HomeMy WebLinkAboutLeeshire Subdivision AZ
AZ 04-017
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT SWI Associates, LLC
August 5, 2004
ITEM NO.
(0
REQUEST Public Hearing: Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to R-4. C-N &
L-O zones for proposed Leeshire Subdivision - 5603 N. Loucst Grove Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
See attached Staff Comments
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
No Comment
No Comment
~ t 0 VY1 \f'N;of\ L
-M~(òvAL
-to
C(ú
$JI
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
See aHached Comments
See aHached Comments
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
. & Mrs. Callahan & Memo from Barl Naylor
Date: ~ ' ') 1JL1 Phone:
Staff Initials: Nfl '
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of lite City of Meridian.
Contacted: .
Emailed:
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
j
oU;rldi!'« "':fl' ~.~.
IDAHO ~
ì.
C'~
"TRE^,,_V~' ~
CmY'ßKALL
(~fi34IJI1!3-.f iBai! m-sl1n 3
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
William LM. Nary
Shoun Wardle
Charles M. Rountree
PBBBIíICJIoI6IÐRKS
B IJIUDDI!;Iill BUlUUI'II'IBJ T
(~iB~I!Il¡'.fiBai!'IIP&-\!i61
LEIJf1IAID~T
(~~.flOOl\fi84III)5
STAFF REPORT:
Transmittal Date: August 2, 2004
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
To:
Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
Steve Siddoway, Principal Planner ~
Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech ~
Leeshire Subdivision
RECEIVED
From:
AUG 0 22004
Re:
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
. Annexation and Zoning of29.69 Acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Low
Density Residential District), C-N (Neighborhood Business District), and L-O
(Limited Office District), by SWI Associates, LLC. (File No. AZ-04-017).
. Preliminary Plat Approval of Eighty Nine (89) Building Lots and Twenty (20)
Common Lots on 29.69 Acres in Proposed R-8, C-N, and L-O Zones, by SWI
Associates, LLC. (File No. PP-04-024).
. Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Mixed-Use Planned Development of
Single-Family Homes, Commercial, and Office uses, with reduced lot size,
street frontage, and setbacks, by SWI Associates, LLC. (File No. CUP-04-
026).
We have reviewed the above referenced submittals and offer the following comments, as
conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly
modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATIONS SUMMARY
The applicant, SWI Associates, is proposing annexation of 29.69 acres of land located on the
west side of Locust Grove Road, approximately halfway between McMillan Road and Chinden
Blvd. The plat for the property consists of 89 building lots and 20 common lots. The gross
density of the proposed plat is 2.93 d.u.lacre per the application form. If the proposed
commercial/office areas are subtracted the gross density of the residential area is 3.26
d.u.lacre. The net density is not listed, but would be higher after subtracting out the road
areas. The proposed density of 3.26 d.u.lacre is in accord with both the proposed zoning
district (R-4) and the Comprehensive Plan (Medium Density Residential).
AZ.O4-017. PP4J.O24, CUP.J)4.Q26
L=hire AZ.PP.CUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 2
The project can be described as having three distinct sections. The front section is proposed
for future office and commercial development adjacent to Locust Grove Road. The northern
lot is proposed for office and southern lot is proposed for neighborhood commercial. The
second, or middle section, contains a mix of attached and detached homes on lots ranging from
approximately 5,900 to 8,000 s.f. 23 of the lots in the middle section are served by alleys; the
other 35 are front-loaded. About half of the front-loaded lots are proposed by the applicant to
have garages set back at least 35 feet from the front property line. The third, or back section
contains 28 standard single-family residential lots ranging from approximately 9,500 to 14,000
s.f., plus the existing residence on a large 58,474 s.f. lot.
The CUP/PD application requests a use exception for the proposed office/commercial lots.
The area of the commercial/office lots comprises just under 10% of the property. The
application also requests reduced side setbacks for the residential zero lot line structures on
Blocks I, 2, 3, and Lots 3-16 of Block 4; reduced lot frontages, and reduced lot sizes. These
proposed modifications are detailed below.
R-8 Zone:
Lot Size-
City Requirements
8,000 sq.ft.
(Minimum)
Proposed Lot Sizes
5,991 sq. ft.
(Minimum)
Lot Frontage-Citv ReQuirements
80' minimum
Proposed Frontage
50' minimum
Setbacks -
Citv Requirements
Side: 5'
Proposed Setbacks
Side: 0 for zero lot line residences
The proposed PD amenities include a IO-foot multi-use pathway (discussed in detail in the
Special Considerations section of this report), a tot lot and/or basketball court, and passive
recreational amenities such as picnic benches and/or a gazebo.
There are several issues needing resolution, as discussed in the Special Considerations section of
this report. Staff recommends that they get resolved prior to approval of this project.
LOCATION
The property is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road, approximately halfway between
McMillan Road and Chinden Blvd.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North: Rural Residential and agricultural land, zoned RUT (Ada County).
AZ-04-0I7,PP-O4-024.CUP-04-026
l.=hire AZ,PPCUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 3
South: Larkwood Subdivision, rural residences, and a church, zoned RUT (Ada County).
East: Rural Residential and agricultural land, zoned RUT (Ada County); Vienna Woods
Subdivision is to the southeast, zoned R4 (Ada County)
West: Approved Saguaro Subdivision, zoned R-4.
OWNER OF RECORD
The property owners of record are Grant and Joyce Lee. Grant Lee has provided notarized
consent for SWI Associates, LLC to submit these applications.
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS
According to Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both
the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and
circumstances of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and
shall find adequate evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning
amendment. "
The following is the list of standards found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff:
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;
Staff finds that the requested zoning designation, R-4, is harmonious with and in
accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. The
proposed single family residential project is shown as Medium Density
Residential (3 to 8 d.u.lacre). The proposed density-3.26 d.u.lacre gross-is
within the range designated by the Comprehensive Plan. The net density
calculation was not provided by the applicant on the application form and should
be presented at the public hearing. The east portion of the property is proposed to
be office and commercial. These uses, while prohibited in the Medium Density
Residential land use area, may be approved as a use exception through the
planned development process.
B.
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the
future;
Staff does not anticipate that the applicant intends to rezone the subject property
in the future.
C.
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the
fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning -for example, a
residential area turning into a commercial area by means of conditional use
permits;
AZ.o4-0I7."-<4-024.CUP-O4-026
L,~'" AZ"CUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 4
Staff finds that the proposed development would be allowed within the requested
R-4 zone, (if the accompanying Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development is also approved).
D.
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;
Staff finds that the land to the east has been recently annexed and approved for
single-family residential lots in Saguaro Canyon Subdivision. Saguaro Canyon
has a gross density of 3.29 d.u./acre. Vienna Woods #2 has a gross density of
2.27 d.u./acre. Larkwood Subdivision to the south has lot sizes that run
approximately 2 acres each. The proposed density-3.26 d.u./acre gross-is very
similar to Saguaro Canyon, about one unit per acre higher than Vienna Woods,
and much more dense than Larkwood. Thus staff finds that surrounding
developments are mixed densities--either the same or less, but the proposed
density is within the anticipated range for a medium density project. ACHD has
also reviewed the adjacent street capacity and has approved the proposed
subdivision (with conditions).
E.
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 finds that the proposed uses (single family residential, office and
neighborhood commercial) will change the existing character of the area, which is
largely rural. However, the change is harmonious with the intended character
envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan, as described above.
Staff has received several calls from adjacent property owners objecting to the
higher densities, and/or the office/commercial uses. The Commission and
Council should consider the adjacent property owners concerns and appropriate
measures to address their concerns.
F.
Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses;
The Commission and Council should rely on public testimony (oral and written)
to determine whether or not the proposed use will be disturbing or hazardous to
the existing or future neighboring uses. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed
uses will be hazardous or disturbing to future or existing neighbors, as long as
landscaping, fencing and other recommended conditions are exercised.
AZ-04-0I7.PP-{I4-024.CUP-O4-026
L=bire AZPP,CUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 5
I.
J.
K.
G.
Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services
such as highways, streets, police and fll'e 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;
Staff finds that the property to be annexed may be served adequately by all
essential public facilities and services. Applicant shall be required to extend
water and sanitary sewer mains to and through the proposed development, thereby
making them available to the adjacent properties.
H.
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;
If approved, the developer will finance the extension of sewer, water, utilities and
pressurized irrigation to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the
future residents will be fire and police services. Staff finds that there will not be
excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the annexation and
zoning will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare.
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;
Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not create excessive traffic, noise or
other nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the
surrounding area. According to ACHD's report, the project is anticipated to
generate up to 1,284 additional vehicle trips per day. Staff recognizes the fact that
traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision; however staff
does not feel that the amount generated will be detrimental to the public welfare
of the city. The proposed uses do not involve activities that would create smoke,
fumes, glare, or odors.
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;
The proposed access to the subdivision from Locust Grove Road has been
approved by ACHD. Staff does not anticipate that the subdivision will cause
significant interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance; and
"'-04.017, PP-<l4-024. CUP.o4-026
L=", AZPP,CUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5,2004
Page 6
Staff finds that there are several existing trees around the existing residence that
are not depicted on the landscape plan. The applicant should verify the trees that
will be removed to accommodate the proposed development. Any existing trees
larger than 4" caliper that are removed shall be mitigated for, per the Landscape
Ordinance. If any trees are deemed to be hazardous, diseased or dying by the City
Arborist, Elroy Huff, mitigation will not be required for those trees. Staff
recommends the applicant verify the status of the existing trees prior to submitting
final plat and detailing any required mitigation on the detailed landscape plan
submitted with the final plat.
L.
Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of
Meridian. (Ord. 592, 11-17-1992)?
Staff finds that the annexation of this property would be in the best interest of
the City. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS AND REOUIREMENTS
Sections 12-3-3 J.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance of a proposed
subdivision, the Commission/Council shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the
following:
a. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan;
As noted above, staff finds that the subdivision appears to be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan, provided the Commission and Council grant the requested planned
development. See Annexation and Zoning Analysis item A.
b. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
Staff finds that public services can be made available to accommodate the proposed
development. See Annexation and Zoning Analysis item H.
c. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program;
Staff finds that the subdivision will not conflict with the capital improvement plan. Because
the developer is installing sewer, water, local street infrastructure, utilities and irrigation, the
subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. See Annexation
and Zoning Analysis item H.
d. The public fmancial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting
services. See Annexation and Zoning Analysis item H.
AZ-O4-0J7, PP-<]4-024. CUP.()4.()26
l=hio. AZPP,CUP
4.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 7
e. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the
Commission's attention.
Staff finds that there should not be any other health, safety or environmental problems
associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Councilor Commission's
attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. No hazardous natural
features have been identified on the site.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
l.
All conditions of the accompanying Conditional Use Permit application shall also be
considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat.
2.
The landscape plan shall be modified per the following:
. Show the existing trees to be removed or retained, their sizes, and any required
mitigation. Also state any protection measures to be used during construction.
. The landscape plan depicts the edge oflandscaping at the edge ofthe common lot
along Locust Grove Road. Since the widening of Us tick is not in ACHD's Five
Year Work Program, per Ordinance 12-13-10-9, modifY the landscape plan to
show a 10-foot gravel shoulder adjacent to the existing edge of pavement and the
remainder shall be landscaped with at least grass.
. No stormwater swales are currently depicted on the plan. Add contours and
landscaping for any anticipated stormwater swales.
. Show the required detached sidewalks along Locust Grove Road in the landscape
buffer.
. Show the amenities required for the Conditional Use Permit.
. In the street buffer along Locust Grove Road, change the proposed conifer trees to
an approved deciduous species, since the buffer is proposed adjacent to future
office/commercial uses.
3.
Sanitary sewer service to the eastern, roughly half of this site shall be via main line
extensions from the existing main in N. Locust Grove Road. The balance of the west
half of this subdivision will have to be serviced by a joint lift station that is currently
being negotiated with an adjacent property owner. Ifnegotiations break down, then this
development will have to install its own lift station to provide service. This development
shall be subject to sanitary sewer latecomers fees, to reimburse those responsible for
bringing service to this area. These fees shall be due and payable for each phase prior to
the City's endorsement of the final plat maps.
Domestic water service to this site shall be via main line extensions from the existing
mains adjacent to the property. This development will be required to install a pressure
reducing station at its entrance to N. Locust Grove. A 12-inch diameter water main will
be required through this subdivision to the end of the stub street, Starry Night Street.
A2-O4-OL7.PP-o4-024,CUP-O4-026
""'hire AZ,PPCUP
9.
11.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 8
This development shall be subject to sanitary sewer latecomers fees, to reimburse those
responsible for bringing service to this area. These fees shall be due and payable for each
phase prior to the City's endorsement of the final plat maps.
5.
Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer and water mains to and through this
proposed development, thereby making them available to adjacent properties.
Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works
Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard form of easements, for
any mains or facilities that are required to provide service.
6.
The applicant has indicated that the pressurized irrigation system within this development
will either be owned and operated by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District or the
homeowners association, though they have not yet specified which it will be.
Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this
development (MCC 12-5-2.N). The City of Meridian requires that pressurized
irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The
Applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary
source. If a surface 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 [mal plat by the City Engineer. If the system is to remain
private, a draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual must be
submitted prior to plan approval.
7.
A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted with the application for final plat. A 6-foot
solid fence shall be required around the perimeter of the subdivision unless the City
agrees in writing that such a fence is not required. Applicant shall address intended
fencing design at the public hearings.
8.
In accordance with MCC 12-13-10-8, Applicant shall provide 5-foot detached sidewalks
adjacent to Locust Grove Road. Applicant shall also provide 4-foot detached sidewalks
internally, as proposed.
The applicant shall be responsible for payment of and the actual physical sanitary sewer
and domestic water connection for the existing house.
10.
Please revise the preliminary plat map to show the attached units building envelope. This
will help to identify which lot lines will need to have zero lot lines, and which ones
won't.
The GeoTechnical Report, dated 5/1104, submitted with this application indicates that the
project site has surface soils and an underlying cemented silt or hardpan layer that could
prove to be problematic with respect to drainage. Please submit all updated
AZ-O4-017,PP-<J4-024.CUP-Q4-026
L=mre AZPPCUP
8.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 9
groundwater/soils monitoring data to the Public Works Department for review. All
drainage facilities (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water is
retained only during 1O0-year storm events, and for a period of time not to exceed 24
hours. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3:1. The project engineer
should pay close attention to the results of field studies determining the groundwater, soil
type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases. The engineer shall
be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet
above the highest established normal groundwater elevation.
12.
The applicant shall incorporate into the project's "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions for Leeshire Homeowners' Association," the "Homebuilders
Recommendations" and "Homeowner Recommendations" as prepared by Bob J. Arnold,
P.E., project geotechnical consultant. These informative documents shall also be
provided to the home builders prior to purchase of the lots.
GENERAL COMMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
1.
Please submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's approval letter for the
subdivision name, and the lot and block numbering. Make any corrections necessary to
conform.
2.
Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
3.
A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing,
landscaping, play equipment, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to
signature on the final plat.
4.
Any pathways or micropaths within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in
accordance with MCC 12-13-15 "Micropath Landscaping".
5.
A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance, shall be
submitted for the subdivision with the final plat application.
6.
Sidewalks within the proposed subdivision shall be built in accordance with MCCI2-13-
10-8.
7.
250 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.
Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by
Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from
the Public Works Department prior commencing installations.
All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting,
crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per
City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate
AZ-04.017. PP-<J4-024, CUP.04.026
L=hi" AZ,PP,CUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 10
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owner's), with written
approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users
association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the
meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature.
9.
Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by
installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that
were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for
those trees that are removed.
10.
Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
II.
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.
12.
Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all
building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USES
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed conditional use in terms of the following and may approve a conditional use permit if
they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (11-17-3):
A.
B.
C.
That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open
spaces, parking, landscaping and other features as may be required by this
ordinance;
Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested use
and all other required features. All residential lots are of adequate size and shape to
accommodate homes that would comply with the proposed bulk and dimensional
standards.
That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance;
The current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the majority of the property
as Medium Density Residential. Staff finds that if the modifications required in this
report are done, the application will meet the requirements of the Planned Development
and other Zoning Ordinances. Also see items A and C under Annexation and Zoning
Analysis.
That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with
other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character
AZ-04-0L7.PP-<J4-024.CUP-04.026
L=h", AZ,PP.cuP
G.
H.
I.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page II
of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential
character of the same area;
Staff finds the design concept to be compatible with the intended character of the area.
See item E under Annexation and Zoning Analysis.
D.
That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,
will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity;
Staff does not anticipate that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on
the surrounding property. However, the Commission and Council should consider any
testimony given at the public hearings before making this finding.
E.
That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, street, police, and fIre protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of
proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services;
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item G.
F.
That the proposed use 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;
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item H.
That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment,
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare or odors;
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item I.
That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be
so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item J.
That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item K.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AZ.O4-017,FP-«-O24.CUP.04-026
r.œ,bire AZ,PP,CUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 12
1.
Street Side Setbacks: The proposed plan includes 10-foot wide common lots along the
streets adjacent to interior blocks. Houses built on these lots with a 5-foot side setback
would only be 15 feet from the right-of-way. In the past, the Commission and Council
have not supported this arrangement, because it had not met the intent of the code
regarding street side setback dimensions. MCC 11-9-1 requires a minimum street side
setback of20 feet within the R-4 zone. However, in this case, the project includes 4-foot
detached sidewalks with a 5-foot landscape strip between the sidewalk and curb. The
landscape strip and sidewalk are fully contained within the right-of-way. So, any
buildings on the lots in question would be a full 24'-6" from the curb-thus meeting the
intent of the ordinance in this case. Staff recommends that no changes be required on this
issue and raises the discussion simply for consideration by the Commission and Council
based on past precedence.
2.
Interior Side Yard Setbacks: The planned development application requests reduced side
setbacks for residential zero lot line structures on Blocks 1,2,3, and Lots 3-16 of Block
4. Staff supports this request with the caveat that only one side lot line can be made a
zero lot line. Thus no more than two structures can be attached in a row. Also, the side
lot line adjacent to the landscape buffers shall not be a zero lot line. See Condition #2.
3. Existing Trees: there are several existing trees around the existing residence that are not
depicted on the landscape plan. The applicant should verifY the trees that will be
removed to accommodate the proposed development.
4. Amenities: The proposed PD amenities include a 10-foot multi-use pathway. This
pathway was requested by staff during the pre-application meeting. However, after
meeting with the Parks Dept. and analyzing the area, staff finds that the multi-use
pathway may not be needed through this development. Staff will explain this finding and
the proposed new route at the public hearing for discussion with the Commission.
Other proposed amenities include a tot lot and/or basketball court, and passive
recreational amenities such as picnic benches and/or a gazebo. The proposed amenities
are not depicted on the landscape plan, but some are shown on the color rendering of the
project. The applicant should clarify their intentions regarding the amenities.
The Commission and Council should review the proposed amenities and determine if
they are "appropriate to the size and uses of the proposed development" per Ordinance
12-6-2.3. A condition of approval (#3) will need to be added by the Commission to
require the specific amenities deemed appropriate for the development.
5. Fencing: Typically no solid fencing taller than 3 feet is allowed within 20 feet of any
right-of-way. However, staff recommends that 6-foot tall fencing be permitted along the
back of the proposed common lots. Such fencing should still taper to 3 feet tall,
minimum, within 20 feet ofthe streets they are perpendicular to. See Condition #4.
6. Stub Street: Staff recommends that Midnight Haze Lane be extended to the south and
stubbed to the adjoining property. This will be the only stub street to the south and will
AZ-04-0I7, "-<4-024, CUP-04-026
"",""AZ,PP,CUP
6.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 13
help provide interconnectivity when the property to the south redevelops. In order to
avoid forcing the developer to lose a lot in this area, staff recommends relocating the lot
that would be lost (Lot 12, Block 4) on the west end of Lot 17, Block 4. This will have
the effect of lowering the project's open space below 10% (to approximately 9.7%), but
staff supports this because the applicant already has other proposed amenities that will
meet the requirements of the planned development and it will still be in excess of the 5%
minimum. Staff also strongly supports the other three stub streets (one to the west and
two to the north) proposed by the applicant. See Condition #5.
7. Street Buffers: The street buffers along Locust Grove Road and Starry Night Street are
proposed in an easement as part of the office/commercial lots. For clarification, these
buffers should be planted with the initial subdivision improvements and should not be
allowed to wait for the office/commercial lots to develop. See Condition #6.
8. SSC: The applicant should address the concerns of the Sanitary Services Corporation
regarding trash pick-up at the hearing.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS (Conditional Use Permit)
1.
Applicant shall meet all of the requirements of the annexation and preliminary plat as a
condition of the Conditional Use Permit.
2.
The project shall conform to the modified dimensional standards, as follows:
. Minimum lot frontage: 50
. Minimum lot size: 5991 feet
. Minimum interior side yard setback: 0 feet for residential structures on Blocks I,
2,3, and Lots 3-16 of Block 4. Only one side lot line can be made a zero lot line.
Thus no more than two structures can be attached in a row. The side lot line
adjacent to the landscape buffers shall not be a zero lot line.
3.
Two amenities are required for this application. The amenities that will be required are
[The Commission should insert the required amenities here].
4.
Six foot tall fencing shall be permitted along the back of the common landscape lots, as
proposed. Such fencing shall taper to 3 feet tall, minimum, within 20 feet of streets that
they intersect.
5.
The applicant shall extend Midnight Haze Lane to the south and stub it to the adjoining
property. The applicant may relocate the lot that would be lost (Lot 12, Block 4) on the
west end of Lot 17, Block 4.
The proposed street buffers along Locust Grove Road and Starry Night Street shall be
planted with the initial subdivision improvements and shall not wait for development of
the office/commercial lots.
A2-04-0I7. PP-'>4-O24, CUP.04-026
I.=hire AZ"CUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 14
7.
As a conceptual planned development, the future office and commercial lots shall be
submitted for detailed conditional use approval.
8.
The applicant shall submit 10 copies of a revised plat and landscape plan to the Clerk's
office at least 10 days prior to the next public hearing on this project.
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
1. One and two family dwellings will require a fire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available
for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average
of 400' apart. International Fire Code Appendix D
2. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 y,," outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec.
d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side ofthe
hydrant location.
e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners.
f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
3. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside
radius.
4. Provide a 20' wide Fire Lane for all internal & external roadways.
5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are
combustible construction begins.
required before
6. To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required
for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. The applicant shall
provide a stub street to the property to the (west/east/north/south). The two entrances shall
be separated by no less than Y> the diagonal measurement of the project.
7. Building setbacks shall be per the Building Code for one and two story construction.
8. Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with the
International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an
average of300' apart.
9. Maintain a separation of5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure.
10. All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface.
II. Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes.
AZ-04-017. ""'4-024, CUP-1)4.Q26
l<~h", AZ.PPCUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 15
SANITARY SERVICES CONDITIONS
1. Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal prior
to the public hearing. There is a concern that the mix of alley and on-street service will be
difficult and may require modifications that could impact your site design and may
require a revised site plan. If the site plan.is revised, contact the planner assigned to the
project immediately to discuss the changes and how to proceed with the revised site plan.
PARKS DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
I. Pathway and Trail standards: If the proposed pathway is constructed, it shall meet the
standards as set forth in the August 2003 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System
Plan, pgs. 3-2 and 3-3, sections B & C.
2. Standard for City to assume Maintenance of a section of Pathway: The pathway, if built,
must connect from one major arterial to another, and either an easement or ownership
deed must be granted before the city will assume the maintenance of any section of
pathway.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval upon resolution of the following issues detailed under 'Special
Considerations'.
AZ-04-017. PP-<J4-024, CUP.O4-O26
L,œhk, AZncup
HE' rVEr)
JUL 1 3 2004
Of Meriiliai.
Clerk Office
~ " . ~ '7~ 'Dé4tItid
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
William G. Berg Ir.
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Ave.
--- u~J¥i(j36A2
Phone>: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nompa 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
RE:
Leeshire Subdivision
Dear Will:
CUP 04-026:
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above referenced
application for Mixed use Planned Development for Leeshire Subdivision
AZO4-017:
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above referenced
application for Annexatión and Zoning of29.69 acres from RUT to R-4 for
proposed Leeshire Subdivision
PP 04-024:
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above referenced
application for Preliminary Plat approval for 89 building lots & 20 common lots
on 29.69 acres for proposed Leeshire Subdivision.
This proposed project is out of the District's boundaries.
Thank you,
ß ¿e¡¡ ¡;I~
Bill Henson
Ass!. Water Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
BH/dbg
C: Water Superintendent
File-Office/Shop
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABlE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
~ DISTRICT CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
~~~i1~ Environmental Health Division
Rezone #
Conditional Use #
freliminary / Final/Short ~t qç: ð ~ ff.ý
L £é.."\//¡/2.P SuA iI/c l).
01,
02.
03.
04.
05.
06.
07,
~.
Return to:
0 Boise
0 Eagle
~yarden City
)i(Meridian
0 Kuna
OACZ
VIi', .f..I'I\/L'I'\ 0 Star
-L'" -L v .L-A,.'
We have No Objections to this Proposal.
JUL 1 3 2004
We recommend Denial of this Proposal. City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal.
We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of:
0 high seasonal ground water 0 waste flow characteristics
0 or bedrock from original grade 0 other
This office will require a study to assess the Impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or
surface waters.
This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Departm~nt of Water Resources concerning well construction and
water availability.
After written approval from appropriate entitles are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
~entral sewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water well
0 interim sewage ~entral water
0 individual sewage 0 Individual water
)ie. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division pfjnvironmental Quality:
;&-central sewage 8- ;ommunity sewage system 0 community water
0 sewage dry lines ~entral water
~ O. Run.off Is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
0 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations Indicate approval.
012, If restroom faciiities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State
Sewage Regulations.
0 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
0 food establishment 0 swimming pools or spas
0 beverage establishment 0 grocery store
0 child care center
~ 4. Please see attached stormwater management recommendatations
015.
~~:M!-:#Ý
Reviewed BY/~
CDHD900lko
Review Sheet
(31!~ .CENTRAL
. DISTRICT
- ~~ð~I~
MAIN OFFICE' 707 N. ARMSTRONG PL. . BOISE, 10 83704-0825 . (208) 375-5211 . FAX 327-8500
To pm'ent and treat disease and di,<ability; to pm,"o" healthy lifes(yles; and f() wotect and ¡"OmOfe rhe health and quali~, of our en"ironme""
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that storm water be pre-treated 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 Storm water Best Management Practices For
Idaho Cities and Counties.
Prepared by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, July
1997.
Storm water Best Management Practices Guidebook.
Prepared by City of Boise Public Works Department, May 2000.
Ada I Boise County OffiCE
707 N, Annstrong PI,
Boise. 10 83704
E,,¡ro, Hea~h: 317-7499
F,mily Plonning: 327-7400
Immunizations: 317-7450
Senior Nutritlo", 327-7460
WIG: 317-7488
FI<J.: 317-8500
Serving Valley, Elmore, Boise, and Ada Counties
Elmore Counly OffiCE
520 E. 6th It. North
Mountain ICo 83647
Enviro. H"lth:
family H"lth: 587-4407
WIC: í87-440c
FI<J.: 5E7-35,
Valley County OffiCE
703 ~, 1st It
m B" 1448
McCal!, 10 83638
Ph,634-7194
FAX: 634-2174
'to'3:J\: d
I>S8988880G
9S:60 1>0. 8Z lnr
.Jul 27 04 07:33p
Have" nice da::¡!
208-889-761
pol
/ 'ff.i1e.. ÁlfrJ: S-Æ//t:..
~; (Gi (ft3. {I ",1 $
RE
ElVEr)
July 22. 2004
J L262oo4
MEMORANDUM TO: Ci1y of Meridian P]an.oing and Zoning Commissioll
FROM: M;1œ and Kimberly Callahan
Cit ' Of Meridiar,
Cit Clerk Office
SUBJECT: Testinwny RE: Leesblno Subdiv;sion. August:;' ZOO4
We are adamandy opposEd II> the dl!veJopmcnt of the I..ecshire Su.bdi~ision as proposed. As omcownen
who will be <liR>ctly impllCl1Oli by this subdivis.io1l because our bome is right across tbe street, e fee] that
we lIIunprotest the excessively small lot si.... aDd huge amount ofhomos.
Meridian 1s already experiençÏ¡ g a crisis in suppiyjDg schools, parks, roads, ."d other ;mprov nleGlS. Why
would the Commission approve a decrease ¡" the Jot sizes, side yard 8erbacks, and street fton ge1 If you
approve this subdivision, it wUJ jam our already Dven::rowded street, drive Oul' home values d wn,...d
overtax the schools. _riOllat facilities. and other services.
OurtaXeS went up almOSt a SIOOO.OO IBst year and] don't want to bave them incrcaoctothc ¡"t1hat wc' (
have to sell olD'home because ofsubdivisiollS like.1bis thatuy 10 crowd too mmy homes inlo small area.
HoDe.sdy, !be sobdivision plid looks like a mobDe bon¡e park. This area bas ne..., been pOp,,1 led by smaJl,
inexpensive homes and I don't think you should .- œ.mgmg therul... DOW jusr 10 lioe the p cIœts oftbìs
doveloper-
Please consider leaving the larger lot sizes and allowing fewer homes-as the ~ning already ielates.
'Thank you fur Ibis oppOl'lllnity to ""'Press our views.
Sincerel
~~~.-
~~d Kùnberly Callahan
'tOO/TOO ~
¡¡.leT:) ÂJ.I:) ~
. Ld::!Œ Z~d NVIŒHI::!W
tS898ggg0~ XV.:! 9C:60 tOO~/gVLO
Tara Green
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tammy de Weerd [deweerdt@meridiancily.org]
Monday, August 02, 2004 10:25 AM
'Naylor, Bart L'; Bnaylor@cableone.net
bergw@cLmeridian.id.us; greent@ci.meridian.id.us
RE: Lee Shire
Mr. Naylor.
We are in receipt of your email regarding the 'Leeshire' development
application. This will be included in the public record and therefore part
of the application information available to both Planning and Zoning and the
City Council members. Thank you for your comments.
Sincerely,
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
City of Meridian
www.meridiancity.org
(208) 888-4433 ext. 204
(208) 888-4218 fax
-----Original Message-----
From: Naylor, Bart L (mailto:bart.naylor@hp.comj
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:15 AM
To: Bnaylor@cableone.net
Subject: Lee Shire
I'm Bart Naylor HOA Pres. for Vienna Woods
I would like to voice my concerns about the quality of a future development
proposed: Lee Shire
1. Commercial/Retail Space at the entrance off Locust Grove
would create excess noise and traffic. The working hours of such
Commercial/Retail Space tenants may be objectionable. I feel commercial
space should be located at major intersections and not in our immediate
residential area. The proposed commercial space should be replaced with
residential lots.
2. The overly dense lot sizes (6000-7800 square feet) will
likely drop surrounding property values and may encourage starter homes in a
rural area not accustomed to starter homes. I'd like to see larger lots with
an 8000 square foot minimum and 1/2 acre lots buffering Larkwood, Vienna
Woods and Dunwoody subdivisions.
3. What's good for the Grant Lee family should be good for you
and me. Please note the larger lot sizes around the existing property owners
home and the park which would promote a higher quality of life at that end
of the development.
4. Vienna Woods smallest lots size is 8000 on the south and up
to 1/2 acre on the north side buffering the more rural home sites. This is
a better approach to buffering larger home sites.
5. The proposed Lee Shire development is located within 1/2
mile of many rural developments: Eagle's one acre lots in Spy Glass &
BanBury, Larkwood's 1.5 to 5 acres Dunwoody's 1.5 to 5 acres and Shandee's
one acre lots. Meridian City should consider the lifestyle invasion that
high density is to such homes and provide a reasonable transition.
Commercial property is not a transition.
6. Meridian School District is currently overcrowded. and has a
history of slow project development. This development seems to be built too
LATE instead of when the needs are the greatest. I know that there are
plans for improvement in this area, but as a tax payer this is not
satisfactory. My wife has served in the School District Boundary Committee
and has seen the many issues. My children are bused to a high school
(Eagle) which is too far away, when there are closer schools (Centennial).
This shows a lack of good planning.
Based on this observation, if smaller density subdivisions
continue it will put more pressure on the school district. Until this
school district problem can be solved it only makes sense to put 8000
square feet as a minimum for Lee Shire development.
Regards.
Bart Naylor
2065 E. Strauss Ct. Meridian. Idaho 83642
396-6108
¡
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
William LM, Nary
Shaun Wardle
Charles M. Rountree
'\
~
cM'e;;dla:n
IDAHO
CI:II1"ßKAl.L
(~1!Œ34OO 3- .f dJd m.8IEJ. 3
PBBBlíICJIoI6IÐRKS
B IJIUDDI!;Iill BUlUUI'II'IBJ T
(~iB'l;¡¡I!Il¡'.fdJd'll!J3}.\!i51
LEIJf1IAIDBI'RJ\EJ!m ¡J ¡T
(~~...flOOl\~5
STAFF REPORT:
Transmittal Date: August 2, 2004
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
To:
Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
Steve Siddoway, Principal Planner ~
Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech ~
Leeshire Subdivision
From:
Re:
RECEIVED
AUG 02 2004
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
. Annexation and Zoning of29.69 Acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Low
Density Residential District), C-N (Neighborhood Business District), and L-O
(Limited Office District), by SWI Associates, LLC. (File No. AZ-O4-017).
. Preliminary Plat Approval of Eighty Nine (89) Building Lots and Twenty (20)
Common Lots on 29.69 Acres in Proposed R-4, C-N, and L-O Zones, by SWI
Associates, LLC. (File No. PP-04-024).
. Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Mixed-Use Planned Development of
Single-Family Homes, Commercial, and Office uses, with reduced lot size,
street frontage, and setbacks, by SWI Associates, LLC. (File No. CUP-04-
026).
We have reviewed the above referenced submittals and offer the following comments, as
conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly
modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATIONS SUMMARY
The applicant, SWI Associates, is proposing annexation of 29.69 acres of land located on the
west side of Locust Grove Road, approximately halfway between McMillan Road and Chinden
Blvd. The plat for the property consists of 89 building lots and 20 common lots. The gross
density of the proposed plat is 2.93 d.u./acre per the application form. If the proposed
commercial/office areas are subtracted the gross density of the residential area is 3.26
d.u./acre. The net density is not listed, but would be higher after subtracting out the road
areas. The proposed density of 3.26 d.u./acre is in accord with both the proposed zoning
district (R-4) and the Comprehensive Plan (Medium Density Residential).
AZ-O4-0I7,PP-<J4-024.CUP-Q4-Q26
"'~h", AZ,PPCUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 2
The project can be described as having three distinct sections. The front section is proposed
for future office and commercial development adjacent to Locust Grove Road. The northern
lot is proposed for office and southern lot is proposed for neighborhood commercial. The
second, or middle section, contains a mix of attached and detached homes on lots ranging from
approximately 5,900 to 8,000 s.f. 23 of the lots in the middle section are served by alleys; the
other 35 are front-loaded. About half of the front-loaded lots are proposed by the applicant to
have garages set back at least 35 feet from the front property line. The third, or back section
contains 28 standard single-family residential lots ranging from approximately 9,500 to 14,000
s.f., plus the existing residence on a large 58,474 s.f. lot.
The CUP/PD application requests a use exception for the proposed office/commercial lots.
The area of the commercial/office lots comprises just under 10% of the property. The
application also requests reduced side setbacks for the residential zero lot line structures on
Blocks I, 2, 3, and Lots 3-16 of Block 4; reduced lot frontages, and reduced lot sizes. These
proposed modifications are detailed below.
R-4 Zone:
Lot Size-
Citv ReQuirements
8,000 sq.ft.
(Minimum)
Proposed Lot Sizes
5,991 sq. ft.
(Minimum)
Lot Frontage-Citv ReQuirements
80' minimum
Proposed Frontage
50' minimum
Setbacks -
Citv ReQuirements
Side: 5'
Proposed Setbacks
Side: 0 for zero lot line residences
The proposed PD amenities include a 10-foot multi-use pathway (discussed in detail in the
Special Considerations section of this report), a tot lot and/or basketball court, and passive
recreational amenities such as picnic benches and/or a gazebo.
There are several issues needing resolution, as discussed in the Special Considerations section of
this report. Staff recommends that they get resolved prior to approval of this project.
LOCATION
The property is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road, approximately halfway between
McMillan Road and Chinden Blvd.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North: Rural Residential and agricultural land, zoned RUT (Ada County).
AZ-O4-017,PP-<J4-024.CUP-04-026
L=h", AlPPCUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 3
South: Larkwood Subdivision, rural residences, and a church, zoned RUT (Ada County).
East: Rural Residential and agricultural land, zoned RUT (Ada County); Vienna Woods
Subdivision is to the southeast, zoned R4 (Ada County)
West: Approved Saguaro Subdivision, zoned R-4.
OWNER OF RECORD
The property owners of record are Grant and Joyce Lee. Grant Lee has provided notarized
consent for SWI Associates, LLC to submit these applications.
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS
According to Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both
the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and
circumstances of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and
shall find adequate evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning
amendment. "
The following is the list of standards found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff:
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;
Staff fmds that the requested zoning designation, R-4, is harmonious with and in
accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. The
proposed single family residential project is shown as Medium Density
Residential (3 to 8 d.u./acre). The proposed density-3.26 d.u./acre gross-is
within the range designated by the Comprehensive Plan. The net density
calculation was not provided by the applicant on the application form and should
be presented at the public hearing. The east portion of the property is proposed to
be office and commercial. These uses, while prohibited in the Medium Density
Residential land use area, may be approved as a use exception through the
planned development process.
B.
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the
future;
Staff does not anticipate that the applicant intends to rezone the subject property
in the future.
C.
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the
fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning -for example, a
residential area turning into a commercial area by means of conditional use
permits;
AZ-O4-017. PP-<4-024, CUP-04-026
l.=h"AZ,PP.CUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 4
Staff finds that the proposed development would be allowed within the requested
R-4 zone, (if the accompanying Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development is also approved).
D.
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;
Staff finds that the land to the east has been recently annexed and approved for
single-family residential lots in Saguaro Canyon Subdivision. Saguaro Canyon
has a gross density of 3.29 d.u./acre. Vienna Woods #2 has a gross density of
2.27 d.u./acre. Larkwood Subdivision to the south has lot sizes that run
approximately 2 acres each. The proposed density-3.26 d.u./acre gross-is very
similar to Saguaro Canyon, about one unit per acre higher than Vienna Woods,
and much more dense than Larkwood. Thus staff finds that surrounding
developments are mixed densities-either the same or less, but the proposed
density is within the anticipated range for a medium density project. ACHD has
also reviewed the adjacent street capacity and has' approved the proposed
subdivision (with conditions).
E.
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 finds that the proposed uses (single family residential, office and
neighborhood commercial) will change the existing character of the area, which is
largely rural. However, the change is harmonious with the intended character
envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan, as described above.
Staff has received several calls from adjacent property owners objecting to the
higher densities, and/or the office/commercial uses. The Commission and
Council should consider the adjacent property owners concerns and appropriate
measures to address their concerns.
F.
Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses;
The Commission and Council should rely on public testimony (oral and written)
to determine whether or not the proposed use will be disturbing or hazardous to
the existing or future neighboring uses. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed
uses will be hazardous or disturbing to future or existing neighbors, as long as
landscaping, fencing and other recommended conditions are exercised.
Az.O4-017,PP-<14-024.CUP.Q4.026
,""hi" AZPP,CUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 5
J.
K.
G.
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;
Staff finds that the property to be annexed may be served adequately by all
essential public facilities and services. Applicant shall be required to extend
water and sanitary sewer mains to and through the proposed development, thereby
making them available to the adjacent properties.
H.
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;
If approved, the developer will finance the extension of sewer, water, utilities and
pressurized irrigation to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the
future residents will be fire and police services. Staff finds that there will not be
excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the annexation and
zoning will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare.
I.
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;
Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not create excessive traffic, noise or
other nuisances that would be detrimental to the . general welfare of the
surrounding area. According to ACHD's report, the project is anticipated to
generate up to 1,284 additional vehicle trips per day. Staffrecognizes the fact that
traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision; however staff
does not feel that the amount generated will be detrimental to the public welfare
of the city. The proposed uses do not involve activities that would create smoke,
fumes, glare, or odors.
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;
The proposed access to the subdivision from Locust Grove Road has been
approved by ACHD. Staff does not anticipate that the subdivision will cause
significant interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance; and
AZ-04-017.PP-o4-024.CUP.04.026
""hire AZ,PPCUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 6
Staff finds that there are several existing trees around the existing residence that
are not depicted on the landscape plan. The applicant should verify the trees that
will be removed to accommodate the proposed development. Any existing trees
larger than 4" caliper that are removed shall be mitigated for, per the Landscape
Ordinance. If any trees are deemed to be hazardous, diseased or dying by the City
Arborist, Elroy Huff, mitigation will not be required for those trees. Staff
recommends the applicant verify the status of the existing trees prior to submitting
final plat and detailing any required mitigation on the detailed landscape plan
submitted with the final plat.
L.
Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of
Meridian. (Ord. 592, 11-17-1992)?
Staff finds that the annexation of this property would be in the best interest of
the City. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS AND REOUIREMENTS
Sections 12-3-3 J.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance of a proposed
subdivision, the Commission/Council shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the
following:
a. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan;
As noted above, staff finds that the subdivision appears to be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan, provided the Commission and Council grant the requested planned
development. See Annexation and Zoning Analysis item A.
b. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
Staff fmds that public services can be made available to accommodate the proposed
development. See Annexation and Zoning Analysis item H.
c. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program;
Staff finds that the subdivision will not conflict with the capital improvement plan. Because
the developer is installing sewer, water, local street infrastructure, utilities and irrigation, the
subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. See Annexation
and Zoning Analysis item H.
d. The public fmandal capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting
services. See Annexation and Zoning Analysis item H.
AZ-04-017.PP--04-024.CUP.Q4.026
L=hù,AZ PP CUP
4.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 7
e. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the
Commission's attention.
Staff finds that there should not be any other health, safety or environmental problems
associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Councilor Commission's
attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. No hazardous natural
features have been identified on the site.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
1.
All conditions of the accompanying Conditional Use Permit application shall also be
considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat.
2.
The landscape plan shall be modified per the following:
. Show the existing trees to be removed or retained, their sizes, and any required
mitigation. Also state any protection measures to be used during construction.
. The landscape plan depicts the edge oflandscaping at the edge of the common lot
along Locust Grove Road. Since the widening of Locust Grove is not in ACHD' s
Five Year Work Program, per Ordinance 12-13-10-9, modify the landscape plan
to show a 10-foot gravel shoulder adjacent to the existing edge of pavement and
the remainder shall be landscaped with at least grass.
. No stormwater swales are currently depicted on the plan. Add contours and
landscaping for any anticipated stormwater swales.
. Show the required detached sidewalks along Locust Grove Road in the landscape
buffer.
. Show the amenities required for the Conditional Use Permit.
. In the street buffer along Locust Grove Road, change the proposed conifer trees to
an approved deciduous species, since the buffer is proposed adjacent to future
office/commercial uses.
3.
Sanitary sewer service to the eastern, roughly half of this site shall be via main line
extensions from the existing main in N. Locust Grove Road. The balance of the west
half of this subdivision will have to be serviced by a joint lift station that is currently
being negotiated with an adjacent property owner. If negotiations break down, then this
development will have to install its own lift station to provide service. This development
shall be subject to sanitary sewer latecomers fees, to reimburse those responsible for
bringing service to this area. These fees shall be due and payable for each phase prior to
the City's endorsement of the final plat maps.
Domestic water service to this site shall be via main line extensions from the existing
mains adjacent to the property. This development will be required to install a pressure
reducing station at its entrance to N. Locust Grove. A 12-inch diameter water main will
be required through this subdivision to the end of the stub street, Starry Night Street.
AZ-04-017. "41-024, CUP.04-026
L=bi«AZ,PP,CUP
8.
9.
10.
11.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 8
This development shall be subject to sanitary sewer latecomers fees, to reimburse those
responsible for bringing service to this area. These fees shall be due and payable for each
phase prior to the City's endorsement of the final plat maps.
5.
Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer and water mains to and through this
proposed development, thereby making them available to adjacent properties.
Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works
Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard form of easements, for
any mains or facilities that are required to provide service.
6.
The applicant has indicated that the pressurized irrigation system within this development
will either be owned and operated by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District or the
homeowners association, though they have not yet specified which it will be. Note: The
applicant has recently verified that the project is actually within the Settlers Irrigation
District.
Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this
development (MCC 12-5-2.N). The City of Meridian requires that pressurized
irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The
Applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary
source. If a surface 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 City Engineer. If the system is to remain
private, a draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual must be
submitted prior to plan approval.
7.
A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted with the application for final plat. A 6-foot
solid fence shall be required around the perimeter of the subdivision unless the City
agrees in writing that such a fence is not required. Applicant shall address intended
fencing design at the public hearings.
In accordance with MCC 12-13-10-8, Applicant shall provide 5-foot detached sidewalks
adjacent to Locust Grove Road. Applicant shall also provide 4-foot detached sidewalks
internally, as proposed.
The applicant shall be responsible for payment of and the actual physical sanitary sewer
and domestic water connection for the existing house.
Please revise the preliminary plat map to show the attached units building envelope. This
will help to identify which lot lines will need to have zero lot lines, and which ones
won't.
The GeoTechnical Report, dated 5/1/04, submitted with this application indicates that the
project site has surface soils and an underlying cemented silt or hardpan layer that could
AZ-O4-O17.PP-04-024.CUP.O4-O26
'-'~hire AZ",.cuP
7.
8.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 9
prove to be problematic with respect to drainage. Please submit all updated
groundwater/soils monitoring data to the Public Works Department for review. All
drainage facilities (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water is
retained only during 1O0-year storm events, and for a period of time not to exceed 24
hours. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3:1. The project engineer
should pay close attention to the results of field studies determining the groundwater, soil
type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases. The engineer shall
be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet
above the highest established normal groundwater elevation.
12.
The applicant shall incorporate into the project's "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions for Leeshire Homeowners' Association," the "Homebuilders
Recommendations" and "Homeowner Recommendations" as prepared by Bob J. Arnold,
P.E., project geotechnical consultant. These informative documents shall also be
provided to the home builders prior to purchase of the lots.
GENERAL COMMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
1.
Please submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's approval letter for the
subdivision name, and the lot and block numbering. Make any corrections necessary to
conform.
2.
Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
3.
A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing,
landscaping, play equipment, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to
signature on the final plat.
4.
Any pathways or micropaths within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in
accordance with MCC 12-13-15 "Micropath Landscaping".
5.
A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance, shall be
submitted for the subdivision with the final plat application.
Sidewalks within the proposed subdivision shall be built in accordance with MCCI2-13-
10-8.
6.
250 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.
Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by
Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from
the Public Works Department prior commencing installations.
All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting,
crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per
AZ-O4-017,PP-<l4-024.CUP-ú4-026
L="'.AZPP,CUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 10
City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owner's), with written
approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users
association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the
meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature.
9.
Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by
installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that
were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for
those trees that are removed.
10.
Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
II.
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.
12.
Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all
building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USES
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed conditional use in terms of the following and may approve a conditional use permit if
they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (11-17-3):
A.
B.
C.
That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open
spaces, parking, landscaping and other features as may be required by this
ordinance;
Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested use
and all other required features. All residential lots are of adequate size and shape to
accommodate homes that would comply with the proposed bulk and dimensional
standards.
That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance;
The current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the majority of the property
as Medium Density Residential. Staff finds that if the modifications required in this
report are done, the application will meet the requirements of the Planned Development
and other Zoning Ordinances. Also see items A and C under Annexation and Zoning
Analysis.
That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with
AZ-04-017, PM4-024. CUP4I-O26
"",hire AZ",.cUP
H.
I.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 11
other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential
character ofthe same area;
Staff finds the design concept to be compatible with the intended character of the area.
See item E under Annexation and Zoning Analysis.
D.
That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,
will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity;
Staff does not anticipate that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on
the surrounding property. However, the Commission and Council should consider any
testimony given at the public hearings before making this finding.
E.
That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, street, police, and rue protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of
proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services;
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item G.
F.
That the proposed use 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;
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item H.
G.
That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment,
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare or odors;
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item l.
That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be
so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item J.
That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item K.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AZ-04-OIJ.PP-<J4-0".CUP-04'()26
L=,", AZ,PP,CUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 12
1.
Street Side Setbacks: The proposed plan includes 10-foot wide common lots along the
streets adjacent to interior blocks. Houses built on these lots with a 5-foot side setback
would only be 15 feet from the right-of-way. In the past, the Commission and Council
have not supported this arrangement, because it had not met the intent of the code
regarding street side setback dimensions. MCC 11-9-1 requires a minimum street side
setback of 20 feet within the R-4 zone. However, in this case, the project includes 4-foot
detached sidewalks with a 5-foot landscape strip between the sidewalk and curb. The
landscape strip and sidewalk are fully contained within the right-of-way. So, any
buildings on the lots in question would be a full 24'-6" from the curb-thus meeting the
intent ofthe ordinance in this case. Staff recommends that no changes be required on this
issue and raises the discussion simply for consideration by the Commission and Council
based on past precedence.
2.
Interior Side Yard Setbacks: The planned development application requests reduced side
setbacks for residential zero lot line structures on Blocks 1,2,3, and Lots 3-16 of Block
4. Staff supports this request with the caveat that only one side lot line can be made a
zero lot line. Thus no more than two structures can be attached in a row. Also, the side
lot line adjacent to the landscape buffers shall not be a zero lot line. See Condition #2.
3. Existing Trees: there are several existing trees around the existing residence that are not
depicted on the landscape plan. The applicant should verify the trees that will be
removed to accommodate the proposed development.
4. Amenities: The proposed PD amenities include a lO-foot multi-use pathway. This
pathway was requested by staff during the pre-application meeting. However, after
meeting with the Parks Dept. and analyzing the area, staff finds that the multi-use
pathway may not be needed through this development. Staff will explain this rIDding and
the proposed new route at the public hearing for discussion with the Commission.
Other proposed amenities include a tot lot and/or basketball court, and passive
recreational amenities such as picnic benches and/or a gazebo. The proposed amenities
are not depicted on the landscape plan, but some are shown on the color rendering of the
project. The applicant should clarify their intentions regarding the amenities.
The Commission and Council should review the proposed amenities and determine if
they are "appropriate to the size and uses of the proposed development" per Ordinance
12-6-2.3. A condition of approval (#3) will need to be added by the Commission to
require the specific amenities deemed appropriate for the development.
5. Fencing: Typically no solid fencing taller than 3 feet is allowed within 20 feet of any
right-of-way. However, staff recommends that 6-foot tall fencing be permitted along the
back of the proposed common lots. Such fencing should still taper to 3 feet tall,
minimum, within 20 feet of the streets they are perpendicular to. See Condition #4.
AZ-04.0I7.PP-<J4.024.CUP-<)4.026
L=Iill, AZ,PPCUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 13
6. Stub Street: Staff recommends that Midnight Haze Lane be extended to the south and
stubbed to the adjoining property. This will be the only stub street to the south and will
help provide interconnectivity when the property to the south redevelops. In order to
avoid forcing the developer to lose a lot in this area, staff recommends relocating the lot
that would be lost (Lot 12, Block 4) on the west end of Lot 17, Block 4. This will have
the effect of lowering the project's open space below 10% (to approximately 9.7%), but
staff supports this because the applicant already has other proposed amenities that will
meet the requirements of the planned development and it will still be in excess of the 5%
minimum. Staff also strongly supports the other three stub streets (one to the west and
two to the north) proposed by the applicant. See Condition #5.
7. Street Buffers: The street buffers along Locust Grove Road and Starry Night Street are
proposed in an easement as part of the office!commerciallots. For clarification, these
buffers should be planted with the initial subdivision improvements and should not be
allowed to wait for the office/commercial lots to develop. See Condition #6.
8. SSC: The applicant should address the concerns of the Sanitary Services Corporation
regarding trash pick-up at the hearing.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS (Conditional Use Permit)
1.
Applicant shall meet all of the requirements of the annexation and preliminary plat as a
condition of the Conditional Use Permit.
2.
The project shall conform to the modified dimensional standards, as follows:
. Minimum lot frontage: 50
. Minimum lot size: 5991 feet
. Minimum interior side yard setback: 0 feet for residential structures on Blocks 1,
2,3, and Lots 3-16 of Block 4. Only one side lot line can be made a zero lot line.
Thus no more than two structures can be attached in a row. The side lot line
adjacent to the landscape buffers shall not be a zero lot line.
3.
Two amenities are required for this application. The amenities that will be required are
[The Commission should insert the required amenities here].
4.
Six foot tall fencing shall be permitted along the back of the common landscape lots, as
proposed. Such fencing shall taper to 3 feet tall, minimum, within 20 feet of streets that
they intersect.
5.
The applicant shall extend Midnight Haze Lane to the south and stub it to the adjoining
property. The applicant may relocate the lot that would be lost (Lot 12, Block 4) on the
west end of Lot 17, Block 4.
AZ-04-017. PP-Q4.024, CUP.04-026
L=bireAZPP,CUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 14
6.
The proposed street buffers along Locust Grove Road and Starry Night Street shall be
planted with the initial subdivision improvements and shall not wait for development of
the office/commercial lots.
7.
As a conceptual planned development, the future office and commercial lots shall be
submitted for detailed conditional use approval.
8.
The applicant shall submit 10 copies of a revised plat and landscape plan to the Clerk's
office at least 10 days prior to the next public hearing on this project.
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
1. One and two family dwellings will require a fire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available
for duration of2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average
of 400' apart. International Fire Code Appendix D
2. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 W' outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec.
d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the
hydrant location.
e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners.
f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
3. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of28' inside and 48' outside
radius.
4. Provide a 20' wide Fire Lane for all internal & external roadways.
5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are
combustible construction begins.
required before
6. To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required
for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. The applicant shall
provide a stub street to the property to the (west'east'north/south). The two entrances shall
be separated by no less than Yz the diagonal measurement of the project.
7. Building setbacks shall be per the Building Code for one and two story construction.
8. Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with the
International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an
average of 300' apart.
9. Maintain a separation 0[5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure.
AZ-04-017,PP-<)4-024.CUP.04-026
L=bi" AZ,PPCUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004
Page 15
10. All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface.
II. Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes.
SANITARY SERVICES CONDITIONS
I. Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal prior
to the public hearing. There is a concern that the mix of alley and on-street service will be
difficult and may require modifications that could impact your site design and may
require a revised site plan. If the site plan is revised, contact the planner assigned to the
project immediately to discuss the changes and how to proceed with the revised site plan.
PARKS DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
1. Pathway and Trail standards: If the proposed pathway is constructed, it shall meet the
standards as set forth in the August 2003 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System
Plan, pgs. 3-2 and 3-3, sections B & C.
2. Standard for City to assume Maintenance of a section of Pathway: The pathway, if built,
must connect from one major arterial to another, and either an easement or ownership
deed must be granted before the city will assume the maintenance of any section of
pathway.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval upon resolution of the following issues detailed under 'Special
Considerations' .
AZ-04-017, PP-<)4-024. CUP-04-026
L="", AZ,PP,CUP
.-'......-~
~.'-""'~.'~
.~~
Ada County Highway District
John S. Franden, President
David E. Wynkoop 1st Vice President
Susan S. Eastlake, 2nd Vice President
Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner
Dave Bivens, Commissioner
377S N. Adams Street
Garden City ID 83714-6499
Phone (208) 387-6100
FAX (208) 387-6391
E-mail: tellus@ACHD.ada.id.us
July 29, 2004
RECEIVED'
AUG 04 2004
To:
SWI Associates
4700 North Cloverdale Road
Boise, Idaho 83702
City Of Meridial'
City Clerk Ollic;
Subject:
Leeshire Subdivision/MPP04
89-lot mixed use subdivision
5603 North Locust Grove Ro
On July 21, 2004, the Ada County Highway Dis
referenced project. The attached report lists site-specifi
street improvements, which are required.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 208-387-6177.
CC:
Project file, Construction Services, Drainage, Utilities
City of Meridian
Tomlinson Consulting Inc
205 North 10th Street, Suite B 100
Boise, Idaho 83702
",¡ II;'~P""
~ Ada County Highway District
Right-of- Way & Development Department
Planning Review Division
This application requires Commission action due to the development's location within the North Meridian
Area. This item was scheduled to be on the consent agenda on Wednesday July 21, 2004 at 12:00 noon.
This item was pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion. Tech Review for this item was held
with the applicant on Friday July 9,2004. Please refer to the attachment for request for reconsideration
guidelines. Staff contact: Andrea N. Tuning, 208-387-6177-phone, 208-387-6393-fax,
atunina@achd.ada.id.us
File Numbers:
Leeshire SubdivisionIMPPO4-024IMCUPO4-o26/MAZO4-017
Site address:
5603 North Locust Grove Road
OwnerlApplicant:
SWI Associates, LLC
4700 North Cloverdale Road
Suite 214
Boise, Idaho 83702
Representative:
Tomlinson Consulting, Inc.
205 North 10th Street
Suite B100
Boise, Idaho 83702
Application Information:
The applicant has submitted an application to the City of Meridian requesting annexation, rezone, conditional
use and preliminary plat approval to construct an 89-mixed use subdivision on 29.69-acres. The subdivision
is proposed to contain 87-single-fmaily lots, 1-office lot, 1-commerciallots and 20-common lots. The site is
currently zoned RUT and is proposed to be zoned R-4, C-N and L-O. The site is located on the west side of
Locust Grove Road approximately one half of a mile south of Chinden Boulevard.
Acreage: 29.69-acres
Current Zoning: RUT
Proposed Zoning: R-4, C-N, and L-O
Buildable Lots: 89-totallots
87-single-family residential
1-office
1-commercial
20-lots
Common Lots:
Vicinity Map
", <~~'Øg
10.
2
A.
Findings of Fact
1.
Trip Generation: This development is estimated to generate 1,284 additional vehicle trips per day
(10 existing) based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual.
2.
Impact Fees: There will be an impact fee that is assessed and due prior to issuance of a building
permit. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that
time.
3.
Traffic Impact Study: A traffic impact study was not required with this application.
4.
Site Information: The sile currently has one existing single-family residential dwelling with several
out buildings.
5.
Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area:
a. North: 10.0-acre site zoned RUT and a 5.0-acre site zoned RUT
b. South: larkwood Subdivision and a 14.7-acre church site
c. East: locust Grove Road and two 5.060-acre sites zoned RUT
d. West: 60.89-acre site that was preliminary platted as a part of Sagauro Canyon Subdivision
6.
Impacted Roadways
locust Grove Road:
Frontage:
Functional Street Classification:
Traffic count:
level of Service:
Speed limit:
An acceptable Level of Service for this segment of roadway is Level of Service E based on the
COMPASS Planning Thresholds.
665-feet
Minor arterial
South of McMillan Road was 4,719 on 6-28-01
Currently better than C
7.
Roadway Improvements Adjacent To and Near the Site
locust Grove Road is currently improved with 2-traffic lanes (24-feet of pavement) with no curb,
gutter or sidewalk abutting the site.
8.
Existing Right-of-Way
locust Grove Road currently has a total of 50-feet of right-of-way (25-feet from centerline).
Existing Access to the Site
The site currently has an existing 13-foot wide driveway that intersects locust Grove Road
approximately 260-feet south of the north property line. This driveway is used to access the attached
garage for the single family residential dwelling.
9.
The site currently has an existing 17 -foot wide driveway that intersects locust Grove Road
approximately 305-feet south of the north property line. This driveway is used to access the out
buildings.
Site History
The District has not previously reviewed a development application on this site.
13.
Capital Improvements PlanlFive Year Work Program
This segment of locust Grove Road is not included in the District's Five Year Work Program or
Capital Improvements Plan.
12. North Meridian Area
. A traffic impact study was not required with this application, but staff his included the executive
summary of the North Meridian Traffic Study.
The proposed 12-square mile study area between US 20/26 and Ustick Road and between
McDermott Road and Eagle Road has been examined by the_Ada County Highway District (ACHD)
for anticipated development build out. The following are the principal findings and recommendations
of the study:
. The study area is anticipated to develop an additional 17,599 .dwelling units, 2,744,000 sq. ft of
office buildings, 1,929,000 sq.ft. of retail buildings, 12 elementary schools, 2 senior high schools, 2
junior high schools, 38,260 sq. ft of church buildings, and approximately 60 acres of park, at full
build out.
. The build out scenario of the study area is projected to generate an average daily traffic (ADT) of
276,764 vehicles per day (vpd) , of which the peak hour traffic (PHT) will be 28,206 vehicles per
hour (vph). Out of these trips approximately 10% of the trips remain internal within each section,
and 6% of the trips are pass-by trips.
. The distribution of the traffic from all of the study area sections indicate that approximately 30%
traffic directed towards south, 27% of the traffic directed towards east, 21 % of the traffic directed
towards west and north. The remaining 22% of the traffic is distributed within the study area.
. At build out, traffic on the arterials is expected to significantly increase.
. All of the arterial intersections in the study area are currently operating at acceptable level of
service of "C' or better.
. The majority of study intersections are projected to meet the peak hour traffic signal warrants at full
build out of the area.
. Several mid-mile intersections may warrant traffic signals due to the heavy left turn traffic volume.
. At full build out, the following improvements may be anticipated within the study area:
0 5-lane road section with right turn lanes at some arterial and access intersections:
Chinden Boulevard, McMillan east of Black Cat, Ustick east of Black Cat, Linder, Ten
Mile, Meridian south of McMillan, and Locust Grove at Ustick.
0 3-lane road section with right turn lanes at some arterial and access intersections:
McMillan west of Black Cat, Ustick west of Black Cat, McDermott, Black Cat, Meridian
north of McMillan, and Locust Grove.
Due to the large number of inquiries and submitted development applications in this area, staff and
the development community realized that the potential for development in this area is significant and
the traffic impact studies that each individual developer was submitting did not include the major
surrounding developments that are "in the works".
Based on development pattems in this area, and the concern surrounding the abutting roadways,
ACHD hired Washington Group to conduct a traffic impact study of the northwestem Meridian area
from Ustick Road to Chinden Boulevard, and from McDermott Road to Eagle Road. The study was
necessary to determine what types of roadway improvements, especially at intersections, would be
needed to accommodate the traffic in this area at full build out.
One option for funding improving these roadways is the implementation of an extra-ordinary impact
fee overlay district. This applicant will be subject to extraordinary fees, should an overlay district be
implemented in this area.
13.
Other Development in Area
Sagauro Canyon was approved by the District on November 12, 2003. Sagauro Canyon is proposed
to contain 461-single-fmaily residential lots on 140.25-acres. Sagauro Canyon is located directly to
the west of this site.
3
B.
Findings for Consideration
1.
Right-of-Way and Sidewalk- Locust Grove Road
District policy requires 96-feet of right-of-way on arterial roadways (Figure 72-F1 B). This right-of-way
allows for the construction of a 5-lane roadway with curb, gutter, 5-foot concrete detached sidewalks
and bike lanes.
Locust Grove Road is not listed as a proposed project in the District's currently adopted Five-Year
Work Program or in the currently adopted 20-year Capital Improvements Plan. As such, the applicant
cannot receive reimbursement for dedicated right-of-way from available collected impact fees. The
applicant shall do one of the following:
a. Dedicate by donation a total of 48-feet of right-of-way from the centerline along Locust Grove
Road, and construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Locust Grove Road, located a
minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of the right-of-way.
b. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk
along Locust Grove Road, located a minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of the right-of-way, in an
easement provided to the District.
c. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk
along Locust Grove Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-way. Accomplish all
necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and utilities.
2.
Roadway Offsets
Main Entrance
District policy 7204.11.6, requires local roadways to align or offset a minimum of 300-feet from an
arterial roadway (measured centerline to centerline).
The applicant is proposing to construct the main entrance, Starry Night Street, to intersect Locust
Grove Road approximately 286-feet north of the south property line. This roadway location exceeds
the minimum offsets that are required by District policy and should be approved with this application.
Internal Streets
District policy 7204.11.6, requires local roadways to align or offset a minimum of 125-feet from
another local roadway (measured centerline to centerline).
The remainder of the internal streets exceeds the minimum offsets that are required by District policy
and should be approved with this application.
3.
Street Sections
Commercial
District policy 7202.8 and 72-F1B, requires roadways abutting commercial developments to be
constructed as a 40-foot street section with curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk within 54-feet of
right-of-way.
The applicant is proposing to construct Starry Night Street as a 40-foot street section with vertical
curb, gutter and a 5-foot detached concrete sidewalk that is detached with a 5-foot planter strip within
59-feet of right-of-way. This street section meets District policy and should be approved with this
application as it has been proposed.
Residential
District policy 72-F1A, allows local residential public roads with a 33-foot street section with parking
on both sides of the roadway, if the amount of vehicle trips per day on the street does not exceed
1,000 and the appropriate fire department reviews and approves the street section. The proposed
4
4.
density of development that will utilize the internal local residential streets is anticipated to generate
less than 1,000 vehicle trips per day.
The applicant is proposing to construct as 33-foot street sections with rolled curb, gutter and a 5-foot
detached concrete sidewalk that is detached with a 5-foot planter strip within 52-feet of right-of-way.
This street section meets District policy and should be approved with this application as it has been
proposed. The applicant should submit a letter showing the review and approval of the reduced
street section from the appropriate Fire District in order to allow parking on both sides of the roadway.
The applicant is proposing to detach the sidewalk on Lot 1 Block 2 to meander outside of the right of
way. The applicant should provide pedestrian connections to the pedestrian crossings at the corner
and provide the District with an easement for the sidewalk that meanders outside of the right-of-way.
Alleys
District policy 7204.10.1 requires the minimum right-of-way width for new alleys to be 16-feet if: the
alley is abutted by residential uses and zoning on both sides; and building setbacks required by the
land use agency having jurisdiction provide sufficient space for the safe backing of vehicles into the
alley; and 20-feet in all other situations. Dedication of clear title to the right-of-way and the
improvement of the right-of-way, and acceptance of the improvement by the District as meeting its
construction standards, are required for all alleys contained in a proposed development. The alley
shall be improved by paving the full width and length ofthe right-of-way; provided, that the minimum
width of the right-of-way is 16-feet and the homeowners association has obtained a license
agreement from the District authorizing the landscaping of a portion of the alley right-of-way, which a
portion abuts the development and does not exceed two feet in width, such licensed area need not be
paved until the license is terminated.
District Policy 7204.10.3 states a minimum of back-at-curb radius of 15-feet is required at all alley
intersections. For the reconstruction of existing alleys, the back-of-curb radius may be less than 15-
feet when it is impractical to remove existing obstructions.
Access is allowed to and from a fully improved alley (District policy 7204.10.2). Parking shall be
designed so the minimum clear distance from the back of the parking stall to the opposite side of the
alley is 22-feet for perpendicular parking. An access to an alley shall be located a minimum of 25-feet
from the nearest public street.
Parking in alley is not allowed (District policy 7204.10.3).
The applicant is proposing to construct two twenty fool wide alleys within the subdivision. The
applicant should pave the alley its full width and construct a back-of-curb radius of 15-feet at all alley
intersections. An access to an alley shall be located a minimum of 25-feet from the nearest public
street. Parking shall be designed so the minimum clear distance from the back of the parking stall to
the opposite side of the alley is 22-feet for perpendicular parking. Parking in alley is not allowed.
5.
Stub Streets
District policy 7203.5.1 states that the street design in a proposed development shall cause no undue
hardship to adjoining property. An adequate and convenient access to adjoining property for use in
future development may be required. If a street ends at the development boundary, it shall meet the
requirements of sub section 7205, "non-continuous streets:
District policy 7205.5 states that stub streets will be required to provide intra-neighborhood circulation
or to provide access to adjoining properties. Stub streets will conform with the requirements
described in Section 7204.5, 7204.6 and 7204.7, except a temporary cul-de-sac will not be required if
the stub street has a length no grealer than 150-feet. A sign shall be installed at the terminus of the
stub street staling that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". In addition, a stub
street must meet the following conditions:
5
1. A stub street shall be designed to slope towards the street intersection and drain surface
water toward that intersection; unless a satisfactory storm drain system is installed.
2. The District may require appropriate covenants guaranteeing that the stub street will
remain free of obstructions.
The applicant is proposing to extend one previously approved stub street and construct two additional
stub streets within the subdivision.
The applicant is proposing to extend Starry Night Street from the west property line located
approximately 375-feet north of the south property line. StaITY Night Street was originally approved
on November 12, 2003 as a part of Sagauro Canyon Subdivision. District staff is supportive of the
applicant's proposal to extend this stub street into the site.
The applicant is proposing to construct a stub street to the north property line located approximately
139-feet east of the west property line. This stub street is proposed to serve the 10-acre parcel to the
north. Staff is supportive of the location of the proposed stub street. Due to the fact that the stub
street is less than 150-feet in depth, the applicant will not be required to construct a temporary
turnaround at the terminus of the stub street. The applicant will be required to install a sign at the
terminus of the roadway stating, "this roadway will be extended in the future".
The applicant is proposing to construct a stub street to the north property line located approximately
790-feet east of the west property line. This stub street is proposed to serve the 5-acre parcel to the
north. Staff is supportive of the location of the proposed stub street. Due to the fact that the stub
street is less than 150-feet in depth, the applicant will not be required to construct a temporary
turnaround at the terminus of the stub street. The applicant will be required to install a sign at the
terminus of the roadway stating, "this roadway will be extended in the future".
The City of Meridian is requesting that a stub street be constructed to the south property line in the
approximate location of Lot 12 Block 4. This stub street would provide access to the 5-are parcel that
is located directly to the south. The City of Meridian has seen a conceptual site plan for the 5-acres
to the south showing interconnectivity. District staff is supportive of the City of Meridian's request and
agrees that the applicant should provide a stub street to the south property line in the approximate
location of Lot 12 Block 4. Due to the fact that the stub street is less than 150-feet in depth, the
applicant will not be required to construct a temporary turnaround at the terminus of the stub street.
The applicant will be required to install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating, "this roadway
will be extended in the future".
6.
Turnarounds
Cul-de-Sac
District poi icy 7205.2.1 requires turnarounds to 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 proposed center islands within the turnarounds. The medians should be
constructed a minimum of 4-feet wide to total a minimum of a 1 OO-square foot area.
The applicant is proposing to construct a cul-de-sac turnaround with an island within the turnaround
at the terminus of Twilight Hush Way. The applicant should provide a minimum turning radius of 45-
feet and provide a minimum of a 29-foot street section on either side of any proposed center islands
within the turnarounds. The medians should be constructed a minimum of 4-feet wide to total a
minimum of a 1 OO-square foot area and should be owned and maintained by the Homeowners
Association.
Non Standard Turnaround
The applicant is not proposing to construct a standard cul-de-sac turnaround. The District will
consider alternatives to the standard turnaround on a case-by-case basis. The determination to
allow a non-standard turnaround will be based on turning area, drainage, maintenance considerations
6
7.
8.
and the written approval of the emergency fire service for the area where the development is located.
Minimum design standards shall be met for all non-standard tumarounds. Submit a design of the
turnaround for review and approval by District Development Division staff. Approval of lhe staff report
does not indicate approval of the non-standard turnaround design.
The applicant is proposing to construct a non-standard turnaround at the terminus of Noon Shadow
Street. Typically the District requires a turnaround to be constructed at the terminus of public
roadways. The District is willing to examine an alternative to a standard tumaround due to the fact
that the alley is proposed to be 20-feet wide and extend from the terminus of Noon Shadow Street to
Twilight Hush Street. The applicant should construct the terminus of Noon Shadow Street with an 18-
foot (minimum radius). The applicant should also submit a letter from the emergency fire service
allowing the roadway to terminate with the alley serving as the .connection" to another public
roadway.
Knuckles
District policy District policy 7202.7 and 7207.5 and the local Fire District standards require an island
within a knuckle to be constructed with the island being a minimum of 4-feet wide with a minimum
area of 100-square feet and designed to safely channel traffic. The roadway around the traffic island
should maintain a minimum of a 29-foot street section. The design should be reviewed and approved
by ACHD's Development staff.
The applicant is proposing to construct two knuckles without a center island within the knuckles.
District staff is supportive of the location of the proposed knuckles.
Islands/Medians
District policy 7202.7 and 7207.5 requires 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.
The applicant is proposing to construct three islands within the public right-of-way. The applicant is
proposing an island within Sunshimmer Avenue, Starry Night Street and Twilight Hush Way. The
roadway around the proposed traffic islands should maintain a minimum of a 21-foot street section on
either side of the island. The island should be constructed a minimum of 4-feet wide with a minimum
area of 100-square feet and designed to safely channel traffic. The islands should also be owned
and maintained by the Homeowners Association.
9.
Commuteride
The applicant should provide the future residents of Lakeridge Subdivision with alternative
transportation materials. For more information, the applicant should contact the Ada County Highway
District's Commuteride Division at 387-6160 or 345-7665.
10.
Other Access
Locust Grove Road is classified as a minor arterial roadway. Other than the access points that have
specifically been approved with this application, direct lot access to Locust Grove Road is prohibited.
A note regarding this access restriction will be required on the final plat.
C.
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.
The applicant shall do one of the following:
a. Dedicate by donation a total of 48-feet of right-of-way from the centerline along Locust Grove
Road, and construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Locust Grove Road, located a
minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of the right-of-way.
7
2.
3.
4.
b. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk
along Locust Grove Road, located a minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of the right-of-way, in an
easement provided to the District.
c. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk
along Locust Grove Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-way. Accomplish all
necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and utilities.
Construct the main entrance, Starry Night Street, to intersect Locust Grove Road approximately 286-
feet north of the south property line, as proposed.
Construct Starry Night Street as a 40-foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and a 5-foot
detached concrete sidewalk that is detached with a 5-foot planter strip within 59-feet of right-of-way,
as proposed.
Construct the intemal roadways as 33-foot street sections with rolled curb, gutter and a 5-foot
detached concrete sidewalk that is detached with a 5-foot planter strip within 52-feet of right-of-way,
as proposed. Submit a letter showing the review and approval of the reduced street section from the
appropriate Fire District in order to allow parking on both sides of the roadway.
5.
Detach the sidewalk on Lot 1 Block 2 to meander outside of the right-of-way, as proposed. Provide
pedestrian connections to the pedestrian crossings and provide the District with an easement for the
sidewalk that meanders outside of the right-of-way near Lot 1 Block 2.
Construct two twenty foot wide alleys within the subdivision, as proposed. Pave the alley its full width
and construct a back-of-curb radius of 15-feet at all alley intersections. Locate any proposed access
to the alleys a minimum of 25-feet from the nearest public street. Parking shall be designed so the
minimum clear distance from the back of the parking stall to the opposite side of the alley is 22-feet
for perpendicular parking. Parking in the alleys is not allowed.
6.
7.
Extend Starry Night Street from the west property line located approximately 375-feet north of the
south property line, as proposed.
Construct a stub street to the north property line located approximately 139-feet east of the west
property line, as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating, "this roadway will be
extended in the future".
8.
9.
Construct a stub street to the north property line located approximately 790-feet east of the west
property line, as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating, "this roadway will be
extended in the future".
10.
Construct a stub street to the south property line in the approximate location of Lot 12 Block 4. Install
a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating, "this roadway will be extended in the future".
11.
Construct a cul-de-sac turnaround with an island within the turnaround at the terminus of Twilight
Hush Way, as proposed. Provide a minimum lurning radius of 45-feet and provide a minimum of a
29-foot street section on either side of any proposed center islands within the turnarounds. The
medians shall be constructed a minimum of 4-feet wide to total a minimum of a 1 DO-square foot area
and shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association.
12.
Construct a non-standard tumaround at the terminus of Noon Shadow Street. Construct the terminus
of Noon Shadow Street with an 18-foot (minimum radius). Submit a letter from the emergency fire
service allowing the roadway to terminate with the alley serving as the "connection" to another public
roadway.
8
13.
14.
15.
16.
D.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Construct two knuckles without a center island within the knuckles, as proposed.
Construct three islands within the public right-of-way. Maintain a minimum of a 21-foot street section
on either side of the center island. The island shall be constructed a minimum of 4-feet wide with a
minimum area of 100-square feet and designed to safely channel traffic. The islands shall be owned
and maintained by the Homeowners Association.
Other than the access points that have specifically been approved with this application, direct lot
access to Locust Grove Road is prohibited. A note regarding this access restriction will be required
on the final plat.
Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
Standard Conditions of Approval
Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne
by the developer.
Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the
construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file
number) for details.
5.
Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by
the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details.
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.
6.
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.
7.
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.
Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with
Ordinance #198, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
8.
9.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The
applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. 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.
10.
No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and
signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative
of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written
confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other
11.
9
E.
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
waiverlvariance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the
time the change in use is sought.
Conclusions of Law
1.
The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of Approval are
satisfied.
2.
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.
Attachments
1.
2.
3.
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Request for Reconsideration Guidelines
10
11
1
Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action
1.
Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action: A Commissioner, a member of ACHD staff
or any other person objecting to any final action taken by the Commission may request
reconsideration of that action, provided the request is not for a reconsideration of an action previously
requested to be reconsidered, an action whose provisions have been partly and materially carried
out, or an action that has created a contractual relationship with third parties.
a. Only a Commission member who voted with the prevailing side can move for reconsideration,
but the motion may be seconded by any Commissioner and is voted on by all Commissioners
present.
If a motion to reconsider is made and seconded it is subject to a motion to postpone to a
certain time.
b. The request must be in writing and delivered to the Secretary of the Highway District no later
than 3:00 p.m. on the day prior to the Commission's next scheduled regular meeting following
the meeting at which the action to be reconsidered was taken. Upon receipt of the request,
the Secretary shall cause the same to be placed on the agenda for that next scheduled
regular Commission meeting.
c. The request for reconsideration must be supported by written documentation setting forth new
facts and information not presented at the earlier meeting, or a changed situation that has
developed since the taking of the earlier vote, or information establishing an error of fact or
law in the earlier action. The requesl may also be supported by oral testimony at the meeting.
d. If a motion to reconsider passes, the effect is the original matter is in the exact position it
occupied the moment before it was voted on originally. It will normally be returned to ACHD
staff for further review. The Commission may set the date of the meeting at which the matter
is to be returned. The Commission shall only take action on the original matter at a meeting
where the agenda notice so provides.
e. At the meeting where the original matter is again on the agenda for Commission action,
interested persons and ACHD staff may present such written and oral testimony as the
President of the Commission determines to be appropriate, and the Commission may take
any action the majorily of the Commission deems advisable.
f. If a motion to reconsider passes, the applicant may be charged a reasonable fee, to cover
administrative costs, as established by the Commission.
12
II
Development Process Checklist
II
I8ISubmit a development application to a City or to the County
I8IThe City or the County wiil transmit the development application to ACHD
I8IThe ACHD Planning Review Division wiil receive the development application to review
I8IThe Planning Review Division will do Q!1!! of the following:
DSend a "No Review" letter to the applicant stating that there are no site specific requirements at this time.
DSend a "Comply With" letter to the applicant stating that if the development is within a platted subdivision or part of
a previous development application and that the site specific requirements from the previous development also appl'
to this development application.
DWrite a Staff Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating thE
proposal for its conformance to District Policy.
DWrite a Commission Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and
evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Polley.
DThe Planning Review Division will hold a Technical Review meeting for all Staff and Commission Level reports.
DFor ALL development applications, including those receiving a "No Review" or "Comply With" letter:
The applicant should submit two (2) sets of engineered plans directly to ACHD for review by the Development Revie..
Division for plan review and assessment of impact fees. (Note: if there are no site improvements required by ACHD,
then architectural plans may be submitted for purposes of impact fee calculation.)
The applicant is required to get a permit from Construction Services (ACHD) for ANY work in the right-of-way, includin¡
but not limited to, driveway approaches, street improvements and utility cuts.
DPay Impact Fees prior to issuance of building permit. Impact fees cannot be paid prior to plan review approval.
DID YOU REMEMBER:
Construction (Zone)
0 Driveway or Property Approach(s)
Submit a "Driveway Approach Requesr form to Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Construction (for approval by
Development Services & Traffic Services). There is a one week bJmaround for this approval.
0 Working in the ACHD Right-of-Way
Four business days prior to starting work have a bonded contractor submit a "Temporary Highway Use Permit Application" to
ACHD Construction - Permits along with:
a) Traffic Control Plan
b) An Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan Designer, if trench is >50' or you are
placing >600 sf of concrete or asphalt.
Construction (Subdivisions)
0 Sediment & Erosion Submittal
At least one week prior to setting up a Pre-Con an Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan
Designer. must be bJmed into ACHD Construction - Subdivision to be reviewed and approved by the ACHD Drainage
Division.
0 Idaho Power Company
Vie Steelman at Idaho Power must have his IPCO approved set of subdivision utility plans prior to Pre-Con being scheduled.
0 Final Approval from Development Services
ACHD Construction - Subdivision must have received approval from Development Services prior to scheduling a Pre-Con.
13
Figure I
-¡
~ 0
, æ::
j r
~ ~
. 0
. z ..
!{'J ¡¡
~ 0 I
i 6i U, ¡
i ¡; I i
j I
i t5 ¡¡I'
f ~ ~i I
. ('J r
Ilr
~
UI
:¡:
;¡¡
/T1
UI
C
iD
0
:¡¡;
UI
Õ
z
:!A!III xr.illllmllill
¡¡ill' ¡i~í II . Iii
~I ! ~ ! IIi
r¡ I I I
:
II I
II p i i i
, I
! ¡¡r;~~;:i
i::,:1 .
"I
r~
11
( ,; ¡¡lrJ uilí Ii I ,'jI ii!i B
,..r;:III",11J1l1
III I.. ¡ III III~I'
¡.. !!! II i.' ¡ I. = Iii! ¡
li¡ii!.ijjli'I'III;~!
¡¡¡:¡IH'IIIi;!
I Ii IIi! pl~H
I :~ II!! it I I~q
:1 eI !It ~'~--- ¡ ~ ¡ = i ~ i
.,' .' i,
I'
~
~!
~
. .
mil .\.'!i~'-"""""""""" ~I ....,,- "~""""-"""""""",,,,,,""';.r-\
"!'~ ,!,< ".!.",.....,."....._..........~. III I \
~N Ii 1"1- B :!i< F
II" ! ~ I! ~
1III ¡IIli III
r~i' 1111"&"1
!!!!!!!I!!m¡!!!!!;!I!!llIlIIlqlliill!
I SI: W,llhi!!¡'¡'!il, I !I lIli!il¡PH
111111111111111 i¡idll 11 i ¡ ¡'I"
I II ,II I ¡ 1 I i
I I I Ii I
¡ 1-
. ..
¡¡fi~1¡
II I,
: i
I.. i
I ~:ï
¡!il'
iI~'
I !í
I~
"*' ~ ~
Page I of2
Jessica Johnson
From: Steve Siddoway [slddowas@meridiancity.orgj
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 200411:12AM
To: 'Tara Green'; 'Jessica Johnson'; 'Will Berg'
Subject: FW: Leeshire Subdivision:
Leeshire commen15 for distribution.
----------------------
Steve Siddoway
Principal Planner
Meridian Planning & Zoning
660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone 208.884.5533
Fax 208.888.6854
RECEIVED
AUG 0 4 2004
-----Origlnal Message-----
From: Rmkpubllshing@aol.com [mailto:Rmkpublíshing@aol.comj
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 10:52 AM
To: siddowas@meridianclly.org
Subject: Re: Leeshire Subdivision:
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Dear Steve,
M a home owner in Vienna Woods Subdivision I would like to express a few concerns my wife and I have
ragarding the proposed Leeshire Subdivision. We have two major objections.
1. We believe the small lots is not consistent with the area for which the homes will be. Meridian has
consistently had 1015 of 8,000 sq.ft. why would the city now reduce this number for Leeshire to allow 6,000 sq.lI.
lots and overcrowd or pack in homes in this subdivision. Please ba mindful of overcrowding issues we already
face in the schools.
We chose Vienna Woods for the spaciousness and visual attractiveness. Please be consistent with your city
planning, and not change things just so a developer can squeeze out a Btlle more profit at our expense.
Maintain the minimum lot size at 8,000 sq.lI.
2. Why on earth would the city approve commercial buildings in the front of a subdivision? Please keep the
commercial zoning of these buildings to the major cross street intersections, and not facing our subdivisions
entrance. My wife and I did not move Into Vienna Woods desiring to see stores as I drive out of our subdivision.
Please do not permit this to happen. I also think there would be increased traffic and do not desire this for my
daughter's safety or the safety of other children in Vienna Woods.
Other Issues exist with what is proposed for the Leeshire Subdivision which will be addressed by the Board
of Directors of the Vienna Woods Home Owners MSOC.
Please consider what your current long term residents of Meridian have to say. My wife and I are not opposed
to having the Leeshire Subdivision, we just would like it to reflect the spaciousness and attractivenass of the
area, to inhance, not detract from the area.
Many Thanks,
8/4/2004
Page 2 of2
Vienna Woods Home Owners
Bob & Janette KulZ
5404 N. Mendelson Ave.
Meridian, JD 83642
208-888-7585
8/4/2004
Page 1 otZ
Jessica Johnson
From: SIeve Siddoway [siddoweS@merkliancity.org)
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 9:54 AM
To: 'Tara Green'; 'Jessica Johnson'; 'Will Berg'
Subjact: FW: Proposed Leeshire Subdivision
RECEIVED
Aue 0 4 2QO1¡
City Of Meridian
éity Clerk Office
For the Leeshire file.
--------------------
. Steve Siddoway
Principal Planner
Meridian Planning & Zoning
660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone 208.884.5533
Fax 208.888.6854
-----Original Message-----
From: DON ATKIN [maillo:atkinv@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 9:28 AM
To: slddowas@meridiancily.org
Subject: Proposed Leeshire Subdivision
?tf~ V\-tÿ.
~-5-0Y
;:r~ ~o.U,7 fg
Dear Mr. Sidoway,
We would like to voice our opposition to the proposed Leeshire subdivision on
Locust Grove. We are Don and Sally Atkin, 1970 E Dunwoody Court, Meridian.
We recently moved into the Dunwoody neighborhood from Vienna Woods
subdivision where we lived for almost 3 years. We enjoy living in this area
because of the rural surroundings and peacefulness that it offers. We do not
want commercial property invading our neighborhood. We are concerned that the
hours of operation of these businesses will add traffic and noise to our
quiet neighborhood as well as bring a lower-end housing to our area. 6000 sq.
ft. lots very close to 2.5 acre lots (we have 2.3 acres) is not good planning.
I am a third grade teacher at Discovery Elementary School and know first hand
how the district absorbs large numbers of new students. The district simply
cannot deal with this density of growth. Discovery was not overcrowded as far
as school capacity last year, but we did have the largest student/teacher ratio in
the district. The 1st through 3rd grade teachers had 28 and 29 students in each
class, the 4th and 5th grades had 35 in their classrooms. Though the students
kept coming through the doors, teachers were not added to relieve the
overcrowded classrooms, The proposed Leeshire subdivision would attend
Discovery School. Subdivisions build much faster than schools. This is not good
planning for the families who move into the densely
populated neighborhoods and is unfortunate for the existing student population
8/4/2004
yage ¿, or ¿,
(i.e. my children).
Please consider re-zoning the Leeshire subdivision to include a minimum of 8000
sq. ft. lots similar to Vienna Woods and not adding the commercial property at
the entry. This would allow this rural area to keep its appeal and would minimize
the number of children going to area schools.
We will be out of town the night of the Planning and Zoning hearing on Aug. 5th,
otherwise we would be in attendance. Please consider this email opposing the
new subdivision in your deliberations.
Thank you.
Don Atkin
Sally Atkin
1970 E. Dunwoody Ct.
Meridian, ID 83642
939-3919
8/4/2004
Jessica Johnson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Steve Siddoway (siddowas@melidiancity.org]
Wednesday, August 04, 2004 8:14 AM
'Tara Green'; 'Jessica Johnson'; 'Will Berg'
FW: Issues with proposed Leeshire Sub on Locust Grove
--------------------------------------
RECEIVED
AUG 0 4 2004
Another comment for the Leeshire file.
Steve Siddoway
Principal Planner
Meridian Planning & Zoning
660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone 208.884.5533
Fax 208.888.6854
Of Meridian
(,lerk Office
-----Original Message-----
From: Angela Nelson [mailto:kmntwice2@juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 12:35 AM
To: siddowas@meridiancity.org
Subject: Issues with proposed Leeshire Sub on Locust Grove
prz- M*y
g~ç-oy
\íte VIJ1 ;¡j;Ú¡ 7"8
"
To the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission:
I am unable to attend the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on Thurs (Aug
5) so I would like to voice my concerns to you through e-mail.
I have been told that the proposed Leeshire Subdivision on Locust Grove near
Chinden will have commercial and office property bordering Locust Grove. I
have also been told that the developer wants approval to make the smallest
lots in the sub only 6000 s.f. I am a homeowner in the Vienna Woods
subdivision across the street from this proposed subdivision, and I am
greatly opposed to these plans. This area is one of higher-end homes and
larger lots. Why would we want to bring in high-density, low-end homes and
bring our property values down? The subdivisions in the area surrounding
the proposed Leeshire subdivision are: Castleberry, SpyGlass, Banbury,
Larkwood. Dunwoody, and Vienna Woods (with Copper Basin just around the
'corner). These are all high-end subdivisions. Bringing in this
lower-density housing would greatly increase the character of this area. It
would also increase traffic greatly. Additionally, since the Meridian
School District has been pleading with the city of Meridian to slow down the
growth for the sake of the schools, why don't we listen and give the schools
time to catch up with the housing growth?
There are not many areas in Meridian that are as quiet and pleasant as our
little group of neighborhoods. Let's preserve this little corner as one of
special character within the Meridian area.
Thank you for listening and put in a big no vote for me on the proposed
changes.
Angela Nelson
5323 N Chopin PI
Meridian, ID 83642
884-5612
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Jessica Johnson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Steve Siddoway [siddowas@meridiancity.org)
Wednesday, August 04, 2004 8:16 AM
'Tara Green'; 'Jessica Johnson'; 'Will Berg'
FW: Leeshire Subdivision
And yet another. Somehow my email address seems to be spreading through the
adjacent subdivisions. I'll keep forwarding to you any comments that I
receive.
Steve
RECEIVED
AUG 0 4 2004
--------------------------------------
Steve Siddoway
Principal Planner
Meridian Planning & Zoning
660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone 208.884.5533
Fax 208.888.6854
c¡ty Of Meridian
City Clm'lt Officoe
Dear Mr. Siddoway:
Prz. }Å~-
Cß -S 1JLf
~~VVt ¥ {P, 7 ¿~
-----Original Message-----
From: Drjknowles@cs.com [mailto:Drjknowles@cs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 7:44 AM
To: siddowas@meridiancity.org
Subject: Leeshire Subdivision
I would like to voice my concerns about the Leeshire Subdivision that is up
for approval by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. As a resident
in
the Vienna Woods Subdivision, there are several items that I would like the
members of the commission to consider before approving the Leeshire project
as
it originally stands.
1.
Too small of a minimum lot size:
A 6,000 s.f. lot size is too small for
this subdivision, especial when compared to the larger lot sizes of Dunwoody
and Vienna Woods. These smaller lots are not consistent with the other
established subdivisions in the area. It is my understanding that the
minimum lot
size in Vienna Woods is 8,000 s.f. This should be continued in Leeshire.
Condensing more homes into such an area will also apply unnecessary stress
to the
schools in this area of Meridian and increase traffic in the area.
2.
Commercial property in a residential area:
This area along Locust Grove
is a residential area.
maintain
the family atmosphere of the area.
at
major intersections so that increased continuous traffic does not become an
issue near residences. We picked this area to live in because of its
peaceful
family atmosphere.
that.
The addition of commercial property does not
Commerical properties should be located
Allowing businesses this close to residences changes
The purposed commercial spaces should be replaced with residential
structures.
Please take my concerns into consideration when making your approval
decision
concerning this subdivision.
Sincerely,
Dr. John R. Knowles III, D.C.
Jessica Johnson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Steve Siddoway [slddowas@meridiancity.org]
Tuesday, August 03, 2004 5:08 PM
'Tara Green'; 'Jessica Johnson'; 'Will Berg'
FW: Lee Shire
RECEIVED
AUG 0 3 2004
City Of Meridian
éity Clerk Office
For the Leeshire record.
--------------------------------------
Steve Siddoway
Principal Planner
Meridian Planning & Zoning
660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202
Meridian, Idaho 63642
Phone 206.664.5533
Fax 206.666.6654
-----Original Message-----
From: Naylor, Bart L [mailto:bart.naylor@hp.com]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:15 AM
To: Bnaylor@cableone.net
Subject: Lee Shire
~ ~ 1-- M...\ëy
<6 /5' 0'--\
,:(f.tNV\ ~ 611 b~
I'm Bart Naylor HOA Pres. for Vienna Woods
I would like to voice my concerns about the quality of a future development
proposed: Lee Shire
1. Commercial/Retail Space at the entrance off Locust Grove
would create excess noise and traffic. The working hours of such
Commercial/Retail Space tenants may be objectionable. I feel commercial
space should be located at major intersections and not in our immediate
residential area. The proposed commercial space should be replaced with
residential lots.
2. The overly dense lot sizes (6000-7600 square feet) will
likely drop surrounding property values and may encourage starter homes in a
rural area not accustomed to starter homes. I'd like to see larger lots with
an 6000 square foot minimum and 1/2 acre lots buffering Larkwood, Vienna
Woods and Dunwoody subdivisions.
3. What's good for the Grant Lee family should be good for you
and me. Please note the larger lot sizes around the existing property owners
home and the park which would promote a higher quality of life at that end
of the development.
4. Vienna Woods smallest lots size is 6000 on the south and up
to 1/2 acre on the north side buffering the more rural home sites. This is
a better approach to buffering larger home sites.
5. The proposed Lee Shire development is located within 1/2
mile of many rural developments: Eagle's one acre lots in Spy Glass &
BanBury, Larkwood's 1.5 to 5 acres Dunwoody's 1.5 to 5 acres and Shandee's
one acre lots. Meridian City should consider the lifestyle invasion that
high density is to such homes and provide a reasonable transition.
Commercial property is not a transition.
6. Meridian School District is currently overcrowded, and has a
history of slow project development. This development seems to be built too
LATE instead of when the needs are the greatest. I know that there are
plans for improvement in this area, but as a tax payer this is not
satisfactory. My wife has served in the School District Boundary Committee
and has seen the many issues. My children are bused to a high school
(Eagle) which is too far away, when there are closer schools (Centennial).
This shows a lack of good planning.
Based on this observation, if smaller density subdivisions
continue it will put more pressure on the school district. Until this
school district problem can be solved it only makes sense to put 6000
square feet as a minimum for Lee Shire development.
Regards.
Bart Naylor
2065 E. Strauss Ct. Meridian, Idaho 83642
396-6108
2
08/04/2004 13: 45 FAX 2088886854
MERIDIAN P&Z I>EPT.
.. City Clerk
~001
Greg Eagy .13000 Ventana. Boise, ID 83712
August 4, 2004
Mr. Cnig Hood
CIty of Medchm
PlIWIÍDg aDd ZO11ÎI1g DepL
Meridian, ID
Via Fax: 866-6459
RECEIVED
AUG 0 4 2004
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
BE: Sadie Project - Eagle Road
Dear Craig,
First, thanks for your time on the phonc today. We OWl1 the propertie!l to the north of the
property be:ing reviewed. 1'd like to formally ask that you consider the following items:
1. The plan for this property does not show a 25' landscape and setba&;k buff'd' alo1lg
the south side of our property (tbe:aorth side oftlrls project). We would like to
see this addreæed and added.
2. We would like to see the drive aisle pa:ralleling our property Me aho set back the
required depth.
3. We would like to see peri:a:leter feI1ci.ng the length of the property. wofar as
these are family un.iis, this would help wÏth security and safety for chilcIren.
4. I would lik:e to see if you. would TIiHn>1I3eW the requirlillllents to p1iI: "through lanes"
on the Ji:DJIt parldDg Jots alo:ig Begle Road. We do not agree with the entry point:
onto our property insofar as it greatlyliiminiohr<l the i.mage of our)and and the
future use.. Are all four comas ofEagle and Ustiik reqairiug this on iÙl10ts?
~-=-
~ !:4~ ~4/"t
~'- ~1>.cl~e. C~.e Ie
18/t8 3EJ\1d
AUG 04 '04 14:06
6NI.!J-I6Il IiweI
1a6ÞSÞe:ae<: <:e: :e:1 Þ8Øë:/Þ8/6e
2088886854 PAGE. 01
c0'3Ð~d
ÞS8988æ0c
vc:80 vel. £0 Ðn~
AUG-95-2994 97:19 AM
PAUL KLINDT
21218 Sg!5 8140
P.0t
RECEIVED
AUG 0 4 2004
City Of Meridi,Ul
City Clerk Office
Wanted to express my eoncems about the proposed Lee Shire plat
8/5104
1. Too small lots
2. Commerc:ia] lots to be Ugh! office! professional. not retail
Paul Klindt
SSS3 N. BrigøcIoon Ave
Meridian, lD 83642
ZOO~
¡¡.leT::> ':IT::> ~
. Ld::lŒ ZWd NVIŒn!::!W
tgS9SgSSO¡: XVd CO: SO too¡:¡gO¡SO
m'3Ð<id
t>S898888Ø~
FROM: Gr"enS]oan.
FAX NO. : 7ææee15Øl
AußUSt 5, 2004
Meridian Pbmning and Zoning CommissiOl1
660 E&,<õt Watertowcr, Sui1e 202
Meridian, 1D 83642
~: ZoniJ1g hearing
£~:8Ø 170. sø Ðn<i
A"9. 05 20Ø4 10:27AM Pi
RECEIVED
AUG 0 4 2004
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
To Whom It Ma:y Concern;
As a resident of the VietUll! Woods 5ub-diYision. I oppose any change in neigbboòog
ZK)IlÌDg that may negatively cktract ñom my propertY values and from 1:be genaa1. quality
of the area. It is imperative that lot size and usase is COD~ amoDg properties
bordering Locust Grove and V 1CÐDA Woocis. It is not appropriate for CO1IlIIJUcial and
office zoning to be in tho area proposeð by tho Leesbite sub-division.
Please take a long-lenD. vieW towatds elustering 1ike properties and usage. Thank you, i:n
advance.. for your thoughtful œnsideta1iOll of this matter.
-}~r::: ~~
Valeda-C. Greeuspan
2250 East Mozart Court
Meridian, ID 83642
(208)855-9133
100~
} ~a{:) .£ll::1 ..
. .Ld¡¡<I Z'd NVI<InI:Ð'I
þgS9SSSS0¡: XVd: co: so ÞOOVSO/SO
Leeshire Proposal
Page 1 01 I
Jessica Johnson
From: Paul Burningham [psburn@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thun;day, August 05, 2004 7:50 AM
To: siddowas@meridiancity.org
Subject: Leeshire Proposal
RECEIVED
AUG 0 5 2004
I would like to register my objection to the proposal
for the Leeshin: Subdivision.
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
I. The planned lot size for the area is not in
accordance or match the surrounding existing housing
and will cause a drop in property values in the real
world. However the Tax assessments rise in spite of it
because they are not baaed on what a property can sell
for but from previous assessments. This economic loss
is not acceptable, to me especially because I am
retired, disabled and live on fIXed income.
2. The proposed commercial development on Locust Grove
is way out of line, and souled not be allowed in this
area. The traffic for the subdivision will be bad
enough as it is but a commercial strip there is just
not acceptable. The sprawl in Meridian is already way
out of hand. Lets not add to it.
3. Someone has got to draw the line on the development
going on in Meridian. I do not know the motivation for
the ci1y to approve so many new subdivisions but the
quali1y of life is going down in proportion to the
growth and the Ci1y services and school district are
already overloaded. Please call a halt till the dust
settles.
Sincerely,
Paul and Peggy Bwningham
5341 N. Debussy Way
Meridian 83642
(Vienna Woods)
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail- Send 10MB messages!
http:!Ipromotions.vahoo.comlnew mail
8/5/2004
The Leeshire Subdivision
Jessica Johnson
From: GINASORENSON@cs.çom
Sent: Wednesday, August 04,200410:19 PM
To: siddowas@meridiancity.org
Cc: GINASORENSON@cs.com
Subject: The Leeshire Subdivision
MI. Siddoway,
I wanted to send you a quick email to tell you that I am opposed to The
Leeshire Subdivision for the following reasons:
I, Proposed commercial development is incompa1iblc with the residential
character of our existing neighborhood. I feel commercial development should
occur at major intersections. The increased traffic is a concern. Entering
Chinden from Locust Grove in the morning is CWTeDtly difficult, and adding
commercial development will only increase the traffic. The traffic light is of
little help at this intersection.
2. The proposed lot size of 6,000 square feet is too small. It is my
understanding that the minimum lot size in Vienna Woods is 8,000 square feet, and
most of the other subdivisions have larger lots than Vienna Woods. Many of the
lots inVienns Woods exceed 8,000 square feet.
3. The smaller lot size is also a concern given the overcrowding at the
Meridian School District.
Thanks.
Ron and Gina Sorenson
8/5/2004
Pagel of 1
REiCEIVED
AUG 0 5 2004
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
page 1 oCt
Jessica Johnson
From: SKIP MCMILLAN [SKPMCM@peoplepc.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 2:29 AM
To: siddowaS@meridiancity.org
Co: deweerdt@meridiancity.org; vigilk@meridlancity.org; clerk@meridiancity.org
Subject: Leeshire subdivision concerns
RECEIVED
AU:; G 5 2004
Mr. Siddoway, Honorable Mayor de Weer<!, Council,Commission,
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Mr. Steve Siddoway,
Honorable Mayor de Weer<!
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meridilm City Conncil
re: Leesbire Subdivision
I am writing Ibis memo to express my concerns with the proposed Leesbire Subdivision me # AZ-O4-017, PP 04-024,
CUP 04-026 and my overall disappointment with the City planning system in general. I have lived in Meridian since 1%2
and currently reside in VieJJna Woods subdivision.
I am opposed to the C-N and L-O zoning changes, the Leesbire developer is requesting. I am also opposed to the reduced lot
sizes, frontages and setbacks as planned. This area as you are aware, is shown on the City of Meridian Future Land Use Map
as a designated medium density residential area. The reason I moved to Vienna Woods is it's a well planned,high quality
development with homes ranging up to $600.000 in value. The smallest lot size we have in Vienna Woods is 8080 square
feet. We have our own two acre park. I invite you to tour Vienna Woods before making any zoning change decisions for the
area.
I feel that my property value has already been decreased with the approval and annexation of Sheridan Place Subdivision.
They too asked for, and was granted smaller than Ci!y minimum lot sizes, frontages and square footage structures (l20IS.F.).
The smallest lot in that development( 5 I 00 sq. ft.) is approximately 30 feet from my property line. Another case of
a developer trying to squeeze as many lots onto a piece of land as possible for the almigh!y dollar,
It seems to me, Meridian is approving just about anything that comes through, without regard to adjoining property values,
public opinions,harmonious balance with surrounding developments, and the ever present over crowded or lack of schools
and roarls.
In a report from ACHD concerning a traffic study for North Meridian. They stated: "If staff examines each development
individually, the roadway system appears adequate, but when staff begins to add in a second or third large scale development,
the traffic capacities of the surrounding roadways reach their 2020 planning thresholds". This study was done for Sheridan
Place,
I realize the position of the City is not to stop development,however it is the Ci!y's role to assure the developments are
harmonious with existing neighborhoods. In the case ofLeesbire,the approval of L-O and C-N zoning for this project would
dramatically affect the property values,and quali!y of life for surrounding property owners.!t is stated in your Annexation and
Zoning analysis item "A" that "these uses while prohibited in the medium densi!y residential land use area,may be approved
through the planned development process".
My take on that is, what good are the roles, if staff keeps making exceptions to the roles?
Your item "I" states that" staff fmds that the proposed subdivision will not create excessive traffic,noise,or other nuisances
that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area" .! disagree 100%. How could it not? What happens if
they decide to build a fast food place like Burger King with an exhaust fan discharging greasy air and smoke? Our prevailing
wind is from the west, so we would get most of the fumes, smoke,and odors. Also noise from drive through windows,traffic,
trash etc.
I would not be opposed to this development if the larger residential lot sizes were closest to Locust Grove,to better match
8/5/2004
Pagelofl
Tara Green
From: ClintlWall@80l.com
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 1 0:42 AM
To: siddowas@meridlancity.org
Subject: Proposed Commercial Development
Dear Mr. Siddoway,
I am e-mailing my opposition to the proposed commercial development. My
biggest concerns are the 6000s.1. sized lots. With smaller lots and more housing; it
will decrease the value of the surrounding homes and increase the already troubled
schools. I am in agreement that the lot sizes should be a minimum of 8000s.1.
Some of the homes here is Vienna Woods are $600,000 plus. A 'Corey Barton'
type subdivison across the street would certainly not help for future resales. Is
there future plans to widen Locust Grove in order to accomidate such a subdivision
and commercial properties? As for the commercial proposition. I am alright with
them putting in a commercial property there with some limitations. I do not agree
with resturaunts or convenience stores there. If it was limited to small business,
and had restrictions of the appearance of the buildings, I do not think that would be
a problem. I do think it is of great concern for the attendees at the church. Many of
them walk from Vienna Woods to the church. With increased traffic that could
cause some undue risk.
I do hope that this will help in your fight of this proposition.
Sincerely,
Clint Wall
8/5/2004
Pagelofl
Tara Green
From: Michael DeYoung [mbdsr@mindspring.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 05,200410:40 AM
To: siddowas@meridlancity.org
Subject: Proposed Leeshire development on Locust Grove
Dear Mr. Siddoway,
I understand Leeshire Development is planning a commercial development just north of the LDS
church on Locust Grove across from the Vienna Woods subdivision. I think this is a very bad idea for
the following reasons.
. There are a great number of small school children who will be at increased risk with the
increased traffic.
. The minimum residential lot size is below the required lot size for the City of Meridian, 6,000
s.f. vs. 8,000 s.f.
. A commercial development is incompatible with the surrounding residential area and will only
increase noise and traffic.
. There is a new school just north of the proposed commercial development that will have
increased school bus traffic increasing the traffic load on Locust Grove.
. A commercial development should have more than ONE entrance especially in a residential
area. A development such as this should be located on a corner parcel for much easier access by
prospective patrons.
. Meridian schools are already overcrowded. With a development such as this with the higher
density housing will only exacerbate the problem of overcrowding.
. Existing surrounding homes will decrease in value and encourage "starter homes". A practice
not compatible with our rura1 setting of our minimum 8,000 s.f to 'h acre lots. (similar to Vienna
Woods and the Dunwoody subdivision or the subdivision across Chinden at Locust Grove not to
mention the larger acreage developments in Eagle, BanBury and Larkwood just a half a mile
away)
To recap, the higher traffic, noise and smaller lots are NOT compatible with the already established
Meridian guidelines for a residential development and area. Reduced home and land values also
mean less revenue for the City of Meridian. I will also be attending the hearing this evening.
Thank you for your consideration in the matter.
Michael and Eileen DeYoung
Michael B. DeYoung
5333 N. Dvorak Place
Meridian, ill 83642-4741
mbdsr@mind'Wring,com
8/5/2004
Leeshire Subdivision
Page I of2
Tara Green
From: Loma Sylvester [Ids_mama@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 10:08 AM
To: siddowas@meridiancity.org
Subject: Leeshire Subdivision
Dear Mr. Siddoway,
I am writing in regards to the proposed Leeshire
Subdivision off of Locust Grove Road. As a resident of
this area I am strongly opposed to this subdivision
and especially the commercial development on Locust
Grove. When we bought our home we enjoyed the comforts
of having shopping close by on major streets such as
Eagle Rd and F airview. Never would we have imagined
that they would think of bringing in commercial
property across the road! As a homeowner I am worried
what this would do to my property values as well as
the quality of life we moved here to frod. This is
already being threatened by the unconttolled growth in
the area. Our road is already a home to two chwcl1es
and a charter school. More business would make things
only worse than it aJready is.
As I am sure you know Meridian schools are
overcrowded. My elementary school children both were
in classes last year that had well over 30 children in
them. The proposed lots for this subdivision would add
several small homes which would add more children to
the already overcrowded school. The City of Meridian
already has so many subdivisions approved in the
schools area that it will be over capacity by its
third year in operation! If the subdivision is
approved the lot sizes should be substantially
increased to keep the numbers lower as well as the
values higher.
Locust Grove Road has already been closed twice in the
last six months.(It is still closed)! To ask us again
to put up with closures is not right
As a whole I feel that the city of Meridian should
take on some of the restricted growth practices being
seen in Eagle and Kuna and other areas and not
continue to build in every field.
I appreciate your corefuI consideration in this
matter.
Lorna Sylvester
5294 N Beethoven Ave
8/5/2004
Leeshire Subdivision
Page2of2
Doyon Yahoo!?
Yi Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
8/5/2004
Proposed Leeshire Subdivision concerns
Page I of!
Tara Green
From: Robb, Mark [RobbM@trusjoistcom]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:58 AM
To: siddowas@meridiancity.org
Subject: Proposed Leeshire Subdivision concerns
Email to: Mr. Steve Siddoway, Meridian City Planner
From: Mark Robb, Vienna Woods homeowner - Meridian, ID
Re: Proposed Leeshlre Subdivision concerns
I will be unable to attend the sd1eduled 7:00 pm P&Z meeting tonight, which will disc;uss the proposed Leeshire
subdivision. Therefore, I am sending this email message is to communicate my oppositions related to the
Leeshire subdivision. I will be more specific to the c:oncerns that I have, which are as follows:
1. ProDOsed Commerc:lal zonin!! . I understand there are a few lots singled out that border Locust Grove to be
designated for commerdal zoning, as part of this subdivision. I oppose this for this area/neighborhood. I want
to preserve the area to residential zoning only. There Is more than sufficient c:ommercial zoning within a dose
proximity off Eagle or other major roads, without consideration of c:ommercial zoning In this neighborhood. It
does not fit.
2. Lot silinS! . I understand that there are proposed lot sizes for Leeshlre that are less than 8,000 square feet
(s.f.). I believe that we should not consider lot sizes in this area of this size. It could bring down the value of
surrounding developments like Vienna Woods, Dunwoody, Larkwood, and 8anbury that are keeping to a
minimum 8,000 s. f. lot sizes. The level of house density concerns me as well, given the overc:rowdlng and
budgetary concerns with Meridian Sl:hool District. This will only add to the current issues and c:onœrns.
I support new development In our area, but not with commercial zoning and/or with smaller lot sizes than
8,000 s.f.. I appreciate your willingness to c:onsider my opinion, and allow it to help Influence a better
outcome of the Leeshlre development proposal
Best regards, Mark Robb
H 846.8266
W 364.6228
8/5/2004
Proposed Leeshire development and commercial properties on Locust Grove
Page I of2
Tara Green
From: Jewell, Robert [rob.jewell@hp.com)
Sent: Thursday, August 05,20048:54 AM
To: siddowes@meridiancity.org
Cc: Naylor, Bart L
Subject: Proposed Leeshire development and commercial properties on Locust Grove
Importance: High
Dear Sir,
I am writing to express my concern regarding the plan to build a high
density subdivision with commercial zoned properties across from Vienna
Woods subdivision.
My f1fSt concern is the effect of creating a small-lot subdivision
adjacent to severul established larger-lot subdivisions (Vienna Woods,
Spyglass, Banbury, Dunwoody, etc.). The erosion of property values in
the area would be felt by the homeowners and the city alike. This would
not be in the best interest of anyone involved.
My second concern is the proposed commercial properties. Although
Heritage Commons has some commercial spaces being constructed at this
time, the neighboring area is composed of two schools. Putting
commercial property 8(ljacent to homes may result in excessive street
noise and traffic at o~ectionable times of the day or night.
My third concern relates to the impact of such a high-density
subdivision on the crowded schools in the area. River Valley Elementary
and DiscovC1)' Elementary are already very full and some consideration
needs to be made by the city planners to address this issue. Since
Heritage Commons is currently being populated, this will add
significantly to the number of students needing to be emolled at
DiscovC1)' Elementury. The addition of a high-density Leeshire
subdivision only compounds this problem. A clear s1rategy is needed by
Meridian City Planning and Zoning and the Meridian School District to
address the overcrowding of the schools.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I would greatly
appreciate your consideration to res1rÏct the lot sizes of Leeshire to
be greater than 8000 square feet, comparable to Vienna Woods, and to
eliminate the proposed commercial properties.
If you have any questions or concerns about this e-mail, please feel
fÌ'ee to contact me at 396-4846 during the workday.
Sincerely,
8/5/2004
Proposed Leeshire development and commercial properties on Locust Grove
Page20f2
Robert Jewell
2051 E. Strauss Ct
Meridian, ill 83642
208-884-5489 (Home)
208-396-4846 (Work)
8/5/2004
Pagelofl
Tara Green
From: JasonOVery@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:51 AM
To: siddowas@meridianoity.org
Co: JasonOVery@aol.com
Subject: Leeshire Subdivision
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
660 E. Watertower, Suite 202
Meridian, ID 83642
Attention: Mr. Steve Siddoway
Dear Mr. Siddoway:
My name Is Jason O'Very, I live at 5537 N. Brigadoon Avenue, which is in Vienna Woods. I am writing to make
comments on the proposed Leeshire Subdivision.
First, I want to commend the City of Meridian on ifs pro-growth position. It is only through growth that we can
expand our commercial and residential tax base. However, as I am sure you agree, all growth should be
planned and directed to be conducive to the surrounding developments.
My concern with the proposed Leeshire development is the density of the homes at the entrance of the
development. I do not believe this density of housing Is consistent with the surrounding subdivisions. I betieve
the rear half of the subdivision is well planned out, including a large park, (not a coincidence that It abuts the
developers home). I would support the proposed development If the entire project reflected the larger lot sizes,
and subsequently larger homes, as shown in the rear of the project.
As far as the commercial zoning for the two front one acre pieces, I just don' see the viability of them working.
Retailers will want to locate on the higher traffic intersections along Eagle Road. As commercial lots, alii see is
two vacant lots that will continuaHy be a weed nuisance and an eye sore for the area. I have heard rumors of a
dental office, but then would expect stringent architectural, aesthetic, and landscaping standards for the
building and development to compliment and blend into the surrounding landscaping.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Jason and Krista O'Very
5537 N. Brigadoon Ave
Meridian, ID 83642
208-695-8787 Cell Phone
8/5/2004
Jessica Johnson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Steve Siddoway [siddowas@meridiancity.mg
Thursday, August OS, 2004 5:08 PM
'Tara Green'; 'Jessica Johnson'; 'Will Berg'
FW: New Development west of Vienna Woods
--- --- --- --- -- - --- --- --- --- --- --- -----
Steve Siddoway
Principal Planner
Meridian Planning & Zoning
660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone 208.884.5533
Fax 208.888.6854
-----Original Message-----
From: kris@livingstudios.com [mailto:kris@livingstudios.comJ
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 4:38 PM
To: siddowas@meridiancity.org
Subject: New Development West of Vienna Woods
RECEIVED
AUG 0 5 2004
City Of MeJiilian.
City Clerk Office
We are sending this message from Orlando, and therefor are unable to attend
tonight's meeting, but would like to express our disapproval of the
development
plans as described in the letter from Bart Naylor, President of the Vienna
Woods Homeowners Ass'n., for the same reasons outlined in that letter.
Primarily, we feel that commercial development should be limited to the
major
intersections, and should not be so close to residential areas such as
Vienna
Woods.
--Kris Livingston,
Susan Livingston
1:0 . 3!Ji: d
1>£89888802:
02::1>. 1>0. £0 Ðni:
FROM ;
FAX NO. : 1208939111955
I'ItJg. 1115 2e04 12:5laPM P1
RECEIVE])
AUG a 52004
August S, 2004
Dear Tammy De Weerd and
Planning &. Zoning:
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
We have liv~ in the Dunwoody Subdivision for over 13 years end have Joved the area..
One of the thIngs that has bœ.n the most appealing is the rural ambiance. A!I we have
Jooked over the proposed plot for Lee Shire Subdivision we have some very serious
eoncems.
The size of the lots is DO! in keeping with the surrounding area. The density of lb. Sub
Division will put a grave strain on locus! Grove and "de value" the existing homes. All
of the lots in the surrounding area are at least 8000 square. Most are between 'h aae 8J\d
5 acres.
Our greatest concern is fur the commemailretail buildings that may become part of the
area. This is a neighborhood and should not become a major illtergection. It is OUt deepest
hope that yotl will consider some of these fåctOrs before making up your minds to
approve Lee Shire as proposed.
Sìnçere1y
Richard &. Trudie Galloway
11714 E. Dunwoody Ct
Meridian, Tdaho
83642
lOO~
J .IeT:) ,cll:) ~
. ld¡[Œ Z'8d NVIŒU¡¡¡I'I
tS8geeeeoo XVd 00: VI tOOo¡gO/90
Page 1 of2
Tara Green
From: Tammy de Weeld [deweerdt@meridiancity.org]
Sent: ThulSday, August 05, 2004 5:03 PM
To: 'SKIP MCMILLAN'
Cc: bergw@ci.meridian.id.us; greent@ci.meridian.id.us
Subject: RE: Leeshire subdivision concerns
RECEIVED
AUG 0 5 2004
Mr. Norman MCMillan,
~j~y Of Meridian
CIIeY CJerk Office
We are in receipt of your email regarding the 'Leeshire' development application.
This will be included in the public record and therefore part of the application
information available to both Planning and Zoning and the City Council members.
Thank you for your comments.
Sincerely,
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
City of Meridian
www.meridiancity.org
(208) 888-4433 ex!. 204
(208) 888-4218 fax
----Original Message-----
From: SKIP MCMIUAN [mailtD:SKPMCM@peoplepc.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 2:29 AM
To: siddowas@meridiancily.org
Cc: Tammy de Weerd; vigilk@meridiancity.org; clerk@meridiancity.org
Subject: L.eeshire subdivision concerns
Mr. Steve Siddoway,
Honorable Mayor de Weerd
Planning and Zoning Commiasion
Meridian City Council
n:: Leeshire Subdivision
Mr. Siddoway, Honorable Mayor de Ween!, Council,Commission.
I am writing this memo to express my concerns with the proposed Leeshin: Subdivision fIle # AZ-04-O17, PP 04-
024,
CUP 04-026 and my overall disappointment with the City planning system in general. I have lived in Meridian since
1962 and curn:ntly reside in Vienna W rods subdivision.
I am opposed to the CoN and L-Q zoning ch1mges, the Leeshire developer is requesting. I am also opposed to the
reduced lot sizes, fiontages and setbacks as planned. This area as you are aware, is shown on the City of Meridian
Future Land Use Map as a designated medium density resitkntial area. The reason I moved to Vienna Woods is it's
a well planned,high quality development with homes ranging up to $600,000 in value. The smallest lot size we have
in Vienna Woods is 8080 square feet We have our own two acre park. I invite you to tour Vienna Woods before
making any zoning change decisions for the area.
I feel that my property value has already been decreased with the approval and annexation of Sheridan Place
Subdivision. They too asked for, and was granted smaller than City minimum lot sizes, frontages and square footage
structures (1 201 S.F.). The smallest lot in that development( 5100 sq. ft.) is approximately 30 feet from my property
8/512004
Page20f2
line. Another case of a developer trying 10 squeeze as many lots onlo a piece of land as possible for the almighty
dollar.
It seems to me, Meridian is approving just about anything that comes through; without regani to adjoining property
values, public opinions,hannonious balance with swrounding developments, and the ever present over crowded or
lack of schools and roads.
In a report from ACHD concerning a traffic study for North Meridian. They stated: "If staff examines each
development individually, the roadway system appears adequate, but when staff begins to add in a second or third
large scale development, the traffic capacities of the swrounding roadways reach their 2020 planning tbresholds" ,
This study was done for Sheridan Place.
1 realize the position of the City is not 10 stop development,however it is the City's role to assure
the developments are harmonious with existing neighborhoods.In the case of Lees hire, the approval ofL-O and CoN
zolling for this project would dramatically affect the property values,and quality of life for surrounding property
owners.!t is stated in your Annexation and Zoning analysis item" A" that "these uses while prohibited in the
mediwn density residential land use area,may be approved through the planned development process".
My take on that is, what good are the rules, if staff keeps making exceptions to the rules?
Your item "I" states that "stafffmds that the proposed subdivision will not create excessive traffic,noise,or other
nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the swrounding area".! disagree 100%. How could it
not? What happens if they decide to build a fast food place like Burger King with an exhaust fan discharging greasy
air and smoke? Our prevailing wind is from the west, so we would get most of the fumes, smoke,and odors. Also
noise from drive through windows,traffic, trash etc.
1 would not be opposed to this development if the larger resideotiallot sizes were closest to Locust Grove,to better
match Vienna Woods and no commercial businesses. There are too many mini malls in the area as it is.We don't
want Locust Grove to tom into a business district. Most of the residential developments along Locust Grove have
appealing entrances, with an exception of Heritage Commons. Those offices in front have ruined the appearance of
the entire subdivision entrance.
1 feel if smaller than required lots and homes and businesses are pennitted in our area, it will reduce the overall
quality and value of the area properties.
Please keep commercial development in commercial designated areas, and out of our back yanis.We live in a nice
area, and we would like 10 keep it that way.
1 welcome all thoughts and comments.
Thank you,
NormanL. (Skip) McMillan
2037 E. Comisky Ct.
Vienna Woods Subdivision
8/512004
AU¡¡-03-20~ 03:04
LAND CONSULTANTS lNC
208 938 :5873
P.03/03
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (P&Z)
FOR
LEESBlRESUBD~æON
I, Shawn L. Nickel. of Land Consultants, Inc.. as authorized representative for
SWI Associates, LLC, do hereby affirm that the said property was posted, ten days prior
to the public hearing.
~:1.nc:d
Shawn L. Nickel
SWIAssociates, LLC
7- d 3 ~ 0 '{
Date
Acknowled2ement
STATE OF /dflluJ
COUNTY OF Ifir.s..
)
) 55
)
Subscribed and sworn to before me a notary public in and for the State of /tt'.tï..Iu
V5tt ~ lß- ~JW
Notary Publi~
Residing at ifi. . / () F17ú'1
Commission Expires 11/ R /UJO "1
, .
AUG 03 '04 14:58
208 938 5873
TOTAL P. 03
PAGE. 03
AZ 04-017
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT SWI Associates, LLC
August 5. 2004
ITEM NO.
REQUEST Public Hearing: Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to R-4. C-N &
L-O zones for proposed Leeshire Subdivision -- 5603 N. Loucst Grove 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:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
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 Meridian 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 Thursday, August 5, 2004 for the purpose of reviewing and
considering the application of SWI Associates, LLC for an Annexation and Zoning of 29.69
acres from RUT to R-4, C-N and L-O zones for proposed Leeshire Subdivision;
Furthermore, the applicant requests a Preliminary Plat approval for 89 building lots and
20 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed R-4, CoN and L-O zones for proposed Leeshire
Subdivision; and a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed-use Planned Development consisting
of single family residential and commercial/office uses with reductions to the minimum
requirements for lot size, side yard setbacks and minimum street frontage for proposed
Leeshire Subdivision located at 5603 N. Locust Grove 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, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
A copy of the application is available for review. 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 materials may be submitted
seven (7) days prior to the above hearing date so that all interested parties may examine them
prior to the hearing. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the
City of Meridian. Anyone desirinQ accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or
hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 72 hours prior to the public
meeting.
DATED 1st day of July, 2004
PUBLISH
CITY OF MERIDIAN RL vi .en
PUBLIC HEARING P,UG 0 5
SIGN-UP SHEET CITY OIr' rvm:;jDLli,
DATE
August 5, 2004
ITEM #
6
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 04-017
PROJECT NAME
Leeshire Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE PRINT)
SAW,.} ,[. ¡-/,c/ce(.
FOR
x
~'~ t\l've Lv
"'\r-
/òY' ~ ~w :r
~ Ut ð.A.J..J~ IJ\- tl ~
T~~'~ G<x.lLð~
~ iJ~~'~~ i
-I-
AGAINST NEUTRAL
.>(
'I---
X
i--..
~