those ponds are dug out, the lands filled up. If you dug in there when he was raising mint, the water table from the river was like two feet. Obviously it is a flood plain and so they had to raise above the flood plain. That's in kind of a perched area, we don't have a river flowing through there, but with the Ten Mile and the other water bodies we have a similar situation in this area. Centers: A lot of those areas use to flood -- Johnson: Yes. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 67 Centers: -- 4 or 5 years ago. Johnson: Yes. Any other questions? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Johnson: You need to get on the microphone. Borup: Why don't you just stay here Greg? Go ahead Mr. Pullman. Pullman: I live just south of the south edge of your property. You made a statement that the water table has been studied for the last 2 years or monitored for the last 2 years? Johnson: Yes. Pullman: How did they do this? Johnson: They have pipes buried out there in the field. Pullman: Okay. In the field next to my house, the pipes were put in last July or August. Johnson: Yes, and they've been monitored since then. Pullman: That wasn't two years ago. Johnson: We had pipes all through the other areas prior to that. Unidentified speaker: Where? Johnson: Over in the Burnett piece where that school is, all of that area has been monitored. Those were installed the year before. Pullman: They haven't been monitored for 2 years (inaudible) Johnson: On the piece out by Locust Grove, you're correct. Last year was the first irrigation season that it was monitored all the way through the season. Pullman: And, they never — Johnson: And they are still measuring it this winter. .r. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 68 Pullman: And, may I make a point. They never irrigated that property after you put in the perk holes. It hasn't been physically irrigated since that time, or probably two to three weeks prior to that. Johnson: It has not been flood irrigated since then. They are irrigating currently on the other parcels that they're raising grass on — Pullman: I just wanted to make that point. Johnson: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Johnson? Centers: Yes. Well, I guess a question and comment. You don't do perk testing when you're irrigating — Johnson: Pardon? Centers: You can't do perk testing when you're irrigating at the same time, can you? Johnson: We typically don't measure water while we're flooding the field. Centers: Right. Borup: Anyone else? I think you addressed it. Did you, as far as you know, address the issues that had been raised that you could answer --? Johnson: I think so. Are there any that I haven't? Borup: You did, the ones that I had written down. Any other Commissioners have anything for Mr. Johnson? Centers: Nope. Johnson: I would like to address the water study. I think this is the second or third time we've been tabled for — Borup: The water modeling? Johnson: - yes, for lack of information from staff. I would much prefer to be sent on to City Council and have that report completed for them and let us continue on. Each month that we get tabled, it increases; our lot costs go up 3 to 4 hundred dollars a lot with just interest carry. Unless there's a real reason we should be tabled, I would like to be moved on one way or the other to the City Council. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 69 Borup: Did you understand the three or four items that was mentioned earlier on your — Johnson: Yes. Borup: -- water study was one. Johnson: Yes. Borup: The school access point which — Johnson: The school access point, we have no problem -- Borup: Right. Johnson: -- working with the School District -- Borup: Yes. Johnson: --to resolve. Borup: Then the complete plat was the other. I know that we have received instruction from City Council that — Johnson: We will have that completed plat to staff within a couple of weeks. Centers: On the wetlands what's (inaudible) Borup: The wetlands were the -- Well, the wetlands, I mean I think it was stated, the staff had one view and then the engineer had another. Johnson: This is a very small portion right there in the corner by the Riddenbaugh. We will get an answer from the Corp. and make the necessary adjustments that they recommend. Borup: Either way, whatever they're recommendations are, that's what's going to be followed. Johnson: If they would like us to give them a little wetland in exchange for it, we'll do that. If they'd like us to move our road, we'll do that. Borup: Okay. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 70 Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Johnson. There are a lot of neighbors here that are real concerned about the road, about — Borup: Victory. Norton: -- Victory and how unsafe it is. Johnson: Yes. Norton: Do you have any comments about that? Johnson: The problem of the intersection that is there was created by the development of Thousand Springs. Ada County Highway District, if that needs to be fixed, Ada County Highway District should fix it. That development was approved and I believe everything's been accepted by Ada County so it's probably no longer his responsibility. If it is dangerous, I did own that previously to that developer and I know that intersection was a problem right from the start. They should have probably made that be done at the time that that was put in. That's why they have impact fees and that's why they have those things, to correct it if they don't get it corrected when it should be. Norton: That's why — who's they, Ada County Highway District? Johnson: Ada County Highway District. Norton: So you suggest that they should level the hill? Johnson: You know if the citizens need some and some pressure, then there probably should be some pressure from their City to make sure that gets done. If it is in fact a safety issue. I personally have not entered from that intersection recently. I couldn't tell you one-way or the other. I know that when we were looking at it, it was very difficult to get that in there on sight distances. That was prior to that new bridge being built, by the way though. That changed that profile a little bit. Norton: Just one other question. A subdivision this size, that you're proposing, and I don't see really any parks you fixed up for this little school area that is sort of inaccessible to everybody. Johnson: Yes. Norton: Have you thought about putting in some parks or green areas for the residents? Meridian city Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. ?1 Johnson: We have, you know they don't stand out a lot there, but along Eight Mile. There's a substantial that's where the lakes will be and green belt. We have a green belt all the way along Ten Mile. The open space in the school is usually considered as open space in the community. We are in the process of building an 18 -acre park in Bear Creek and we do contribute park fees on all of our developments and feel that is sufficient contribution from us at this time in that area. Thanks. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Let me just ask you a hypothetical question — Johnson: Okay. Shreeve: -- about that intersection. If by some chance, you moved it to the west, if that was okay with ACHD and the whole thing that is constructible isn't it, it's a possibility form your end? Johnson: It's very difficult because of the grade difference. Coming up that cul de sac, you're coming up a very steep slope. Shreeve: Any idea what the slope of that road would be. Johnson: You know, I don't. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Johnson: I've looked at the topographical maps but I haven't memorized them that's for sure. Borup: That's fine. Okay. I think {etalked fr abom out that aoint last time. It was a pretty steep grade, which would be a safety Shreeve: I guess that's the point I was getting at, and I apologize, for maybe paraphrasing incorrectly but that's, I guess that's the issue. If in fact it's impossible, then so be it, but if it's possible and it's a hardship and if in fact having the intersection come out the same time is the best solution, then I don't think we're necessarily here to try to make the developer any less burdensome. Now, if it's impossible or if it's a tremendous burden, I can appreciate that. If it in fact it's possible, I don't think we should say, oh, it's too hard skip it. Johnson: Mr. Commissioner, it's not impossible. We're trying to follow the instructions of another agency. It's very difficult sometimes when 2 agencies don't see it the same. We're trying to comply with both. Shreeve: I just want to make the point that I understand that ACHD is probably the main factor here. I guess, we as a Commission need to be careful that we don't say, oh it's too hard for the developer so developer just do what you want Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 72 to. I think certainly our position is we need to certainly take into account to a point any hardships developers may have but that's only to a point. Johnson: Normally, in design, we try to line up entrances and roads so that they connect in the street at the same place. Usually that is the most safe. In fact, I think the requirements if they don't line up they have to be 300 feet or 400 feet apart. Obviously, we looked at that at first and our first tech review with ACHD and we've been following their suggestions ever since. They did send this guy out to re -look at it this last time. I think they've looked at it pretty thoroughly. Shreeve: I would like, staff, whatever letters, or of course there's the one letter. - - but did the Traffic Engineer, because I know we got this letter from Christy Richardson, did the traffic engineer ever type up his formal report and this Mrs. Richardson just summarized it. Johnson: I don't know that. Shreeve: Don't know, Okay. Any other questions? Borup: Any other questions? Thank you. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Brown: Pardon? I'll hurry. Kent Brown, again. I heard that. I've been there. The comments about the pathway to Victory Road, as you recall in our previous meeting, it was an item that was brought up by the School District. That's the only reason that I believe staff and us have even talked about it. You know if you don't want us to have a connection out there that's fine. They're still going to have the sidewalk because that's a Highway District requirement. The comments about the street, you had asked that we go to the Highway District and that we come back with their recommendation. That's what took place. No, there was not an individual report made by the Traffic Engineer. He made his comments and Christy put those down on paper. That's what took place. I believe everything else we've kind of covered. Many of the items brought up by the neighbors were brought up previously and I think we talked about those and I think Mr. Johnson has covered the remainder unless you have any questions. Borup: Do you have any questions, Commissioners? Thank you. Any final comments from staff? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman members of the Commission. I'd just like to speak to the water study issue. At this point, we know for a fact that the Thousand Springs area is out there on the ragged edge of serviceability. We are making it, barely. Pressures are marginal. We do know that development further south on Victory is going to require some more system upgrade. It's my gut feeling that Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 73 the results of the study are going to implicate that one of two things is going to be necessary. Either we sink another well in the area — Borup: Don't you have a well site at the fire station? Freckleton: At Thousand Springs. — or second option is that installation of a pressure booster station, which we have a site for as well. Some significant costs are involved in those things and that's why I hesitate to try and move things forward without having good hard data to hang our hat on. Borup: So, you're saying you think that's what, it's your gut feeling that's what the consultant's study is going to show? Freckleton: My gut feeling is this subdivision will push us over that edge. Yes. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners Shreeve: Yes, Chairman. Bruce when is the, I know you've made a recommendation of just the next Commissioner's meeting for the water study. Is that for sure or, you know, what's the situation? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shreeve. As I mentioned earlier, we had a meeting with our consultant yesterday. He indicated to me yesterday that he didn't think he would be able to have the results to me by tonight's meeting. He is working on it. If we push it out to the third, that's gives us two more weeks. I anticipate that I'm going to have some results the first of next week. I know he's close. I wanted to get those results in time for the applicant to be able to review them and have time to kind of cogitate them. Shreeve: Yes. I can certainly understand whatever situations may have occurred but clearly from that developer's point of view, I think his point is well taken. The City - they've come back with items that they've done, where the City has not followed through with some of those items that we thought we could have. I think that for in the future, we need to be cognizant of their efforts and certainly their timing but understanding that certain situations do arise from time to time. Borup: Okay. Any other comments, Commissioners? How would we like to proceed? Norton: Well, just for discussion's sake I'd like to add a few — just for discussion, I've heard tonight and the last meeting we had, quite a few neighbors that made the effort last time and this time to come to talk. There were several comments that they have made that I think this Commission should take pretty seriously regarding, mainly that dangerous road. We do know they're not going to have any power or water at least until September the first and then there's the concern Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 74 about that pathway to Victory Road with very dangerous for children if they go to the school site from Thousand Springs. I have a concern with the school site. I don't remember Mr. Bingham saying that it was safest to have the houses surrounding the school. I know the Police Department indicates they like to have parks and I would guess also schools open so they can see into the playground areas. 1 don't like the school next to the canal. That does not seem safe to me and it doesn't seem safe that there are houses surrounding it either. Plus it's so darn hard to try to find where to find the school. It's not real compatible with the surrounding sites and according to our comp plan it's not even contiguous with our impact area. The Comprehensive Plan that we have to go through is the 1993 Comprehensive Plan. Borup: I didn't understand your last statement. It's not — Norton: Well, I guess it's out from the impact area or out from the City limits in our Comprehensive Plan of 1993. Borup: Okay. Everything we annex is out of the City limits. Otherwise we wouldn't be annexing it. Norton: I understand that. Borup: Okay. Norton: I understand what you're saying. Borup: Okay. Well, I was trying to understand what — Norton: Trying to understand what I'm saying? Borup: Yes. Norton: We're trying to build form inside out. There's a lot of empty space inside the impact area that could be built in. Borup: This is in the impact area. — Norton: Yes. Borup: You mean closer in — Norton: Closer in. So those are just some comments that I'm thinking about. Borup: Okay. Anyone else have any other — from what I've seen lately, the ones that are closer in, and we have a lot of it, the City Council's turning that stuff down because there's no sewer. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 75 Norton: City Council's turning what — Borup: They're mad because the sewer lines not there yet. Norton: We spent hours trying to come up — Shreeve: Even when the developer's willing to pay for the sewer. Norton: Yes and the developers are willing to work with the neighbors. We work a lot, we hash a lot of things out here. Borup: Well, it looks to me like there's really, I mean in my mind two main issues. Maybe only one main issue, but the water modeling study sounds like it is really the main thing. Then from past comments from City Council, they want to see a complete plat. They want to see the same thing that we see presented to them -- Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: -- they've been pretty emphatic on that. Everything else are things looks like can be handled and worked out. Centers: I think that the developer has stated that they don't need a micro path if we don't want one or if the School District doesn't want it. I think the school district can be convinced not to require it. I think the developer stated that he would be willing to relocate the school within the project or move it, maybe he didn't — Borup: It was already moved once. Centers: Yes. Borup: They had a different location. The school requested this site, I believe. Centers: The school site doesn't bother me, but I can still hear the school district representative state he liked that site. I know he used similar words and you're going to have a ditch near the school wherever you put it. They are required to fence it. We did tell them to come back with a traffic study from ACHD. They brought it back and the ACHD passed it. I think, you know, they've done all they can but we have that one little glitch, the results of the water model which as it turns out is — I was wondering what water model meant. Now I know, will the pump handle the and the well handle the subdivision? Well, it's doubtful and maybe they need a pressurized or a pump or a lift station or whatever. I think they have to see if they can meet those needs. Unless the developer wants to pay for that, certain he doesn't want to do that. I don't blame him. i don't think Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 76 there's any choice, but I, you know we normally put our continued items on the second meeting and I would be more than happy to look at this on our first meeting in May, as the first item on the agenda because I've read the articles on the cost of delay and the developer is so right. Every day that goes by, every month that goes by, it's costing him money. I'm sorry, but it does cost him money, Ladies and Gentlemen. It takes a lot of effort and time and expense — You know all of you folks live in homes too that have been developed by other developers. End of my story. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman Borup: Mr. Shreeve Shreeve: I guess I would like to go on a couple of issues to being personally is the water study as well. Although, again, to reiterate, I certainly think we need to accommodate the developers certainly where we can as fully as we can. Also the school access, or the school location. It's my personal feeling, but I personally don't like the way it's situated with the lots surrounding it, but I think certainly if the schools didn't agree with it — I personally don't like it. Of course, the intersection, I just don't know if it's been really looked at, but apparently it has and I can't judge that. Never the less, I think certainly based on the water study, we probably ought to look to continue this. Borup: It sounds tike the consensus is going to continuing it. I would like to make it a condition on certain things that we're waiting for. Especially if it's going to be on the May 3rd meeting we have a fairly full agenda. It looks like we could get something in, but we're not going to be able to spend four hours on it. Did you have a comment Mr. Brown? Brown: Real quickly, it seemed like there was two items, the water study and that we provide you with a complete map. You tell me what you want for the map and I'll have it to you before the May 2nd meeting. We can go forward. I know your agenda's full, but if we limit the discussion only to the water model. I think we've hashed and rehashed everything else. That's our personal opinion. If you'll give us direction on the plat, -- Centers: Would it be without the path? (inaudible) (inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Brown: If that's what you're asking for. I understand everything else that Steve's asking for. That we have the appropriate notes and topography and all of those things. You know, just for grins I'll move the school entrance down so that it looks a little better right now, but we'll still work with the school district in the future. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 77 Borup: (inaudible) discussion with them — Brown: Not until --- Borup: — since the last meeting. Brown: Not until they get more serious about actually spending the money and locating that school will they even think about that. Borup: But, that -- this was one of the last phases also wasn't it? Brown: Yes that's correct. Borup: Which was how many years out? Brown: It was at least three or four. Borup: So the school — Centers: How adamant was he about that path to Victory Road? Do you remember? Brown: To my recollection he said since this school is located where it is, that they would, you know it would be easier from a bussing standpoint if the kids could walk across the road. Obviously if there's a big traffic concern and getting the kids across, they'll bus them. I mean they do that — (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: It's going to save them 1,500 feet of walking. Brown: Correct. Borup: Okay. Centers: I think the path was on a lot of people's minds here as far as, you know safety issues and that kind of thing. Borup: The Commission should make the recommendation not to have the path. If the School District feels different they can bring that up at City Council. That's the way I feel. I don't think the — Brown: I mean, our current design does not show the path. It does show 20 feet on the western side of those lots and we're going to extend those lots and there won't be any openings. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 78 Shreeve: Of course, there's always the thought of constructing the path to get them off that busy road sooner. Borup: Right now the sidewalk will be separated from the road. That's where they're going to want to, I mean that's the most comfortable place to walk anyway is on the sidewalk there, not along the gravel edge. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman Borup: Mr. Freckleton Freckleton: The direction that it seems you're heading, you're wanting to kind of have a checkbook or a checklist of the items that need to be addressed and added to this Preliminary Plat. I'd like to just remind you that as a result of the Corp, of engineers determination of the wetlands issue Mr. Brown has mentioned tonight that he may have to move lots, move roads, so on and so forth. Those type items, I think should probably be incorporated into this revised plat that we're talking about. Can that be done prior to the May 3r' meeting? Brown: Mr. Chairman. Borup: He gave us an idea on how he was expecting to phase this project. Brown: That was a part of what Steve's request was, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Is a phasing? Brown: Yes. Borup: Because last time he talked about the canals would be kind of a natural phasing break? Brown: Correct Borup: Maybe even those would even be divided somewhat, or — Brown: Correct. Borup: -- can you reiterate that again? Brown: As you come off of Locust Grove there would be the northern lung, if you will, -- Borup: So, this would be one phase here — Brown: Right. Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 79 Borup: --two phases — Brown: Yes. Borup: -- and then this would also be two — Brown: Yes. Borup: -- and the same thing here. So you're talking six phases just in that section. Brown: Correct. That's what was on the original design. Borup: So, redesigning this phase would be Phase 6, from Locust Grove. Brown: Correct. Borup: Okay. 1 mean, when a project is phased aren't there normally some changes along that line anyway, or never at all? Don't they have the opportunity of coming back in, or you talking you need to resubmit a new plat, a whole new plat, I mean? Brown: Mr. Chairman. I think it comes down to a judgement call on significance of change. I think moving lots or eliminating lots or moving roads, at least in my mind I would say it's significant change and it would require a resubmittal. Centers: That's why they call it a Final Plat, isn't it? Brown: That's correct. That's why Meridian does not process Final Plats until the Final Plat's been approved. Isn't that correct, Bruce? Freckleton: Say again. Brown: Isn't that why Meridian doesn't process the Final Plats for sign off on signature because of those changes being required by the City Council, to make sure those are approved at Final Plat? At least that's what I've understood in — Freckleton: You mean it's not recorded? Brown: No. The staff and their processing the construction plan portion of it. They wait, they up that that they'll review it but they won't sign off on the construction plans until they've approved the Final Plat, correct? Freckleton: Right. Meridian City CouMH Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 80 (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Siddoway: We won't issue an approval on the construction plans until after the Final Plat's approved. Brown: For that same purpose that we're talking about that I might have to move a lot, correct? Siddoway: That's one issue that could cause problems, yes. There are many. Brown: If you would like, I'll do everything possible to make sure that I can, I mean I'll go sit in the Army Corps office and we'll find a sunny day. I'll make that commitment -- I mean so far we've done our part. I'll try to have that done and on that Preliminary Plat. I think that that's a reasonable — Borup: Okay. Brown: -- thing on our part. Borup: So you think you can — Brown: I'm not going to be able to tie the school down until the school buys the property and hires the architect and they — Borup: Right. Well, and I think — Are we in agreement that that pathway may not be the best thing and if you can get the school representative to agree with that or, what do we think? We don't want him to — Brown: I don't want to be at another meeting — Borup: Right. Brown: -- that's what I don't want to be. Borup: Right. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Brown: I think they want to go to the City Council too and tell someone else new their story. Borup: Get tired of looking at us? Brown: I do. I'm sorry, but — Norton: Can I ask a question? Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 81 Borup: Concerning the pathway? Norton: Yes. Borup: Okay. De Chambeau: I don't think the concern is the pathway — Borup: We need you to state your name again I'm sorry Ma'am. De Chambeau: Oh, it's Mary De Chambeau and I live on the Mortener Farm. De Chambeau: It's the fact that, have you ever gone out there and walked it? Borup: No I haven't walked it. De Chambeau: It's a long walk. It's a long walk. Borup: From where to where? De Chambeau: From Victory to right here. Borup: Oh. De Chambeau: It's verylong. My concern about the pathway is, whether there's a pathway or not, we're already having people walk on that al the time ok? The thing of it is — and there's already a gate there. I already posted it, they tore the post signs, and you know the posting you know stay out of here — Borup: They walk around the gate, you're saying? De Chambeau: They walk around. They (inaudible). They use their four, you know whatever they want to do they do it. The point is, is the kids are going to do it you know. They're going to walk around and not only for that little section but the canal goes all the way out like the other gentleman had talked about to Locust Grove. Now, is the school going to fence you know, our property too so that we don't have to worry about children failing in? You made the comment. You're always going to have a school next to a canal. I don't know — Brown: No we didn't make that comment. De Chambeau: Is that true? Well, I thought somebody said — Brown: There's canals — Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 82 De Chambeau: -- everywhere but are they backed up to one canal and then a canal going here and there's a ditch here and there's another ditch here and there's a ditch along — Borup: I think that's why we want to clarify that all the ditches are going to be fenced and gated. De Chambeau: Even our — because you realize the road — Borup: Well — De Chambeau: The road side of the canal is on our side. Borup: Right, De Chambeau: Okay. So is that all going to be fenced? Borup: Well, on your property it wouldn't be. That's on your property. De Chambeau: That's right and that's what we're concerned about. How can we protect ourselves as homeowners or property owners from children walking down that and falling in? Brown: Same protection you've got now, I guess. Borup: You have that problem now, don't you? De Chambeau: Yes. Borup: Right. Then you may want to fence it. De Chambeau: Well, it's just going to accelerate it is what I'm trying to say. So, I guess what I'm saying is the developer, you know you talk about the developers doing this and doing that and 1 do appreciate their concern you know they're willing to work with the neighbors but this — you know you can discuss and discuss but how can you discuss a child's life? I mean you can discuss — you know I think you should really take into account some of the design of this development. I mean because I know development's coming, ok. I just, I agree with you. You live in Thousand Springs. You know what that driveway or that exit is like. You know how they go down that hill. Those kids are crossing down at the bottom of that little slope. I mean it's going to be very, very dangerous. You have to realize that I grew up here riding my bicycle up and down that hill. I know how dangerous it is. I mean all my life I've been going up and down that hill because some of my best friends lived up that little lane, the Martins. I rode my bike up that hill and crossed that and it was very dangerous. We had to be very, very careful. You're talking multiple children walking across there. I think Meridian City Council Meding April 19, 2001 Pg. 83 you really need to address this. I think it's a concern. I mean I don't even have any. I don't have children who are going to be walking from there to there but I just have a real — Borup: Has the School District determined that they're going to be walking or bussed at this point? So, we're speculating on what ifs. — De Chambeau: Well it may be speculation — Borup: Mr. Johnson, do you have some information from the School District? De Chambeau: But it seems common sense to me. Johnson: The school, excuse me this is Greg Johnson at 2433 CanAda Road. The School District policy is that the children within the section that the school is built walk. Anything outside of that they bus. Borup: So, that would be this subdivision. Do you have any idea what the population of a normal grade school is? Johnson: 650. Borup: Okay. So, form their projection, this subdivision would take care of about a third of that? Or, I mean no -- Johnson: Each section — Borup: -- 125. Johnson: -- will eventually have a school in it is what they project. De Chambeau: Do they normally put bridges across canals? Borup: For what? De Chambeau: Like right here. Borup: Oh yes. That's the only way to get the road across it. De Chambeau: No I mean how does the ditch rider get around? Is this going to be gated here? Borup: Yes. ***End Of Side Four*** Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 N. 84 De Chambeau: Okay. These will be gated? Borup: Yes. Johnson: Mr. Chairman. When they do that typically Nampa Meridian asks that they have enough room that they can get off the road, park their vehicle, open the gate, go through and close depending on the amount of traffic that's on the road? You know that's what they're looking for. Borup: So the fence comes over, gives them 20 feet or so — (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Johnson: That's correct. You're requirements from your code require that we either pipe or tile all of the open ditches that are on our side or adjacent. The discussion in the previous hearing discussed that the Riddenbaugh, the one that gets fenced and the Ten Mile is an open amenity and the Eight Mile gets fenced just like the -- so that covers all of the canals that are on our site. De Chambeau: Both sides of the canal, does it get fenced? Johnson: Yes Ma'am both sides. I mean we own property on the Eight Mile on both sides. We cannot, we own property on both sides of the Riddenbaugh -- Borup: I think what he's saying the property they own will be fenced. Johnson: -- we fence our property. We don't want to be one of the people that are on the Mortener's property so we won't be trespassing and putting fence over there. I mean that's not the discussion. Borup: That's what we stated earlier. It sounds like the school policy is that they would be bussing anything across the other section. Johnson: That would be typical yes. Borup: Okay. Johnson: Anything else for me? Borup: Commissioners? I think we were talking about May 3rd Shreeve: Yes and the plat. Borup: Oh yes. Mr. Brown, do you think May 3`d is enough time for you to get an answer from the Army Corp? Meridian City Council Meeting April 19, 2001 Pg. 85 Brown: I'll make it. Shreeve: Good luck. Borup: Okay. Shreeve: I think he knows what want to look at. ( Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Centers: Mr. Chairman 1 would like to — Borup: No. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: We need to continue it because of the plat and the water model ahead Mr. Centers, I'm sorry. Centers: Are we still on that one? Borup: Seven, eight and nine. Go Centers: Yes Mr. Chairman. I would like to move that we postpone items seven, eight — Borup: Continue continue. That Centers: -- and nine, excuse me continue dto our May tem J CUPd00-052continued todoue Item 7 AZ 00-023, item 8 PP 00-024 May 3`d meeting. Borup: Are we looking for some specific items to be discussed at that time that they would be expecting? Centers: I can mention them but I think he knows — Borup: Well, let's mention them in the motion. Centers: We of course are waiting for the results of the water model — Borup: Okay. Centers: We'd like to see a complete plat. Borup: Okay. WHITE PETERSON WHITE, PETERSON, MORROW, GIGRAY, ROSSMAN, NYE & ROSSMAN, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW KEVIN E. DINIUS CHRISTOPHER S. NYE JULIE KLEIN FISCHER PHILIP A. PETERSON Wm. F. GIGRAY, III ERICA S. PHILLIPS T. GUY HALLAM, JR.* ERIC S. ROSSMAN D. SAMUEL JOHNSON TODD A. ROSSMAN JILL S. JURRIES DAVID M. SWARTLEY LARRY D. MOORE TERRENCE R. WHITE** WILLIAM A. MORROW NICHOLAS L. WOLLEN WILLIAM F. NICHOLS* *ALSO ADMITTED IN OR **ALSO ADMITTED IN WA Will Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Meridian ID 83642 Re: Tuscany Lakes Dear Will: CANYON PARK AT THE IDAHO CENTER 5700 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 200 NAMPA, IDAHO 83687-8402 TEL (208) 466-9272 FAX (208) 466-4405 E-MAIL: esn@whitepetetson.com January 22, 2002 MERIDIAN OFFICE 200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE SUITE 31 POST OFFICE BOX 1150 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680.1150 TEL (208) 288-2499 FAX (208) 288.2501 PLEASE REPLY TO NAMPA OFFICE RECEW-'TED JAN 2 4 2002 City of Meridian City Clerk Office Please find enclosed copy of a Stipulation to Dismiss the Petition for Judicial Review filed by Gem Park regarding the Tuscany Lake application for annexation. Gem Park wants to start over and re -apply for annexation. When the Stipulation is signed it will be dismissed. I understand there are no deals regarding whether or not they will receive a discounted rate for re-application. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Christopher S. Nye Copy: Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning 1y/Z:\WOrk\M\Meridian\Gem Park v 19413\CIerkjan22.wpd WHITE PETERSON WHITE, PETERSON, MORROW, GIGRAY, ROSSMAN, NYE & ROSSMAN, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW KEVIN E. DINIUS CHRISTOPHER S. NYE JULIE KLEIN FISCHER PHILIP A. PETERSON Wm- F. GIGRAY, III ERICA S. PHILLIPS T. GUY HALLAM, JR.* ERIC S. ROSSMAN D. SAMUEL JOHNSON TODD A. ROSSMAN JILL S. JURRIES DAVID M. SWARTLEY LARRY D. MOORE TERRENCE R. WHITE** WILLIAM A. MORROW NICHOLAS L. WOLLEN WILLIAM F. NICHOLS* 'ALSO ADMITTED IN OR **ALSO ADMITTED IN WA Michael T. Spink Spink Butler Clapp, LLP 702 11111 Floor PO Box 639 Boise ID 83702 CANYON PARK AT THE IDAHO CENTER 5700 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 200 NAMPA, IDAHO 83687-8402 TEL (208) 466-9272 FAX (208) 466-4405 E-MAIL: csn@whitepeterson.com January 22, 2002 Re: Gem Park II v City of Meridian Dear Mike: MERIDIAN OFFICE 200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE SUITE 31 POST OFFICE BOX 1150 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680.1150 K(208) TEL (208) 288-2501D 288.2501ASE REPLY TO NAMPA OFFICE RECEIVED JAN 2 4 2002 City of Meridian City Clerk Offlier- I have signed the Stipulation to Dismiss Judicial Review. It is my understanding that you are going to re -apply for annexation. I am writing to inform you that we are not going to discount the application fee. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Christopher S. Nye Enclosure Copy: City Clerk 1y/Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Gem Park v 19413\Spinklan22.wpd Michael T. Spink ISB No. 2201 Kelly M. Garrity ISB No. 6300 SPINK BUTLER CLAPP, LLP 702 Idaho, 11 th Floor PO Box 639 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone (208) 388-1000 Facsimile (208) 388-1001 21-152.14 Attorneys for Appellant RECEIVED JAN 14 2002 City of Meridian City Clerk Offiec- �00U°�I� IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA GEM PARK H DEVELOPMENT., an Idaho corporation, Appellant, vs. CITY OF MERIDIAN, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, Appellee. Case No. CV OC 01049370 STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW THE PARTIES, by and through their attorneys, hereby stipulate to entry of an order dismissing this Petition for Judicial Review based upon a compromise between the parties. The parties agree that they will each bear their own costs and attorney's fees. DATED THIS day of December, 2001. SPINK BUTLER CLAPP, LLP Michael T. Spink Attorney for the Appellant WHITE PETERSON By: Attorney for Appellee