HomeMy WebLinkAboutKingsbridge Subdivision PP
PP 05-004
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Vision First, LLC
March 3, 2005
10
ITEM NO.
REQUEST Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval for 130 single-family residential building lots
and 34 common lots on 76.72 acres In a proposed R-3 zone for Kingsbridge Subdivision-
4070 South Eagle Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
¡¿ eø m f7i-U?Á
Ifppro I/~ -10
See attached staff report \ C / C-
'3-~
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
No comment
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
See attached comments
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
See attached comments
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
See attached comments
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See attached letters from public
Contacted: J<ffì rJ.A-1 utr. Date: 3-( 7:J':) Phone:
Emailed: VfJl@ví.)t'~ V sf. /1e;[- Staff Initials: .-.A!Jbj--
Materials presented at public meetings shaD become property 01 the City of Meridian.
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
,;~!/'<~
'I.' ,,'i~á~ll~
ctGr¡d,{;¡n ',:;
COlY'f!!\ALL
(~1mI38~;¡;,""j¡~R!J
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
Chdstine Donnell
Shaun W..dle
Chades M. Rountree
PIJBBKI<WfJftRKS
B8lliD() JOO)BUJUI'II'I!I/11H
(~n-Z-:1!I!11"¡;,""j¡_95~1
III II!"
LE6\Th IDB~11H
(~tWß4i!IW:Y1'2I~ of liJC4ti<!-4m>5
STAFF REPORT:
Transmittal Date: February 25,2005
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
To:
Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
From:
Craig Hood, Associate Planner (I¡¡ ~
Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager ~
Re:
Kingsbridge Subdivision REVISED
e
Annexation and Zoning of76.72 Acres ITom RUT (Ada County) to R-3 (Rural
Medium Density Residential), by Vision First LLC. (File No. AZ-O5-003).
e
Preliminary Plat Approval of One-Hundred-Thirty (130) Building Lots and
Thirty-Four (34) Common Lots on 76.72 Acres in a Proposed R-3 Zone, by
Vision First LLC. (File No. PP-O5-004).
e
Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Residential Planned Development of
Single-Family Homes with Reduced Street Frontage, and Exceeding the
Maximum Block Length, by Vision First, LLc. (File No. CUP-O5-004).
We have reviewed the above referenced submittals and offer the following comments and
conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly
modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council:
HISTORY
In the Fall of 2004, the applicant applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ-04-023), Preliminary
Plat (PP-04-030), and Conditional Use Permit approval for a Planned Development (CVP-04-
026) on the subject 76+ acres. The previous development proposed lot sizes below the 8,000
square- foot minimum of the requested R -4 zone, and a gross density of 3.1 dwelling units per
acre. On September 16, 2004, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend denial of
AZ-04-023 and CUP-04-026 to the City Council, and they voted to deny PP-04-030. On October
21,2004, the applicant's request for reconsideration of a revised plat that included 18 less lots
and increased minimum lot size was not acted on by the Planning & Zoning Commission. An
appeal of the Commissions decision to deny the preliminary plat was submitted to the City
Council. The Council approved the applicant's appeal, but subsequently denied all three
applications after the public hearing on December 14, 2004. The findings for denial were
approved on January 4, 2005. The basis for the denial was: the lack of transition between the
"Z-Oj-OU!. PP~"-O"CUP-05-00'
",""51"idge REVISED_^,PPCUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 2
project and the large parcels around it; the amount of traffic that would utilize the existing street
(Dartmoor Street) in Dartmoor Subdivision; the proposed density was too high; and it was not in
the best interest of the City (see Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision & Order
ITom the January 4th, City Council).
In response to the City Council's denial of the previous applications, the applicant believes that
the subject applications address the Findings for DeniaL The project now includes:
e Transitional lot sizes at the project perimeter,
e Gross density of 1.69 dwelling units per acre (net loss of 107 buildable lots ITom
original submittal),
e Requested R-3 zone is consistent with existing character of the area (rural),
e Minimum lot size is 12,000 square-feet, and;
e The estimated additional traffic on Dartmoor Street is less than 300 vehicle trips
per day based on the new layout
The subject property includes Lot II, Block 2, Dartmoor Subdivision. Note 9 of Dartmoor
Subdivision states that Lot II is restricted for a period of 15 years to open space per the Non-
Farm Development section of Ada County Code. The property was platted in 1994, making the
sunset of the Ada County imposed restriction March 3, 2009. It has been staffs understanding
that it is not within the City's jurisdiction or authority to apply or enforce County restrictions or
County requirements on properties annexed into the City.
SUBJECT APPLICATIONS SUMMARY
The applicant, Vision First LLC, is proposing annexation of 76.72 acres of land located on the
east side of Eagle Road, approximately one-half mile south of Victory Road. The proposed
preliminary plat for the property consists of 130 building lots and 34 common lots. The gross
density of the proposed plat is 1.69 dwelling units per acre. There are currently two homes and
some outbuildings on the subject property. The existing home and outbuildings on Lot 14,
Block 2, are to remain, while the existing structures on Lots I, 2 and 8, Block I, are to be
removed. The remainder of the property is currently being utilized as open space.
The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map shows the southwest 20-acres of the'subject
property as "Medium Density Resid~ntial", which is dermed as three to eight dwelling units
per acre. The 56-acres located on the north side of the Ten Mile Feeder are depicted a~ "Low
Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Future Land Use Map. Low density areas are
anticipated to contain single-family homes at densities of three dwelling units or less per acre.
The proposed density (1.69 d.u.lacre) is consistent with the Low Density designation for the
majority of this property, and below the Medium Density range for the 20-acres designated as
such.
The proposed development is entirely residential and contains no use exceptions. As required
by MCC 11-9-1 for the R-3 zone, all buildable lots within the proposed development contain a
minimum 12,000 square-feet NOTE: As shown on the preliminary plat, Lot 18, Block 2, is 59
square-feet shy of 12,000 square feet. This lot should contain 12,000 square-feet as proposed
AZ~05~OQ;. PP-O5~O04. CUP~ü5~OO"
Ki""b,id,e REVISEDAZPPCUP
Plamling & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 3
with the application. The largest lot is 119,907 square-feet and contains an existing residence.
The second largest lot is 30,791 square-feet. The average lot size is 16,539-square feet.
NOTE: Generally, the larger lots are along the perimeter of the subdivision. However, the
smallest lots in the development are directly adjacent to the large 5 and IO-acre lots in Zaldien
Zerua Subdivision to the south. To mitigate the small size of these lots the applicant is
proposing to construct a 3-foot tall grassed berm, within a 2O-foot wide common lot along the
southern boundary. The 6-foot vinyl fence is proposed on the north side of this common lot.
As part of the Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development (CUP/PD) application, the
applicant is seeking reductions to the minimum lot frontages required in the R-3 zone, and a
request to exceed the 1,000-foot block length. These proposed modifications are detailed
below.
R-3 Zone:
Lot Frontage-Citv Requirements
90-feet minimum (non cul-de-sac)
40-feet minimum (cul-de-sac/curve)
Proposed Frontage
60-feet minimum (non cul-de-sac)
30-feet minimum (cul-de-sac/curve)
Block Length-Citv Requirements
IOOO-feet maximum
Proposed Block Length
1,325-feet (approximately)
There are two blocks (2 and 7) that exceed the maximum I,OOO-foot block length. Of the 130
proposed lots there are 25 lots that do not meet the minimum street frontage requirement for
the proposed R-3 zone. All of the lots requiring a variation to the minimum lot frontage
dimension are internal to the subdivision and do not lie on the exterior boundary.
In exchange for the proposed modifications listed above, the project includes amenities
including 10% open space, a community park on Lot 10, Block I, that contains a swimming
pool, a BBQ area with picnic tables and a tot lot. Another park (Lot 1, Block 8) is proposed
that contains a water feature, benches and a walking path. Additional amenities include a
landscaped boulevard corridor along Kingsbridge Drive with street trees in the 8-foot !Rlanter
strips between the street and the detached sidewalk, a walking path along the .south side of the
Ten Mile Feeder, a walking path along the north boundary, smaller open space pockets, a
bridge monument, and ornamental street lights. The amenities are depicted on the submitted
landscape plan, and are described in the applicant's letter accompanying the CUP/PD
application. See CUP/PD Special Considerations below for a detailed analysis of the proposed
amenities and the design thereof.
During the public hearing for the previous submittal of Kingsbridge, there was discussion
about the applicant making improvements to the existing portion of Dartmoor Drive that does
not contain curb, gutter or sidewalk. No off off-site improvements are being proposed with the
subject application.
",Z.05.003. PP-05.oo30Up.05.oo3
K;"'òb"d" !ŒV1SEDAZPPCUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 4
The subject applications (AZ, PP and CUP/PD) were submitted concurrently to the Planning &
Zoning Department for review. Staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended
conditions of approval for the requested annexation and zoning, preliminary plat and
conditional use permit applications below. Staff recommends approval of the subject
applications with the conditions outlined in this report.
LOCATION
The property is located on the east side of Eagle Road, approximately halfway between Victory
Road and Amity Road, within Section 28, Township 3 North, Range 1 East.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North: Golden Eagle Estates, zoned RUT (Ada County).
South: Kunz Hollow and Zaldien Zerua Subdivisions, zoned RUT (Ada County).
East: Bridlewood Subdivsion and Rural Residential, zoned RUT (Ada County).
West: Dartmoor Subdivision, zoned RUT (Ada County).
OWNERS OF RECORD
The property owners of record include Kingsbridge Properties, LLC, David L. and Kathleen S.
PalITeyman, David A and Janie Teeter, and Jae-D Acres, Inc. All current property owners have
provided notarized consent for Vision First, LLC to submit the subject 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;
In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, 'medium density' is defined as areas
including single-family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre; 'low
density' consist of single-family homes at densities of three dwelling units or less per
acre. Staff finds that the requested zoning designation, R-3, is harmonious with and in
accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, which
designates the land to be "Low Density Residential" north of the Ten Mile Feeder, and
"Medium Density Residential" adjacent to Eagle Road. The 1.69 dwelling units per acre
proposed with the preliminary plat is consistent with previous Commission and Council
actions and generally conforms to the goals, objectives, and action items contained in the
Comprehensive Plan for this area. In addition, in the applicant's cover letter (dated
n05.00.1PP-O5.00<.ClIP.O5.00'
Kmgobidg,REVISED.AZ.PP(lIP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 5
B.
C.
D.
January 14, 2005) several Comprehensive Plan policies are listed, all of which support
the annexation and proposed residential use of the property.
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future;
Concurrent with the annexation and zoning application, the applicant has submitted a
preliminary plat and conditional use permit proposing single-family lots on the subject
site (PP-O5-004 & CUP-05-004). Staff does not anticipate that the applicant plans to
rezone the subject property in the future if the accompanying CUP/PD and PP
applications are approved.
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;
Staff finds that the proposed development would be allowed within the requested R-3
zone, (if the accompanying Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development is also
approved).
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;
There have been no recent street improvements in the area. However, the intersection of
Eagle Road and Victory Road is within ACHD's Five Year Work Program for
reconstruction in 2007. Eagle Road is currently in the ACHD CIP (20-year plan) for road
widening to 3-lanes.
If the Commission and Council approve the requested annexation application, this will be
the first property in Section 28, Township 3 North, Range I East to be annexed into the
corporate limits of the City of Meridian. The subject property is currently surrour¡ded by
one to five-acre parcels-rural-type density. However, just across Eagle Road ITom the
subject site Tuscany Lakes Subdivision was approved for development at 2.4 gross
dwelling units per acre (sewer and water service lines were brought down Eagle Road,
directly adjacent to the northwest comer of the subject property). The proposed zoning
and subsequent residential density, 1.69 dwelling units per acre, is lower than Tuscany
Lakes but considerably denser than the surrounding county parcels.
Staff finds that the requested zoning and proposed density is within the anticipated range
for a lower density urban project. Further, based on the Comprehensive Plan, staff
believes that some of the existing large county parcels in the area will redevelop with
similar densities in the near future. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council
rely on staffs analysis, public testimony received and any comments submitted ITom any
other agencies or departments regarding whether this property should be annexed.
nOS.OO3 pp-o;.o".cup.¡J5.00j
Ki"S,b,'d" IŒVISEDAZPPCUP
Plamling & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 6
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;
The applicant has submitted four (4) ITont elevations for the proposed dwelling units.
Staff believes that the design of the dwelling units will be compatible with the adjoining
uses, if the buildings are constructed as shown on the submitted elevations. Even though
the proposed and existing uses are the same, residential, staff finds that the proposed
density of the residential use will change the existing character of the area, which is
largely ruraL However, the proposed development is generally harmonious with the
intended character envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and previous Commission and
Council action on this site. Staff does not find that the proposed zoning/uses will
adversely change the essential character of area.
Staff has received several calls, e-mails and letters from adjacent property owners
concerned about the subject development. Staff recommends that the Commission and
Council 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 use will be
disturbing to future or existing neighbors, as long as landscaping, fencing and other
recommended conditions are exercised. Further, staff does not anticipate that the
proposed residential use will be hazardous as long as the conditions outlined in this report
are complied with and construction traffic and house construction is conducted in a
manner consistent with City Code and the conditions of this report.
G.
Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways, streets, police and ."Ire 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;
The applicant will be responsible for the extension of utilities to and through this
proposed development. Sizing and routing shall be coordinated with the Public Works
Department.
The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay park and highway
impact fees.
On October 6, 2004, ACHD approved the previous Kingsbridge development with site-
specific and standard conditions. The applicant should comply with all amended
g05-0OJPP.j)j-OO'.Cl'P-05-0Oj
""".,Od'" REVISEDAZPPCl'P
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 7
requirements of the ACHD for the revised application. Please review the ACHD report
for additional information regarding this finding.
On February II, 2005, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with
representatives of key service providers to this property, Based on the joint
agency/department meeting and other comments received from agencies/departments,
staff finds that the public services listed above can be made available to accommodate the
proposed development. The Commission and Council should reference any written
and/or verbal testimony submitted by any public service provider, regarding their ability
to adequately service this project. NOTE: Sanitary Services Company will not use Zaldia
Lane (private) to pick up trash for the proposed Lot 14, Block 2. Therefore, trash cans for
Lot 14, Block 2, should be pulled to the curb of Kingsbridge Drive.
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,
pressurized irrigation, and local street inITastructure 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;
According to the amended Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Dobie Engineering,
Inc., the proposed project is anticipated to generate 1,235 vehicle trips per day. Of that
traffic, 300 additional vehicle trips per day are anticipated on the existing Dartmoor Drive
in Dartrooor Subdivision. The previous TIS anticipated 800 additional vehicle trips per
day on Dartmoor Drive. Based on the revised plat and TIS, substantially fewer v,~hicles
will use Dartmoor Drive as access to/ITom the proposed development. Staff recognizes
that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision; however, staff
does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of
the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed annexation and subsequent uses will
create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, traffic (see Finding "J" below), or odors. To
lessen the impact of this development on the existing residences in Dartmoor
Subdivision, staff recommends that construction traffic be prohibited from utilizing
Dartmoor Drive or the ditch rider's access road to the Ten Mile Feeder (see CUP Special
Consideration #4 below). Staff finds that the proposed residential zoning/uses will not be
detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area.
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;
AZ.Oj.DO). PP-O5'..".ClIp.05.0"
':i"g,O,id" REVISEDAZPPCl'P
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 8
The applicant is proposing to construct one new public street entrance into the site from
Eagle Road (Kings bridge Drive). The applicant is also proposing to extend a stub street
(Dartmoor Drive) into the site that was approved with the Dartmoor Subdivision.
Dartmoor Drive currently has 32-feet of pavement and no curb, gutter, or sidewalk.
Dartmoor Drive is currently not striped for non-vehicular traffic. As mentioned in the
above finding, the extension of Dartmoor Drive will cause traffic volumes on the
existing portion of the street to increase. However, if the extension of Dartmoor Drive
is constructed as approved by ACHD, staff does not believe that the subdivision will
create interference with traffic on the existing public street. If all proposed vehicular
approaches (streets) are approved and accepted by ACHD, staff does not believe that
the subdivision will create interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets.
Please review the ACHD report for this project for additional information regarding
this finding.
K.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of
major importance; and
There are several mature trees on this property. Any existing trees larger than 4"
caliper that are removed should be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance. If the
on-site trees are protected and mitigated for, as required by the Meridian Parks
Department, staff finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction,
loss or damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that
the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to
determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural
or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware.
L.
Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. (Ord.
592,1l-17-1992)?
The legal description submitted with the application, prepared by FOX Land Surveys,
Inc., shows that the property is contiguous to the existing corporate boundary! of the
City of Meridian. Staff finds that all essential services are available or will be provided
by the developer to the subjeèt property and will not require unreasonable expenditure
of public funds. The applicant is proposing to develop the land in substantial
compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that this is a logical
expansion of the City limits. In accordance with the findings listed above, staff finds
that the annexation/zonin.g of this propertv would be in the best interest of the Citv.
PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS
Sections 12-3-3 J.2 and 12-3-5 0 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;
",Z-O5-00']. PP-"5-0",CUP-05-oo'
K;""b,;d,e REVISED ",UP.CUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 9
As noted in the analysis above, staff finds that the subdivision appears to be in general
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 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 "G" and "H" for more details.
c.
The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program;
Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for .the development at their
cost, staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
D.
The public fmancial capability of supporting .services for the proposed development;
Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public
service providers (e.g. - police, fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. See
Annexation and Zoning Analysis item "H" and the Agency Comments and Conditions at
the end of this report for more detaiL
E.
The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the
Commission's attention.
Staff is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the
development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's
attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the
Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to
determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or
environmental problems of which staff is unaware.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS (PRELIMINARY PLAT)
I. Stub Streets: The applicant is proposing three stub streets to adjacent properties. ~taff is
generally supportive of the stub streets with one exception. Ivybridge Way is stubbed to
the Blackmer property (Parcel No. R3 I 93250030), approximately 50-feet east of the
north-south Blackmer property line. So that the Blackmer property can be developed
efficiently, lots on both sides of the street extension, staff recommends that this stub
street be moved in alignment with Darlington Way. Further, this change will bring Block
7 into compliance with MCC for maximum block length; it will be below the 1,000-foot
maximum. See Site Specific Condition #2 below.
2.
Existing Residence: The applicant is proposing to retain the existing house on Lot 14,
Block 2. Access to this residence is currently provided ITom Zaldia Lane to the south.
AZ.Oj.oo;. pp.;);.oo;. (,l'P.O;.o<4
Ki""b"¡d"REVISEDAZPPCUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 10
Sanitary Services has commented that they will not use Zaldia Lane to service Lot 14.
Refuse for Lot 14, Block 2, should be brought to the curb of Kingsbridge Drive.
The applicant has placed a note on the plat (#14) stating that Lot 13, Block 2 (HOA
common lot), has an ACHD access easement on it. When Lot 14, Block 2, develops
Lot 13 will be dedicated to ACHD. Staff recommends that Lot 13, Block 2, be
incorporated with Lot 14, Block 2, now so access to Kingsbridge Drive is ensured for
Lot 14 when it redevelops.
Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed ITom their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services
are available ITom the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes
such as landscape irrigation.
See Site Specific Condition #3 below.
3.
Ditches. Laterals. and Canals: Per MCC 12-4-13, 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. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written
approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users
association approval cannot be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer prior to final plat signature. On the submitted plans, the applicant is not
proposing to tile the Ten Mile Feeder. Meridian City Code 12-4-13.A.2 allows the City to
waive the requirement for covering a ditch, lateral or canal, if it finds that the public
purpose requiring such will not be served in the individual case. The applicant has
provided no justification for a waiver of the standard requirement to tile the Ten Mile
Feeder. In accordance with MCC 12-4-13, all irrigation, ditches, laterals and canals,
including the Ten Mile Feeder should be tiled. See Site Specific Condition #5 below.
4.
Pressure Irrigation: The applicant has indicated that the pressure inigation system will be
owned by the Kingsbridge Homeowners' Association. The City of Meridian requites that
underground pressurized inigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water
(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicàht should be required to utilize any existing surface or well
water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a singte-point
connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is
utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the
common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground,
pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved
specifications and in accordance with MCC 12-13-8 and MCC 9-1-28. See Site Specific
Condition #6 below.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS (PRELIMINARY PLAT)
1. The 3-page preliminary plat prepared by The Land Group, Inc., dated 1-14-05, is
approved with the conditions listed herein. All conditions of the Conditional Use Permit
"-OS-OOJ. PP-Oj-OC4. CUP-05.OI"
""3>b,'d" REV!SED "ZPPCUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 11
(CUP-05-004) application shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat
(PP-05-004).
2.
Provide a public stub street to the Blackmer Property (Parcel No. R3193250030),
approximately 450-feet east of the west property line (in alignment with Darlington
Way).
3.
Provide approximately 100-feet ofITontage on Kingsbridge Drive for Lot 14, Block 2, by
incorporating Lot 13, Block 2, into Lot 14, Block 2. Refuse service for Lot 14, Block 2,
shall be from Kingsbridge Drive and not Zaldia Lane. Trash cans for Lot l4shall be
brought to the curb of Kingsbridge Drive. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic
systems within this project will have to be removed ITom their domestic service, per City
Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are available ITom the City of Meridian.
Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. The applicant
shall be responsible for payment of and the actual physical sanitary sewer and domestic
water connection for the existing house.
4.
Revise the following notes on the preliminary plat as follows:
e Note 7 shall be revised by adding a second sentence that reads: "Setbacks shall be
measured from the property line or the adjacent sidewalk, whichever is more
restrictive."
Note 12 shall be amended by removing Lot 13, Block 2, from being a HOA lot,
and Lot 29, Block 2, shall be added to the list ofHOA lots.
Note 14 shall be removed (see Condition #3 above).
Add a note stating that the HOA is responsible for keeping Lot 9, Block 1, and
Lot 20, Block 2, free of weeds and debris and is subject to a 60-foot wide
irrigation easement.
e
e
e
5.
All irrigation ditches, laterals, and canals (including the Ten Mile Feeder) intersecting,
crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per
MCC 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage
district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval
submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can not
be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat
signature.
6.
The applicant has indicated that the pressurized irrigation system within this development
will be owned and operated by the homeowners' association. 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
AZ-US-UUJ.PP",,5-0O<_ClIP-O5-00'
K"'g,'"d" REVISEDAZ"""?
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3,2005
Page 12
9.
12.
7.
8.
10.
11.
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
The submitted 4-page landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., dated 1-14-05 is
approved as submitted, with the following notes/modifications:
e
Per MCC 12-13-13-3, any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed ITom the property
shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of
caliper inches of trees that were removed. To mitigate for the existing trees on site,
provide additional trees as shown on the landscape plan.
Provide a 6-foot tall vinyl fence around the entire perimeter of the project, as
proposed. Provide 6-foot tall and 3-foot tall wrought iron fencing as shown. All
fences shall taper down to 3 feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of-way.
All micropaths within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in accordance with
MCC 12-13-15 "Micropath Landscaping" and MCC 12-4-3 "Pedestrian Walkways."
Micropath fencing shall be constructed per MCC 12-13-15-9, as proposed.
Depict a minimum 40-foot wide landscape buffer along Eagle Road (including a 5-
foot wide detached sidewalk), as proposed. Said landscape buffer shall be located
beyond the 48-feet shown as future street right-of-way.
All areas being counted toward the open space requirement shall be ITee of "wet
ponds" or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into
the required open space are subject to Ordinance 12-13714 and shall be fully
vegetated with grass and trees, as depicted on the submitted landscape plan.
e
e
e
e
The approved landscape plan is not to be altered without prior written approval of the
Planning & Zoning Department.
Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, all structures on Lots 1,2, and 8,
Block I shall be removed.
All buildable lots within the subdivision, including Lot 18, Block 2, shall be a minimum
of 12,000 squarecfeet.
For all street bulb-outs with landscape islands, paint the curb red and provide signage
"No parking fire lane." All roadways shall have a turning radius of 28-feet inside and 48-
feet outside.
Sanitary sewer and water service to this development shall be from extensions of existing
mains that were installed as part of the Messina Village Subdivision.
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.
AZ-05-00; PP-05-oo'.00P.05.00'
KiI."I"'d,, REVISED A'PPCUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 13
13.
In accordance with MCC 12-13-10-8, Applicant shall provide 5-foot detached sidewalks
adjacent to Eagle Road, as proposed. Applicant shall also provide 4-foot detached
sidewalks adjacent to the internal public streets, as proposed.
14.
Maintenance of all common area lots shall be the responsibility of the Kingsbridge
Homeowners' Association.
IS.
Direct lot access to Eagle Road is prohibited. A note shall be placed on the final plat
restricting access to Eagle Road.
GENERAL CONDITIONS (PRELIMINARY PLAT)
L All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
2.
Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the
subdivision pursuant to MCC 12-13-10-8.
3.
A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing,
landscaping, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to sigoature on the
final plat.
4.
A detailed landscape and fencing plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision
ordinance and as noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the final
plat application.
5.
Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
6.
One-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations
desigoated 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 desigo 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.
7.
Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed ITom 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 have to be mitigated.
8.
Submit any up-dated groundwater/soils monitoring data, as collected and analyzed by a
soils scientist, to the Public Works Department for review. Any drainage areas
(detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water will percolate or
discharge with a period of time not to exceed 24-hours for all stOlIDS up to and including
a 1O0-year stonn events. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3:1. Any
portion of a drainage area not improved with sod/grass seed (or other approved
landscaping) shall not count towards the required open space area. The project engineer
AZ-05-005.PP-{);-OOHUp.Oj-O"
^"""h,idg' REViSEDAZPPC"P
15.
16.
Plmming & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 14
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 shan
be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet
above the highest established normal groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the
bottom elevation ofthe crawl spaces of homes is at least I-foot above groundwater.
9.
The applicant shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
10.
Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed ITom 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.
11.
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.
12.
Applicant's engineer will be required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying
that all street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the
highest established normal groundwater elevation.
13.
The applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and
construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to
signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374.
14.
Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES
Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or tenus of the approved
annexation/conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for
compliance.
17.
Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC
12-2-4.
AZ-OS-DO'. PP<s-oo<. (UP~5-00'
""",',idgc REVISED.Az.ppnlP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 15
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS
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;
As part of the Planned Development (PD) the applicant is requesting relieffrom the
standard street ITontage requirement of the R-3 zone, and the maximum block length
required by Meridian City Code. See Special Consideration #1 below for detailed
analysis.
Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested use
and all other required features. Although the site is large enough to accommodate all of
the features required by ordinance, the applicant has asked, through the Planned
Development, to modifY the specific development standards listed above (frontage and
block length). 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 property as Medium
and Low Density Residential. As noted in the annexation analysis above, staff finds that
the subdivision appears to be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. See
Annexation and Zoning Analysis item "A".
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
of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential
character ofthe same 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 finds that if all conditions are complied with, this development should not adversely
affect other property in the vicinity. However, staff recommends that the Commission
and Council rely upon public testimony, staffs analysis, and other agency comments
when determining if the proposed uses will adversely affect the other properties in the
vicinity. See items "F", "H", "[", and "J" in the Annexation and Zoning Analysis for
further infonnation.
AZ-05-00.' PP-j)j.OO'.ClIP-O5-00'
"'",;mid" REVISEDAZPPCUr
G.
H.
I.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 16
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;
Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis items "GH and "H" Agency Comments and
Conditions at the end of this report, and any comments that may be submitted to the City
Clerk regarding this project
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 "HH,
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 "rH,
That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be
so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item "J",
That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
See comments under Annexation & Zoning Analysis item "KH.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP/PD)
L Reduced Standards: As stated earlier, the applicant is requesting modifications from
standard ordinance requirements for street frontage of the R-3 zone and to the
maximum block length.
Lot Frontage: The minimum requested street frontage for non-cul-de sac lots is 60-feet,
when 90-feet is the standard requirement in the R-3 zone. The minimum requested street
ITontage for cul-de-sac lots is 30-feet, when 40-feet is the standard requirement. Of the
130 proposed lots, 25 lots require a modification to the standard street frontage
requirement. All of the lots requiring a variation to the minimum lot frontage dimension
.\Z.0;.003 PP-'5.004 cup.os.oo'
K¡..g.b, OJ" REVISED.AZPPCUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 17
are internal to the subdivision and do not lie on the exterior boundary. Staff is
supportive of reducing the ITontage for some of the lots as it provides lot diversity.
Block Length: There are two blocks (2 and 7) that exceed the maximum I,OOO-foot
block length. If the applicant complies with Site Specific Condition #2 in the
Preliminary Plat section of this report, Block 7 will not exceed the maximum length.
Staff believes that a modification is appropriate for Block 2 due to the private street to
the south.
See Site Specific Condition #2 below.
2.
Amenities: MCC 12-6-2.A.3 requires two or more amenities to be provided as part of
each planned development The proposed amenities for the subject planned development
include: 10% open space, a community park on Lot 10, Block I, that contains a
swimming pool, a BBQ area with picnic tables and a tot lot, another park (Lot I, Block 8)
that contains a water feature, benches and a walking path, a landscaped boulevard
corridor with street trees in the 8-foot planter strips between the street and the detached
sidewalk, a walking path along the south side of the Ten Mile Feeder, a walking path
along the north boundary, smaller open space pockets, a bridge monument, and
ornamental street lights. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed site design and
amenities. See Site Specific Condition #3 below.
3.
Housim¡ Types: The applicant has submitted four (4) ITont elevations for the proposed
dwelling units. Staff believes that the dwelling units will be compatible with the
adjoining uses, if the buildings are constructed as shown on the submitted elevations.
Construction within Kingsbridge Subdivision should substantially comply with the four
(4) elevations submitted by the applicant Construction materials used on the structures
should be approved by the City of Meridian Building Department and in accordance with
the most recent Uniform Building Code. See Site Specific Condition #4 below.
4.
Construction Traffic: To lessen the impact of this development on the existing residences
in Dartmoor Subdivision, staff recommends that construction traffic be prohibited ITom
utilizing Dartmoor Drive or the ditch rider's access road to the Ten Mile Feeder. The
applicant should be required tò install a sign on Lot 13, Block I, informing construction
personnel that they should use Kingbridge Drive, not Dartmoor Drive. Furt!ier, the
applicant should be required to install a sign on both sides of Kingsbridge Drive, near the
intersection of Eagle Road, identifying Kingsbridge as the only entrance for construction
traffic. See Site Specific Condition #5 below.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
L The 2-page site plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., dated 1-14-05, is approved with
the conditions listed herein. All conditions of the Preliminary Plat application shall also
be considered conditions of the Conditional Use Pennit (CUP-05-004) application.
2.
The project shall conform to the R-3 dimensional standards, modified as follows:
"-05-00). Pr-"'-DO'. cup-os-ow
K;",ô",iJ" REVJSED.AZPPŒP
2.
3.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 18
e
Minimum lot frontage: 60-feet (non-cui-de sac); 30-feet for cul-de-sac lots
Minimum lot size: 12,000 square-feet
Maximum Block Length: Approximately 1,325 feet (per the Preliminary Plat)
e
e
3.
The following amenities are required as part of the Planned Development, per the
application: 10% open space, a community park on Lot 10, Block I, that contains a
swimming pool, a BBQ area with picnic tables and a tot lot, another park (Lot I, Block 8)
that contains a water feature, benches and a walking path, a landscaped boulevard
corridor with street trees in the 8-foot planter strips between the street and the detached
sidewalk, a walking path along the south side of the Ten Mile Feeder, a walking path
along the north boundary, smaller open space pockets, a bridge monument, and
ornamental street lights. The applicant shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning
Compliance (CZC) ITom the City prior to construction of any permanent structures on the
proposed park lots.
4.
Construction of homes within Kingsbridge Subdivision shall substantially comply with
the four (4) elevations submitted by the applicant. Construction materials used on the
structures shall be approved by the City of Meridian Building Department and in
accordance with the most recent Uniform Building Code.
5.
The applicant shall install a sign on Lot 13, Block I, informing construction personnel
that they must use Kingbridge Drive, not Dartmoor Drive as access to the site. Further,
the applicant shall install a sign on both sides of Kingsbridge Drive, on Lot I, Block 2,
and Lot 8, Block I, identifying Kingsbridge Drive as the only entrance for construction
traffic.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS
MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT
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
of500' apart. International Fire Code Appendix C.
Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire
Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 W' outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. TI1e 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 when spacing permits.
f Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
g. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18" above finish grade.
The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than ISO-feet in length that is not
provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around.
AZ-05-003. PP-<J5-ú04.CUP-05-üOj
"",",D,id,, REVISEDAZPP.CUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 19
4.
All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28-feet inside and 48-feet
outside radius.
5.
For all Fire Lanes (including bulb-outs with landscape islands/"buttons"), paint the curb red
and provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane".
6.
Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before
combustible construction begins.
7.
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 two entrances shall be
separated by no less than Y> the diagonal measurement of the project.
8.
The proposed project lies outside the five-minute response zone goaL Achievement of
this goal is subject to budgetary constraints and is intended to enhance the probability of
a favorable outcome on a request for Basic Life Support. The budget constraints are
typically defined as capital outlay for facilities that are located within 1.5 miles ITom a
given location and sufficient operational funds to staff the facilities.
9.
All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface
as measured around the perimeter ofthe building.
10.
Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) /Tom a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire
hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code officiaL For buildings
equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance
with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183).
a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet
(183 m).
b. For buildings equipped-, throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system
installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement
shall be 600 feet (183 m).
MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT
I. Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian
Landscape Ordinance will be followed.
2.
Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard
established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance will be followed.
RECOMMENDATION
AL-05-00). PP-<'-OJ". CUP-Oj-ON
""",b,iJ,,- REVlSED"ZPPC"P
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 3, 2005
Page 20
Staff recommends approval of the submitted annexation/zoning (AZ-O5-003), preliminary
plat (PP-O5-004), and conditional use permit (CUP-O5-004) applications, with the
conditions listed herein.
AZ-O;-OOJ. Pr-a5-ao'. CUP-O5.Q"
""'g<b,idge REVISEDAZPPCUP
00\ * п/r .
":)~~ . 10/
,,' Pœpaclcg 1--
.!? Todo,., 0
S; . . Studect,:ac N
Tomacrows
Chellecgos.
<9
O,;". {oC!e .
Joint School District No.2
911 Meridian Road. Meridian, Idaho 83642 . (208) 855-4500 . Fax (208) 888-6700
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr. Linda Clark
February 4, 2005
RECEIVED
FEe - 8 20/15
~ity 01 Meridian
CIty Clerk Office
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Planners:
The Meridian School District has experienced phenomenal student growth the last ten
years. The high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools throughout the district
are operating over capacity.
Approval of Kinl!sbridl!e Subdivision will have a significant impact on school
enrollments at Lake Hazel Elementary. Lake Hazel Middle. and Mountain View High
School.
We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house thirty-five (35) elementary
aged children, thirty-three (33) middle school aged children, and twenty-six (26) senior
high aged students. Additional students will further compound the current overcrowded
situation. Residents cannot be assured of attending the neighborhood school, as it may be
necessary to bus students to other schools across the district.
School capacity is addressed in Idaho Code 67-6508. The Meridian School District is
currently operating beyond capacity. Future development will continue to have an impact
on the district's capacity. If you have any questions, please contact me at 855-4500. .
Sincerely,
&Ø--
Supervisor of Facilities and Construction
'-----~---..__._-- "'--..-
A'~'-
eo~uL~ ~
--'---~-'----_n_-._~..- --.
John S. Franden, President
Sherry R. Huber, 1st Vice President
David Bivens, 2nd Vice President
Carol A. McKee, Commissioner
Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner
RECEIVED
FEa 2 5 2005
February 24,2005
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
To:
Vision First, LLC, Ken Elliot
661 N. Rivershore Lane, Suite 120
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Subject:
M PP -05-004/MC U P-05-004/MAZ -05-003
Kingsbridge Subdivision
4070 S. Eagle Road
On February 23, 2005, the Ada County Highway District acted on your application for the above
reterenced project. The attached report lists site-specific requirements, conditions of approval and
street improvements, which are required.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 208-387-6174.
¡;fL I4i)
Lori Den Hartog
Planner II
Right-of-way & Deveiopment Services, Planning Division
CC:
Project file, Construction Services, Drainage, Utilities
~~Aq¡
The Land Group, Inc.
462 E. Shore Drive, Suite 100
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Ada County Highway District. 377S Adams Street. Garden City, ID . 83714 . PH 208-387-6100 . FX 345-7650 . www.achd,ada.id.us
.--- ----..
.. ~~i_it",-'
~
Right-of- Way & Del'e/opmem Department
Plan/1ing Rel'ieH' DiI'isio/1
..---..
-----'-"-n__u._-
f30~.d':f:o ~
-------------...------- --..-...--------.. ------.----------------------- -------.----...---. -.--.--..-----.--.
ThTs-ãþplicatJon required commiSSion act70ndiJetoiFierìïiighborhooc[conÙirnsregarding theeXtens70n of
an existing stub street. It was heard on the regular agenda on October 6, 2004 at 6:30 p.rn. Tech Review
for this item was held with the applicant on September 24, 2004. Please refer to the attachment for request
for reconsideration guidelines. Staff contact: Lori Den Hartog, phone: 387-6174, E-mail:
Idenhartocr@achd.ada.id.us
On February 4, 2005, ACHD received a revised preliminary plat from the City of Meridian. The
revisions are noted in blue type. Due to the number and type of revisions, the item requires
Commission action, and was approved on the consent agenda on February 23, 2004.
File Numbers:
Kingsbridge Subdivision-M P P-05-004/MCU P'-05-004/M AZ -05-003
Site address:
4070 S. Eagle Road
Applicant:
Vision First, LLC
661 N. Rivershore Lane
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Representative:
The Land Group
462 E Shore Drive
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Application Information:
The applicant has submitted the above referenced application to the City of Meridian requesting rezone,
annexation, and preliminary plat approval for the development of 130 (originally 237) single-family
residential lots and 34 (originally 23) common lots on 76.72-acres. The site is located south of Victory
Road, east of Eagle Road.
Acreage:
Current Zoning:
Proposed Zoning:
Residential lots:
Common lots:
76.72
RUT
R-3 (originally R-4)
130
34
Vicinity Map
.1f1r1:0f'lY
~
~p«C<>, ~ <
W - i
"""1 SITE I
I
--' W,"",.".
I
I
~~- -. ,AMITY
,,-+-;
A.
Findings of Fact
1.
Trip Generation: This development is estimated to generate 1,235 (originally 2,268) additional
vehicle trips per day 10 existing) based on the Institute of Transportation Manual.
2.
Impact Fees: There will be impact fees that are assessed and due prior to issuance of any building
permits. The assessed impact fees will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that
time.
3.
Traffic Impact Study: A traffic impact study was required with this application. The study was
compiled by Dobie Engineering, Inc. Below is an executive summaryot the study.
Executive Summary:
. The site ;s estimated to generate 2,268 vehicle trips per day; with 180 AM peak hour trips and 242
PM peak hour trips.
. The EagleNictory interseclion has an all-way STOP control with a traffic beacon. There are no
auxiiiary turn ianes on any of the approaches. The current intersection operates at a LOS C.
With the installation of a traffic signal and left turn lanes on all approaches, the Eagle/Victory
intersection will operate at a LOS C (calculated for build out year 2007).
The Eagle/Amity intersection has an all-way STOP control. There are no auxiliary turn lanes on
any of the approaches. The intersection operates at a LOS C.
The Eagle/Amity intersection will operate at a LOS D with the addition ot left turn lanes on all
approaches, for the buildout year 2007.
A left-turn lane and a right-turn lane are warranted on Eagle Road at the main site access on
Eagle Road at the same access. This intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service
with these improvements.
No improvements are warranted at the Eagle Road/Dartmoor Drive access.
Eagle Road will provide sufticient capacity with planned road improvements to accommodate
regional traffic growth. A 3-lane section should be adequate through the year 2020, and as-lane
section will be needed beyond then.
2
Comments on Revised Site Plan:
A left-turn lane and a right-turn lane are still warranted on Eagle Road at the main site
access. This intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service with these
improvements.
Dartmoor Drive will see an increase of less than 300 vehicle trips per day. The previous
layout estimated an additional 400 vehicle trips per day.
Kingsbridge Drive, the residential collector, is anticipated to carry volumes less than
1,000 vehicle trips per day.
4.
Site Information: There is one existing residence on the site; the balance of the site has been
utilized for agricultural purposes.
5.
Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area:
Direction land Use Zoning
North Golden Eagle Subdivision (Single-family resideiìtial-3 to RUT-Ada County
5-acre parcels)
South Kunz Holiow Subdivision (Single-family residential-5-acre RUT-Ada County
parcels)
East Bridlewood Subdivision (Single-family residential-5 to 10- RUT-Ada County
acre parceis)
West Dartmoor Subdivision (Single-family residential-1-acre RUT-Ada County
I parcels)
6. Impacted Roadwavs
Roadway Frontage Functional Traffic Count level of Speed limit
Classification Service'
Eagle 725' Minor Arterial 5,770 north of Amity Road Better 40 MPH
on 2/24/04 than
"C"
Victory None Coliector (west No counts available west of Better 50 MPH (west of
of Eagle Road) Eagle Road than Eagle Road)
"C"
Minor Arterial 5,404 east of Eagle Road on 40 MPH (east of
(east of Eagle 2/14/02 Eagle Road)
Road)
Dartmoor 60' Residential Approximately 150 per day Better 20 MPH
Coliector based on ITE rates than "C"
'Acceptable level of service for a two lane arterial roadway IS "D" (14,000 VTD).
7.
Roadway Improvements Adjacent To and Near the Site
Eagle Road currently has 2 traffic lanes and no curb, gutter, or sidewalk abutting the site.
Victory Road currently has 2 traffic lanes and no curb, gutter, or sidewalk.
Dartmoor Drive currently has 32-feet of pavement and no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. Dartmoor
Drive is currently not striped for non vehicular traffic.
8.
Existing Right-of-Way
Eagle Road currently has 50-feet of right-of-way abutting the site (25-feet from centerline).
Dartmoor Drive currently has 60-feet of right-of-way (30-feet from centerline).
3
B.
1.
2.
4
9.
Existing Access to the Site
The site currently has one agricultural access on Eagle Road at the north property line.
10.
Site History
This site was originally a part of Dartmoor Subdivision which was platted in 1994. Dartmoor
Subdivision contains 21 lots, 18 of which are buildable lots. Dartmoor Drive was constructed as a
stub street to Lot 11, Block 2 ot Dartmoor Subdivision. Lot 11, Block 2 of Dartmoor Subdivision,
which is a portion of the current application, was platted as a deed restricted lot that could redevelop
no earlier than 15 years trom the date of the plat.
11.
Capital Improvements PlanlFive Year Work Program
The intersection of Eagle Road and Victory Road is scheduled in the District's Five Year Work
Program and the Capital Improvements Plan to be widened to 5 lanes and signalized in 2007. In
coordination with that project Eagle Road from Victory Road to the Ridenbaugh Canal crossing
(approximately 102 mile) is scheduled to be widened to 5 lanes with curb, gutter, sidewalk and bike
lanes.
Eagle Road is scheduled in the Capital Improvements Plan to be widened to 3 lanes from Amity Road
to Victory Road in 11 to 15 years.
12.
Other Developments in the Area
Tuscany Lakes Subdivision was approved by the ACHD Commission on May 8, 2002. The project
contained 455 residential lots and is located west of Eagle Road, south of Victory Road, and east of
Locust Grove Road.
Findings for Consideration
Right-ot-Way
EaaJe Road
District policy requires 96-teet of right-of-way on arterial roadways (Figure 72-F1 B). This right-or-way
allows for the construction of a 5-lane roadway with curb, gutter, 5-toot concrete detached sidewalks
and bike lanes.
Dedicate 48-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Eagle Road abutting the parcel by
means ot a warranty deed. The right-ot-way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be
completed and signed by the applicant prior to scheduling the final plat tor signature by the
ACHD Commission or prior to issuance ot a building permit (or other required permits),
whichever occurs first. AI/ow up to 30 business days to process the right-at-way dedication
after receipt of al/ requested material. The owner will be paid the fair market value, ofthe right-
ot-way dedicated which is an addition to existing ACHD right-of-way.
Sidewalk
District policy requires 7-foot wide attached (or 5-foot detached) concrete sidewalk on all arterial
roadways.
The applicant will be required to construct a 5-toot wide detached sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting
the site with the face of sidewalk located a minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of the roadway.
5
3.
Street Sections
Internal Local Streets
District policy 7204.4.2 states, "Developments with any buildable lot that is less that 1-acre In size will
typically provide streets having a minimum pavement width of 32-feet with curb, gutter and sidewalks.
The total street width shall be 36-/eet from back-a/-curb to back-of-curb. Variations of this width may
be allowed, depending on traffic volumes forecast to be generated by the development. Concrete
sidewalks shall be a minimum of 5-/eet in width unless they are separated from the curb 5-feet or
more in which case the sidewalk shall be a minimum of 4-/eet in width.
The applicant is proposing to construct the internal roadways as 36-foot street sections with rolled
curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalks (some that are attached and others are detached by an 8-
foot landscape strip) within 50-feet of right-of-way. The proposed street section meets District policy
and should be approved with this application. The sidewalk appears to meander outside of the right-
of-way. If the sidewalk meanders outside of the right-of-way, the applicant should provide the District
with an easement for the sidewalk.
Residential Collector
District policy 72-F1A, 7202.3.2 and 7202.3.5, requires that residential collectors be constructed as
36-/00t street sections with curb, gutter and 5-/00t wide concrete sidewalks with no front-on housing.
The access restrictions for these street segments should be stated on the final plat. Unless otherwise
noted, parking should be prohibited on these street segments. Coordinate the sign age Program with
District staff.
The applicant is proposing to construct Kingsbridge Drive from Eagle Road to Lot 26 of Block 2 as a
residential collector. The applicant is proposing to construct the residential collector as a 36-foot
street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk within 50-feet of right-of-
way. This street section meets District policy and should be approved with this application.
Revised Site Plan:
The applicant has proposed to now construct Kingsbridge Drive from Eagle Road through the
site to the easternmost property line as a residential collector. The applicant is proposing to
construct the residential collector as a 41-foot street section with rolled curb, gutter, and a 5-
foot detached concrete sidewalk within 60-feet of right-of-way. District staff recommends that
the residential collector be constructed as a 36-foot street section (no wider) with vertical
curb, gutter, and a 5-foot detached (or attached) concrete sidewalk. The applicant may have
the option of constructing the roadway within 50-feet of right-of-way and providing the District
with an easement for any portion of the sidewalk that is outside of the public right:of-way.
Turn Lanes
Based on the recommendations of the submitted traffic impact study, the applicant will be
required to stripe Kingsbridge Drive at the intersection with Eagle Road, to accommodate
simultaneous left and right turn movements onto Eagle Road.
Front-on Housina
As stated above, front-on housing is prohibited on residential collectors. The segment of
Kingsbridge Drive from Eagle Road to Lot 26, Block 2 should not have front-on housing.
6.
6
4.
Turn Lanes
District policy 3004.1. 72-F8, AASHTO guidelines and the MUTCD guidelines require the turn lane to
be constructed to provide a minimum of 100-feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach
and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District statf.
The applicant will be required to construct a southbound left turn lane on Eagle Road at the
intersection with Kingsbridge Drive, as recommended by the Traffic Impact Study. The applicant
should provide a minimum of tOO-feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and
departure directions
The applicant will be required to construct a northbound right-turn lane at the sight approach
intersection (Kingsbridge Drive) with Eagle Road, as recommended by the submitted Traffic Impact
Study.
5.
Roadway Offsets
District policy 7204.11.6, requires local roadways to align or off§et a minimum ot 300-feet from an
arterial roadway (measured centerline to centerline).
The applicant has proposed to construct the subdivision entrance, Kingsbridge Drive, approximately
330-feet north of a private road that also intersects Eagle Road. This location meets District policy
and should be approved with this application.
Internal Local 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).
All of the internal streets exceed District offset policy and should be approved with this application.
Stub 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:
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 has proposed to extend one existing stub street and construct one new stub street.
Dartmoor Drive
The applicant is proposing to extend Dartmoor Drive from the west property line. Dartmoor Drive was
originally approved as a stub street as a part of Dartmoor Subdivision. Dartmoor Drive was
constructed as a residential collector with 32-feet of pavement and 3-foot shoulders and has one
existing single-family residence that takes direct access to Dartmoor Drive. Statf is supportive of the
applicant's proposal to extend Dartmoor into the site for a number of reasons, which include:
The extension of Dartmoor Drive provides interconnectivity between the two subdivisions
The extension of Dartmoor Drive provides a secondary access to the residenls of Dartmoor
Subdivision and the future residents of Kingsbridge Subdivision
Dartmoor Drive was constructed as a residential collector in 1994 and provides direct access
to one singie-family residence within the subdivision (1 out of 18)
The extension of Dartmoor Drive provides an opportunity for interconnectivity within this
square mile and has the potential to extend local roadways and residential collector roadways
to the surrounding arterial roadways within this square mile. This interconnectivity will in turn
create a more equai distribution of traffic and will not place stress on one arterial roadway or
another
If Dartmoor Drive were not to be extended into the site to the proposed subdivision, the
District could only approve up to 100 single-family residential lots on one access point, per
District policy
If Dartmoor Drive were not to be extended into the site to the proposed subdivision and the
Commission granted a modification of policy to allow more than 100 single-family lots to utilize
one access point, the proposed subdivision would have only one access to Eagle Road and
would force. approximately 2,268 vehicle trips per day to utilize one access point.
Dartmoor Drive was constructed as a residential collector with sufficient pavement width for
both vehicular and pedestrian traffic (32-teet of pavement, and gravel or grass shoulders) and
can accommodate the additional traffic volumes.
Stub streets are an essential component in any community. Stub streets provide secondary access
for emergency services, eliminate multiple access points to major roadways (collector and arterial
roadways), reduce vehicle miles traveled, connect neighborhoods and have the ability to increase the
sense of community in the area.
Proposed Stub Street
The applicant has proposed to construct a stub street to the east property line approximately 440-feet
north of the Ten Mile Lateral. This stub street is anticipated to serve a 9.0-acre lot that is currently
undeveloped with one single-family residence and is expected to develop in the near future. This stub
street would have the ability with future development to connect into Selatir Drive and would provide
an additional outlet to Victory Road. Staff is supportive of the applicant's proposal.
Recommended Stub Streets
The applicant is not proposing to construct new stub streets to the north, south or east. Staff believes
interconnectivity with this development is critical and will create a more equal distribution of traffic.
Additional stub streets will help to allèviate stress on one particular arterial roadway or another. The
recommended stub streets as described below should be constructed as a condition ot the proposed
subdivision.
Staff is recommending that the applicant extend Widecombe Way to the north property line
approximately 120-feet east of the west property line. This stub street will serve the 5.060-acre
parcel to the north that is currently undeveloped and has one existing single-family residence located
on it. With the construction of this stub street, staff anticipates that an additional connection to Eagle
Road via Falcon Drive.
Staff is recommending that the applicant extend Stockenham Way to the north property line
approximately 100-feet west of the east property line. This stub street will serve the 3.210-acre
7
parcel to the north that is currently undeveloped and has one existing single-family residence located
on it. With the construction of this stub street, staff anticipates that an additional connection to Victory
Road via Terri Drive.
Commission Action
The Ada County Highway District Commission acted on this application on October 6, 2004. The
Commission approved the proposed and recommended stub streets as identified above with one
modification. The existing home that takes access to Zaldia Lane, which is adjacent to the Kunz
Hollow Subdivision, will be required to construct a stub street to the east property line at the time of
future additional re-development of that 2. 75-acre site. This stub street would provide public street
access to the 5.0-acre parcels within Kunz Hollow Subdivision that currently have access to a private
road, and are likely to re-develop in the future.
Comment on Revised Site Plan:
All of the required stub streets are shown on the revised preliminary plat.
7.
Islands/Knuckles
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.
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 ot 1 OO-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 seven (7) knuckles within the subdivision. Some of the
knuckles are proposed to contain center islands within them. The applicant should maintain a
minimum of a 29-foot street section on either side of the island and should construct the island to be
a minimum of 4-feet wide with a minimum area of 100-square feet. The design should be reviewed
and approved by ACHD's Development staff.
The applicant is proposing to construct one island within the public right-of-way of Kingsbridge Drive.
The applicant should maintain a minimum of a 21-foot street section on either side of the island and
should construct the island to be a minimum of 4-feet wide with a minimum area of 100-square feet.
The design should be reviewed and approved by ACHD's Development staff.
8.
Access to Kingsbridge Drive for the Existing Home
Lot 17 Block 2 currently has access to a private roadway (Zaldia Lane). This home could potentially
have access to Kingsbridge Drive if an easement were provided across the landscape strip. In order
to provide Lot 17 Block 2 with access to a public roadway, staff would support an easement or right-
of-way for Lot 17 Block 2 to tie into Kingsbridge Drive.
Comment on Revised Site Plan:
The applicant has provided that Lot 13, Block 2 will have an access easement across It to be
dedicated in the future when Lot 14, Block 2 (previously Lot 17, Block 2) re-develops. The
access easement appears on the plat as Note 14. This meets the intention of the original
requirement and is supported by District staff.
8
2.
3.
4.
5.
9
9.
Preliminary Plat Redesign
The applicant's original subdivision layout proposed two street connections from the new Kingsbridge
Subdivision to Dartmoor Drive (See attachment #4). Staff reviewed the proposed layout and based
on several comments and concerns expressed by the residents in Dartmoor Subdivision, staff
suggested to the applicant that an alternative iayout could reduce the estimated number of vehicle
trips onto the existing Dartmoor Drive. Staff met with the appiicant and the traffic engineer and
decided upon an alternative layout that cul-de-saced one of the connections to Dartmoor Drive. The
resuit was an estimated decrease of 400 vehicie trips per day on the existing Dartmoor Drive (See
attachment #5).
Whiie the alternative layout does increase the estimated vehicle trips on a portion of Kingsbridge
Drive over the 1,000 VTD per day lirnit, staff believes that it would be temporary. If the recommended
stub streets are a condition of approval tor Kingsbridge Subdivision, staff believes that when those
stub streets are extended in the future that it would alleviate some of the traffic on Kingsbridge Drive.
If the recommended stub streets are extended by other developments in the future, they will provide
connections to the arterial roadways (Eagle Road and Victory Road). Therefore, the burden of the
greater estirnated traffic volumes on Kingsbridge Drive wiil be temporarily borne by the new
residential units as opposed to shifting the burden to the existing residential units on Dartmoor Drive.
10.
Other Access
Eagle Road is classified as a minor arteriai roadway. Other than the access specifically approved
with this application, direct iot access to Eagle Road will be prohibited. A note of the access
restriction shouid be placed on the final plat.
C.
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.
Dedicate 48-feet of right-ai-way from the centerline of Eagle Road abutting the parcel by
means of a warranty deed. The right-ai-way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be
completed and signed by the applicant prior to scheduling the linal plat lor signature by the
ACHD Commission or prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits),
whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication
after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be paid the lair market value of the right-
of-way dedicated which is an addition to existing ACHD right-of-way.
Construct a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the site located a minimum of 41-
feet from the centerline of the roadway. .
Construct a southbound left turn lane on Eagle Road at the intersection with Kingsbridge Drive, as
recommended by the Traffic Impact Study. Provide a minimum of 1 DO-feet of storage with shadow
tapers for both the approach and departure directions
Construct a northbound right-turn lane at the sight approach intersection with Eagle Road, as
recommended by the submitted Traffic Impact Study.
Construct Kingsbridge Drive as a residential collector trom Eagle Road to the easternmost property
line. This roadway shall be a 36-foot street section with verticai curb, gutter, and 5-foot concrete
sidewalks within 50-feet (minimum) of right-of-way. Provide an easement to the District for any portion
of the sidewalk that is outside 01 the public right-of-way. Stripe Kingsbridge Drive at the intersection
with Eagle Road, to accommodate simultaneous left and right turn movements onto Eagle Road.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
10
6.
c.onstruct the internallocar roadways as 36-foot street sections within 50-leet of right-ol-way with
rolled curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalks. If the sidewalk meanders outside of the right-of-
way, the applicant should provide the District with an easement lor the sidewalk.
7.
Extend Dartmoor Drive into the site as proposed. There shall only be one street connection to the
existing Dartmoor Drive Irom the new subdivision, as proposed on the revised layout (See attachment
#5).
8.
Any landscape islands or medians shall be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association.
Notes of this are required on the final plat.
9.
Construct Kingsbridge Drive a stub street to the east property line, as proposed, approximately 440-
leet north of the Ten Mile Lateral, to serve the adjacent 9.0 acre parcel. Install a sign at the terminus
of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE."
10.
Construct Ivybridge Way as a stub street to the north property ~ne approximately 130-leet east of the
west property line. Install a sign at the terminus of the stub streèt stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE
EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE"
11.
Construct Stockenham Way as a stub street to the north property line approximately 180-leet west 01
the east property line. Install a sign at the terminus of the stub street stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL
BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE."
12.
Provide an easement across the landscape lot OR public right-of-way frontage tor the existing home
on Lot 14, Block 2. When the property with the existing home re-develops (approximately 2.75-
acres), it will be required to extend Kingsbridge Drive through the site as a stub street to the east
property line.
13.
Other than the access that is specifically approved with this application, direct lot access to Eagle
Road is prohibited and shall be noted on the tinal plat.
14.
Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
D.
Standard Conditions of Approval
Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne
by the developer.
Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the
construction of the proposed deveiopment. Contact Construction Services at387-6280 (with file
number) for details.
Utility street cuts in pavement iess than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by
the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with tile numbers) for details.
All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy
Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all
11.
E.
1.
2.
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 #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
9.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to verity all existing utiiities within the right-ot-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 ot this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and
signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative
of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written
confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other
regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises
the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a
waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the Jaw in eltect at the
time the change in use is sought.
Conclusions of Law
The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of Approval are
satisfied.
ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development wili not place an
undue burden on the existing vehicular transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the
proposed development.
Attachments
1. Vicinity Map of Square Mile
2. Aerial Map
3. Previously Approved Site Plan
4. Re-submitted preliminary plat (2/4/2005)
5. Reconsideration Guidelines
11
'I ' i ~
'1: 'h__,.".
"-".
~
",-",-,-,,--,~',"-'-c'-h --
,n__'__"
"-
"~'"
, .
rdff -, -~~§ ,~~;J L~' Ii ~g,~~t
~.; -..L,,!.~;~! -.-'.': ,.{...-..L.J~.. i.~="-.'~.J i ~.UJJJJ~ . '.~\ ,...',1, ....'" ..."... ',I.~,:.,.~-.I.-.~.:l.~..[.-.-....-,'.~.'.'~.'.--. -"-
i'-. -.-..'.-.-.-'-.f~..-.I.'~~.J.I...,.',..,.',...,-.,.,."...,...,.,...'.'...'.",-.,."."..,..,',...1"..'"":".""""""'.""""'"--"'."",",.""',""'..,-......,.-".,.."",-"",.,....,.j[..........--I..""".",."""-,-""., '...."..-.,........',..,",......-........~r-J~¡t_. "'--k-~-~~~. '.. '.'.,'~~=,J,!I"~,f",,_,,,.,',Ji,~]i
~'iJ1 rJ:_J~. ,;,;~;I,,'jl h f :' ;:-dr~~¿j
~~ ~~~i( "ø', -IjL==~=~~jM~t~1
-- 1 , ' \\ ,,' - I fJJlt~ J'=(}
r I '-, ,,'-,) '-, '-,--, J' ~ --r -- L-IJ~1n --tJ
'on, "\ I ~! ¡---If J
n--,_,,--, !I-LL__- t , ,,\, ,'" ,,' L ,i--_n~,l,U,!-,JTl,tJ,' 1-,,\1,,~,:.'
-_1j -~"-=I=j"'~ ~ -- =..a¡-'JiI
lJl= - ", , - =-~jr,.,~~"J,~i
[~~ I~ \_~ , ì=o-J,~ 'BIt¡
" , /i--J L I ~,~ ",,' ,'~/~~~~l¡ "
, --" "'-,: , I' \'-',\,'lìr/,r,',d,I,L,~,:J,-i,_,'~I,',:":-=ï,',!,:'-,-,~,,,,':'--;.',;:","~",';."',',-,',,
' i /Îo'ïfi--'"ll 'F'C=ðF-" i",<:
, ~, I í '1:~""I,",tP,,' ,',;-~i,:n,'ë:¡,r," ",:'
~+------ -- ------ c i--L__L- L~~ I!§{~ft~~~-~
" Vi"",y Mllp of Ih"""ffi mi e 'howi", ,',,' ,""" r-i"'-"~¡ h-c:t : ,! "
\IJt~!,~; , ,'L_JIF~~t=
.~ep ~, ~~ IU:~~a
DOBIE ENGINEERING INC
388 0308
p.2
N
t
FIGURE A
KINGSBRIDGE SUBDIVISION
ADT DISTRIBUTION
WITH DARTMOOR ACCESS
- ADT-
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC'
rcoH;ç Study Pcep"'d S,
..,.,Jl,£çi) .;J. .'. ..Ó.'. ,¡:-.
tQJl.Ç;dJ
DOBIE ENGINEERING, INC.
m H~"'>.k" D.-. S"". < <370' "'-""
Am..c~I'i\ex\-\- :Jt. ')
Lci~I~~~~~~~ J-¡-;-~=---=-::-:-=-::---=-:L______--;;;"--'-i!~::-,' .~~=--------- DEVELOPMENT CONTAcTs
DARruoORSUBDIVISION /1" r, ,,' I '" -1 -"---r----"'----r---"'---ì- " , .. -r--'"--""--",---J"jin,,:~ :Ii" "C'c".
WITHINAPOR'I10NOFTIffi / ',_,.!!I, J¡-" ~I 2., ."-' Iii -'r !'! 01*,!, ""'...,.
SOUTHl!20FTIffiNORTHWEST / ¡- 0 "\\1,0' 'I "ð)' 'i 0',,+"'n, 1@'ì@"1 @" ~ @. 'I,@' '¡I¡"'::~'~'I II -.
1/4, ~~J~~~Rl~~ ¿; ~ TIffi/ l:n1l~C?:!¡'-"~¿/~:3-~~_).L~='?~~~~~\;;~=.=/J ~__"L : ~~~;~'"" '"' .. '~;,-~:=""-
SOUTIIWESTl/4,SECTION28./ ',"m,¡!r'.J' ',,'\"',-;'-_-"'0 .W" "'T"'Tr, "", ,. roc"'I, ""! ~~.(..,..--" I':;,~;,-~:=:::
,'~ '.. t'_. '!'_"'",kY !",..~/,&-_', , , , I'-@ -" ~,,~"~,~o ~
TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANGE 1 L:~~' """@@", )7,: "",¡-"""","\',i :;;,',i --,",' '-"",-'" ,-. ",! '!~I "'H,AA',^lli~"'~~AA
EAST BOISE MERIDIAN ADA ",' "I--n~n-r- "" --'1 I' 0 ,r-n"'--- " \'L ~ @'@'@'@'I I ~, "-i '~'ff~", "~,
' COUNTY, IDAHO' '" :-J iÍ!'~" J~~n" , f-;~:-;¡ n~L_:' ' ",:. r~~1:.~(~-t"'-¡ !i!,~:-n,! ¡I ;;::;;:;;-:::.. ,-+--+-,
" DARTMOOR I. ... c! "r-n_"--r:n"'-,,~ I / II! -'C 0\ \ \ 0°' 0 " II! ~ 0 " ..-. 'I .... 'i Iii' '¡ I "~-,.- ....
USDIVISION ",~ Hr-~~-'~'~A~~~:<~,,@:"~;'>:~~~~~"'~1:j_n~--~ :!(-.:,:-,"C(pl. ;~':~~::" ~
DEVELOPMENT DATA ~, -"i I ~ '0 ~' ,':;:' /<\~-+-, ~ '-'ill ,P-.--¡--'-7'"",.w~r ,-. J, 2. J i I" 0 ,¡ T ~,,=IJ:,,'" '0 9
"'~"""""-, ..""(~,,,.., '0"\\'"-" ""V~!;¡'\.-"',"-".-\/@'í@,¡@",¡,:\",,_01 I'i-'i' ¡::"';%,i":i.l!~ [/)
=::-,:: :::::::~~~', !""'~\'(0'~~"'@;">j\\'@'~:;J-';:'l'-'W~'!)':-==-~-;".'~=i~~-eLi! ~~-~ ê:o
-, ""'~-, ~."("~"'" '~' , ",::Y;---"¡, ""/, ø' ).;~' -, \ \ ~_:"--§_:-,"::--""--::':=~:='r-!"'----.' ¡ !'---'~-', 2. ~ i i~ .P. ,I: Eit~::,.:r&:.:'u ~ ~
=~- ,.- " "</4 :"'\",~. 0,_- \ ----------'-=--~It--- -, ,,' ' -(..,.~~, -0
-.-,- ,.- ).., ,l:-þ.~,"""@,,~,,/~, -;:. Y----::-__n~"_"-1:_'----,,,-W-.'., ,III-:;"J ~"",-"~ ::>~
--w~ -- -' -,' ,j' ",-Cr.,"", -. À" '.. "'., - ;' -.;:-/ , ,ç:ff--~, ø' ---.." ,'--- ,-,'J! i 't:.:="-"---: [/) ",'
"""~~,' ,,~s_~ , ,/,;,4'{.. 1'- i.~' '-o/1ii'<'-JêS"~\'t 0 '" r"~, " i ß!:',----I-_---¡-.------~ ~-~~ r<1:5
~...w,~ ,_s " >,-.¡, ~,\-' ',', /~""_."").."\-' -\ ".P.'¡¡¡I"'~':'¡"'¡;;¡::;"3<>,'a::E'~-' ::"~'!!¡~"" CiO
-"."'-.~ "OS , <-, '<'r'p",.v' j >/~..Jr @)~.. --"""', L--"'n-' 'I'> @ ~r. ;; III - '0'--- ~i~~'=' 0 r:2
--~ "."'=1" ; '<" ""m:-"" @ /." /. \" @' -,,¡.'- ""\\,,j','\ ~ ~ 0 .I! L.:;;;u~ @ ,¡ ill. @ ~ ¡'¡ ¡;:: r<1
:::.."::. ::'~.~"' ',I \'" ~v"'- ._, / //~7<-,,\ ..-::;,... ,~, >. \ \--,,"-.:i;"'~-L";:..,j n. !!, }:'-i ilL -~:' ,!I, gJ ::E
ZONING SE1BAC, KS ----...J '@'.,k.;-":2"',~ "ll£::',Jk('JP" ~:), \C j'.'! ,,;Po,! .P, lit-@"J-@ ,~ 1."--,'.'-, n1 '~ Ci
~'::¡~'\,~.,,". I, "'--\~." "'IiL' .""..,!l~u"'--'¡¡:" ,'> .i,.'.' ,~S -, -"'i2!'~' .'!!. "I ~
~_AA'~~,_~ ,ß ¡'" ""'"," \_"j " .'J'@J"',,= [u_-- ",-,"-';;-'u-"-u_n-"-u~,;"..;,' >---n"'u ",', - 'J' , '"
~~--"" e-' /;""07' 111(,-, !J~'r~ @J"'<iJ----------~'!> n~u",,;", '"-I '"
III' ì L ~ I --'J '\,j~ í ¡ í ~,,--,"--- ")..;,--.._,;,: 1 ,-. ~;'-"-¡."""""-"To;;'T""I'---../, ~. "'T,,_n_'_u
II' "@,, "I"'@' ,@-"'¡-n"'--",y', , ", @,-"
I 0 I F~- ...L -. / @) 'J I n ~, §¡ ._, 1 ~. -~ ~. ~ 2, ~ !:, \, -. ,¡ !, î ~ '
i , : ¡';=;;;:::'-";--r~;~:;~=~~;;-;~n11 ~;;~;:~;~-:~~-~~~~:=:~=~.;:=~~=--~~~~-~~~~ ¡ i ~I
",11 ¡ f' ~, '!~~~. ~ -." ,2. " .If., "-".1 1/' Çt","-'-""'- I ~...~ro_m.~-_~L~_._"."~ ~I.Ü~
q ", " '<-'~"'~-L '. ..l ",-,U.' '-,0, "Y' . m=__,~~,,~_._--~--~-~~-~ Ili!
I/!II ¡~ ê---"r' >'--::"'-=~";'="':"-:'-"'Y-Ø) i I~--!f; ~ .!1'.J :r.':1,,"\'~~::!I.,~~W"~'=.:.'k~'\1'~~":.':::~r. d,îl¡¡
:¡H+/' ø ; 7T-:~':;.nr-"T-"'Tr';'--',;;:\\" *,,' / i ~~ ...--", ,~.::::.~=~~.~..~,.,~-,-"--~,.~_.~~, In.'''' ~
II ¡ 1'10, -. -, ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ¡I 0 "I -' f /'@"'" I . "-'.~-----""""~-~--.'.m&._~. ~,
"1 "-"'-,,-,,-, ,'- -. "~'~~m.~.~,~",- ..,
I ~¡ 1,.....:11 Ic-==J....__L_"'_--L""",L.~,-J 1 'l"~/:J-----",,,---.:-,: . '-"'~'---~~'"~_._"'--~--.'.m&'--m - ~ IMtJ8
i $: =~~~+'=:;:~:~=~==~:=:~!-~ ! ~:~:-::::O~==,'.=:::~~::':~-::::~. - ¡ i ¡
lilli' ¡"'Jl"'-"'-"T""-'"1--'¡"---r--,,,n,--,,"='1)I(' ,i ",'-~~_ro~-~_._,~.",=._^,",_.! '. ," . ~-"-,"'"
I¡,I! "'p, 0'~! -¡¡"I '0'~! 'ø'~ '0' "',.P." @ I ~=::-'::"""-::::::_-~.~'-~-~~_"~on_~ -- ,-.PHKK
11"110¡-'",,,--, ,,\"~_,,--j--'¡",,~--Ln"'--.J--~..L_L'_-'))~,! -, . M_"~_'_._ro~~'O"._..~~~ro__~ŒU'__" ~œ~ - , 1
I,n Ii, "_. ' , '-:,=:=--=:::--:-"-=.-.,.-v-:----/ . -, ' ~,,=,",..w.:w:.'="'t.~~::\"~"\\::"-':¡:¡ii\MI~'::¡':Pro.~"':::'> . _I. .~ -~ '<K
111"1' " '" ">~ '...r ,;r, - ""--,"""".,(@,I ,. m~~'"..m"__,._._~~..~~,-----_.- , '..,r8,8_w-.' J>' . GB
"I " ~i¡ 0 ,¡ 0 >1~'0 i -" 0' ',-'" , .._~~~_.""~- .~~
ii' :' ~ -' _.', '-:(' -. '! ,~, '! ,~, 'I ,~, \ i ' ",~_._~, ~u_~-'~._~~ro, ~"-, _..~~ ' ~ ~ '--,'1-14-"
: L-"':'-:':=':-:::i¡¡,~L:-:""-",-:,-:--==-=-L:::",-=-:,=-=,.=::-,.' -'-~L_- ::'::~:7=:~~~~::"7.::~:~::=::::,. A ." ""'.
Ii r: --=.J ,ALD'EN ZER[A ì ,t~~ø.~~\\m~1ï¡!lìiJr:JI.\::~;~,H\'i":J1il~~Zf~~"~o; /' ~:,. /' ----
ii! I SUBDII.1SIOf :::-:::-;:'::"'-"~"~_AA"_._.O~"~.~~-~-- ! ~ - .
'~ MASTER SITEPLAN. . ¡:"'=';ii'i~J:'¡iI=,~-::::'.~~g:..,:,::,~~~::~"i'.'~'::.",.~ ~ V1C1NITYMAP PP
'IIIII' ,,^" ".""0' "----"--- ::"j'¡.'..."W'":.:'..':':::.\\'iì':1:'~:';oo"J:,."~":"",,"¡,¡o~~~;ro~-~~ro 'IIIII'
:T
~
!;is
~ ~
~~
~æ
õ
1.
12
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 materiaily 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 ail Commissioners
present.
It 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 SeGretary of the Highway District no later
than 3:00 p.m. on the day prior to the Commission's next scheduled regular meeting foilowing
the meeting at which the action to be reconsidered was taken. Upon receipt of the request,
the Secretary shail 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 originaily. It wiil normaily 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.
RECEIVED
¡:EB 2 5 20œl
City of Meridian
City Clerk Offíc<"
~ & ~ 1~ 'Z)i4tfUct
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
15 February, 2005
Phones: Arec Code 208
OFFICE: Nompo 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
William G. Berg Jr., City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
RE:
PP 05-004, CUP 05-004 & AZ 05-003/Kingsbridge Subdivision
Dear Will:
PP 05-004 & CUP 05-004: If all storm drainage is retained on-site there will be no
impact on Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and no further review will be required.
However, if any surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District requires that a Land Use Change Application is filed for review prior to final
platting. Please contact Donna Moore at 466- 7861 for further information.
All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The developer must comply with Idaho
Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all
developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District.
AZ 05-003: Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above
referenced application for Annexation and Zoning.
Sincerely,
A:d¡ V~
Bill Henson
Asst. Water Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
BH/dbg
C: File - Office/Shop
APPROXIMATEIRRIGABlEACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS. AO,OOO
~&
RECEIVED
FEB 2 5 2005
, "
City of Meridian i ¡
City Clerk Office I C, O~l,T
~ 'J~ 'Uttüa
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA. IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208.463-0092
18 February 2005
phones: Area Cod. 208
OFFICE: Nompa 466.7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
The land Group, Inc.
Kerby Kirkham
462 E. Shore Drive, Suite 100
Eagle, ID 83616
RE:
land Use Change Application - Kinasbridae Subdivision
Please note the District now reQuires three (3) sets of plans
Dear Mr. Kirkham:
Enclosed please find a land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation
District for its review on the above-referenced development. If this development is under a
"rush" to be finalized, I would recommend that you submit a cashier's check, money order or
cash as payment of the fees in order to speed the process up. If you submit a company or
personal check, it must clear the bank before processing the application.
Should this development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be owned,
operated and maintained by the Irrigation District, I strongly urge you to coordinate with John P.
Anderson, Water Superintendent for the Irrigation District. concerning the installation of the
pressure system. Enclosed is a questionnaire that you must fill out and return in order to initiate
the process of contractual agreements between the owner or developer and the Irrigation
District for the ownership, operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call on me at the District's
office, or John P. Anderson, at the District's shop.
S~ ~. ~~-
Donna N. Moore, Asst: !ecretary/Treasurer
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
DNM/smc
cc: File
Water Superintendent
Will Berg, City Clerk, Meridian City
Vision First, llC, 661 N. Rivershore lane, Suite 120, Eagle, ID
83616
enc.
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABlE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS 23,000
BaSE PROJEQ RIGHTS. 40.000
" i
February 25, 2005
FEG
TO: Meridian City Planning and Zoning
FROM: Frank Shoemaker
RE: Vision First
Kingsbridge Subdivision
The developer of the above subdivision, continues to proceed toward obtaining approval for a
project that Meridian City Mayor and city council have previously denied. Findings of Fact for
the January 4th meeting, stated that as proposed, the density of the project is not compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood. The city council was specific in stating that the uniqueness
of the area is more suitable for executive home sites. Suggested to the developer to redesign
the project with larger lots. The finish product being more compatible with the immediate area.
Something that is not of the typical high density project with homes mirroring each other in
design. Also, that the perimeter home owners, with the five and ten acre lots, be more involved
in the design.
These meetings have occurred with the developer appearing to be more corporative with the
Dartmoor residents. And although increased lot sizes are proposed and total number of
dwellings reduced, the end result is still a high density project, not what the city council had
suggested be obtained.
For example, the Dartmoor Subdivision has building sites approaching 1 acre. For a smooth
transition, the developer has increased the size of the building lots that abut the Dartmoor
Subdivision, from approximately 12,500 square feet to 22,000 square feet. Approximately
50% ratio in size difference as compared to the Dartmoor sites.
Those lots abutting the larger five acre parcels on the north of the project were originally 9,000
to 9,500 sq ft sites. Their latest revision notes larger 22,000 sq ft sites. Approximately 10% the
size of the neighboring acreages.
Those lots abutting the larger ten and five acre parcels on the south of the project were
originally 7,000 square feet and have since been increased to approximately 12,000 square feet
lots. A ratio of approximately 5% the size of the larger acreages. Developer states that the
comprehensive plan notes this area to be medium density R3, or three units per acre. The
current zoning of the parcel is Rural Urban Transitional ( RUT) and permits one dwelling per
five acres. With cluster developments permissible allowing one acre minimum building sites if
city services are available. The R3 notation has nothing to do with the present zoning and the
the city council, stated this was an unlikely use and an incorrect classification. The developer
uses this reference as support for the higher density. Thus, ignoring city council comments and
concerns of those property owners along Zaidi a Lane.
A smooth transition, as suggested by the city council? Obviously not with minimal concern for
the larger property owners and how this high density will have an adverse effect on property
values for those with five and ten acre parcels along Zaldia Lane.
That area on the south of the project is my primary concern. As proposed, residential homes will
be built on the south side of E Plympton Drive. The rear of the each dwelling will be facing
Zaldia Lane. These small 12,000 sq ft lots will dictate a two level home.
The developer proposes a 3' berm and a 3' fence between Zaldia Lane and the rear of the
properties as a buffer zone,. He states that a drainage ditch prevents extensive landscaping.
Note that there is no drainage ditch along the south side of the property. Extensive landscaping
could be accomplished. Developers excuse is not valid.
Nor has developer, addressed the parking of RV vehicles. Obviously not allowed on the street,
for the neighbors to view. Therefore, parking in the rear yard will occur. And given the minimal
landscaping proposed as a buffer zone, a direct rear yard view will exist, further diminished by
visible RV units parked in the rear yard.
A better design would be allowing only one level dwellings with E Plympton Drive running
parallel to Zaldia Lane, divided by extensive berm landscaping with the privacy fence on top. In
addition, large caliper trees are preferred. The front of the dwellings would then be located on
the north side of E Plympton Drive, facing Zaldia Lane, divided however by E Plympton Drive
and the increased buffer landscaping. This would create an adequate setback and a smooth
transition from the five acre parcels.
The RUT zoning allows 1 acre building sites in cluster projects if serviced by city services. This
would be acceptable to me if building restrictions permitted only one level dwellings and placed
on the north side of E Plympton Drive, facing Zaldia Lane, with extensive landscaping dividing
the two streets. These one acre building sites would be considered executive home sites as
suggested by the mayor and city council. The transition would be smooth and aesthetic
pleasing.
I am currently building a new home that as proposed, would view the rear of those dwellings.
Most likely, I could look in the rear yards as I drive down the street.
Being a Real Estate Appraiser, I would suggest to the commission, that my property will be
adversely affected by what is proposed in the Kingsbridge project.
Having five acres, within close proximity to Interstate, shopping, etc, would have good market
appeal. The potential buyer would most likely not be interested once they visited the property
and viewed the unsightly rear yard of massive homes along the Zaldia Lane.
I would hope that the commission would consider the reason for denial by the city council and
not allow the Kingsbridge Subdivision as proposed. That the developer has not addressed the
executive home sites as suggested by Mayor Tammy de Weerd and council members.
Perimeter building sites along Zaldia Lane should be at least one acre in size, have increased
landscaping as a buffer zone dividing Zaldia Lane and E Plympton Drive. Dwelling set back
would thus be increased by the dwellings being located on the north side of E Plympton Drive.
The overall aesthetic appeal would be favorable and property values would be enhanced.
4~4: 5lZð&?#1þz-
Frank Shoemaker
"0.,,. LVV, 1.NIIVI
No. 0260
p
Brady & Teresa Turner
3678 S. Caleb Place
Meridian, ID 83642-7068
208-887-6832
RECEIVED
FEB 2 3 2005
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Feb1lJaIy21,2005
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
RE: Proposed KlNGSBRIDGE Subdivision
Dear Commissioners:
We hereby submit OUT oPÞosi1ion to the proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision per the applications for
annexation and zoning .filed by Vision First, liC (the "Applicanf'), scheduled for hearing before the
Commission on March 3, 2005.
Our opposition to the latest applications by Applicant is based on the following:
1. Kingsbridge Subdivision as currently proposed by the Applicant is not compatible with
surrounding current rural1and use. All of the surrounding residential lots are in acreages, but
the Applicant is requestingR-3 zoning-only a single-level reduction from the R-4 zoning
Applicant sought and was denied in its previous 2004 applications. While the cunent
applications are a step in the right direction, the Applicant has not adequately reduced density
in the current design. Furthermore, the planned development envisioned by Applicant is
disnnctlyurban in character, which is not harmonious with the existing rural character of the
area. Please note that this proposed development is surrounded on all sides by existing rural
residences in acreages. Inserting an urban developmenl into the middle of a distinctly iUral
setting on the outskirts of the City will change the essential character oftbe area. Finally,
since the SUIrounding lands are all developed rural residential acreages, the City will not
likely find further annexation paths into the SUITOunding lands anytime soon. .
2. Kingsbridge Subdivisjon as proposed by the Applicant will add around 1,235 additional
vehicle trips to the roads through and surrounding Dartmoor Subdivision. The Dartmoor
Subdivision has onJy 15 residential lots connecting to Dartmoor Drive, which Applicant
proposes to utilize for access to Eagle Road. By its own admission, ACHD reviews and
approves new developments without consideration of the increasing volwnes produced by
other recently-approved but not funy-developed subdivisions (such as Tuscany Lakes).
Adding 1,200 more cars to an already congested Eagle Road wil1 only increase our
frustration, compromise our safety, and degrade our quality ofJife. Fur1hennore, the vojume
FEB 23 '05 17:13
,,-, .J, LVVJ ',nllVi
No,0260
P 2
Pla.JUring and Zoning Commission
February2l,2005
Page Two
of traffic D-om Kingsbridge Subdivision directly through Dartmoor Subdivision,
conservatively estimated at around 300 trips per day (we beJieve it will be higher), will
directly negatively impact the quiet rural character of the Dartmoor Subdivision. Tripling
our current neighborhood traffic levels is simply unacceptable. If the Commission finds for
approval of the applications, we request that S. Ivybridge Way not connect to E. Kingsbridge
Dr. (e.g. S Ivybridge Way does not go south of Merrivale Way). This would result in a
substantial reduction in traffic through Dartmoor Subdivision.
3. AppJioant has failed to negotiate in good faith with the Dartmoor residents to address our
concerns adequately. Despite the City Council's stated preferencefor much lower density (at
a suggested R -2 level) and admonishing Applicant to work with the sunounding residents on
a more compatible design, the Applicant proceeded to file the current applications without
soliciting any inputfrom the neighbors.
4. The recorded plat ofDartmoor Subdivision restricts development of Lot 11 for a period of at
least 15 years, or until March of 2009. The residents of Dartmoor Subdivision and the
sUIl'ounding properties have relied on this development restriction and, for many of us, led us
to purchase our properties believing the land would not soon be developed. While we
recogDÏze the City's authority to annex this property, we respectfully appeal to the
Commissioner's sense of justice and fairness by not forcing the Darttnoor residents into
costly litigation with the Applicant. We continue to assert our equitable interest in
maintaining Lot 11 ofDartmoor as open space until at least 2009.
We resDectfulIv reQuest that the current aDDlications for Kinl!sbridlZe Subdivision be denied as
~. If the Applicant would design a rural development with much lower density in keeping
with the sUIl'ounding land use, mitigation of our traffic concerns, and in compliance with the views
expressed by the City Council and Mayor in the hearings on the previous applications, we would
likely support such a proposal.
Thank you for your consideration.
~~~~
Lot6, B10ck 2, Dartmoor Subdivision
FEB 23 '05 17:13
Ol'>r", "'~
Bob and Lesa L. Becker
3421 S. Selatir Place
Meridian, ID 83642
RECEIVED
FEe 2 3 2005
February 20, 2005
Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
City or Mer;
City Clerk C
RE:
Kingsbridge Subdivision - VISion First LLC, Applicant
We live on a five+ acre estate lot on the eastern boundary of this proposed subdivision,
On January 4, 2005, Mayor deWeerd and the City Council denied the Preliminary Plat,
Annexation and Zoning request and, among other findings, offered the following (Exhibit C):
1. The Comprehensive Plan states the City will "require new urban density subdivisions
which abut", existing low density residential land uses to provide landscaped screening
or transition densities with larger, more compatible lot sizes to buffer the interface
between urban densities and rural residential densities," Tbe current preliminary plat
(dated 12/29/04) provides for 21,675 and 21,763 sq ft lots (approximately Y, acre)
along our property line. Our 5+ acre lot is over 200,000 sq ft. - ten times the size of
these proposed lots. We do not believe the developer has provided adequate
transition lots.
In a recent development across Victory Rd. from our neighborhood (Muir Woods)
the developer placed I-acre transition lots on the periphery abutting existing 2.5
acre lots. When Bremerton subdivision was developed across from our house, the
developer placed a 2.7-acre transition lot between our 5 acres and the I-acre lots to
the southeast.
\Ve request that you require 2.S-acre transition lots along our property Em'.
2. The City of Meridian Ordinances require that "proposed uses be designed", to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with existing ...character of the general
vicinity," The City Council found that "the proposed lot sizes are too small to be
harmonious with the existing or intended character of the vicinity," The proposed
development is surrounded by 1-10 acre home sites ranging iu value from
approximately $350,000 to $1,000,000.
We urge you to require the proposed development preserve the cha]'ad,'l' of the
area by requiring the transition lots as stated above.
Finally, the City Council instructed tÌie developer to "work with the neighbors," The
Comprehensive Plan states: "It is important for citizens of the area to determine how they want
development to occur in order to preserve the City's character...," (Chapter VII, pg, 85),
Vision First held an "informational meeting" with neighbors after their revised proposal had
already been developed and submitted to the City of Meridian. We don't believe this constitutes
"working with the neighbors,"
Tha~ you for your consideration,
.~)tJ6- .e~
~ t£- ¿Ù ckr-
Bob and Lesa Becker
RECEIVED
FE8 2, 2 2005
February 18, 2005
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
To: City of Meridian Planning & Zoning
From: Lisa Job, Homeowner in Dartmoor Estates
Re: Proposed KlNGSBRlDGE Subdivision
My concerns regarding the proposed KlNGSBRlDGE Subdivision are related to
maintaining the quality of our environment, preserving our resources and providing a
high level of safety for the residents of Dart moor Estates.
Density:
. The current proposal has reduced the density from the original plat. The
entire outer perimeter of the project should have a transitional line of one acre
so that the quality of living is preserved. If the perimeter lots are not one acre
or larger, then the CCRs should reflect that all perimeter houses must be
single level dwellings.
. If this project is approved, Dartmoor Drive CANNOT be used as a
construction entrance. This would put all residents in a high risk zone for
safety concern traffic and drastically erode the quality ofliving.
. I would like to see this subdivision zoned as R2. However, if it remains as
R3, then all requirements ofR3 should be met without question.
. Dartmoor Drive should be improved to match the entrance at Kingsbridge,
including sidewalks both on the north and south sides.
Traffic:
. In addition to banning Dartmoor Road as a construction entrance,
detached side walks should be created ITom Eagle Road east on Dartmoor as well
as on the east side of Eagle Road both north and south of the Dartmoor
intersection to improve the safety of our children and pedestrians and to provide a
safe zone for the children at the bus stop location. Dartmoor and Caleb roads äre
a Deaf Child Area. Provisions need to be made to maintain a high level of safety.
Rural vs. Urban living:
. Provisions need to be made for proper storm water management to ensure the
current purity levels of the aquifers to our wells.
. If the city utilities are to be brought down Dartmoor, then they should also be
expanded down Caleb and Gideon at the same time. No utilities down
Dartmoor would allow for fewer burdens on the city utility needs by allowing
Dartmoor homeowners to maintain their current private wells and septic
systems.
. Irrigation rights and water levels need to be maintained
. Perimeter fencing needs to be provided by the developer along all boundaries
on the outmost edge. The fencing materials need to be agreed upon by both
the surrounding homeowners and the developer to ensure that the final
product is harmonious to the environment and pleasing to the residents.
"--- .
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
,!
--~-~t-+~
Lisà Job
,3'874 S. Gideon Place
Meridian, Idaho 83642
208-887-1254
- -- - --,-
F. 1
1 fA G¿,s I~J~:dJ .'
77, ~ s tl E L7. ;~FB ;< ~
/l II
~
~ OR- K :;v,9 S h/è; o~:
~¡v¡( t{;~
~~~ ù~,
ðc:Fd- ~YóS-
FEB 28 '05 12:44
p.2
TO: Meridian Planning and zoning Commission
From: Philip and Judy De Angeli,3405 e. Zaldia lane
Re: Vision First-Kingsbridge Development
Date; Feb. 25, 2005
. ¡
FES
Over the past six months we have been to all meetings and have submitted written
testimony regarding lack oflandscapinglscreening between the tTonts of our homes and the
backside of the proposed subdivision. Landscape plans submitted by Vision First dated 01-14-05
show only a 36" benn and no trees. They cite an irrigation ditch as an obstacle. This piped ditch
is non-existent today and is being created by Vision First's engineers to reroute nine mile creek
around the project. A taller benn with fencing on top and frequently spaced trees would help to
Dampen the visual effect of another concentrated housing project.
In it's denial of the project on Dec. 14th the city council was unanimous when it discussed
the transition between our 5 and 10 acre lots and the Kingsbridge project. The plans of 01-14-05
now show only 12,000 foot lots. The remainder of the perimeter lots are half acres. This is
obviously unfair and really no transition at all.
Relocating Plympton Dr. To the South side of the proposed homes in block 2 on the
southern boundary and requiring single stol}' homes would provide a much more compatible
interfacing to our existing homes. We would then be facing the ITonts of the houses, with the
street that serves them, between us.
A meeting was held with Ken Elliot on Feb. 22, 2005. Plans for some improvements on
the issues mentioned above were presented by him. These statements were only verbal and
presented as tentative plans. Thereafter I received the attached e-mail from Mr. Elliot to Lisa Job
Dartmore Homeowners representative, dated Feb. 24,2005, in which he makes a commitment to
improved landscaping but the benn is not mentioned.. Some lots have been identified as one-
stOI}'. He also increased the size of the lots to 16,000 feet. At the time of this writing no plans
are available to view actual changes.
We request that the changes made in the e-mail from Mr. Elliot as well as the changes
requested herein,at a minimum, be made a part of any permission to build the subject project,
based on the stated policy of the city of Meridian to encourage appropriate transitioning.
I submit this letter not knowing if there will be any agreement reached between now and
the meeting with P&Z on mar. 3, 2005.
~ou ."
~. u. ~-
j -- -: -----~
Philip De Angeli
3405 Zaldia Lane
Meridian
FEB 28 '05 12:44
---VI'\ I¡I¡;¡'~IVï..,,~,,\ ..-
From: Ken Elliott
To: lisajob@cableone.net
Cc: Randy Clarno: Jeff So/scheid: Wayne Kankelberg
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:07 PM
Subject: Kingsbridge
p.3
Lisa: I spoke with the Vision First partners today and reported the results of our discussions last evening at your
home with Laurie Allen, Bradford Dedman, and Philip DeAngeli. You explained that you had not reached a
unanimous consensus of the neighbors following the meeting at the school, and asked if Vision First would
consider developing a project with 1-acre lots around the entire perimeter and no lots on the interior less than Yz
acre in size. I responded that with Yz acre lots around the entire boundary of the northerly tract, with no lots of
less than 12,000 SF (the minimum size for the City's R-3 (Medium Density Rural zone) and with overall density
at 1.69 lots per acre (well below the 2/ots per acre density permitted in the City's Low Density Rural zone), we
feel that the new ProPosed plat complies with the direction given by both the City Council and P&Z Commission
to provide a low density transition from existing rural home sites east of Eagle Road to the new urban density
projects being built west of Eagle Road and north of Victory Road~
We also discussed what I perceived to be the key objection raised at the neighborhood meeting. which is the
smaller size of the lots in the R-8 portion of the project adjoining Zaldea Lane. I told you that I had raised this
concem with the Vision First partners and that we had discussed the possibility of removing 5 lots from the
southern tract, so that the smallest/ols bordering Zaldea would be 16,000 SF, instead of 12,000 SF. I obtained
their agreement to this proposal today. and we have directed The Land Group to redraw the plat accordingly.
This would reduce the number of lots from 130 to 125 (including the remaining Teeters' lot). reduce the overall
project density to 1.63 units per acre, and increase the average residential lot size to 17,200 SF.
We also discussed the neighbors' request for limiting all or some of the perimeter lots to single-story houses~ As
I said last evening, we hope to sell the Yz acre lots around the perimeter for premium prices to help make up for
the 90 (now 95) lots that we have cut from the project. The premium is lost if we limit all perimeter lots to a
single-story, because it costs the builders more to build the same large house spread over a single level than it
does to build the same floor area in a 2-story house. Although we agree that a certain market segment will be
looking for a single-level home, we expect about 2/3 of our homebuyers to want 2-story houses, by looking at
other new large lot residential projects in the Eagle and Meridian markets.
I did get the partners' agreement to a compromise on this request, as Laurie and Bradford both suggested
Tuesday evening, i.e., we are willing to identify those lots that have adjoining houses in close proximity and limit
those lots to a single-story. I have identified a total of 22 perimeter lots that the partners would agree to restrict
in our CC&Rs to a single story. They are: Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 (as widened and renumbered on the plan I will
print off for you tomorrow) in Block 2 adjoining Zaldea Lane; Lots 3, 4 and 5 in Block 1, south of DartnlOor and
the 1O-Mile Canal; Lots 17 and 18 in Block 1 and Lots 2.3,4 and 5 in Block 5 adjoining Dartmoor's east
boundary; Lots 22,23,24 and 25 in Block 7 south ofTeri Lane; Lots 14 and 15 (as renumbered and expanded)
on the cui de sac west of Kunz Hollow; and Lots 25. 34 and 35 across the 10 Mile canal from the 2 Kunz Hollow
FEB 28 '05 12:45
2/26/2005
PAGE. 03
F[H
p.4
Page 2 of2
houses with their building envelopes on the north end of their lots. By my count, this is one-half of the total of
44 perimeter lots in Kingsbridge.
In addition, Vision First renews and expands its previous offers to install the following project amenities:
(1) Construct a concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter extending along the north side of Dartmoor Drive from the
Kingsbridge sidewalk at the current end of Dartmoor Drive to the school bus stop at the Eagle Road entry to
Dartmoor, together with a painted crosswalk from the Gideon cul-de-sac to the north side of Dartmoor and a
painted stripe delineating a pedestrian walkway on the south side of Dartmoor;
(2) Install vinyl privacy fencing, in accordance with the city-imposed approval condition (i.e, 4 feet solid topped
by 2 feet of lattice) extending along the entire north property line of Kingsbridge; Install either 5-foot wrought iron
or 6-foot vinyl privacy fence on ali other project perimeters, as consensus is reached by those adjoining property
owners. Lisa explained that, with respect to our prior offer to extend privacy fencing along Dartmoor to the cul-
de-sacs, the two lot owners on the south side have installed vinyl fencing and the residents on the north side
have elected not to request fencing.
(3) Impose a 25-foot rear yard setback on all perimeter lots (except adjoining Zaldea Lane if the buffer south of
the privacy fence;s widened to 25 feet as provided in (4»;
(4) Create a new 5-foot landscaped strip south of the 6-foot vinyl privacy fence to be installed on the southerly
lots abutting Zaldea Lane. Plant a row of trees 20 feet on center in the 5-foot strip (instead of 1 tree per lot in
the back yards) and irrigate and maintain as Klngsbridge common area. Seek approval of Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District to narrow the waste pipe easement north of Zaldea from 20 to 15 feet wide. If not approved,
the fence and rear lot lines would be moved 5 feet north, making the southerly lots only 95 feet deep, instead of
100 feet. In this case, the rear yard setback on the lots abutting Zaldea would be 20 feet (still over the 15' code
minimum) instead of 25 feet, but the total buffer south of the privacy fence would be 25 feet wide (5 feet of
landscape plus 20 foot easement).
(5) . Pipe the tail ditch along Dartmoor's south and west boundary between the existing southwest corner of
Palfreyman's field to the Dartmoor irrigation pond north of its Eagle Road entry.
Once the revised plat maps are available to pick up tomorrow, I will give you a cali. Vision First is hopeful that
the above compromises will be well-received by the neighbors and will achieve a consensus of quiet
acceptance and neutrality toward Kingsbridge, if not outright, vocal support (which we would certainly
welcome). Please let me know if such a consensus has been achieved prior to next Thursday's hearing. Thank
you.
Ken Elliott
Vision First L.l.C.
661 South Rivershore Lane. Suite 120
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Tel 2081938-4655
Fax 2081938-4765
Cell 2081830-4292
E-mail Kene@visionfirst.net
2/26/2005
FEB 28 '05 12:45