CC - Commission Recommendations to Council and Staff Report
Page 1
HEARING
DATE:
12/3/2019
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner
208-884-5533
Bruce Freckleton, Development
Services Manager
208-887-2211
SUBJECT: H-2019-0098
840 E. Ustick Rd.
LOCATION: 840 E. Ustick Rd., in the SW ¼ of
Section 31, Township 4N., Range 1E
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Annexation of 2.29 acres of land with an R-4 (Medium Low-Density) zoning district request.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
STAFF REPORT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Description Details Page
Acreage 2.29 including right-of-way; 2.09, exclusive of right-of-way
Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential (LDR: 3 or fewer units/acre)
Existing Land Use Rural residential/agricultural (one single-family home)
Proposed Land Use(s) No change (continue existing use)
Current Zoning RUT in Ada County
Proposed Zoning R-4
Lots (# and type; bldg/common) NA
Amenities NA
Physical Features (waterways,
hazards, flood plain, hillside)
None known
Neighborhood meeting date; # of
attendees:
8/20/19; 4 attendees
History (previous approvals) None
Page 2
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District
Staff report (yes/no) No
Requires ACHD
Commission Action
(yes/no)
No
Access (Arterial/Collectors/State
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed)
Existing residential driveway to E. Ustick Rd. (arterial street);
no change proposed
Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross
Access
None existing
Existing Road Network Ustick Road is built to its ultimate configuration: 5-travel
lanes, bike lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Existing Arterial Sidewalks /
Buffers
There is sidewalk but no street buffer along E. Ustick Rd.
Wastewater
Distance to Sewer Services 0
Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed
Estimated Project Sewer
ERU’s
See application info.
WRRF Declining Balance 13.75
Project Consistent with
WW Master Plan/Facility
Plan
Yes
Water
Distance to Water Services 0
Pressure Zone Three
Estimated Project Water
ERU’s
See application info.
Water Quality Concerns None
Project Consistent with
Water Master Plan
Yes
Impacts/Concerns None
Page 3
C. Project Area Maps
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant/Representative:
Scott Lamm, Silver Maple Farms, LLC – 1217 E. Lone Creek Dr., ID 83616
B. Owner:
Same as Applicant
C. Contact:
Same as Applicant
Future Land Use Map
Aerial Map
Zoning Map
Planned Development Map
Page 4
IV. NOTICING
Planning & Zoning
Posting Date
City Council
Posting Date
Newspaper notification published 10/18/2019 11/12/2019
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 300 feet 10/15/2019 11/12/2019
Public hearing notice sign posted 10/24/2019 11/18/2019
Nextdoor posting 10/15/2019 11/12/2019
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
The land proposed to be annexed is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) as Low Density Residential (LDR). The LDR designation allows for the development of
single-family homes on large lots where urban services are provided. Uses may include single-
family homes at gross densities of 3 dwelling units or less per acre.
No development is proposed at this time; the existing single-family home on the property is
proposed to remain. Annexation of the property into the City is requested due to the failure of the
existing septic system and the need for connection to the City sanitary sewer system.
The Applicant recently entered into an agreement with the City for extension of domestic water
and sewer service outside Meridian city limits for the subject property (Inst. #2019-088366). This
agreement allowed the property to hook up to City water and sanitary sewer service with
disconnection from the private well and septic system. A provision of the agreement requires the
property owner to apply for annexation of the property into the City.
The Applicant requests an R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) zoning district for the subject
property. The R-4 zoning district is consistent with the LDR designation for this site but could
allow development to occur above 3 dwelling units per acre. Density is essentially dictated by the
dimensional standards of the district (i.e. the minimum property size, resulting in how many lots
can be developed on a property). The R-4 district requires a minimum property size of 8,000
square feet (s.f.). Because no development is proposed at this time, Staff recommends an R-2
(Low Density Residential) zoning district instead, which requires a minimum property size of
12,000 s.f., to ensure if/when the property redevelops in the future it’s consistent with the density
envisioned for this area.
With future redevelopment of the property, access via W. Ustick Rd. and access and
interconnectivity with adjacent properties will be evaluated in accord with the provisions listed in
UDC 11-3A-3; a detached sidewalk along Ustick Rd. may be required as set forth in UDC 11-3A-
17C; and a street buffer will be required along Ustick Rd. as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-4 with
landscaping per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.
A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section VII.A.
The City may require a Development Agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation and
zoning request pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. Because no development is proposed
at this time, Staff does not believe a DA is necessary if the property is zoned R-2 as
recommended by Staff. However, if Commission/Council determines the requested R-4
zoning is appropriate, Staff recommends a DA is required to ensure future density is
consistent with the LDR FLUM designation. In this case, the project should be continued to
a subsequent hearing date to allow for Staff to prepare recommended DA provisions. Note:
Page 5
Staff discussed the R-2 zoning with the Applicant and the Applicant had no objection to the
recommended zoning if a DA isn’t required.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the Applicant’s request for annexation & zoning but instead of
the requested R-4 zoning, Staff recommends an R-2 zoning district consistent with the LDR
FLUM designation per the Findings in Section IX. If Commission/Council determines the
requested R-4 zoning is appropriate, Staff recommends a DA is required to ensure future
density is consistent with the LDR FLUM designation. In this case, the project should be
continued to a subsequent hearing date to allow for Staff to prepare recommended DA
provisions.
B. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on November 7, 2019. At the
public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ request with
an R-2 rather than an R-4 zoning district.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing:
a. In favor: Scott Lamm, Applicant
b. In opposition: None
c. Commenting: None
d. Written testimony: Scott Lamm, Applicant (in agreement w/Staff recommendation);
Alyssa & John Villanueva
e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons
f. Other Staff commenting on application: None
2. Key issue(s) of public testimony:
a. None
3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission:
a. R-2 vs. R-4 zoning.
4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation:
a. None
5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council:
a. None
Page 6
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Annexation & Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map
Page 7
Page 8
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS
A. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD)
http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=177307&dbid=0
B. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID)
http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=177882&dbid=0
IX. FINDINGS
A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-5B-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission, the council shall make a full
investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an
annexation and/or rezone, the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
The Commission finds annexation of the subject site with an R-2 zoning designation is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan LDR FLUM designation for this property (see
Section V for more information).
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement;
The Commission finds that a map amendment to the R-2 zoning district is consistent with the
purpose statement for the residential districts in UDC 11-2B-1 in that it will contribute to the
range of housing opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare;
The Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare. The Commission recommends the Council consider any
oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding.
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by
any political subdivision providing public services within the city including, but not limited
to, school districts; and
The Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse
impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site.
5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city.
The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City.