The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLeeshire Subdivision CUPCUP 04-026 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 5, 2004 APPLICANT SWI Associates, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing: CUP for mixed use Planned Development of single family residential & commercial/office uses with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, side yard set- backs & minimum street frontage for proposed Leeshire Subdivision - 5603 N. Locust Grove Rd. 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: See attached Staff Comments No Comment No Comment Date: Phone: CFS Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shag become properly of the City of Meridian. MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird William L.M. Nary Shaun Wardle Charles M. Rountree ��Wridi, CITY OF iw it V IDAHO Cn YTINALL (29Wa €0aBZS8a$Ri3 PUBBIOMWORKS BWMDMM13ERRR MENT (ate n22211 I- fiBa80&9351 LE AUIDBFIRRK&NMT R2K" 2-VA7O4 5 STAFF REPORT: Transmittal Date: August 2, 2004 P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004 To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commissions From: Steve Siddoway, Principal Planner ��_ RECTI �' " Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech AUG 0 2 2004 Re: Leeshire Subdivision City Of Meridian City Clerk Office. • Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 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./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). n -Na 17. PP -04-024. Ctm-04026 Lehi e A .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 1, 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) Lot Frontage -City Requirements 80' minimum Setbacks - City Requirements Side: 5' Proposed Lot Sizes 5,991 sq. ft. (Minimum) Proposed Frontage 50' minimum 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). A304-017, PP -04 24, CUP- 026 Le ks AZ.PP,CUP 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 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./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 -04-017, PP -04-024. CU -04426 Leeshve AZ. PP.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. Lark -wood 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 -04-017, PP44-024, CUP -04-026 Le hi. AZ.PP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004 Page 5 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. 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. J. 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. K Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance; and nzoa-oi�. FP -o za. Cu -0a aze Ue hue Tp,c[ 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 REQUIREMENTS 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 Financial 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, PP44-024. CUP.0"26 Leohwe AZ PP.CUP 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 associated with this subdivision that should be attention. ACHD considers road safety issues features have been identified on the site. health, safety or environmental problems brought to the Council or Commission's in their analysis. No hazardous natural SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS—PRELIMINARY PLAT 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 of landscaping at the edge of the common lot along Locust Grove Road. Since the widening of Ustick 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. 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. 4. 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 -04A 17, PP44-024, CLP -04-026 Lea A .PP CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & 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 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. 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. 9. 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. 11. 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 prove to be problematic with respect to drainage. Please submit all updated AZ -0 -01]. PP44024. CUP -04-026 Lea AZ.PPCUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & 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 100 -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 MCC12-13- 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. 8. 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, PP44024, CUP -04426 L.h.e 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. 11. 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. 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. B. 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. C. 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- 4017, PP -04024, CUP -04-026 Le.hi,<A .P? CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004 Page 11 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. 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 I. H. 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. I. 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 -04-017. PP -04-024. CU -04-026 Lsshve AZ.PP.CU 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 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 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. F_ encine: 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. 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 -0 -017. PP -04-024, CUP- 4 026 Le.htr AZ.PP.C" Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & 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 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. 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. A -O"17. PP -O"20, CUP -0"26 L a ry A .PPCUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004 Page 14 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 L 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 %2" 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 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 required before combustible construction begins. 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 '/2 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 of 5' 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. 11. Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. A -O4017. PP -04-024, CUP -04026 I .h¢ A ,PP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004 Page 15 SANITARY SERVICES CONDITIONS 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 17. PP -0 024. C -O"26 U.hi AZ.PP.CU ACH John S. Franden, YF- WV 10L V1�0 �FWOIUVIIL Susan S. Eastlake, 2nd Vice President Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner Dave Bivens. Commissioner Ada County Highway District N. Adams Garden City ID 83714-6499 Phone (208) 387-6100 FAX (208) 387-6391 E-mail: E.�� July 29, 2004 To: SWI Associates 26i} 4700 North Cloverdale Road Suite 214 , y O'li9t ricti_a, Boise, Idaho 83702 Crit;, f;ierk iD o Subject: Leeshire Subdivision/MPP04-024/MCUP04-026/MAZ04-017 89 -lot mixed use subdivision 5603 North Locust Grove Road On July 21, 2004, the Ada County Highway District acted on your referenced project. The attached report lists site-specific requirements, street improvements, which are required. application for the above conditions of approval and If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 208-387-6177. ArWea N. TuWing Principal Development Right-of-way & Develol Planning Division CC: Project file, Construction Services, Drainage, Utilities City of Meridian Tomlinson Consulting Inc 205 North 10th Street, Suite B 100 Boise, Idaho 83702 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, a tun ino cDachd.ada.id.us File Numbers: Leeshire Subdivision/MPP04-024/MCUP04-026/MAZ04-017 Site address: 5603 North Locust Grove Road Owner/Applicant: SWI Associates, LLC 4700 North Cloverdale Road Suite 214 Boise, Idaho 83702 Representative: Tomlinson Consulting, Inc. 205 North 10'hStreet Suite 6100 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 -commercial lots 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 -total lots 87 -single-family residential 1 -office 1 -commercial Common Lots: 20 -lots Vicinity Map 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 site 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 zdhed 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 accepthbfe Level of Service COMPASS Planning Thresholds. 665 -feet Minor arterial South of McMillan Road was 4,719 on 6-28-01 Currently better than C for this segment of roadway is Level of Service E based on the 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). 9. 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. 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. 10. Site History The District has not previously reviewed a development application on this site. 13. Capital Improvements Plan/Five Year Work Program This segment of Locust Grove Road is not included in the District's Five Year Work Program or Capital Improvements Plan. 2 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 20126 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: o 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. o 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 patterns in this area, and the concern surrounding the abutting roadways, ACHD hired Washington Group to conduct a traffic impact study of the northwestern 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. B. Findings for Consideration Right -of -Way and Sidewalk— Locust Grove Road District policy requires 96 -feet of right-of-way on arterial roadways (Figure 72-F113). 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-F1 B, 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 El 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 comer and provide the District with an easement for the sidewalk that meanders outside of the right-of-way. 4. 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 of the 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 -of -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 Gear 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 foot 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 greater than 150 -feet. A sign shall be installed at the terminus of the stub street stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". In addition, a stub street must meet the following conditions: 61 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. Starry 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 approximateJocation 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 policy 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 100 -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 100 -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 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 turnarounds. Submit a design of the turnaround for review and approval by District Development Division staff. Approval of the 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 turnaround 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 A 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 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 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. Construct the main entrance, Starry Night Street, to intersect Locust Grove Road approximately 286 - feet north of the south property line, as proposed. 3. 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. - 4. Construct the internal 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. 6. 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. 7. - ....Extend Starry Night Street from the west property line located approximately 375 -feet north of the -_: south property line, as proposed. 8. 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". 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 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 shall be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum of a 100 -square foot area and shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. 12. Construct a non-standard turnaround 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. 0 13. Construct two knuckles without a center island within the knuckles, as proposed. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. D. Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. 2. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. All design an#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. 8. 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. 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. 11. 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 9 regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. E. Conclusions of Law 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. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. Request for Reconsideration Guidelines 10 11 Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action 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 request 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 majority 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 Development Process Checklist ®Submit a development application to a City or to the County ®The City or the County will transmit the development application to ACHD ®The ACHD Planning Review Division will receive the development application to review ®The Planning Review Division will do one of the following: ❑Send a "No Review" letter to the applicant stating that there are no site speck requirements at this time. ❑Send a "Comply With" letter to the applicant stating that'd the development is within a platted subdivision or part o1 a previous development application and that the site specific requirements from the previous development also appl to this development application. []Write a Staff Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating the Proposal for its conformance to District Policy. - ❑Write a Commission Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Policy. []The Planning Review Division will hold a Technical Review meeting for all Staff and Commission Level reports. ❑For 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 Reviex 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, includinf but not limited to, driveway approaches, street improvements and utility cuts. ❑Pay Impact Fees prior to issuance of building permit Impact fees cannot be paid prior to plan review approval DID YOU REMEMBER: Construction (Zone) ❑ Driveway or Property Approach(s) • `-Submit a "Driveway Approach Request" form to Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Construction (for approval by Development Services & Traffic Services). There is a one week turnaround for this approval. ❑ 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) ❑ 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 turned into ACHD Construction — Subdivision to be reviewed and approved by the ACHD Drainage Division. ❑ Idaho Power Company • Vic Steelman at Idaho Power must have his IPCO approved set of subdivision utility plans prior to Pre -Con being scheduled. ❑ Final Approval from Development Services • ACHD Construction — Subdivision must have received approval from Development Services prior to scheduling a Pre -Con. Ml I11 H2 OUR v �9� qill sr �E gj S9,a` 8c :fi jig 31 y imss U 0 slit .b *--i 8� 3g t (� m o �R _3 B _ r ta J. .a, i I a E 3 iE •e �i',` Figure 1 m 9O F Z z a i MaFa3�� gi fill,.0.. Jessica Johnson From: Steve Siddoway [siddowas@meddiancity.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 11:12 AM To: Tara Green'; 'Jessica Johnson'; 'Will Berg' Subject: FW: Leeshdre Subdivision: Leeshire comments 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 -----Original Message ----- From: Rmkpublishing@aol.com [ma!IW:Rmkpublishing@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 200410:52 AM To: siddowas@merldiancity.org Subject: Re: Leeshire Subdivision: Dear Steve, A agc i va � 1_ E,(J .WED AUG 0 4 2004 City Of b'leridian City Clerk Office As a home owner in Vienna Woods Subdivision I would like to express a few concerns my wife and I have regarding 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 consiitently had lots of 8,000 sq.ft. why would the city now reduce this number for Leeshire to allow 6,000 sq.ft. lots and overcrowd or pack in homes in this subdivision. Please be 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 rattle more profit at our expense. Maintain the minimum lot size at 8,000 sq.ft. 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 Assoc. 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 attractiveness of the area, to inhance, not detract from the area. Many Thanks, 8/4/2004 Vienna Woods Home Owners Bob & Janette Kurz 5404 N. Mendelson Ave. Meridian, ID 83842 208-888-7585 8/4/2004 Jessica Johnson From: Steve Siddoway Isiddowas@meddiancity.orgj Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 9:54 AM To: Tara Green'; 'Jessica Johnson'; 'Will Berg' Subject: FW: Proposed Leeshire Subdivision 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 [mailtmatkinvOmsn.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 9:28 AM To: siddowas@meridiancity.org Subject: Proposed Leeshire Subdivision Dear Mr. Sid way, RECEIVED An 0 4 2004 City of'Nfendier) taifv Clerk Office 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 - _a_ _ __ _ (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 From: Steve Siddoway [siddowas@meridiancity.orgj Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 8:14 AM To: Tara Green; 'Jessica Johnson'; Wil Berg' Subject: FW: Issues with proposed Leeshire Sub on Locust Grove 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 -----Original Message ----- From: Angela Nelson [mailto:kmntwice2@juno Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 12:35 AM To: siddowas@meridiancity.org Subject: Issues with proposed Leeshire Sub com] on Locust Grove To the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission: Tv" FTV ` AUS 0 4 2004 Clerk Office, 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 11rat 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 alsoincrease 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 Pl Meridian, ID 83642 884-5612 The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Johnson From: Steve Siddoway [siddowas@meridiancity.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 8:16 AM To: 'Tara Green; 'Jessica Johnson; Will berg' Subject: FW: Leesh[re Subdivis[on 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 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: Drjknowles@cs.com [mailto:Drjknowles@cs.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 7:44 AM To: siddowas@meridiancity.org Subject: Leeshire Subdivision Dear Mr. Siddoway: AUG' 0 4 2004 dW, 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�Df 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. The addition of commercial property does not maintain the family atmosphere of the area. Commerical properties should be located 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. Allowing businesses this close to residences changes that. 1 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. Sohn R. Knowles III, D.C. N Jessica From: Steve Siddoway [siddowas@meridiancity.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 5:08 PM To: Tara Green'; 'Jessica Johnson'; Will Berg' Subject: FW: Lee Shire For the Leeshire record. 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: Naylor, Bart L [mailto:bart.naylor@hp.com] Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:15 AM To: Bnaylor@cableone.net Subject: Lee Shire I'm Bart Naylor HOA Pres. for Vienna Woods RE�. E I V ED AUG Q 3 2004 City Of mejidian (.qv Clerk Office I would like to voice my concerns about the quality of a future development Proposed: Lee Shire 1. COmmeTCial/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 1 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 2 1J:40 PAA CU88ao6004 REXIDIAN r&Z UL'r'l. a cIt9 clerk Grog Eagy • 13000 Ventana • Boise, ID 85712 August 4, 2004 mr. Craig Hood Qty of Meriden Planning and Zoning Dept, Meridian, ID Via Fax: 8 66-645 9 XE: Sadie Project - Eagle Road Dear Craig, 10001 AUG 0 4 2004 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office First, thanks for your time on the phone today. We own the properties to the north of the pmperty being reviewed- I'd like to formally ask that you consider the following items: 1. The plan for this property does not show a 25' landscape and setback buffer along the south side of om property (the north side of this project). We would like to see this addressed and added 2. We would I*e to see the drive aisle paralleling our property line also set back the required depth. 3. We would like to see perimeter fencing the length of the property. 1'nsofar as these are family units, this would help with security and safety for children. _ 4. I would like to see if you would ra-review the requirements to put "through lanes on the front parking lots along Eagle Road We do not agree with the entry point onto our property insofar as it greatly diminishes the image of our land and the future use. Are all four corners of Eagle and Ustick requiring this on all lots? 591S-wVY 16/I0 Mvci 9NIIH91-1 vwQ I8605bE00Z Z^c:ET D00Z/60/80 AUG 04 '04 14:06 20G69e6954 PAGE.e1 co 7uad vSdycCatiec AUG -05-2004 07:10 AIH PAUL KLrNDT R • , i i _ � 1 i=z Wanted to express MY concerns about the proposed Lee Shirc plat 9/5/04- I - /5/04 t, Too small lots 2. Commercial lots to be light office/ proressional, not retail Paul Klindt SSS3 N.Brigadoon Ave Meridian, ID 83642 Zoo (ih KaaTJ 92TO t 'JAm Zvd NvTamaw tSB9998909 %vd CO:90 VOOZiS0i90 vz:eo b0, so onu 209 993 8140 P.01 R • , i i _ � 1 i=z Wanted to express MY concerns about the proposed Lee Shirc plat 9/5/04- I - /5/04 t, Too small lots 2. Commercial lots to be light office/ proressional, not retail Paul Klindt SSS3 N.Brigadoon Ave Meridian, ID 83642 Zoo (ih KaaTJ 92TO t 'JAm Zvd NvTamaw tSB9998909 %vd CO:90 VOOZiS0i90 W dt1Cd 9Sli�JtikitlfJL�C FROM Grcanspan August 5, 2004 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission 660 Fast Watattowcr, suite 202 Meridian, ID 83642 Pa. Zoning heating To Whom It May Concern: zz:80 40. se One Aug. 05 2004 10:27AM PI AUv 0 4 2004 t;i,; f.JC'vle-^azar; "; ,V Clerk Office As a resident of the Vienna Woods sub -division, I oppose any change in neighboring zoning That may nogaiively detract fimm my property values and from the general quality of the area. It is imperative that Lot size and usage is consistent among properties bordering Locust Grove and Vienna Woods. It is not appropriate for commercial and office zoning to be in the area proposed by the Leed dire sub -division. Please take a long-term view towaxds clustering like properties and usage. drank you, in advance; for your thoughtfW consideration of this matter. Valeda C. Greenspan 2250 East Mozart Court Meridian, ID 83642 (208)855-9133 TOO (A KJeTj d2TO « 'Sd3Q zvd Nviamak Jessica Johnson From: Paul Burningham [psbum@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 7:50 AM To: siddowas@meddiancity.org Subject: Leeshire Proposal I would like to register my objection to the proposal for the Leeshire Subdivision. 1. 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 based 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 gomg-Qn in Meridian. I do not know the motivation for the city to approve so many new subdivisions but the quality of life is going down in proportion to the growth and the City services and school district are already overloaded. Please call a halt till the dust settles. Sincerely, Paul and Peggy Burmagham 5341 N. Debussy Way Meridian 83642 (Vienna Woods) Do you Yahool7 New and Improved Yahool Mail - Send IOMB messages! hM://promotionsyahoocom/new mail 8/5/2004 a agc i va i RE(>EIVEDD AU' i 0 ,ra 2004 City Of 14eridian City Clerk Office Jessica Johnson From: GINASORENSON@cs.com Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 200410:19 PM To: siddowas@meddiancity.org Cc: GINASORENSON@cs.com Subject: The Leeshire Subdivision Mr. 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 incompatible 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 currently 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 in Vienna 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 gUd Gina Sorenson 8/5/2004 .ur'�..... iv 0 5 2004 ity Clerk "Mcc rage r ul G Jessica Johnson From: SKIP MCMILLAN [SKPMCM@peoplepc.comj Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 2:29 AM � jI To: siddowas@meridianciry.org � � J'e � E' D Cc: deweerdt@meddiancity.org; vigilk@meddiancity.org; clerk@me0diancity.org" r` 5 2004Subject: Leeshire subdivision concerns �`�`' 0 Mr. Steve Siddoway, Honorable Mayor de Weerd Planning and Zoning Commission Meridian City Council re: Leeshire Subdivision Mr. Siddoway, Honorable Mayor de Weerd, Council,Commission, {"ILLY Lit [� -ridiav_ (lily Clerk Office I am writing this memo to express my concerns with the proposed Leeshire Subdivision file # AZ -04-017, 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 currently reside in Vienna Woods subdivision. I am opposed to the C -N and L-0 zoning changes, the Leeshire 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 City minimum lot sizes, frontages and square footage structures (1201 S.F.). The smallest lot in that development( 5100 sq. ft.) is approximately 30 feet from my property line. Another case of a dev'efaper trying to squeeze as many lots onto a piece of land as possible for the almighty 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 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 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 City's role to assure the developments are harmonious with existing neighborhoods.ln the case of Leeshire,the approval of L-0 and C -N zoning for this project would dramatically affect the property values,and quality of life for surrounding property owners.It is stated in your Annexation and Zoning analysis item "A" that "these uses while prohibited in the medium 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 "staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not create excessive traffignoise,or other nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area".I 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. Als trash etc. o noise from drive through windows,traffic, 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 rage / Utz 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 turn 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. I feel if smaller than required lots and homes and businesses are permitted 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 yards. We live in a nice area, and we would like to keep it that way. I welcome all thoughts and comments. Thank you, Norman L. (Skip) McMillan 2037 E. Comisky Ct. Vienna Woods Subdivision 8/5/2004 rugc i vi i Tara Green From: Clintnvall@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 05,2004 10:42 AM To: siddowas@meridiancity.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.f. 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-t3000s.f. 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 Sincerely, Clint.Wall 8/5/2004 in your fight of this proposition. rage i os i Tara Green From: Michael DeYoung [mbdsr@mindspring.com[ Sent: Thursday, August 05, 200410:40 AM To: siddowas@meridiancity.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 comer 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 rural setting of our minimum 8,000 s.f to'/2 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, ID 83642-4741 mbdsrnmindspn com 8/5/2004 rage I or 2 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 Fairview. 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 find. This is already being threatened by the uncontrolled growth in the area. Our road is already a home to two churches and a charter school. More business would make things only worse than it already 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 afrbady 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 I 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)I 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 Kuria and other areas and not continue to build in every field I appreciate your careful consideration in this matter. Loma Sylvester 5294 N Beethoven Ave 8/5/2004 Leesntre Nunmviston rage z or Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. ht!P://messenizer.yaboo.com 8/5/2004 rroposea Leesrure auomvnsion concerns Tara Green From: Robb, Mark [RobbM@trusjoist.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:58 AM To: siddowas@meddiancity.org Subject: Proposed Leeshire Subdivision concerns Email to: Mr. Steve Siddoway, Meridian City Planner From: Mark Robb, Vienna Woods homeowner - Meridian, ID Re: Proposed Leeshire Subdivision concerns rage r or r I will be unable to attend the scheduled 7:00 pm PB:Z meeting tonight, which will discuss 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 concerns that I have, which are as follows: 1. Proposed Commercial zoning - I understand there are a few lots singled out that border Locust Grove to be designated for commercial 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 commercial zoning within a close proximity off Eagle or other major roads, without consideration of commercial zoning in this neighborhood. It does not fit. 2. Lot sizing - I understand that there are proposed lot sizes for Leeshire 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 Banbury that are keeping to a minimum 8,000 s.f. lot sizes. The level of house density concerns me as well, given the overcrowding and budgetary concerns with Meridian School District. This wilt only add to the current issues and concerns. 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 consider my opinion, and allow it to help influence a better outcome of the Leeshire development proposal. Best regards, Mark Robb H 846-8266 W 364-6228 8/5/2004 rfoposea Leeshire development and commercial properties on Locust drove rage 1 of 2 Tara Green From: Jewell, Robert [rob.jewell@hp.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:54 AM To: siddowas@meddiancity.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 first concern is the effect of creating a small -lot subdivision adjacent to several 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 neighboringarea is composed of two schools. Putting commercial property adjacent to homes may result in excessive street noise and traffic at objectionable times of the day or night. My th#rd concem relates to the impact of such a high-density subdivision on the crowded schools in the area. River Valley Elementary and Discovery 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 enrolled at Discovery Elementary. The addition of a high-density Leeshire subdivision only compounds this problem. A clear strategy 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 restrict 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 free to contact me at 396-4846 during the workday. Sincerely, 8/5/2004 Proposed Leeshtre development and commercial properties on Locust (irove Page 2 of 2 Robert Jewell 2051 E. Strauss Ct. Meridian, ID 83642 208-884-5489 (Home) 208-396-4846 (Work) 8/5/2004 Page 1 of 1 Tara Green From: JasonOVery@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:51 AM To: siddowas@meddianclty.org Cc: 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 Ws pro -growth position. It is only through growth that we can planned and directed to be conducive to the surrounding developments. expand our commercial and residential tax base. However, as I am sure you agree, all growth should be 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 believe 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'tsee the viability of them working. Retailers will want to locate on the higher traffic intersections along Eagle Road. As commercial lots, all I see is WO vacant lots that will continually be a weed nuisance and an eye sore for the area. I have heard rumors of a denti"Ifice, 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 Johnson From: Steve Siddoway [siddowas@meridiancity.org] Serle: Thursday, August 05, 2004 5:08 PM To: Tara Green'; 'Jessica Johnson'; Will Berg' Subject: 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.$88.6854 -----Original Message ----- From: kris@livingstudios.com [mailto:kris@livingstudics.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 4:38 PM To: siddowas@meridiancity.org Subject: New Development West of Vienna Woods '.. City i ) i r,t71 City Clerk r}fTir.,P 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, oods.--KrisLivingston, Susan Livingston 1 FROM T0-30Hd VS8988esoz Oz:VT 00, S0 onfl FAX N0. :12089390955 Aug. 05 2004 12:50PM PS AUG 0 5 2004 August 5, 2004 City of A1erid,iar, city cj, rk o ice Bear Tammy De Weerd and planning & zoning: We have lived in the DunWoody Subdivision for over 13 years and have loved the area. lOneookeofdothver e things that has been the most appealing is the rural ambiance. As we have the concerns. Proposed plot for Lee Shire Subdivision we have some very serious The size ofthe Iots is not in keeping with the surrounding area The density of the Sub Division will put a grave strain on Locust Grove and "de varea. the densexistity homes. All Of the lots in the surrounding area are at least 8000 square, Most am between ,/� acre ettid 5 acres. Our greatest-eoncern is for the Commercial/retail buildings that may become part of the area. This is a neighborhood and should not become a major interaeetiOn. It is our deepest hope that yoq will consider some of these factors before making up your minds to approve Lee Shire as proposed, Sincerely Richard & Trudie Galloway 11714 E. Duawoody Ct Meridian, Tdaho 83642 Ton fal 3IJ9Tn 91TI Tara Green from: Tammy de Weerd [deweerdt®meddiancity.org] Sent: Thursday, August D5,2004 5:03 PM To: 'SKIP MCMILLAN' Cc: bergw@ci.meridian.id.us; greerd@ci.maddian.id.us Subject: RE: Leeshire subdivision concerns Mr. Norman McMillan, We are in receipt of your email regarding the 'Leeshire' This will be included in the public record and therefore information available to both Planning and Zoning and the 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 rage t or 1 _RP.1 C IVB AUG 0 5 2004 '_ity i)FiYzeridia,� E'Je"'k ()f icr, development application. part of the application City Council members. -----Original Message ---- From: SKIP MCMILLAN [mailto:SKPMCM@peoplepc.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 2:29 AM To: siddowas@meridiandty.org Cc: Tammy de Weerd; vigilk@merldiandty.org; clerk@meridiancity.org Subject: Leeshire subdivision concerns Mr. Steve Siddoway, Honorable Mayor de Weerd Planning and Zoning Commission Meridian City Council re: Leeshire Subdivision Mr. Siddoway, Honorable Mayor de Weerd, Council,l umrr rasion, I am writing this memo to express my concerns with the proposed Leeshire Subdivision file # AZ -04-017, 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 currently reside in Vienna Woods subdivision. I am opposed to the C -N and L -O zoning changes, the Leeshire 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 reaaden&a1 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 tao asked for, and was granted smaller than City minimum lot sizes, frontages andsquare footage structures (1201S.F.). The smaller lot in that development( 5 100 sq. ft.) is approximately 30 feet from my property 8/5/2004 Page 2 of L line. Another case of a developer trying to squeeze as many lots onto a piece of land as possible for the almighty 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 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 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 City's role to assure the developments are harmonious with existing neighborhoods.In the case of Leeshire,the approval of L-0 and C -N zoning for this project would dramatically affect the property values,and quality of life for surrounding property owners.It is stated in your Annexation and Zoning analysis item "A" that "these uses while prohibited in the medium density residential land use area,may be approved through the planped 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 "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".I 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 Vienna Woods and no commercial busmesses.There are too many mini malls in the area as it is.We don't want Locust Grove to tum 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. I feel if smaderthan required lots and homes and businesses are permitted 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 yards. We live in a nice _-- =area, and we would like to keep it that way. I welcome all thoughts and comments. Thank you, Norman L. (Skip) McMillan 2037 E. Comisky Ct. Vienna Woods Subdivision 8/5/2004 MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird William L.M. Nary Shaun Wardle Charles M. Roumree 1 CITY OF �-/VL PY1G�1�"yI Y IDAHO STAFF REPORT: Transmittal Date: August 2, 2004 P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004 To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission - RECENED From: Steve Siddoway, Principal Plannerevu-- Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech t O � 2 Meridian 2004 Re: Leeshire Subdivision City Clerk Office • Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 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-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). AZ04-017. PP -0 024. CUP -04-026 Le ns AZ.PP.CIIP 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 st, 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 1, 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- City Requirements 8,000 sq.ft. (Minimum) Lot Frontage -City Requirements 80' minimum Setbacks - City Requirements Side: 5' Proposed Lot Sizes 5,991 sq. ft. (Minimum) Proposed Prontaee 50' minimum 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). A -04-017, PP- 4024, CLIP -04.026 L.htreA .Pp.mp 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 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./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 -04.017, PP -04-024, CUP -04-026 Lx hire AZPP,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 -04-01], "4-0 024, CUP -04-026 Ue 4h AZ.PPCUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: August 5, 2004 Page 5 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. 1. 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. J. 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. R. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance; and AZ -04417, PP -00.024, CUP -O4426 Le htm AZ.PP.CUP 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 REQUIREMENTS 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 fords 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 financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff fords that the development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting services. See Annexation and Zoning Analysis item H. AZ -0401 ], PP44024, CLIP -04-026 Le¢hve AZ.PP.CLT 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 Council or 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 of landscaping 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. 4. 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, PP-O"N, CLIP -04-026 Lcvhire AZ.PP.NP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & 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. 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. 9. 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. 11. 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 -04-01], PP44024, CUP -04-426 Leshire AZ.PP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & 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 100 -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 MCC 12-13- 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. 8. 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 A -04-017, PP44-024, CUP -04-026 Le him .PP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & 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. 11. 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. 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. B. 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. C. That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with A -04-017. PP -00O24, CUP -04-026 I. ks A .PP CUP 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 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. 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 I. H. 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. I. 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 -04017, PP-OL024, CUP -W26 Leeshue 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 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 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 TTrees: 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. Fencine: 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 -04017, PP -04024, CUP11 026 Lzshire AZ.PP.CUP 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/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) Applicant shall meet all of the requirements of the annexation and preliminary plat as a conditi6mof 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. A -04-017, PP -04-024, CUP -04-026 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. 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 '/2" 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 comers. 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 required before combustible construction begins. 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 '/2 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 of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. A71 4 017. PP4"24, CUP -04-026 L.kim AZ.PP.CUP 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. 11. Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. SANITARY SERVICES CONDITIONS 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 roust 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-D17, PP -04-024, COP- 026 L.h . A .PP.CUP AUG 0 5 2004 CITY OF MERIDIAN pia Leeshire Subdivision Additional Subdivision Conditions File: AZ-04-017 File: PP-04-024 File: CUP-04-026 1) The trees in the 5 foot planting strip between the back of curb and the sidewalk shall be planted by the developer. The grass shall be installed by the builder upon completion of the IlonnV1i1C 1:U11Sl.ftJl;LIV1__1. 2) The builder shall be required to install all front yard landscaping. The builder will provide to the developer either (i) a full front and rear landscape plan with a grading plan or (ii) a grading plan for the all areas which are not landscaped. The builder and the homeowner will be required to maintain the grading plan to assure appropriate drainage controls. 3) Front yard landscaping will be required to be installed by the builder of each home. 4) The minimum roof material shall be 30 year architectural shingles. 5) All exterior siding shall be hardboard, cottage lap, or similar material, stucco or stone. The architectural guidelines will not allow vinyl siding. 6) The front of the homes will be required to have stucco, stone or other exterior architectural feature. 7) The common area fence design (four feet of windowpane with two feet of open design) will be required as the fence design on any portion which is parallel to the streets and shall be set back a least two feet behind the front of the home. Y ode S 3 MOH iMb 0tN NVId 3115 1d3ONOO O OHVOI '3SI08 • .E $ r' e 1S3MH1iiON ON3O3I NOISIAIG8f1S 31iiN3331 2 a pa do a 1 S 3 M H 1 8 0 N Ntlld 31OHVO 'Mum 0. 15 1d3�N00 a l 1SWULON 4N3EJH7 r ° NOISIA148fIS 37�IHS33l _..Ll�—=1�11� S 0 W I- 0 z J R W z W O 4 2'- 0 LL d t zi t J IL WI F W HIIL Wa tlqz_ 0- 09 C-B"t v tlj,9� li 6 li ILI CITYMN Leeshire Subdivision Additional Subdivision Conditions File: AZ -04-017 File: PP -04-024 File: CUP -04-026 1) The trees in the S. foot planting strip between the back of curb and the sidewalk shall be planted by the developer. The grass shall be installed by the builder upon completion of the home construction. 2) The builder shall be required to install all front yard landscaping. The builder will provide to the developer either (i) a full front and rear landscape plan with a grading plan or (ii) a grading plan for the all areas which are not landscaped. The builder and the homeowner will be required to maintain the grading plan to assure appropriate drainage controls. 3) Front yard landscaping will be required to be installed by the builder of each home. 4) The minimum roof material shall be 30 year architectural shingles. 5) All exterior siding shall be hardboard, cottage lap, or similar material, stucco or stone. The architectural guidelines will not allow vinyl siding. 6) The front of the homes will be required to have stucco, stone or other exterior architectural feature. 7) The common area fence design (four feet of windowpane with two feet of open design) will be required as the fence design on any portion which is parallel to the streets and shall be set back a least two feet behind the front of the home. d T s I ..... . —, — "' ;�// �\ A H 1 6 9 N ❑Ell❑ LEE NVId 3119 1 ONOO d3 0001 ']Sloe 1:114303-1 NOISIAMSIn a aumsawl ------------ 0 z ZO j AM L FEN! yR LI Z, W Q w ME 0 r7 ------ Z. ° � Ls 3 M N'i"a-o'x.:.t �� a Ntlld 3115 1d30N00 oHdLl 351aa 1--MH1HON ON303'1 NOI8IAIOSOS 3tlIHSH3l a a w 0 F > C w Y pj 2 W 0 1> y n z I \ \ Q V�A��Vv vAA fV 0 I l g a \ Z. 09 u CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET 2uiJ7 Ml DATE August 5, 2004 ITEM # 8 PROJECT NUMBER CIDP 04-026 PROJECT NAME Leeshire Subdivision NAME (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL �1n 1� v-wrvt or iC rY Ott ay4wx i l lc�V'l �W15 C ti fi � 0 u MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Shaun Wardle William L. M. Nary Charles M. Rountree Keith Bird yy Qp' CITY OF L41 C _ endlan Ig U IDAHO LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 466-9272 • FAX 466-4405 PARKS & RECREATION (208) 888-3579 • Fax 898-5501 PUBLIC WORKS (208) 898-5500 • Fax 887-1297 BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 PLANNING & ZONING (208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Clerk's Office Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: Transmittal Date: July 1, 2004 File No.: CUP 04-05— 2004 Hearing Date: 2004 Request: Mixed use Planned Development consisting of single family residential & commercialloffice uses w/ reductions to minimum req.'s for lot size, side yard setbacks & minimum St. frontage for Leeshire Sub. By: SWI Associates, LLC Location of Property or Project: 5603 N. Locust Grove Road David Zaremba, PIZ (No FP) David Moe, P/Z (No FP) Wendy Newton-Huckabay,P/Z (No PP) Michael Rohm, P/Z (No FP) Keith Borup, P/Z (No FP) Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Bill Nary, C/C Charlie Rountree, C/C Keith Bird, C/C Shaun Wardle, C/C Water Department Sewer Department Sanitary Service (No VAR, VAC, FP) Building Department Fire Department Police Department City Attorney Your City Engineer City Planner Parks Department Remarks: Meridian School District (No FP) Meridian Post Office (FP/PP only) Ada County Highway District Ada County Development Services Central District Health Nampa Meridian Irrig. District Settlers Irrigation District Idaho Power Co. (FP/PPonly) Qwest (FP/PP onty) Intermountain Gas (FP/PPonly) Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PPon/y) Idaho Transportation Department (No FP) Ada County Land Records Meridian Development Corporation Historical Preservation Commission RECEIVED JUL _ 8 2004 A� City of Meridian City Clerk Office 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE • MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 • (208) 888-4433 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 • Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 • Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-4813