The URL can be used to link to this page

Westborough Square Subdivision AZ 05-018 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 7, 2005 APPLICANT JLJ Enterprises, Inc. ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from June 2, 2005: Annexation and Zoning of 29.18 acres to R-4, R-8 & R-15 zones for Westborough Square Subdivision - SEC of Jericho Road & Chinden Blvd. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See previous item packet / minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments. REVISED ~ ~ C:6)'Y\~ aL lo~ f ð\J ~~4Ð C{,J CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: ~9-ìl\~ . Date:~¡()Ç ,phone: 9',r9-<!1'1O Emailed:~1 (\ ~ - (!i:xÝ\ Staff Initials: t!::::::::. Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of Ihe City of Meridian. - j MAYOR Tammy de Wecrd CITY HALL (208) 888-4433 - Fax 887-4813 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird Christine Donnell Shaull Wardle Charles M, Roulltree .¿ PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 - Fax 898-9551 IDAHO "_or 1903 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 888-4433 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 - Fax 888-6854 STAFF REPORT: To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission Craig Hood, Associate City Planner (II/ Michael Cole, Development Services CoordinatorrYI c. P&Z Hearing Date: July 7, 2005 Transmittal Date: June 30,2005 From: "R) 'E' ,",: ,'" "I --'J'--' '¡ "1"-' rr;: , , f~} 1 . 4 i'i ,>, $', t.",., " . . '".,,' ,: ~"--' . ,-.,~,.. --.. ,.u JUN 3 n 2005 Re: Westborough Square Subdivision (Revised Staff Report) I"-,,:-L~, ,")f "'{LC),'"id~,c;-:C ',-(:i',:~tl'~r /']' (~"r"k ~J m(;r:: _,1,.1 "', ~ . Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.18 Acres from RUT and R6 (Ada County) to R.4 (Low Density Residential) (17.02 Acres), R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (5.53 Acres), and R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) (6.62 Acres), by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. (File No. AZ-O5-018) WeSlborough Square REV¡SED,AZ.PP.CUP . Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of Seven (7) Buildable Lots and One (1) Other/Common Lot on 5.39 Acres in a Proposed R-15 Zone, by ILJ Enterprises, Inc. (File No. PP-O5-020) . Request for Conditional Use Pennit Approval for a Planned Development Consisting of Forty (40) Multi.Pamily Dwelling Units and Six (6) Professional Office Buildings with Reduced Lot Frontages and Multiple Buildings on a Single Lot on 5.39 Acres in a Proposed R-15 Zone, by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. (File No. CUP-O5-027) APPLICATIONS SUMMARY On June 2, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission directed staff to modify the original staff report with findings and conditions for approval. Staff has made the requested changes and offers the following staff report for Commission approval. The applicant, JLJ Enterprises, Inc, has requested Annexation and Zoning (AZ) of 29.18 acres. Of the 29.18 acres, 17.02 acres are proposed for R-4 zoning, 5.53 acres are proposed for R-8 zoning, and 6.62 acres are proposed for R-15 zoning. The annexation application includes all 7 existing lots platted with Westborough Subdivision in 2003. The applicant has also applied for Preliminary Plat (PP) and Conditional Use Pennit/PlaIUled Development (CUP/PD) approval of 6 office lots and 1 multi-family lot on 5.39 acres in the proposed R-15 zone. The applicant is proposing to re-subdivide the 5.39 acre Lot 6, Block 1, Westborough Subdivision into 8 new AZ-O5,OI8, PP-O5-020. CUP-O5-027 Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7, 2005 Page 2 lots for Westborough Square Suhdivisiou. (No uew development is proposed on the remaiIring six lots platted with Westborough Subdivision). In 2004, the City Council agreed 10 provide sanitary sewer service to the 5 residential lots in Westborough Subdivision even though they are outside of the city limits. In exchange for sewer service the Owner agreed to sell the City a well site and request annexation of these properties once they became contiguous to the city linúts. This property is contiguous to the city linúts through the recently approved Arcadia Subdivision. There are currently five single-family homes, a charter school, a wen site and oilier outbuilmngs on the site. The site is located on the south side of Chinden Boulevard, on the west side of Locust Grove Road and on the east side of Jericho Road. The subject property is within the Urban Service Plamring Area and the CUlTent City of Area Impact and is currently zoned RUT (single- family homes and well site) and R6 (charter school) in Ada County. The applicant is proposing a 3D-foot wide (varies) driveway from Jericho Road to serve the seven buildable lots within the subdivision. This driveway is proposed as Lot 2, Block 1. Lot 2 is 30-feet wide and terminates at the western boundary of Lot 8, the multi-family lot. Lots 4, 5 and 6 do not abut the driveway proposed on Lot 2 and would need to be provided with a cross- access easement. Other than the driveway to Jericho Road, no other access to Jericho Road or Chinden Boulevard is proposed. On the seven proposed buildable lots, the applicant is proposing to construct six single-story office buildings and ten four-plexes. The four-plex buildings are two-stories high and each dwelling unit has two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to Construct a mix of garages and open-air parking stalls for the multi-family units. The gross density of the proposed development is 7.4 dwelling units per acre. If the office lots are excluded from the density calculation, the density of the multi-family area on Lot 8 is 14.4 dwelling units per acre. A CUP/PD application is required because both apartments and office uses require CUP approval in the requested R-15 zone. In addition, the applicant has requested reduced lot frontages and multiple buildings on a single lot as part of the subject PD. MCC 11-9-1 requires each lot to have a minimum of 50 feet of street frontage; Lots 7 and 8 do not have any frontage on a public street. The proposed PD amenities include: sidewalks; a plaza space with benches, planters, tables and trees at the Corner of Chinden and Jericho; 2 acres of landscaped area; and a streetscape concept with on-street parking, bulb outs, street trees, etc. See Annexation and Zoning Analysis and the Conditional Use Permit section below for further analysis of the proposed amenities and open space. AZ'O5.018. PP-OS.O20. cUP"OS.O27 West borough Squa"e REVISIõD,AZ,PP.CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7, 2005 Page 3 should be zoned R-15. The Commission rther recommends that the Prelimina Conditional Use Permit a lications be a roved with the conditions listed herein. Plat and LOCA TION The subject site is located on the southeast comer of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard, in Section 30, Township 4 North, Range I East. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES North: Single-family homes, zoned R-I (Eagle). South: Single-family home, zoned RUT (Ada County). East: Church, zoned RUT (Ada County). West; Single-family homes, zoned RUT (Ada County). Recently, the City has reviewed and approved annexationizonIDg and development applications for Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, Arcadia Subdivision, and Tustin Subdivision in tl1is square mile. All of these developments were single-family projects. This is the first mixed use project the City has reviewed in this area. OWNER OF RECORD The property owners of record are Stetson Properties, LP, GoldCreek Developers, LLC, Meriwan Joint School District, David Liebennan, Shaun and Dawn Luchini, Waldorf & Sons, Brett Stigile, and Reed and Amber Kofoed. Jim Jewett, Tim Eck and Linda Clark have provided notarized consent for JLJ Enterprises, Inc., to submit the subject applications. The other five property Owners that own the single-family residential lots have provided Consent via the consent to annexation agreement. ANNEXA TION & ZONING ANALYSIS Because the aualysis below applies both to the proposed use aud the proposed zoning districts, the analysis of use has been combined with the annexation and zoning amendment finmngs, According to Meridian City Code (MCC) 11-15-11, Genual Stamlards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both the Planning & Zoning 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; All 29 acres of the subject property are designated for medium density residential use on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The purpose of this designation is "to allow smaller lots for residential pUrposes within city limits. Uses may include single- AZ-05-0!8, 1'1'-05-020, ClJI'-05-027 Wcstborough Squ",o REVlSED.AZ.n,ClJI',doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 4 family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre." (Page 93, Chapter VII, City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan). The applicant is requesting three different zoning designations for four different land uses on the subject property. The R-4 zone (Low Density) is requested for the 17-acre school site. The Commission is supportive of this proposed R-4 zonimr designation as schools are rinci all ermitted in the re uested zone and this zone is consistent with the Future Land Use Map. The R-8 zone (Medium Density) is requested for the five, one-acre single-family lots in Westborough Subdivision. While this designation is consistent with the Future Land Use Map, it is not consistent with the existing land use. The R-8 zone is geared towards developments containing between four and eight dwelling units per acre and the subject density is approximately one dwelling unit per acre. Because the existing single-family homes are new construction and will not likely redevelop, the Commission recommends that the Council consider an R-4 zoning designation for these properties. The Commission believes that the City should zone this Propertv to R-4. as the R-4 zone would more accurately correspond to the use of the land as one-acre residential lots. The R-15 zone (Medium High Density) is requested for the six office lots and one multi- family lot (6.62 acres total). The Comprehensive Plan does allow a one step increase or decrease in residential areas without amending the Comprehensive Plan. The R-15 district allows for medium-high density single-family attached and multi-family dwellings at densities not exceeding 15 dwelling units per acre (MCC 11-7 -2.E). In addition to the multi-family, the applicant is requesting CUP approval to construct office buildings within the proposed residential zone (see CUP-05-027). The applicant states in the submittal letter that the neighborhood center shown between Locust Grove Road and Meridian Road should "float" to the east because there is not a collector roadway intersecting Chinden at the 12 mile and the existing uses do not lend themselves to the neighborhood center concept (see Applicant's letter). The applicant is also being taxed by the County as if this property had commercial potential. Therefore, a more intense use than medium density residential is appropriate here. Although there is not currently a public street south of Chinden near the 12 mile there is a public street on the north side of Chinden Boulevard in Spyglass Subdivision. This public street is located at approximately the 12 mile. When the properties to the south of Spyglass Subdivision develop/redevelop, the Commission believes that a public collector road could be constructed at the 12 mile (and possibly signalized when warrants are met). However, several developments will utilize Jericho Road and the Commission believes this road will function similar to a collector road for this area, thus making the subject site part of the envisioned neighborhood center. Further, this property has fTontage on a highway, which makes a higher intensity use for this property agreeable. WestbotOugh Square REVISEQ,AZ,PP,CUP,doe The Commission also recognizes that the location of the neighborhood center designation on the Future Land Use Map is conceptual. Neighborhood Centers are anticipated to have: short blocks, less than 300 feet; interconnected circulation that is convenient for AZ-OS-OI8, PP-OS-O20, cUP-OS-O27 Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7, 2005 Page 5 automobiles, pedestrians, and transit; a variety of housing choices; housing that is arranged in a radiating pattern of lessening densities; transition between different housing types or densities at alleys; gridded street patterns; and, public open space. Further, the purpose of a neighborhood center is to create a centralized, pedestrian oriented, identifiable and day-to-day service oriented focal point for the neighborhood. The center should offer an internal circulation system that connects with adjacent neighborhoods or regional pathways, and they are anticipated to serve as public transit locations for park and ride lots, bus stops, and other alternative modes of transportation (see Pages 95-97, Chapter VII of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan). The project does have some internal sidewalks and does propose one sidewalk to the adjacent school site to the south. Except for the sidewalk along the entry driveway, no other pedestrian connectivity is proposed between the multi-family dwellings and the office portion of the development. The lack of accessibility trom the residential portion of the development to the proposed patio/plaza amenity in the office portion of the development (on the corner of Chin den and Jericho) turns what could have been an active amenity into a passive one that few would use. In addition to the amenity not being accessible to the residences within the project, this amenity has not been offered for use by the public either. Even if the patio in the office portion of the development counts as one amenity, this project is lacking a second amenity as defined by MCC. See Special Consideration #2 in the Conditional Use Permit section of this report. While the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map does not explicitly support a commercial zoning of this property, the Commission finds that there are several Comprehensive Plan policies that support evaluating this site for a zone not specifically envisioned by the Map (see below). "The Meridian Comprehensive Plan is an official policy guide for decisions concerning the physical development of the community. It indicates, in a general way, how the community may develop in the next five to ten years." (Chapter I, Section B of the Comprehensive Plan) Furthermore, in Chapter VII, Section C, "Future Conditions" states the following: "Figure VII-2 [The Comprehensive Land Use Map] depicts desired future land use categories and their location within the Impact Area. The areas depicted on the map are conceptual and, therefore, will require further analysis prior to the creation of a zoning map." W<stborough Square REVISED-AZ,PP,CUP.doc Because the Comprehensive Plan is a guide when determining land uses, the Commission believes that this is an instance to "float" the neighborhood center to this site. There are five large one-acre lots to the south, a school to the southeast, a church directly to the east, and the properties to the west have yet to develop. If the non-residential aspect of the neighborhood center is moved away trom the Y2 mile, no significant negative impacts are envisioned for the adjacent properties in the mile between Locust Grove Road and Meridian Road. At the public hearing, some of the I-acre property owners to the south AZ-05-018, 1'1'-05"020, CUP.05-027 Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7, 2005 Page 6 testified that they would not be agreeable to R-15 zoning/multi-family uses directly to their north. The Commission believes that a step up in zoning density to R-15 for multi-family uses on the east side of this property is justified. The Commission also believes that non- residential uses (office) in an area planned for residential uses. is appropriate in this instance as a use exce tion for the develo ment . To more accuratel correlate the use of the land to the zoning of the land. the Commission believes that the City should zone the office/western portion of this property to L-O. The Commission further finds that the R- 15 and L-O zone and concurrent development applications generally comply with a majority of the policies, goals, objectives, and concepts contained within the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application (staff analysis is in italics below policy): . "Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services" (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action items 1 and 4) On May 13, 2005, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with representatives of key service providers to this property. In that meeting no deficiencies of public services to serve this property were raised. . "Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach" fTom the National Center for Bicycling and Walking in all land use decisions." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #3) This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkway facilities in new construction and reconstruction projects, in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient. . "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 2) The applicant is only proposing one access point into the development from Jericho Road, a local street. No access to Chinden Boulevard (SH 20-26) is proposed. The Commission is supportive of the proposed access to the property. . "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, benDs, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 4) The applicant is proposing to construct a 35-foot wide landscape berm along Chinden Boulevard and a 20-foot wide landscape berm along Jericho Road. The Commission is supportive of these widths, as long as the entire buffer lies outside the AZ-O5-018, PP-OS-O20, cUP-OS-O27 WcstbOI'O"gh Sq"are REVISED,AZ,PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7, 2005 Page 7 ultimate right-of-way, and the sidewalk is located outside of the 35-foot wide buffer for Chinden Boulevard (or increase buffer to 40-feet). . "Require new residential development to meet development standards regarding landscaping, signage, fences and walls, etc." (Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective C, Action item 4) The applicant has not depicted appropriate landscape buffers between the multi- family dwellings and the school site to the south (20-feet required), between the multi- family dwellings and the church to the east (20-feet required), or between the proposed office and the multi-family dwellings (20-feet required). . "Require useable open space to be incorporated into new residential subdivision plats." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action item 3) Open space may be active or passive in its intended use, and must be accessible by all residents of the subdivision (MCC 12-1316-3). The applicant does state that 37% of the multi-family/office area (approximately 2 acres) is planned for landscaping. The applicant should provide useable open space in accordance with Meridian City Code. . "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action item 6) The applicant is proposing a sidewalk connection to the south; no connection to the east is proposed. A sidewalk along Chinden Boulevard is also not shown on the proposed plans. . "Locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to complement with adjoining residential areas." (Chapter VII, Goal I, Obj. B, #5) The subject property has frontage on Chinden Boulevard, an arterial roadway. The Commission believes that the proposed commercial office complements the adjoining residential area. . "Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares." (Chapter VII, Goal V, Objective A, Action item 14) There are currently no permanent major open space or park facilities near this site. There is a charter school and associated open spaces with the school use. This higher-density development is located adjacent to Chinden Boulevard, a major thoroughfare. Westborough Square REVISEO.AZ.l'P,CUP,doc AZ-O5-018. PP-O5-020, CUP-O5-027 Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 8 . "Actively involve Joint School District No.2 in subdivision site selection with developer before plat processing (pre-platting schedule meetings)." (Chapter VI, Goal VI, Objective B, Action item 1) A 17-acre school site is included within the subject annexation application. . "Consider development applications that apply the neighborhood center concept." (Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective B, Action item I) The subject applications generally apply the neighborhood center concept outlined on pages 95 -97 o/the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has listed some Comprehensive Plan policies that support the annexation and proposed use o/the property (see Applicant's letter dated February 15, 2005). B. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future; If the concurrent preliminary plat and conditional use pennit applications are approved, the Commission does not believe that the applicant intends to rezone the property in the future. c. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning -for example, a residential area turning into a commercial area by means of conditional use permits; The five existing single-family homes in Westborough Subdivision are allowed in both the requested R-8 zone, and Commission recommended R-4 zone, without a CUP. The 17-acre school site is allowed in the requested R-4 zone without a CUP. The Commission recognizes that approximately 6 acres of the area included in the proposed zoning amendment is intended to be developed in a fashion not allowed (principally pennitted) under the proposed zoning. Both the proposed office uses and multi-family uses require conditional use pennits in the requested R-15 zone (medium high density). However, if the western portion of the 6 acres is zoned L-O, the office area could be developed in a fashion allowed (principally pennitted) under the new zoning. The City does not currently have a zone that principally pennits apartments. Therefore, the eastern portion ofthe site, proposed for multi-family, requires conditional use pennit approval. D. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area; AZ-O5-0IS. PP-O5-020, CliP.O5-027 W.stborough Square REVISED,AZ.PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 9 There have been no recent street improvements in the area. Chinden Boul evard is not in the current STIP and Locust Grove Road is not currently scheduled within ACHD's Five Year Work Program or Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for roadway widening. Permanent sanitary sewer to this proposed development shall be provided via the North Slough Trunk, which is currently under construction, however laterals that will provide service will be through future phases of the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision. The Commission finds that a substantial portion of the land to the south has been developed, or approved for development. However, the City has not approved any multi-family and/or office uses in this area. Arcadia Subdivision, Tustin Subdivision and Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, all contained single-family dwelling units. The Commission believes that the proposed development will be compatible with and is similar to the adjacent area. 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 Commission believes that this development will set the tone for how the rest of the area along Chinden develops. The applicant has submitted elevations for the proposed office and multi-family dwellings. The Commission is supportive of the elevations for the multi-family and office buildings as they should be hannonious with the existing and intended character of the area. The existing character of the area will, and is, currently changing. However, the Commission finds that if this site is developed as proposed, the zoning and subsequent uses will be hannonious and appropriate to the intended character ofthe vicinity (see Finding "A"). F. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; Due to other existing and proposed uses near the site, the Commission does not anticipate that the zoning and proposed uses will be physically hazardous to future or existing uses or neighbors in the area. The Council should rely on the analysis, comments fÌom other agencies, and public testimony to detennine whether the proposed use will be disturbing or hazardous to the existing neighboring uses and future expected uses in this vicinity. G. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services; AZ-O5-018. PP-OS-O20. CUP-O5-027 Westhorough Square R"vrSED.AZ,PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 10 Sewer service for this development is being proposed via the existing "private lift station" constructed for the five previously approved lots to the south. When public works reviewed and accepted the plans for this lift station, Public Works staffwas approving it for only the five lots that were proposed at the time, Arcadia to the west, and the five-acre commercial property to the north. Engineering staff has reservations on the ability of this lift-station to service the extra volume of sewage generated by the four- plexes that are now a part of this development. In preliminary discussions the applicant and a staff engineer at the City of Meridian have come to an agreement that the commercial portion of this proposed development could be allowed with the stipulation that a flow meter be installed to measure the true amount of sewage being "lifted". This would give accurate information on influent flows to allow for a more informed opinion on the sewerabilty of the remainder ofthe project. Water mains are readily accessible to this site and service is being proposed via an extension of water mains located in Jericho and Locust Grove. The applicant will be required to construct water mains to and through this proposed development. Coordinate size and routing with Public Works. The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay park and highway impact fees as well as construct on-site storm water drainage facilities. This item was approved at the staff level at ACHD on May 10, 2005. The applicant is being required to construct Jericho Road as one half of a 40 foot street section. Please review any additional comments that may be sent from ACHD between the print deadline and the hearing. On May 13, 2005, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with representatives of key service providers to this property. Several comments were received from multiple departments. The detailed comments and conditions from the Fire Department, Police Department, and other agencies/departments are at the end of this report. Based on the comments received from other agencies/departments, the Commission finds that the public services listed above can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. 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 be financing the extension of sewer, water, public street infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the future residents and tenants will be fire, police, school facilities and services. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and this development will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. AZ-O5-018. PP-O5-0l0. CUP-O5-0l7 Westborough Square REVISED,AZ,PP,CUP.doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7, 2005 Page II 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; The most recent traffic count for Chinden Boulevard, taken on January 30,2003, was 15,301 ADT, west of Meridian Road. ACHD estimates that this development will generate 529 additional vehicle trips per day. The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of a development on this site; however, the Commission does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The purpose of the L-O zone is to "permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses.. . shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this District" (MCCll-7-2.G) The purpose of the R- 15 zone is to permit the establishment of medium-high density single-family attached and multi-family dwellings at a density not exceeding 15 dwelling units per acre. The Commission does not anticipate that annexation and development in accordance with current city code and the Comprehensive Plan will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. J. Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; The applicant is proposing to construct one entrance into the site from Jericho Road. The proposed entrance is located approximately 285 feet south of Chinden Boulevard, and meets ACHD's requirements for location. If the proposed access and internal driveways are approved and constructed in accordance with ACHD and the City's policies, the Commission does not believe that the development will create interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets. K. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance; and The Commission finds that the proposed annexation and zoning should not result in the loss or damage of any natural or scenic features, as long as any existing trees are protected/mitigated. Any existing trees that the City Arborist deems necessary for mitigation that are removed shall be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance (MCC 12-13 -13). The Commission is not aware of any natural or scenic feature( s) that would be lost, damaged or destroyed by allowing this site to be annexed, zoned and developed. The Commission recommends that the 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 the Commission is unaware. AZ-05-0 18, 1'1'-05-020, CUP-OS-Oll Westborough Square REVISED,AZ,PP,CUP.doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 12 L. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. (Ord. 592, 11-17-1992)? In accordance with the findings listed above. the Commission finds that the annexation/zoninl! of this property as proPosed woulq not be in tþe best interest of the Citv. The Commission recommends that the City annex and zone the 17.02 acres to R-4 as requested: that the 5.53 acres proposed for R-8 zoninl! that contain sinl!le-familv homes on one-acre lots also be zoned to R-4: and. that the 6.62 acres proposed for R-15 zoninl! be zoned to zoned L-O for the western portion containin;! office uses and R-15 for the eastern portion containinl! multi-family dwellings. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the findinl!s listed above. the Commission believes that the above recommended zones are appropriate for this property and zoninl! the properties as amended would be in the best interest of the City. ANEXATION & ZONING FACTS AND COMMENTS I. The subject property is within the Urban Services Planning Area. The legal description submitted with the application shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. The Public Works Department has confirmed that the submitted legal description meets the requirements of the City of Meridian and the Idaho State Tax Commission. At least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing~ submit new lel!al descriptions (2) to the Planning & Zoninl! Department. One descri~tion for the office portion (L-O) and one for the multi-family portion (R-15) of the development. PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS Meridian City Code (MCC) 12-3-3 J.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "m 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; Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis" A" . B. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development; Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "G". c. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program; Because the developer will be required to install sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, the Commission finds that a development on this property will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. D. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; See finding "G" under Annexation and Zoning Analysis, and the Agency Comments and Conditions. AZ-O5-018. PP-O5-020. CUP-O5-027 Westborough Square REVISED,AZ,PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 13 E. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the Commission's attention. The Commission finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Council's attention; no hazardous natural features have been identified on the site. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. Landscaping: Street Buffers: MCC 12-13-10-2 requires all street buffers to be located beyond any street right-of-way and be maintained by the property owner upon which the buffer lies. No fences are pennitted within required street buffers and the width excludes the width of the sidewalk. Further, MCC 12-13-10-6 requires street buffers to be planted with trees and shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover, with a minimum density of one tree per 35 linear feet. Chinden Boulevard is designated as an entryway conidor on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Meridian City Code (MCC) 12-13-1O-4 requires a 35-foot wide landscape buffer along all entryway corridors. The applicant is proposing a 35-foot wide landscape buffer along Chinden Boulevard. However, a portion of the buffer contains a patio area (amenity) and drive aisles. The applicant should be required to construct a 35- foot wide buffer along Chinden Boulevard that is entirely outside of the right-of-way, does not include sidewalk, drive aisles or other impervious surfaces, and does include trees, shrubs and other groundcover as required by MCC 12-13-10-6. MCC 12-13-10-4 requires a lO-foot wide landscape buffer along all local/commercial roads. The ACHD is requiring the applicant dedicate a total of 27-feet from the centerline of Jericho Road and construct one-half of a 40-foot street section and a 5-foot wide sidewalk. On the submitted preliminary plat and landscape plan the applicant is showing a 54-foot right-of-way and a 20-foot wide buffer with 5-foot wide detached sidewalks (sidewalk within the street buffer not the right-of-way). Staff is supportive of the proposed street buffer adjacent to Jericho Road, as it exceeds the minimum width requirement. The landscape buffer should contain materials in accordance with MCC 12- 13-10-6. Land Use Buffers: MCC 12-13-12 requires landscape buffers between different land uses. Per MCC 12-13-12-4, a 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required between office (Class III) and single-family homes (Class I), a 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required between office (Class III) and multi-family dwellings (Class II), a 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required between multi-family dwellings (Class II) and middle/high schools (Class III), and a 20-foot landscape buffer is required between multi-family dwellings (Class II) and quasi-public (church) uses (Class III). Meridian City Code 12-13-12-2 requires the land use buffer to be provided by the higher intensity use and to be located AZ-O5-018, PP-O5-020. ClIP-O5.027 Wcstbo!'o"gh Square REYISED.AZ,PP,ClIP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P &Z Hearing Date: July 7, 2005 Page 14 on the building site of the higher intensity use, unless the adjacent and higher intensity use has not provided the buffer. In such cases, the lower intensity use should provide the buffer. The applicant is proposing to construct some landscaping between all land uses. The width of the landscape areas do not comply with MCc. The applicant should be required to construct a 20-foot wide buffer along the south and east property lines, and a 20-foot wide buffer between the proposed multi-family uses and the proposed office uses. Said buffers shall contain materials in accordance with MCC 12-13-12-3 and not include impervious surfaces such as parking areas or patios. Tree MitÜmtion: Any existing trees larger than 4" that are removed shall be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance (MCC 12-13-13). The applicant should work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on implementing a mitigation plan for the trees that are to be removed. If any trees are deemed to be a hazard, diseased or dying by the City Arborist, prior to removal, mitigation will not be required for those trees. Sidewalk: MCC 12-13-10-8 requires detached sidewalks along all arterial streets in new developments at the edge of existing city limits. The submitted landscape plan does not show sidewalk adjacent to Chinden Boulevard, an arterial street. The applicant should be required to construct a minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along Chinden Boulevard. Landscape Plan: The submitted landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., dated 2-15-05 is not approved. At least ten days prior to the City Council hearing, provide ten full size copies of a revised landscape plan (and one 8.5" x II" copy) that shows the required landscape buffers and reflect the other changes noted in the conditions below: a. Construct either a 35-foot wide landscape buffer OR a 40-foot wide landscape buffer along Chinden Boulevard. If the sidewalk for Chinden Boulevard is constructed within the right-of-way, the buffer shall be 35-feet. The width of the landscape buffer shall be 40-feet if the sidewalk is constructed within the landscape buffer easement/lot. In accordance with MCC 12-13-10, install one tree within said buffer for every 35-feet of frontage on the Chinden Boulevard right-of-way. b. Construct a minimum 10-foot wide landscape buffer along Jericho Road (buffer width shall not include sidewalk width). In accordance with MCC 12- 13-10, install one tree within said buffer for every 35-feet of frontage on Jericho Road. c. Construct 20-foot wide landscape buffers along the south and east property lines, and between the multi-family use and the office use. Said buffers should contain materials in accordance with MCC 12-13-12-3 and not include impervious surfaces such as parking areas or patios. d. The applicant should work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on designing, adopting, and implementing a protection/mitigation plan for the existing trees on site. e. The applicant should be required to construct a minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along Chinden Boulevard. AZ-05-018, 1'1'-05-020, CUP-05-027 Wcstborough Square IŒVISED,AZ,PP,CUP,doc 5. Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 15 See Site Specific Condition #2 below. 2. Access. Drive Aisles and Parking: The applicant is proposing a 30-foot wide (varies) driveway from Jericho Road to serve the seven buildable lots within the subdivision. This driveway is proposed as Lot 2, Block L Lot 2 is 30-feet wide and terminates at the western boundary of Lot 8, the multi-family lot. Lots 4, 5 and 6 do not abut the driveway proposed on Lot 2 and would need to be provided with a cross-access easement. Other than the driveway to Jericho Road, no other access to Jericho Road or Chinden Boulevard is proposed. ACHD has reviewed and approved this access point. Staff is supportive of the general design of the access point, drive aisles and parking layout. However, because several of the proposed lots do not have frontage on a public street, a cross parking/cross access agreement for all of the new lots within the subdivision to use the driveways and parking should be provided. Maintenance of the drive aisles and parking areas should be provided for in a note on the face of the fmal plat, AND/OR in a document such as CCRs. NOTE: Easements for the sidewalks adjacent to the buildings should also be provided. See Site Specific Condition #3 below and Special Consideration #1 (Lot Frontage) for more information. 3. Piping of Ditches: Meridian City Code 12-4-13.A.1 requires all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous, or which canals, ditches or lateral touch either or both sides of the area being subdivided, to be covered and enclosed with tiling or other covering equivalent in ability to detour access to said ditch, lateral or canal. In accordance with Meridian City Code, the applicant should be required to tile or cover all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals that cross, intersect or lie adjacent to the subject site. See Site Specific Condition #4 below. 4. Fencing: The applicant is proposing a 6-foot solid fence along the south and east property lines. A detailed fencing plan should be submitted upon application of the final plat (MCC 12-4-1O.F.3). All solid fences should taper down to 3 feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of-way. All fencing should be installed in accordance with MCC 12- 4-10. See Site Specific Condition #5 below. Pressure Irrigation: 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 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 single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is used, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 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. AZ-05-01B, 1'1'-05-020. CUP-05-027 We,thorough Squat. REVISEO.AZ,PP,CUP.doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 16 6. Covenants. Codes. and Restrictions: The applicant has submitted a copy of the anticipated CCRs for this development with the application. Staff recOlmnends that for maintenance and operation purposes of the common areas (landscaping, drive aisles, parking, etc.), the applicant record CCRs for this development, as proposed. See Site Specific Condition #7 below. 7. Sanitary Sewer: Sewer service for this development is being proposed via the existing private lift station constructed for the five previously approved lots to the south. When public works reviewed and accepted the plans for this lift station, Public Works staff was approving it for only the five lots that were proposed at the time, Arcadia to the west, and the five-acre commercial property to the north. Engineering staff has reservations on the ability of this lift station to service the extra volume of sewage generated by the four -plexes that are now proposed as a part of this development. In preliminary discussions the applicant and a staff engineer at the City of Meridian have come to an agreement that the commercial portion of this proposed development could be allowed with the stipulation that a flow meter be installed to measure the true amount of sewage being lifted. This would give accurate information on influent flows to allow for a more informed opinion on the sewerabilty of the remainder of the project. See Site Specific Condition #8 below. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS lPRE...!JMmARY PLAT) 1. The preliminary plat prepared by The Land Group, Inc., labeled sheet PP-l, dated 2-10- 05, is not approved as submitted. At least ten days prior to the City Council hearing, provide ten full size copies of a revised preliminary plat (and one 8.5" x 11" copy) that reflect the changes noted in this report. All conditions of the accompanying Annexation/Zoning (AZ-05-018) and Conditional Use Pennit (CUP-05-027) application shall also be considered conditions ofthe Preliminary Plat (PP-05-020). 2. The submitted landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., dated 2-15-05 is not approved. At least ten days prior to the City Council hearing, provide ten full size copies of a revised landscape plan (and one 8.5" x 11" copy) that shows the required landscape buffers and reflect the other changes noted in the conditions below: . Construct either a 35-foot wide landscape buffer OR a 40-foot wide landscape buffer along Chinden Boulevard. If the sidewalk for Chinden Boulevard is constructed within the right-of-way, the buffer shall be 35 feet. The width of the landscape buffer shall be 40 feet if the sidewalk is constructed within the landscape buffer easement/lot. In accordance with MCC 12-13-1O, install 1 tree within said buffer for every 35 feet of frontage on the Chinden Boulevard right-of-way. Construct a minimum ten-foot wide landscape buffer along Jericho Road (buffer width shall not include sidewalk width). In accordance with MCC 12-13-10, install 1 tree within said buffer for every 35 feet of frontage on Jericho Road. Construct 20-foot wide landscape buffers along the south and east property lines, and between the multi-family use and the office use. Said buffers shall contain materials in . . AZ-05-0 18. 1'1'-05-020. CUP-05-027 Wes¡borough Square R,I;:VISI;:D,AZ,1'P,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 17 . accordance with MCC 12-13-12-3 and not include impervious surfaces such as parking areas or patios. The applicant shall work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on designing, adopting, and implementing a protection/mitigation plan for the existing trees on site. The applicant shall be required to construct a minimum five-foot wide detached sidewalk along Chinden Boulevard. . 3. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, provide a cross parking/cross access agreement for all of the new lots within the subdivision to utilize the drive aisles and parking areas (including sidewalks). Maintenance of the drive aisles and parking areas should be provided for in a note on the face of the final plat, AND/OR in a document such as CCRs. Vehicular access to this site shall be restricted to those approved by ACHD, ITD and the City. A note shall be placed on the face of the final plat prohibiting vehicular access to this site from Chinden Boulevard. 4. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per 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. Iflateral users association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 5. Construct a six-foot tall solid fence along the south and east property lines (adjacent to the existing residences, school and church), as proposed. A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the final plat. If permanent fencing is not provided around the entire perimeter, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of building permits. All solid fences shall taper down to 3-feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of-way. All fencing shall be installed in accordance with MCC 12-4-10. 6. The applicant has not indicated who will own and operate the pressurized irrigation system within this development. Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to remain a private association system, complete plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. A draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual shall be submitted prior to plan approval. 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 used, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. AZ-O5-018, PP.OS.O20, CUP-O5-on Westborough Square REVISED,AZ,PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page IS 7. Maintenance of all common areas, including but not limited to: drive aisles, parking areas, landscaping, etc., shall be the responsibility of the Westborough Square Owners' Association. S. Westborough subdivision has designed and installed a private sewer lift station as part of an earlier phase. When public works reviewed and accepted the plans for this lift station, staff was approving it for only the five lots for which it was proposed and five commercial lots. With the added multiple family dwelling units engineering staff has some reservations on the ability ofthis lift-station to service the proposed extra volume of effluent. The applicant shall install a flow monitor to measure the true amount of flow that is being generated by this development. Thereby enabling engineering staff to determine how many lots of this may be developed until gravity sewer becomes available. The applicant shall be responsible to construct all required sewer mains to service this project, main sizing and routing to be coordinated with Public Works. 9. Water service to this site is being proposed via an extension of water mains located Jericho road. A water connection to Locust Grove road may be required to achieve adequate fire flow for the proposed development. The applicant shall construct water mains to and through this proposed development. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. Coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 10. Water service to this site is being proposed via an extension of water mains located in Jericho road. A water connection to Locust Grove road may be required to achieve adequate fire flow for the proposed development. The applicant shall construct water mains to and through this proposed development, coordinate main sizing and routing with Public Works department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. 11. The preliminary plat depicts three seepage beds being installed within 20-feet of a proposed building. Per DEQ regulations there shall be a minimum 20-foot of separation between an underground storm drainage facility and any building. The applicant shall make the necessary adjustments to comply. 12. All sewer and water mains not in the ACHD right-of-way must be centered in a 20-foot wide utility easement. GENERAL CONDITIONS (PRELIMINARY PLAT) 1. 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 12-13-1O-S. AZ.O5-018. PP-O5-020. CUP.O5.027 Westborough Square REVISED.AZ,PP,CUP,doc 12. Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 19 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 signature on the final plat. 4. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 5. All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 6. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 7. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 8. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 9. 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. 10. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 11. Two-hundred-fifty and one-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior commencing installations. 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 storms up to and including a 100-year storm 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 should pay close attention to the results of field studies determining the groundwater, soil type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet AZ"O5-0J 8. PP-O5.020. CUP-O5-027 WestbOl'Ough Square REVISED.AZJ'P,CUP,doe 18. 19. Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 20 above the highest established nonnal groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least I-foot above groundwater. 13. The applicant shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 14. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 15. 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. 16. 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 nonnal groundwater elevation. 17. The applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as detennined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. Staffs failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or tenus of the approved annexation/conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC 12-2-4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP/PD) ANALYSIS The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use in tenus of the following and may approve a conditional use pennit if they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (11-17-3): Á. B. 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 ofthe Planned Development (PD) the applicant is requesting relief fTom the standard street fTontage requirement and to construct multiple structures on a single lot. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested uses 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. That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance; AZ-O5-0!S, PP-OS-O20, cup.os.on West1x>rough Square R,!,VISED.AZ,PP,CUP,doc G. H. I. Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 21 Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "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 of the same area; Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "E". D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity; Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "E" and "F" 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 & Zoning Analysis "G" and "H", the Other Agency/Department 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; Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "H". That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "I". That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "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. AZ-O5.018. PP-O5-020, CUP"OS-O27 WcSloorough Square REV1SED.AZ.PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 22 Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "K". CUP/PD SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS I. Reduced Standards: As stated earlier, the applicant is requesting modifications from standard ordinance requirements for street frontage and to construct multiple buildings on a single lot. Lot Frontage: MCC 11-9-1 requires 50 feet of street frontage per lot in the requested R- 15 zone; 50 feet is also required per lot in the L-O zone. Two of the seven buildable lots do not have frontage on a public street. In lieu of frontage, the applicant is proposing to construct a shared access drive from Jericho Road for all of the buildable lots to use as access the public street system. Staff recommends approval of the requested frontage modification if all of the proposed buildable lots within the subdivision are provided with an access easement to the public roadway system. See Site Specific Condition #2 below. Number of Buildings on a Lot: Except in the case of a PD, not more than one principal detached building shall be located on a lot (MCC 11-4- 7). The applicant is requesting to construct ten four-plex buildings on a single lot with the subject PD application. Staff is supportive of this request as long as appropriate services (sewer, water, fire access, etc.) can be provided to each building. See Site Specific Condition #2. 2. Amenities: MCC 12-6-2.A.3 requires two or more amenities to be provided as part of a planned development. The proposed PD amenities include: sidewalks; a plaza space with benches, planters, tables and trees at the comer of Chinden and Jericho; two acres of landscaped area; and a streetscape concept with on-street parking, bulb outs, street trees, etc. The amenities are depicted on the submitted landscape plan, and are described in the applicant's letter accompanying the CUP/PD application. MCC 12-6-2 requires amenities to be appropriate to the size and uses of the proposed development. Although the amenities proposed by the applicant (sidewalks, on-street parking, street trees, etc.) are nice, staff does not believe that they should count towards the required PD amenities. Landscape areas that are in building setbacks or required along streets and perimeters should also not count towards the required PD amenities for the development. The lack of accessibility from the residential portion of the development to the proposed patio/plaza amenity in the office portion of the development (on the comer of Chin den and Jericho) turns what could have been an active amenity into a passive one that few would use. Staff is supportive of the overall design of the project, but believes that the intent of the PD ordinance will be met only if the patio/plaza amenity is more accessible to the multi-family residents and that a second active amenity (e.g. - tot lot, clubhouse, pool, etc.) is included within the multi-family portion of the development. See Site Specific Conditions #3 below. 3. Open Space: Meridian City Code 12-13-16 requires all multi-family developments to provide common open space that equals or exceeds ten percent of the gross land area. Common open space means land exclusive of street rights-of-way and street buffers, except for right-of-way specifically dedicated for landscaping within a subdivision. At a AZ-OS-OI8, PP.OS.O20, CUP.O5.027 WeSIbowugh Square REVISED,AZ,PP,CUP,doe Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 23 minimum, common open space lots shall include I deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet and lawn, either seed or sod (MCC 12-13-l6-5). According to the applicant's letter, 37% of the site (including the office area) is planned for landscaping. All of the proposed landscaping is within the buildable lots. It appears that the minimum 10% is being exceeded for the multi-family portion of the development. However, the applicant should clarify at the public hearing what percentage of open space is being provided within the multi-family portion ofthe project. In addition to the common open space requirement, Meridian City Code 12-6-2.AA states that all residential planned developments shall provide each dwelling unit with at least 100 square feet of useable private open space, such as a patio or deck. The applicant has not addressed this requirement. Therefore. the applicant should clarify at the public hearing how the 100 square foot useable private open space requirement will be provided for each unit. See Site Specific Condition #4 below. 4. Elevations: The applicant has submitted sample elevations with the PD application. Staff is supportive ofthe proposed elevations shown on the two sheets prepared by McKibben & Cooper Architects. Staff believes that the proposed buildings will be compatible with the uses in the area (architecturally and aesthetically), if the buildings are constructed as shown on the submitted elevations. When a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) is issued for the buildings in the future, staff will verify that the buildings are consistent with the approved elevations submitted with this CUP/PD. All buildings constructed within Westborough Square Subdivision should substantially comply with the elevations prepared by McKibben & Cooper Architects. Construction materials used on the structure should be approved by City of Meridian Building Department and in accordance with the most recent Uniform Building Code. See Site Specific Condition #5 below. 5. Parking Dimensions: MCC 11-13-4.F requires a 25-foot wide drive aisle adjacent to all 90 degree parking stalls. The drive aisle adjacent to the parking stalls on the north side of the entrance to the multi-family portion of the development is only 20-feet wide. All parking stalls and drive aisle dimensions shall meet city ordinances, with parking spaces being at least 9 feet by 19 feet adjacent to 25-foot wide drive aisles. See Site Specific Condition #6 below. 6. Signs: The applicant is proposing a sign located near the intersection of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road. No signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a separate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance. See Site Specific Condition #7 below. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CUP/PD) I. The site plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., labeled sheet SP-l, dated 2-10-05, is not approved as submitted. At least ten days prior to the City Council hearing, provide ten full size copies of a revised site plan (and one 8.5" x II" copy) that reflect the changes noted in this report. All conditions of the accompanying Annexation and Zoning (AZ-05- AZ"05-0 18, 1'1'-05-020. CUP.05.027 Wcstborough Square REVISED,AZ,PP.CUP,doe Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 24 018) application and Preliminary Plat (PP-05-020) shall also be considered conditions of the Conditional Use Pennit (CUP-05-027) application. 2. The project shall confonn to the L-Q and R-15 dimensional standards, except as follows: . Minimum frontage: O-feet Multiple principal detached buildings may be constructed on a single lot. . No other variances, exceptions or reductions to the City adopted dimensional standards or uses are approved with this CUP/PD application. 3. As one amenity for the PD, provide a plaza space with benches, planters, tables and trees and a more direct walkway from the plaza space to the multi-family portion of the development. At least one other amenity shall be provided in accordance with the requirements ofthe City Council at the recommendation ofthe Commission. 4. Set aside at least 10% of the gross area ofthe multi-family portion ofthe development as open space, as proposed. Provide at least 100 square-feet of private useable open space for each dwelling unit. Present, at the public hearing, calculations and/or drawings that explain how the required usable private open space requirement will be met for each multi-family unit. 5. All building construction within Westborough Square Subdivision shall substantially comply with the elevations on file with the Planning and Zoning Department, prepared by McKibben & Cooper Architects. Construction materials used on the structure should be approved by City of Meridian Building Department and in accordance with the most recently adopted City of Meridian Building Code. 6. All parking stalls and drive aisle dimensions shall meet city ordinances, with parking spaces being at least 9 feet by 19 feet adjacent to 25-foot wide drive aisles. 7. No signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a separate sign pennit in compliance with the sign ordinance. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in this report and Section 11-14 of the City Zoning and Development Ordinance. 8. No building or other structure shall be erected, moved, added to or structurally altered, nor shall any building structure or land be established or change in use on this site without first obtaining a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) from the Meridian Planning and Zoning Department (MCC 11-19-1). 9. All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the fonn of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping, AZ-OS-O18, PP-OS-O20, cUP-OS-O27 Westborough Square REVISED,AZ.PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7, 2005 Page 25 landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. Any temporary occupancy will not exceed 60 days to complete the required improvements. 10. If construction has not begun within 18 months of City Council approval, a new conditional use pennit must be obtained prior to the start of development. II. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed in such a manner as to eliminate glare and illumination of the adjoining roadways and properties, in accordance with City Ordinance Section I I -13-4.C. 12. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all construction confonns to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 13. Comply with the conditions and comments of all City Departments, and other agencies. 14. Applicant's (or successor's) failure to comply with any of the terms of approval of the conditional use pennit shall be cause for revocation of the conditional use pennit. Other A2encv/Deoartment Comments & Condifu:!!!! MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing shall be installed, drainage lots constructed, road base shall be approved by the Ada County Highway District, and the Pinal Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 3. All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 4. 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. 5. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC 12-2-4. 6. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 7. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. AZ-OS,OI8. PP-OS-O20, CUP-O5-027 We'thorough Square REVISED,AZ,PP,CUP,doe Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 26 8. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 9. All grading ofthe site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 10. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. II. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 12. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans shall 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. Iflateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 13. Please submit all updated groundwater/soils monitoring data to the Public Works Department for review. Any drainage areas (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water is retained only during 100-year storm events, and for a period of time not to exceed 24 hours. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3: 1. 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 should pay close attention to the results of field studies determining the groundwater, soil type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases. 14. Two-hundred-fifty and One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and pennit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. 15. Applicant's engineer shall 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. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT I. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 2. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 W' outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. AZ-O5-018. PP-O5-020. CUP-O5-on Westborough Square REVI5ED,AZ.PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 27 b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec. d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant location. e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. g. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. h. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements ofthe IFC Section 509.5. 3. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 4. Provide a 20' wide Fire Lane for all internal roadways all roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D1O3.6 Signs. 5. 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 should be separated by no less than Yz the diagonal measurement of the full development. 6. Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one and two story construction. 7. Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 8. The proposed multi-family lot has an estimated 40 units. The Meridian Fire Department has experienced 2612 responses in the year 2004. According to a report completed by Fire & Emergency Services Consulting Group our requests for service are projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and 3800 by the year 2010. 9. The 6 office/commercial lots lot will have an unknown transient population and will have an unknown impact on Meridian Fire Department call volumes. The Meridian Fire Department has experienced 2612 responses in the year 2004. According to a report completed by Fire & Emergency Services Consulting Group our requests for service are projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and 3800 by the year 2010. 10. The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer II. Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 12. Provide a Knoxbox entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. AZ-O5-018. 1'1'-05-020. CUP.05-027 Westborough Square REV1SEDAZ,PP,CUI'.doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7,2005 Page 28 13. The first digit ofthe Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level. 14. The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan including a pylon/monument sign at the required intersection(s). 15. The Fire Dept. has concerns about the ability to address the project and have the addresses visible from the street which the project is addressed off of. Please contact Joe Silva (888- 1234) to address this concern prior to the public hearing. 16. All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 17. The proposed location of the Meridian Fire Station meets the general requirements of the Master Site Plan for fire station locations. The site appears to have met the minimum lot dimensions required for a satellite fire station location. 18. All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. 19. Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 20. Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from 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 ill). 21. All R-2 occupancies with 6 or more units or with 3 floors shall be required to be fire sprinklered. This may be required for the subject 4-plexes. 22. There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all fire department connections. MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT 1. Minimum acreage standard for City Park: The City is willing to develop and maintain Community Parks, Urban Parks, and Neighborhood Parks. Neighborhood Parks will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The City may choose to maintain neighborhood parks at an acreage of seven acres or larger. It will be the responsibility of private homeowner AZ-O5-018, PP.OS-O20, CUP-O5-027 WeSlbOl'Ougb Sq"'lTe REVISED,AZ,PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 7, 2005 Page 29 groups or associations to develop and maintain the smaller mini parks and some Neighborhood Parks in their subdivision that the City does not maintain. 2. Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance (MCC 12-13-13-6) will be followed. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY I. Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. RECOMMENDATION The Commission recommends that the Citv annex and zone the 17.02 acres to R-4 as reQuested; that the 5.53 acres proposed for R-8 zoning be annexed and zoned to R-4; that the office portion of the 6.62 acres requested for R-15 zoning be zoned L-O; and. that the remaininll portion of the 6.62 acres proposed for multi-family uses be zoned R-15. The Commission further recommends that the Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit applications be approved with the conditions listed herein. AZ.O5-018, PP.O5-0l0, CliP-OS-Oll Westborough Square REVISED,AZ,I'P,Cl!P,doc Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 85 of 117 (Recess.) Item 18: Item 19: Item 20: Public Hearing: AZ 05-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.18 acres to R-4, R-8 & R-15 zones for Westborough Square Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - SEC of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard: Public Hearing: PP 05-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 7 building lots and 1 common lot on 5.39 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Westborough Square Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - SEC of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard: Public Hearing: CUP 05-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development approval of a mixed-use development consisting of 10 multi-family buildings and 6 office buildings with multiple buildings on a single lot and a waiver of the street frontage requirement in a proposed R- 15 zone for Westborough Square Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - SEC of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard: Zaremba: Okay. We will reconvene this meeting and let the record show that all Commissioners are present again. And I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05- 018, request for annexation and zoning of 29.18 acres to R-4, R-8, and R-15 zones for Westborough Square Subdivision. Also open the Public Hearing PP 05-020, request for preliminary plat approval for seven building lots and one common lot on 5.39 acres in a proposed R-15 zone. And also open Public Hearing CUP 05-027, request for a Conditional Use Permit planned development approval for a mixed-use development consisting of ten multi-family buildings and six office buildings with multiple buildings on a single lot and a waiver of the street frontage requirements in a proposed R-15 zone for Westborough Square Subdivision. All of these by JLJ Enterprises, Incorporated, southeast corner of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard and we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I did a pretty good job of explaining this project. You touched on some of my points, so I'll try to skim over and touch on some of the major issues that we have, but first just a little more background to help. This project is annexation of everything shown here in bold. It's about -- approximately 29 acres, 17 acres of that is proposed for the R-4 zone. There is an existing charter school on that site. The 5.53 acres to the west are -- have five single- family homes. The applicant has proposed R-8 zoning for those one-acre parcels. And, then, the remaining approximately six acres is right on the southeast corner of Jericho and Chinden and that's proposed for R-15. Now, this is also being platted and the Conditional Use Permit is on this rectangular shaped property on the corner, so just to kind of clarify that for you. Some of the boundaries are different. In 2004 the City Council did agree to provide sewer service to the five residential lots in Westborough, again, these five one acre lots as they were outside of the city limits. Now, the lots don't -- the homes and lots don't show up on this aerial, as it is older, but the lots are there on the aerial. In exchange for sewer service, the owner agreed to sell the city a well site, , ." Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 86 of 117 which is right in this location right on Locust Grove in that location and to request annexation once they were contiguous. Arcadia Subdivision, which I think is on the next aerial, Arcadia Subdivision was recently approved. Saguaro Canyon is in this location. And they are contiguous and have -- and the applicant has request annexation. To the north of the site are one-acre homes in Eagle. To the south single family homes zoned RUT. This was the Reserve Subdivision. That one was withdrawn. That's still in the county as RUT. Again, a church to the east. There is a church to the east here on the corner of Locust Grove and Chinden and Tustin Subdivision is also a recent one that was approved by the city on the corner of Ustick. Or, excuse me, McMillan and Locust Grove recently. The applicant is proposing to re-subdivide, again, the 5.39 acre parcel, Lot 6, Block 1, of Westborough into eight new lots for Westborough Square. There are six single story office buildings on the west side, so approximately here is the line separating the office uses from the ten proposed four-plex buildings on the eastern approximately half of that site. The remaining lot is a driveway lot, which I will get to now. The applicant is proposing one 30-foot wide -- and it does vary a little bit. It's 30 feet here and it does go down to 25 and 20 feet from some areas, from Jericho Road, to serve those seven lots - build-able lots within the subdivision. There is no other access proposed. There is some -- a mix of garage and open-air parking spaces for the units for the residents of the multi-family units. Here is an elevation of the multi-family. This is a four-plex. A lot different than what we are used to seeing for a four-plex building. They all are two bedrooms, just different floor plan for each of the units. The gross density of the subdivision is 7.4 dwelling units per acre. However, if you exclude the office, basically half of the building, then, the density almost doubles to 14.4 dwelling units per acre. Here is an elevation for the proposed office -- or one of the office buildings in a conceptual elevation for that. Because the applicant did not submit applications that complied with the Comprehensive Plan, as noted in the staff report. Staff did recommend that the city annex and zone the 17 -acre school site to R-4 as requested and that the 5.53 acres containing the one-acre homes be zoned to R-4. And I will stop there for just a second. It was requested for R-8 zoning. Staff did not think that that's appropriate and did not represent the land use on those lots being one acre and the redevelopment potential of those to even subdivide those -- the area of those lots take up a good portion. They are pretty centrally located on those one-acre lots. They probably aren't going to redevelop anyway, so the R-4 zone more closely represents what's actually on site. And, finally, that the 6.62 acres requested for the R- 15 zoning be denied and that be zoned R-8 as well. Since the recommendation went over to the Commission I have spoken with the applicant and about recommending approval of R-15 zone with the stipulation that no office uses go on there, that they only be residential uses on the R-15. I'm agreeable to that if the applicant does agree to construct only residential dwellings on that, excuse me, six acres or so. However, the plat will probably need to be revised, a new site plan will need to be submitted, a new landscape plan with new lot lines and landscape buffers surrounding the uses and the amenities that are appropriate to the size of the development. So, there are some conditions with that that if that's the direction that this board chooses to go, we will need to be modified and staff has not included any conditions of approval right now with this application. The recommendation was just to approve these modified zoning and not the plat or the CUP. Also, the final remaining issue, if you will, is the sewer service Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 87 of 117 there and it is noted in the staff report. I would like Mike to explain to you a little bit more of what's going on there and if you have any questions of me, I am available. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- excuse me. This is -- this development is being proposed to sewer through a private lift station that they -- they installed that we reviewed for the five building lots on the left-hand side of Westborough and for the 31 lots in Arcadia. These five building lots here and this one. And for this little area right here that -- we are not planners, but at the time they told us it would be commercial. So, Public Works reviewed and accepted that lift station for that amount of influent to come into it. Now, with this being proposed as R-15 multi-family residential four-plexes, apartments, that's a significant increase in the amount of influent that is being generated and the lift station doesn't appear to be able to meet that -- that demand. They have had some talks with our department and we said that they could build maybe a couple of them, put on a flow meter at the lift station to get a true representation of the sewage that's being generated and see how much they could handle. And the other issue of that is it's a -- the sewer is being pulled right now to Saguaro Canyon, the North Slough trunk line is coming through that right as we speak. So, it has gravity means to it soon, but not yet. They don't have the sewer capability to sewage -- to sewer these multi-family lots. That's the sewer problem. I think I have made myself clear. I will stand for questions. Zaremba: When the new sewer gets there, then, they will no longer have any need for any lift station; is that correct? Cole: That is correct, sir. It's -- it has been planned to -- the routing of the sewer through this Saguaro and the Arcadia Subdivision has had the pipes upsized and was planned to sewer all of that. So, as the gravity gets there, it -- they will have capacity then, just not with the lift station they have there now. Zaremba: Is there a target on how long it will be or is that developer driven or -- Cole: I -- I had conversations with Ben Thomas and he has final -- he is trying -- going to try to final plat Saguaro Canyon three and four soon. He was asking for routing of sewer mains. So, I know that it's -- it's close. He's wanting to final plat and as soon as he final plats it, Arcadia is just waiting for it to get there, so they can go. But, then, again, it is on the -- on the developer's timeline, just because they final platted it, doesn't mean they would be building it. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I would ask staff a question. Just through staff comment alone I'm sensing that we are actually not really going to be ready to do much of any decision on this issue Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 88 of 117 tonight. I think there is -- there is items already that need to be addressed and -- before I'd even want to consider sending this onto City Council. So, I'm a little bit concerned. I want to see the project go forward, so I guess my point is I think we should be considering a continuation of this, as opposed to -- I'm just sitting here trying to walk through this thing when there are so many items that are still somewhat up in the air. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, if I may, if you would allow the applicant his time, anyways, and, then, based on that you can -- it's going to have to be remanded back is how I envision it, anyways, for either conditions of approval or you send it on with the recommendation for this zoning or however you want to go. There isn't a plat approved with this application. There is not a CUP approved. So, depending on how you want to go with the zoning, that will kind of lead us down the next path and I envision it coming back again, but I don't know if necessarily in a continued manner and it will be something more to the effect that you're remanding it back to me to come up with findings and conditions for whatever you want to see, I guess, is how I envision that coming forward. So, anyway, that's my two cents. I agree there is no conditions to modify, so the motion is a little bit different than the standard motion, but that's -- Moe: Well, I have no problem listening to the applicant. I would have one other question for-- Zaremba: I think that's appropriate, because they may be able to clarify some things. Moe: Absolutely. Zaremba: When we do -- if the end result is that we continue this for staff to write a report, the conditions -- we will have things that we can suggest go into those conditions. Moe: Absolutely. The only one other question I would have for you, Craig, I know we talked about as far as the 17 acres going R-4 and you talked about the 6.62 acres going into R-15. Are you still looking to do the 5.53 that R-8 to go into an R-4 as well? Hood: I would stand with the original recommendation that those be zoned R-4, not as R-8 as requested, but to more, again, closely represent the current land use of single- family homes on one acre. The applicant and I have not discussed that zone, but-- Moe: That was my question. Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Let's have the applicant if we may. Jewett: Jim Jewett, 516 South Capital in Boise. I was going to go one way tonight, but because of your comments I'll kind of go first -- that my planner here maybe can clear up some questions to get a direction. So, if you'd go to the plat, the colored one. You know, what's driving the annexation of not only this property, but the school property and the well site and the five one acre lots is an agreement we have with the city to do Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 89 of 117 so. That agreement was entered into just over a year ago and with Arcadia being approved, that keyed that agreement going to the next stage was the annexation. That agreement, unfortunately, was not specific on zoning, so it was, I guess, left to us. After staff made -- had its report, I had a talk with staff about what -- the appropriate way to go and as far as the school zoning, the one acre lot zoning, whatever the city desired there. There was some discussion about the R-8 being on the one acre lots for some specific reason, but it wasn't from us, so R-4, R-8, that really is immaterial. What's important to us is that the five acres be zoned something that's usable for us and R-8 is not going to be usable for us. The R-15 -- what drove us to this layout initially was just like the application you had prior, when that new resolution came in that allowed three acres of L-Q when you have frontage on an arterial or a collector street, that's what laid out this three acres of this commercial here or L-Q was based on that. Then, as we got into it, we found out that we -- that we really didn't fall under that resolution, so, then, we went to the R-15 with a conditional use for the commercial, since we had already gone down the road of starting commercial and so the apartments was just really what was left over of our 5.6 acre lot. So, with the staff support, not finding that they could support the L-Q or the commercial use or the L-Q use within the Comp Plan, I talked to staff about, you know, zoning the whole thing R-15 if you left the L-Q out, but, ultimately, it's this body and the City Council that needs to decide what they feel is appropriate on Chinden. So, I felt it was in our best interest to come forward tonight, present why we thought L-Q would be appropriate or those uses would be appropriate and get the input back from the -- from the P&Z and if the P&Z feels strongly that it's not appropriate, that we can then -- we would be willing to withdraw the conditional use and just let it go the R-15. I think it's important tonight that we try to get a recommendation on that zoning and we can let the plat -- the conditional use either go away or be tabled, let us modify it, but for the sake of the other properties that are already in the sewer area that need to go into the city and would need to continue forward, we have finished the transaction with the city on the well lot, I think it transferred to them last month, and it's outside the city limits right now and that's included in this application. So, I believe that the zoning needs to move forward and if -- and a recommendation of zoning for this one needs to move forward. If there is a difference and it needs to be modified on this application on the plat, we can let it be tabled, let us revise it to whatever your recommendations are, and let it come back through. But I would encourage that the zoning be allowed to move forward and that we discuss what appropriate zoning should be here tonight. Now, if that's the direction you'd like to go, then, Phil could come up and discuss the buildings, discussion that commercial, how we laid it out, and why we laid it out and how we feel it meets the Comp Plan and, then, we can discuss that. So, with that I would stand for questions on how you would like to see me go forward. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Hood: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 90 of 117 Hood: I would just like to clarify, if that's the direction that you choose to go and basically we are moving on just the annexation request, that, too, I think if there is not a plat and a CU, it should at least be sent back so I can have some development agreement conditions. I mean we never sent anything to the City Council with at least some conditions for a DA saying that, you know, okay, you have got R-15, however, it's limited to this or that or you need to come back in and hours of operation, those types of things in a DA. I can't remember ever just seeing a recommendation for, you know, zoning and you're done, so -- unless there is a plat or CU that can have those types of conditions on them, if that's the direction you're going, we are just moving forward with annexation and zoning, that still needs to be remanded, or at least tell me what condition do you want to see this at the City Council, if you're comfortable with that. I mean that's the third option, I guess, is -- Zaremba: Just a personal opinion. My instinct would be that we generally try and keep these three subjects together when they are together. City Council has responded to us that they prefer that as well. I personally -- and I think the city is satisfied that you are -- you have initiated the process to be annexed and so you are complying with the original agreement. I don't think there is going to be any discussion that says if we hold all three of these together, you are in default of some agreement that requires you to annex it. You have made that application and it's moving through the process, so I don't see that becoming a problem. We only get one opportunity at this, so we do need to get it right to everybody's satisfaction, so my instinct would be to keep the three of them together, remand -- probably continue all them for some rules and I don't think the city's ever going to say you weren't trying to live up to your part of the bargain, so, personally, I didn't -- if anybody else agrees with me. Newton-Huckabay: I do. Rohm: About a hundred percent. Zaremba: That's good. Let's see. Do we have -- well, let just ask. On the five point I think 39 acres, really, is the focus of the discussion, are you amenable to making that all four-plexes and having no office there or -- discuss your -- I know you said that you wanted to plan in the first place, but do you have other options that would be a second choice? Jewett: Well, like I stated earlier, R-8 zoning, we don't consider that to be acceptable, but R-15 all residential we would deem that acceptable. Our desire to move forward on that, I'll just be real clear on that, I mean the county -- we have had -- with this piece of property we have gone through quite a bit with this piece of property and just, really, we are left with this 5.6 acres and the county has deemed it their responsibility to tell us it's commercial property and it's worth one point some million dollars and they tax us accordingly. And there is -- and we just sit there and pay taxes. So, our desire is to do with the property what is the highest and best, so that we can dispose of it and move on and just quit paying taxes on it. We have sewer available to it now. We have annexation to the city available to it now. We would like to have a use that allows it to Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 91 of 117 move forward and if that's all residential in an R-15, that would be acceptable. We thought this is what the city all wanted us to do when we made the agreement with them, but I think they all envisioned a new comp plan being in place before now that would take in the north Meridian and it just doesn't exist right now and I think that's our problem more than anything is we have a comp plan that's really not adjusted for what's happening up there along Chinden Boulevard. So, you know, I'd like to have the input of this body on what they -- what they envision that should look like and if they don't think that the L-Q is appropriate, that all residential and apartments or townhomes is more appropriate, then, I'd gladly take that recommendation and go back and modify the preliminary plat and bring it back. So, we really do need that direction and if you do want to hear the planner make a presentation on this application and why we did it and what's in it, he can gladly do that, but if the staff really feels strongly that it's not going to be supportive, then, I don't think that either of our time is spent well at this hour going over something that's not going to be acceptable. If the body really feels that -- that R- 15 with an all residential that -- me and staff talked about late today, is what would be the only thing that would be acceptable -- or the highest acceptable use in there, then, give us that direction now and, then, when we are out, kick behind us, and we can all go home. But I -- I really think there is merit to this one, but if it's really fighting an uphill battle, let it get known now and so we can make the modifications and I would -- I don't disagree with the idea that all the applications should stay together and I do appreciate your comments and I -- and so I would just look for your direction. Zaremba: I'm not sure, to me, that it would be a waste of time to hear your case for your present configuration. I don't know about others, but the one reason that I would consider listening to it is that within a planned development you do have in the ordinance the 20 percent use exception and if I calculate the whole 29.18 acres into this application, you would be under that; am I correct? And that would allow you to do something like six acres as a use exception. Hood: And I'm not sure how that's -- it's -- requested for R-15 is, actually, 6.62, so it's -- we are splitting hairs a little bit. I mean it could be modified to get to the 20 percent, I guess, and it's real close. If that's the direction -- it could be as a use exception, you know, we do have that in a PO, like you said. That's not how it was submitted, so-- Zaremba: Let me ask the other Commissioners. Is it open for discussion or -- Borup: I think it might be. I do have a couple of questions that probably -- some of it may be answered if we did that, but some of my curiosity -- apparently the assessor's office doesn't take into consideration Comp Plan designations? Jewett: No. Borup: That seems rather strange to me. Jewett: I could go on for a long time on that issue. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 92 of 117 Borup: Well, I was just clarifying that. Newton-Huckabay: Let's not. Jewett: Let's not. Borup: And, then, you had mentioned the Comp Plan -- I mean the Comp Plan is not that old. I mean 2002 doesn't seem that long ago to me, anyway, and didn't you have control of the property -- or you were looking at the property at that time? Jewett: Yeah. We had control of it. Borup: Did you do any input into the Comp Plan on designation at the time the Comp Plan was being changed? Jewett: Yes. And if you remember -- Borup: No, I don't. That's why I'm asking that. Jewett: Do you remember when the Wardle plan for north -- was going through? Borup: Yes. Jewett: And the Comp Plan kept being delayed and delayed, waiting for the Wardle plan, finally, the City Council said we have to get a new Comp Plan in place, so they said we are going to move forward, understanding that we are going to have an overlay for north Meridian. Well, then, Wardle withdrew his plan and, then, that's where it's been ever since. Borup: But you didn't -- you didn't put any input at any of the public hearings about -- Jewett: I assumed the Wardle plan was going to -- in the Wardle plan we did. Borup: Okay. Jewett: But not -- we all assumed the Wardle plan was going to change the-- Borup: Okay. And, then, I didn't see where ACHD really said anything -- had any concerns or anything about this. Jewett: ACHD has none. Borup: I noticed that. So, even the -- you know, staff had some concerns on access to this site, if there is, you know, going to be -- especially much commercial type traffic, because there would be a signal there or anything else, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 93 of 117 Jewett: We have a new signal at Locust Grove. Borup: Right. Jewett: It slows the traffic -- Borup: But that doesn't get you in and out of Jericho, other than -- other than, yeah, the stopping. Jewett: It's just that the people are going a little slower to get in and out of Jericho. And, you know, the commercial would be less intrusive than the residential when it comes to traffic, because it would spread out more evenly through the day, then, residential would be more concentrated at 8:00 to 5:00. So, that's one reason why we always had planned some commercial there, because it would be less intrusive. Borup: But in my mind I mean some office there seems appropriate to me. You know, good access to it. I don't know if that's -- the only traffic that's slowed down is the westbound -- eastbound traffic from the previous light has enough time to spread out, that -- unless there is a red light there. I don't know. I don't see where that's -- and that's the -- and it's the eastbound that's going to be the most conflict. But it still seems like probably an appropriate place to have some office. Jewett: And I do believe -- I don't drive Chinden all the time, but they have widened that to a turn lane the whole length of that mile. There is a turn lane the whole mile. Borup: In the center. Jewett: Center turn lane. So, people who want to make a left-hand turn into Jericho now can get out of traffic. They don't have to be stopping traffic going westbound. Zaremba: Well -- and somewhere in the future it will be a five lane -- Jewett: Right. Zaremba: -- the only discussion is whether it's a five lane plus bike path, but it would be a five lane. Is our assessment that we would like to hear the planner's presentation? Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question first? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I think I might have missed something during your presentation. This -- why are we not -- this is what I think I missed. On the Comp Plan this is medium density residential and we don't want it to be medium density residential anymore? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 94 of 117 Hood: No. The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit. The R-15 zone is a bump up -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Hood: -- he's asking for a bump up to R-15 and, then, on top of that they are asking for a Conditional Use Permit to do nonresidential uses in a residential zone. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. Hood: The reason that it didn't jive with the Comp Plan was not only that, but also there is a neighborhood center less than a quarter mile away and depending on the scope -- you know, this amount of office will -- you will end up with a Paramount. Basically, the city will have to initiate a Comp Plan amendment to remove the neighborhood center at the half-mile, because all of the commercials are going to be taken up here or a good portion of it, anyways. At least that's -- so that's why R-15 didn't seem to be appropriate. Jewett: And we did have an answer to that and that's one reason why Phil can talk about that neighborhood center and how it affected -- or how we would affect it. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. If I can just finish my thought. Can you back up to the one that has the bigger area? Okay. This seems -- this here seems very awkward development of this. Like the neighborhood center is right there, right? Okay. So, we have that neighborhood center there. We have Arcadia. And, then, if I remember right, this has been withdrawn, but I suspect it will come through again and ACHD had access here, access here, of course, going into Jericho and, then, you put 350 people living right in here -- it's just really busy. Zaremba: So, are you suggesting that it should be split between residential and commercial? Newton-Huckabay: I'm not sure what I'm suggesting. I would think that it should be just residential myself, but -- either that or -- I mean because like when this connects through and comes up through Saguaro Canyon and Arcadia and through here, you know -- and I don't know how long this is, but it just seems like we are -- at some point somebody's going to go, boy, that was just a really bad idea when all that comes together. And that -- I guess that's why I'm -- that's why I'm thinking -- and, you know, I mean I -- just there is a lot of stuff that's in process all around in here and I don't think developing this as R-15 -- and this is the neighborhood center -- Borup: Well, I don't consider -- that's not a neighborhood center, is it? It's just office space. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. No. The neighborhood center is right here. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 95 of 117 Borup: Oh, there. I'm sorry. I thought you meant -- Zaremba: It isn't on this property. It's west of this property. Newton-Huckabay: He's kind of a whole cacophony of things going on all in this area that I think it's going to make this -- like I said, somebody's just going to go -- that really wasn't thought through very well. End of comment. Borup: Quick question on traffic count. Residential is, what, ten trips a day. Which is more, residential or office? Hood: For a single family residential it's ten. Borup: Yeah. Hood: For multi-family it, actually, goes down per unit. Borup: And, then, what's office? Hood: I don't remember what was said about office. Borup: Anybody know? Okay. I just wondered if it was more or less. You're talking about the -- about the traffic concerns and I -- I didn't know if office would be less traffic than apartments or more. Newton-Huckabay: I would think that it would be less -- Jewett: Let me try to answer some of those questions real quickly. That's on the quarter mile. Secondly, I'll give you what I know about -- Reserve was withdrawn because they wanted to connect this street to Locust Grove and the developer does not wish to do that. So, by doing that you have an alternative out that -- with Saguaro Canyon, you had it connecting, so you have an alternative out this way, but you also have an alternative out this way. So, it's kind of a two way street. As far as the neighborhood center, I want to point out that you have existing commercial uses here that is going to prohibit the neighborhood center from going right on the half mile, because of the existing uses of Zamzows and the -- day care or school there. So -- and I'll let the planner talk about that. What's happened in here is a result of lots of different things and I can't say that it's the best of the long-term planning, but they are what they are, and we had -- I had to deal with them as a homeowner, the city has to deal with them as a city and the P&Z as the P&Z on what to do now. And that's what I'm asking for is your direction. Staff has made a recommendation. We will have Phil go ahead and make a presentation on the -- what our uses are and why we thought they were appropriate and, then, go from there. Zaremba: I say let's do that. Please. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 96 of 117 Holt: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, my name is Phil Holt with the Land Group, 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. Basically, as we were going through the planning process and in reading through the -- the Comp Plan, we grabbed onto some language, basically, that made us think that this would be an appropriate use for this corner. And all kind of steps -- or deals with the neighborhood center concept at that location. I'm just going to read some of that language that was in our application and report that we submitted. Basically, considering the development application to apply to the neighborhood center concept, with our project location contiguous to a future mixed use community neighborhood center, professional office on the comer of Chinden and Jericho would fit well with more intense commercial uses across Jericho to the west. So, basically, what we were saying was with the more intensive commercial use at the center of the neighborhood center, if you can visualize that graphic in the Comp Plan of what that neighborhood center looks like, there is basically concentric circles radiating out from that central core of more high intensive commercial use and we are envisioning this as one step out from that and this professional office not being an intensive commercial use, it's, basically, a transition to the higher density residential on an outer ring and, then, ultimately two lower density residential. That's, really, how we came to this concept, as well as the property being located on Highway 20-26, but huge traffic challenges and at the same family residential up against that really made some sense to us. Lower traffic counts generated from office, as opposed to the higher density residential. A couple of other items. I'll just kind of paraphrase a couple of the Chapter 7, Goal One, Objective B, a couple of the action items that are out of the Comp Plan. It says locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to compliment with adjoining residential areas. Our site is located on an arterial, Highway 20-26, and a collector, Jericho, providing for professional office only, not retail or more high intensive commercial uses. We will provide for a more compatible use to single family lots to the south. We are kind of hearing that also that the single family residences to the south would most like the lower intensive commercial use better, as opposed to the higher densities eventually. Basically for lower traffic counts, no two story developments looking down on -- those types of things. Hours of operation. So, just it's really made sense just to provide some commercial on this comer for those -- those reasons. Zaremba: Questions from the Commissioners? Okay. Let's proceed with the Public Hearing and we will have some discussion after awhile. The name is only a last name, but McClure I believe it is. Please come forward. McClure: My name is Lynn McClure, I live at 6055 Jericho Road. It's the property right next to Arcadia. A five-acre lot. And I was really happy to hear what you had to say, because that was our main concern, because all these little places coming in and the major traffic going down that really narrow small road and, then, they wanted to add these ten four-plexes, adding approximately 40 families, possibly two cars apiece, another 80 cars coming out on one little street right there at the entrance of Jericho, making it very difficult to get out in the mornings. I'm not real fond of businesses, but if we stuck with the smaller ones, we would have less traffic and I think it would be easier Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 97 of 117 to get out, because right now I wait five to ten minutes to get out to go to work, so I really am not too found of the idea of multiple homes going in on that property. What I'd really like to see is another, you know, one-acre lot or half acre lot. That's what we would love to see, because that would fit with what's across the street, what's all around us. But that's not going to happen. I really would like to see something less imposing, something that brings less traffic onto that little tiny road and it is a small small road. It has never been properly -- how do I want to say it? It was a dirt road when we moved there and they threw some chip seal over it and, then, about six months after this started and we started complaining, they came in and threw some tar over it. So, they have never gone back and made the road wider or put in a good bed in there or anything, to handle all this traffic that's going to start coming in and now we have two schools, that's going to bring traffic and classes, parents, so you have got a lot of traffic that's going to be coming into that area already. And, then, to add ten more units, it would just become impossible for us to get in and out and I do -- my daughter has horses and we bring our trailer through there and I know that it isn't your problem, but since they started development, people must think there is a race track down there, because from what used to be a very quiet neighborhood, we now have racing motorcycles and cars and it's going to get worse, it's not going to get better. That would be our suggestion. And I know that Mrs. Martin, who lives next to us on a five acre lot also does not want to see four-plexes go in there. Thank you. Borup: Ma'am, I have a couple questions. Go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: Mrs. McClure, I was just -- I haven't been down Jericho recently. It's still a dead end now-- McClure: No. Newton-Huckabay: -- or even though it's connected into Arcadia already. McClure: Because Arcadia already has the cut out roads, the dirt roads. They are not really -- actually, they are not even really roads, they are just -- they have gone in there and indicated how the roads are going to go through and the motorcycles and the four wheelers and -- they are just flying through there. Newton-Huckabay: But that connection has already been made? McClure: Yeah. They have already started. Newton-Huckabay: All right. Thank you. Borup: Now, you -- you had asked a question about what was going to happen to this road. Part of their application is they would put sidewalks down -- McClure: One side. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 98 of 117 Borup: -- one side and have 24 feet of paving. So, you understood that? McClure: Well, the road is paved, if you want to call it that. Like I said -- Borup: Well, it's going to have to be paved to ACHD standards, so I -- I don't know that it's probably to that standard or not, but the new road would be to highway district standards. McClure: They are not going to be able to put a light out there and they have put a light on Locust Grove, yes, and what that has done is it backs up. But, then, you know, they were saying it only backs one direction. If you have ever been out there at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, it backs both directions, very tightly, going down that road. And Meridian -- the Meridian light and -- Linder? Is that the next one? That one is really bad at backing up. I have seen it back up from Linder almost all the way to Locust Grove at some point. Okay. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. She was the only one signed up, but there is an opportunity for anybody else to speak if they wish to. If not, we will have the applicant back again. Jewett: Okay. I have a chance to go over a couple other issues I haven't had a chance to go over yet and one was the sewer. We did -- to make a long story short, the city originally agreed to allow us to serve these properties, these five one acre lots with a temporary lift station -- grinder lift station on each house and pumping over and dropping into the line at Locust Grove. DEO said, no, go build a lift station here, so we can turn around and move it over to here to turn around and do away with it in all a one year time frame. So, we go spend thousands of dollars, we built a lift station here, which arcadia is simply going to move over to hear for the summer and we just finished it. So, we have put a lift station in here and the lift station was sized to handle Arcadia, our five one acre lots, and this five acre lot as a commercial lot. You know, once we got going through this process, it was, obvious, that we weren't going to get all commercial on it, so the use has increased. The residential use is more than the commercial when it goes to sewer. And so we have written a letter to the city, as well as to the Arcadia developer saying that he can't relocate the lift station. He can have his hundred percent capacity and we will take whatever is remaining, and we will wait until the gravity sewer line connects before we will develop beyond that point. That's when an agreement will be made. We have issued that to the city. We are confident that this will be in long before we get that close. So, as far as the sewer, we are more than agreeable to what we have agreed with the city and what we have issued in a letter to both the city and the Arcadia developer. As far as Jericho, with the construction of these five one acre lots we were required to curb, sidewalk, and asphalt one half of the road. So, with that we paved the road from here to here and put sidewalk all the way to here and a curb just to here. We had an agreement with ACHD that when we developed this, that we would widen the road again from here to here and put curb. And that's a condition imposed by ACHD. With the construction of the sewer line that went down this side of the road to Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 99 of 117 here, we have the rebuilt -- the road on that side. So, it has brand new pavement from here all the way to here. The only part it doesn't have re-pavement is from here to here and as we build the other curb, we will construct that other half. We have widened the road from its original construction, I believe to -- if I remember right, our original condition it was a half plus 12 of a 36 back. So, it's much wider than 24 feet. I don't know the exact width of it, but I know it's much wider than 24 people, so we had to widening it with the construction of these. The -- I want to talk about the neighborhood center concept with the Comp Plan, which the comp plan is this right here. The neighborhood center that's being talked about is right here on the map. Can all the P&Z see that now? Now, if you look at the schedules here, you can see what's going on here. I have talked about the Zamzows and the other usage here, the Holy Apostles church right down here. The idea behind the neighborhood center is that at the half mile line you would have a road that would radiate out. That is not doable in this situation, because of this entrance. If there was ever going to be a road that would line up, it would have to line up here. ITD is not going to say, no, you can have another one here and another one here. They want to limit it to half miles. Well, since this one was existing and they put this road into the north, the most likely spot for a center point for radiating neighborhood center would be here. So, by shifting -- and the Comp Plan does allow this line to shift. It's not set in gold. So, if you shifted that point to there, it encompasses our property. So, one of the things we looked at when we looked at this is that, you know, that area can float to cover our property and with that, then, we are at the -- not only adjacent to that neighborhood center, but actually within that neighborhood center and which makes are use appropriate. And I also want to point out, as you look down Eagle Road, both north and south of Chinden, that you have professional office tucked in next to residential subdivisions all up and down from Ustick -- actually, all the way to Fairview now, you have these kind of uses that dump onto Eagle Road, which has a more traffic -- more traffic count than Chinden does. Another example of apartments and mixed use of office and even higher uses is over at the HP Research Center right off of Discovery Way, which has the Renaissance apartments right across the street from the Burger King, which also shares an entrance with Hobble Creek. And, yes, they have widened Chinden there, they put a stop light there, but those are improvements that have happened. So, these are uses that are in the general vicinity that are very common to this. The fault on this property is that Jericho existed and it existed before we started -- we owned the property. It was there. So, Jericho is going to be an established entrance onto Chinden, it's going to be established for some time and as we grow and continue to grow, its use is going to grow. But, hopefully, other accesses to other peripherals also happen, giving more people alternatives. We don't think -- we don't think that residential on that 5.6 acres is the highest and best use. I don't know if in your packet you were distributed the agreement that we made with the city when we serviced this sewer outside the city limits. But that agreement speaks that this five acres as a commercial lot. It speaks of it in two -- two times in that agreement that this future five acres would be a commercial lot and the discussions with City Council when we made that agreement was you don't want that to be residential and I said, no, but we were -- you know, we, obviously, thought it would be two or three years before sewer came. We didn't think it would be just over a year. You know, it's just -- that's what our growth is doing to us. So, you know, again, what Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 100 of 117 I'm asking for you tonight, if you like the application that's in front of you, you can make a motion and go forward from there. If there is something you want to see different, then, I would ask that you convey that to me, so that we can go back and bring something back to you that would be acceptable, because what we want to do is have something that's acceptable to the city and it's acceptable to us, that we can just move forward. So, with that, I would stand for questions and comments and -- Borup: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Jewett -- Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Has there been any -- any discussion with ACHO as far as an acceleration lane or anything? Jewett: I looked at the staff report and -- Borup: I didn't see anything, that's why I was wondering if there was any verbal discussion. Jewett: They have a trip per day and I guess the trip per day did not warrant an acceleration lane, but I understand that Chinden -- well, lTD. Borup: Right. That's true. Jewett: And when I did the original subdivision, we did negotiate with ITO and give them additional right of way based on their future widening. So, I don't know what impact or what ACHO can comment to ITO and sometimes they make recommendations. In this case they didn't. I'm assuming when additional development happens out here and this becomes more of the central focus road, that might be something that comes in. So, again, we have granted -- and you can see it here, we have granted this additional right of way here. Notice how it's wider? We have granted that right of way, so if one needs to be built, it's there. Borup: Well, I'm beginning to feel -- I mean that the plan that you submitted is probably appropriate and sounds like the neighbors would rather have some limited office than -- in there, rather than all multi-family. But it sounds like the traffic is a concern and, you know, how are these people going to get out -- out of Jericho. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup? Borup: Yes. Hood: Could I just -- Borup: Please. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 101 of 117 Hood: -- do my little pitch? I guess I didn't realize that we were going to get this detailed in the specifics, so I would just like to touch on that -- that one point of how people are going to get out of not only this development, but the folks that are here this evening and Arcadia. If this -- and Jim touched on it. This is at the half mile. This is a third of a mile, this is a third of a mile, and what you can't see off the screen is Meridian Road, which is at the third of a mile. This is the half-mile. Jewett: This is the half-mile. Hood: No. This is the half-mile here. Because when this -- when ITO -- when this develops, ITO is going to approve an access point here and it's going to align and this is where we are going to get a signal. This is where the people are going to come. They are going to come in here and it's going to connect up with Jericho Road, all this traffic is going to want to go to the signal, because that's how you can get on the highway. Jericho here I envision not having a lot of people that are going to try to get out there, because it's not signalized and it won't be, because Locust Grove is signalized and it doesn't meet the warrants for the offsets for a signal. Borup: You're saying future development of the property to the west will solve that? Hood: Exactly. And if you approve -- and I'm not saying that no office may not be appropriate here, maybe there is -- it's the scale more than anything. That's my personal opinion. Now, I think that might plug us for the Comp Plan and the neighborhood center in this location and I -- that's why I disagree with Jim a little bit, that I think -- I mean there is a lot of ground here and the commercial can go, you know, in this -- and it can float. I mean, he's right, it's not an exact location here, but this is the main entrance to the subdivision and if the neighborhood center went somewhere in here and that develops with residential or multi-family and, then, that all kind of feeds out to there, that's -- again, I'll leave that alone. That's my plug for the Comp Plan and how that envisions, but that's how I, in the future, envision people getting out onto the state highway and entering this square mile in that general location anyways. Jewett: And I would agree with staff one hundred percent, with the exception of his dimensions. This is the Holy Apostle Church, which is one 40-acre parcel. This is Za mzows , which is a 40-acre parcel. Maybe I'm wrong. Hood: I guess regardless -- Jewett: Maybe I'm wrong. Hood: Regardless, this is -- this is where the access is going to be. Jewett: And I would agree with that. Hood: And it's approximately a half-mile, closer than what this is and this won't be signalized. So, that was my only point. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 102 of 117 Jewett: I don't argue the quarter mile. This is the quarter mile, because that's what we owned originally. We owned this 40 acres, which is the quarter the mile. So, that would be the half mile and I could be off on where the other parcels are, but I agree with you, this would be the only logical center location of a neighbor center and what I'm saying is that radiating circle would be in this area, which would cover the front or the westerly half of our property. Zaremba: And along that same line, with the neighborhood centers being flexible, they are also flexible in width. The state highway there, Chinden, some day, as Caldwell develops more and Star and Canyon County in general develops, is going to be a major corridor and not too distant future will look like Eagle looks now. There isn't any reason why Meridian shouldn't be capitalizing on the potential commercial -- the same as along Eagle. Instead of kicking at the traffic, let's figure out a way to get them to stop and spend money. This area, you're near where a neighborhood center is going to be. I can be swayed by our argument that this is maybe even on the end of an expanded neighbor center and the office use makes a good transition. I -- my take is that I would like to see probably staff's recommendations for acceptance of what you have proposed. I could be convinced to go for that. Anybody else? Moe: I concur. Newton-Huckabay: You know what we could do, we could -- Zaremba: Yeah. Because he hasn't -- he hasn't established those and I think we do need to have him have some time to think about that before we make a recommendation for the City Council. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I would rather see -- Zaremba: But I see several ways to justify it. One, just by the fact that Chinden is there, but also, you know, the 20 percent use exception, if you consider the whole almost 30 acres as one development and I'll have to say it just makes sense to me to do it. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'd rather see something like they have now, than a whole development of four-plexes right there. Moe: Exactly. Newton-Huckabay: I'd rather see it all in office, but I would -- Zaremba: What I'm looking for is a consensus of the recommendation of staff. My assumption is we are going to continue this for whatever we want staff to do. Rohm: I think you stated it very well, Mr. Chairman -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 103 of 117 Zaremba: Provide conditions for approval as proposed. Rohm: Yes. And I'd just expand on that just briefly, because I want to move on here. I think the applicants make some good points and three things that I have written down here that I think are appropriate is we understand that you would like to have the property use match the taxing body. Number one. Number two, the R-15 is the least desirable of the adjoining neighbors, but you don't want -- you don't want the large four- plex development. And, then, the community center adjustment, sliding to the east, seems to accommodate both. You don't have the huge number of four-plexes, you get some commercial, and you keep your community center intact. So, that seems -- Zaremba: I think the one suggestion I might make -- and staff can review this -- is that the office portion actually be zoned L-Q and I think we have had some discussion, but it's easier for the eventual builders to get their loans if the zone under your property matches, as opposed to having to explain our use exception and, you know, the portion that is proposed to be residential, if that's R-15, that's fine, but I would actually make the office L-Q. Just on the surface of it, is that supportable by staff? Hood: Definitely. When you see the use exceptions, it's tough to look at the zoning map and you see R-4 and you remember that it's office and so zoning it appropriate to the land use definitely helps. Anyway, so just if the applicant knows that at least by City Council we will need to have a legal description -- a revised legal description for the -- that matches the plat for L-Q -- L-Q property. Zaremba So, we are thinking R-4 for the school, R-4 for the five existing residents, R-15 for where the multi-family is proposed and L-Q for where the -- Moe: Commercial. Zaremba: -- commercial is. And, otherwise, the project looks pretty similar to what you propose. Any other conditions that we want to suggest while we are on the subject? Rohm: I think that's a pretty good list right there. Mae: I guess I would just request -- when do you anticipate that that could all be put together? Hood: I guess that question's more for me, since we are looking at this application. I have a plat and a CUP, so -- and the Public Works Department has also looked at it. I hate to give myself just a few days, so maybe the 16th is the next hearing and I know that agenda is pretty full. I think the 7th -- does July 7th work on your calendar? So, I think within that time frame if -- if I don't need anything from the applicant, I can proceed and that gives me -- if a fire comes up and I have to put that out, that that gives me enough time to get -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 104 of 117 Zaremba: Just in the process, I wouldn't say we are really delaying anything, because the can't act until the sewer gets to them anyhow. So, we aren't necessarily delaying something. They can start tomorrow. Jewett: Actually, the sewer is there today. Zaremba: Well, some amount of sewer is there. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue Public Hearing AZ 05-018, Public Hearing PP 05-020 and Public Hearing -- Moe: Do we not have to close the public hearing first? Zaremba: No. We are continuing it. Moe: Oh, I'm sorry. Rohm: And Public Hearing CUP 05-027 to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of July 7th, 2005. Moe: Second. Rohm: End of motion. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 21: Public Hearing: AZ 05-022 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.3 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Touchmark Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley - south of East Franklin Road and east of South Eagle Road: Zaremba: All right. We are already -- I will open the hearing for Public Hearing AZ 05- 022, request for annexation and zoning of 1.3 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Touchmark Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, south of East Franklin Road and east of South Eagle Road and we will have the staff comments. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is an annexation and zoning of 1.39 acres from RUT to limited office district, near the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin. It's, actually, east of Eagle Road in CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET DATE July 7,2005 ITEM # 9 PROJECT NUMBER AZ 05-018 PROJECT NAME Westborough Square Subdivision NAME (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL -.....-....-.. --- AZ 05-018 MERIDIAN PLANNING &. ZONING MEETING June 2, 2005 APPLICANT JLJ Enterprises, Inc. ITEM NO. 18 REQUEST Public Hearing: Annexation and Zoning of 29.18 acres to R-4. R-8 & R-15 zones for Westborough Square Subdivision - SEC of Jericho Road & Chinden Blvd. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See attached Staff Comments CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: No Comment Lö~V\\lZ; ~\\\ tt J\J~1\~Œ ~/V CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUilDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: No Comment IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: ~ Contacted: \, Emailed: Date: J-f"' l---o( Staff Initials: Phoneft 3;: 1..A.£ØI1.(L ~ Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ¡ MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY HALL (208) 888-4433 - Fax 887-4813 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird Christille Donnell ShaUll Wardle Charles M. Roulltree IDAHO '~. ~, y ~ ) PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 - Fax 898-9551 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 888-4433 STAFF REPORT: P&Z Hearing Date: June 2,2005 Transmittal Date: May 27,2005 To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission 'R E' -"1 E' IV' 1:;1 "I-) - , J ._~~ t./ J ..I:.L, .,," MAY 2 7 2005 From: Craig Hood, Associate City Planner (!¡I Michael Cole, Development Services éóordinatorfYI G Re: Westborough Square Subdivision City Of Merid5.&.E, City Clerk Office . Annexation and Zoning of 29.18 Acres from RUT and R6 (Ada County) to R-4 (Low Density Residential) (17.02 Acres), R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (5.53 Acres), and R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) (6.62 Acres), by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. (File No. AZ-O5-018) . Preliminary Plat Approval of Seven (7) Buildable Lots and One (1) Other/Common Lot on 5.39 Acres in a Proposed R-15 Zone, by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. (File No. PP-O5-020) . Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Planned Development Consisting of Forty (40) Multi-Family Dwelling Units and Six (6) Professional Office Buildings with Reduced Lot Frontages and Multiple Buildings on a Single Lot on 5.39 Acres in a Proposed R-15 Zone, by JLl Enterprises, Inc. (File No. CUP-O5-027) We have reviewed the above referenced submittals and offer the following comments regarding the subject applications: APPLICATIONS SUMMARY The applicant, JLJ Enterprises, Inc, has requested Annexation and Zoning (AZ) of 29.18 acres. Of the 29.18 acres, 17.02 acres are proposed for R-4 zoning, 5.53 acres are proposed for R-8 zoning, and 5.53 acres are proposed for R-15 zoning. The annexation application includes all seven (7) existing lots platted with Westborough Subdivision in 2003. The applicant has also applied for Preliminary Plat (PP) and Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development (CUP/PD) approval of six (6) office lots and one (1) multi-family lot on 5.39 acres in the proposed R-15 zone. The applicant is proposing to re-subdivide the 5.39 acre Lot 6, Block I, Westborough Subdivision into eight (8) new lots for Westborough Square Subdivision. (No new development is proposed on the remaining six (6) lots platted with Westborough Subdivision). In 2004, the AZ-O5-0 18. PP-O5-020. CUP-O5.027 Westborough Square,AZ,PP.CUP Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: June 2,2005 Page 2 City Council agreed to provide sanitary sewer service to the five (5) residential lots in Westborough Subdivision even though they are outside of the city limits. In exchange for sewer service the owner agreed to sell the City a well site and request annexation of these properties once they became contiguous to the city limits. This property is contiguous to the city limits through the recently approved Arcadia Subdivision. There are currently five single-family homes, a charter school, a well site and other outbuildings on the site. The site is located on the south side of Chinden Boulevard, on the west side of Locust Grove Road and on the east side of Jericho Road. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area and the current City of Area hnpact and is currently zoned RUT (single- family homes and well site) and R6 (charter school) in Ada County. The applicant is proposing a 30-foot wide (varies) driveway from Jericho Road to serve the seven buildable lots within the subdivision. This driveway is proposed as Lot 2, Block 1. Lot 2 is 30-feet wide and tenninates at the western boundary of Lot 8, the multi-family lot. Lots 4, 5 and 6 do not abut the driveway proposed on Lot 2 and would need to be provided with a cross-access easement. Other than the driveway to Jericho Road, no other access to Jericho Road or Chinden Boulevard is proposed. On the seven proposed buildable lots, the applicant is proposing to construct six single-story office buildings and ten four-plexes. The four-plex buildings are two-stories high and each dwelling unit has 2 bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to construct a mix of garages and open-air parking stalls for the multi-family units. The gross density of the proposed development is 7.4 dwelling units per acre. If the office lots are excluded from the density calculation, the density ofthe multi-family area on Lot 8 is 14.4 dwelling units per acre. A CUPIPD application is required because both apartments and office uses require CUP approval in the requested R-15 zone. In addition, the applicant has requested reduced lot frontages and multiple buildings on a single lot as part of the subject PD. MCC 11-9-1 requires each lot to have a minimum of 50 feet of street frontage; Lots 7 and 8 do not have any frontage on a public street. The proposed PD amenities include: sidewalks; a plaza space with benches, planters, tables and trees at the comer of Chinden and Jericho; 2 acres oflandscaped area; and a streetscape concept with on-street parking, bulb outs, street trees, etc. See Annexation and Zoning Analysis below for further analysis of the proposed amenities and open space. Staff recommends that the Citv annex and zone the 17.02 acres to R-4 as reQuested and that the 5.53 acres proposed for R-8 zoning be denied and that this land also be zoned R-4. Statffurther recommends that the 6.62 acres requested for R-15 zonim! be denied and that the 6.62 acres proposed for R-15 be zoned R-8. LOCATION The subject site is located on the southeast comer of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard, in Section 30, Township 4 North, Range I East. AZ-O5-018, PP-O5-020, CUP-O5-027 Westborough Squarc,AZ,PP,CUP.doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: June 2,2005 Page 3 SURROUNDING PROPERTIES North: Single-family homes, zoned R-I (Eagle). South: Single-family home, zoned RUT (Ada County). East: Church, zoned RUT (Ada County). West: Single-family homes, zoned RUT (Ada County). Recently, the City has reviewed and approved annexation/zoning and development applications for Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, Arcadia Subdivision, and Tustin Subdivision in this square mile. All of these developments were single-family projects. This is the first mixed use project the City has reviewed in this area. OWNER OF RECORD The property owners of record are Stetson Properties, LP, GoldCreek Developers, LLC, Meridian Joint School District, David Liebennan, Shaun and Dawn Luchini, Waldorf & Sons, Brett Stigile, and Reed and Amber Kofoed. Jim Jewett, Tim Eck and Linda Clark have provided notarized consent for JLJ Enterprises, rnc, to submit the subject applications. The other five property owners that own the single-family residential lots have provided consent via the consent to annexation agreement. ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS Because the analysis below applies both to the proposed use and the proposed zoning districts, staffhas combined the analysis of use with the annexation and zoning amendment findings. According to Meridian City Code (MCC) II-I5-II, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both the Planning & Zoning Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed zoning amendment in tenns 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-II 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; All 29 acres of the subject property are designated for medium density residential use on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The purpose of this designation is "to allow smaller lots for residential purposes within city limits. Uses may include single- family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre." (Page 93, Chapter VII, City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan). The applicant is requesting three different zoning designations for four different land uses on the subject property. The R-4 zone (Low Density) is requested for the 17-acre school site. Staff is supportive of this proposed R-4 zoning designation as schools are principally pennitted in the requested zone. AZ-05-0J 8. 1'1'-05-020. cup.OS-O27 Westborough Square,AZ,PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: June 2, 2005 Page 4 The R-8 zone (Medium Density) is requested for the 5, one-acre single-family lots in Westborough Subdivision. This designation is not consistent with the existing land use. The R-8 zone is geared towards developments containing between 4 and 8 dwelling units per acre and the subject density is approximately I dwelling unit per acre. Because the existing single-family homes are new construction and will not likely redevelop, staff recommends that the City consider an R-4 zoning designation for these properties. Staff believes that the City should consider an R-4 zoning district for this area, as the R-4 zone would more accurately correspond to the use of the land as I-acre residential lots. The R-15 zone (Medium High Density) is requested for the six office lots and I multi- family lot (6.62 acres). The R-15 district allows for medium-high density single-family attached and multi-family dwellings at densities not exceeding 15 dwelling units per acre (MCC 11-7-2.E). The Comprehensive Plan does allow a one step increase or decrease in residential areas without amending the Comprehensive Plan. However, the applicant is concurrently requesting CUP approval to construct office buildings within the proposed residential zone (CUP-05-027). The applicant states in the submittal letter that the neighborhood center shown between Locust Grove Road and Meridian Road should "float" to the east because there is not a collector roadway intersecting Chinden at the Yz mile and the existing uses do not lend themselves to the neighborhood center concept (see Applicant's letter). Although there is not currently a public street south of Chinden at the Yz mile there is a public street north, in Spyglass Subdivision. When the properties to the south of Spyglass Subdivision develop/redevelop, staff believes that a public collector road could be constructed at the Yz mile (and possibly signalized when warrants are met). Because Jericho Road is so close to Locust Grove Road and Jericho creates a 3-legged intersection with Chinden, staff does not believe it would ever be signalized as warrants would likely never be met and the offset to Locust Grove Road does not meet ITD's policy for signal location. Staff recognizes that the location of the neighborhood center designation on the Future Land Use Map is conceptual. However, even if the neighborhood center were to float to this property, staff does not believe that the project complies with several key concepts of a mixed-use neighborhood center. Neighborhood Centers are anticipated to have: short blocks, less than 300 feet; interconnected circulation that is convenient for automobiles, pedestrians, and transit; a variety of housing choices; housing that is arranged in a radiating pattern of lessening densities; transition between different housing types or densities at alleys; gridded street patterns; and, public open space. Further, the purpose of a neighborhood center is to create a centralized, pedestrian oriented, identifiable and day- to-day service oriented focal point for the neighborhood. The center should offer an internal circulation system that connects with adjacent neighborhoods or regional pathways, and they are anticipated to serve as public transit locations for park and ride lots, bus stops, and other alternative modes of transportation (see Pages 95-97, Chapter VII of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan). Staff does not believe that the subject project provides any of the above listed concepts. The project does have some internal sidewalks and does propose one sidewalk to the adjacent school site to the south, but there is no other connectivity, vehicular or AZ-OS-OI8, PP.OS-O20, cup.os-on Westborough Square,AZ,PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: June 2,2005 Page 5 pedestrian, proposed. Further, except along the entry driveway, no connectivity is proposed between the multi-family dwellings and the office portion of the development. The lack of accessibility from the residential portion of the development to the proposed patio/plaza amenity in the office portion of the development (on the comer of Chinden and Jericho) turns what could have been an active amenity into a passive one that few would use. In addition to the amenity not being accessible to the residences within the project, this amenity has not been offered for use by the public either. A second amenity is required for CUP/PD applications and even if the patio in the office portion of the development counts as one, this project is lacking a second amenity. A future bus stop, park and ride area or any other provision for supporting alternative mode(s) of transportation has also been omitted from the submitted design. Although the Comprehensive Plan is a "guide" when determining land uses, staff believes that this is not an instance to disregard the residential comprehensive plan designation. If the non-residential aspect of the neighborhood center is floated away from the 'l2 mile, significant negative impacts are imposed on adjacent properties in the mile between Locust Grove Road and Meridian Road. If non-residential uses are approved in this area, staff believes that the entire frontage of Chinden Boulevard may develop with non-residential uses. Also, this property does not have the characteristics that the other properties near the mid-mile do that make the commercial aspect of a neighborhood center desirable. The existing and anticipated densities (rooftops) that are within walking distance (1/4 mile) of this site are minimal. There are five large one-acre lots to the south, a school to the southeast, a church directly to the east, and the properties to the west have yet to develop. The only pedestrians served by the proposed development are the 5 homes to the south and the multi-family units proposed within the development, which are not being provided with adequate access to the offices. Due to the fact that the applicant is proposing a non-residential use in an area planned for residential uses without applying for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. staff believes that a step UP in zoning density to R-15 for office uses is not justified. Staff finds that the requested zoning to R-15 and concUtTent development applications do not comply with a majority of the policies, goals, objectives, and concepts contained within the Comprehensive Plan. Staff realizes that a traditional medium density residential subdivision may not be the best use of this land, but an office complex of this magnitude is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the applicant transition the densities, from the existing single-family homes on I acre to the south into a multi-family development similar to the one proposed along Chinden Boulevard. A mix of housing types including, single-family, duplexes, townhouses and apartments may be used. By transitioning from large lots to smaller, several Comprehensive Plan policies are met, the impact on existing residences is lessened, and the future neighborhood center to the west is preserved. Staff also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application (staff analysis is in italics below policy): AZ-O5-018, PP.OS-O20. CUP-O5-027 Westborough Squarc,AZ,pr.CUP,duc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: June 2,2005 Page 6 . "Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services" (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action items I and 4) On May 13, 2005, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with representatives of key service providers to this property. In that meeting no deficiencies of public services to serve this property were raised. . "Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach" from the National Center for Bicycling and Walking in all land use decisions." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #3) This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkway facilities in new construction and reconstruction projects, in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient. . "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 2) The applicant is only proposing one access point into the developmentfrom Jericho Road, a local street. No access to Chinden Boulevard (SH 20-26) is proposed. Staff is supportive of the proposed access to the property. . "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 4) The applicant is proposing to construct a 35-foot wide landscape berm along Chinden Boulevard and a 20-foot wide landscape berm along Jericho Road. Staff is supportive of these widths, as long as the entire buffer lies outside the ultimate right- of-way, and the sidewalk is located outside of the 35-foot wide buffer for Chinden Boulevard (or increase buffer to 401eet). . "Require new residential development to meet development standards regarding landscaping, sign age, fences and walls, etc." (Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective C, Action item 4) The applicant has not depicted appropriate landscape buffers between the multi- family dwellings and the school site to the south (20-feet required), between the multi- family dwellings and the church to the east (20-feet required), or between the proposed office and the multi-family dwellings (20-feet required). . "Require useable open space to be incorporated into new residential subdivision plats." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action item 3) AZ-O5-0I8. PP.O5.020. CUP.O5-027 Weslborough Square,AZ,PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: June 2, 2005 Page 7 The applicant has not provided a calculation for open space, which is defined as land area exclusive of street right-of-way and street buffers, except for right-of-way specifically dedicated for landscaping within a subdivision. Open space may be active or passive in its intended use, and must be accessible by all residents of the subdivision (MCC 12-1316-3). The applicant does state that 37% of the multi- familyloJJìce area (approximately 2 acres) is planned for landscaping. Although the percentage of the site proposed as green is fairly high, the useable open space appears to be below the 10% (gross) open space requirement. . "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action item 6) The applicant is proposing a sidewalk connection to the south; no connection to the east is proposed. A sidewalk along Chinden Boulevard is also not shown on the proposed plans. . "Locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to complement with adjoining residential areas." (Chapter VII, Goal I, Obj. B, #5) The subject property has frontage on Chinden Boulevard, an arterial roadway. Staff does not believe that the proposed commercial office complements the adjoining residential area (see details in the analysis above). . "Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares." (Chapter VII, Goal V, Objective A, Action item 14) There are currently no permanent major open space or park facilities near this site. There is a charter school and associated open spaces with the school use. This higher-density development is located adjacent to Chinden Boulevard, a major thoroughfare. . "Actively involve Joint School District No.2 in subdivision site selection with developer before plat processing (pre-platting schedule meetings)." (Chapter VI, Goal VI, Objective B, Action item 1) A 17-acre school site is included within the subject annexation application. . "Consider development applications that apply the neighborhood center concept" (Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective B, Action item 1) The subject applications do not apply the neighborhood center concept outlined on pages 95 -97 of the Comprehensive Plan. AZ-OS-OI8. PP-OS.O20, CUP-OS-O27 Wcstborough $quarc,AZ,PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: June 2,2005 Page 8 Contrary to most of the analysis provided by staff above, the applicant has listed some Comprehensive Plan policies that support the annexation and proposed use of the property (see Applicant's letter dated February 15, 2005). For the reasons listed above. staff finds that the requested zoninfl desiflnations. as well as the desifln of the proposed plat and conditional use permit. are not in fleneral conformance with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. NOTE: Within the 2004 agreement that allowed this property to hookup to the City's sewer system before annexation, the 6 acres on the corner proposed for office and multi- family residential in the R-15 zone are referred to as a "5-acre future commercial lot". This language should not be considered as approval for commercial uses in this location as the agreement did not approve any zoning or land uses for the subject property. The subject submittals (AZ, PP and CUP) should be evaluated based on their merits and their relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the adjacent land uses. B. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future; If the concurrent preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications are approved, staff does not believe that the applicant intends to rezone the property in the future. c. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning -for example, a residential area turning into a commercial area by means of conditional use permits; Staff finds that approximately 6 acres of the area included in the proposed zoning amendment is intended to be developed in a fashion not allowed (principally permitted) under the new zoning. Both the proposed office uses and multi-family uses require conditional use permits in the requested R-15 zone (medium high density). The five existing single-family homes in Westborough Subdivision are allowed in both the requested R-8 zone, and staff recommended R-4 zone, without a CUP. The 17-acre school site is allowed in the requested R-4 zone without a CUP. However, if the subject R-15 zoning is approved for the southeast comer of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard. staff finds that a residential area may turn into a commercial area bv means of a conditional use permit as the applicant has concurrently submitted a conditional use permit for offices in the proposed residential district (CUP-05-027). D. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area; There have been no recent street improvements in the area. Chinden Boulevard is not in the current STIP and Locust Grove Road is not currently scheduled within ACHD's Five Year Work Program or Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for roadway widening. AZ-O5-018. PP-OS.O20, CUP-O5-027 Westborough Square,AZ.PP,C\!P.doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: June 2, 2005 Page 9 Permanent sanitary sewer to this proposed development shall be provided via the North Slough Trunk, which is currently under construction, however laterals that will provide service will be through future phases of the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision. Staff finds that a substantial portion of the land to the south has been developed, or approved for development. However, none of the developments previously approved for this area are similar to the uses proposed with the subject applications. The City has not approved any multi-family and/or office uses in this area. Arcadia Subdivision, Tustin Subdivision and Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, all contained single-family dwelling units. 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 elevations for the proposed office and multi-family dwellings. Staff is supportive of the elevations for the multi-family units as they could be harmonious with the existing and intended character of the area. However, if the offices and multi-family homes are constructed, operated and maintained as proposed, the essential area of this rural area will change substantially. The existing character of the area will, and is, currently changing. However, this development will set the tone for how the rest of the area along Chinden develops, or does not develop. Staff finds that if the northwest portion of this site (proposed R-15) is not developed as proposed, the proposed R-4 and R-8 zoning and subsequent uses will be harmonious and appropriate to the intended character of the vicinity. If this development is approved as proposed. staff finds that it will significantly change not only the existing character of the area. but will also change the intended character of the vicinity. as noted on the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan. F. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; Due to other existing and proposed uses near the site, staff does not anticipate that the proposed zoning/uses will be physically hazardous to future or existing uses or neighbors in the area. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on staff analysis, comments from other agencies, and public testimony to determine whether the proposed use will be disturbing or hazardous to the existing neighboring uses and future expected uses in this vicinity. G. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services; AZ-O5-018, PP-O5-020, CUP-O5-027 Westborough SquareAZ,PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: June 2, 2005 Page 10 Sewer service for this development is being proposed via the existing "private lift station" constructed for the five previously approved lots to the south. When public works reviewed and accepted the plans for this lift station, staff was approving it for only the five lots that it were proposed at the time, Arcadia to the west, and the five-acre commercial property to the north. Engineering staff has reservations on the ability of this lift-station to service the extra volume of sewage generated by the four-plexes that are now a part of this development. In preliminary discussions the applicant and a staff engineer at the City of Meridian have come to an agreement that half ofthis proposed development could be allowed with the stipulation that a flow meter be installed to measure the true amount of sewage being "lifted". This would give accurate infonnation on influent flows to allow for a more infonned opinion on the sewerabilty of the remainder of the project. Water mains are readily accessible to this site and service is being proposed via an extension of water mains located in Jericho and Locust Grove. The applicant will be required to construct water mains to and through this proposed development. Coordinate size and routing with Public Works. The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay park and highway impact fees as well as construct on-site storm water drainage facilities. This item was approved at the staff level at ACHD on May 10, 2005. The applicant is being required to construct Jericho Road as one half of a 40 foot street section. Please review any additional comments that may be sent ITom ACHD between the print deadline and the hearing. On May 13, 2005, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with representatives of key service providers to this property. Several comments were received ITom multiple departments. The detailed comments and conditions ITom the Fire Department, Police Department, and other agencies/departments are at the end of this report. Based on the comments received ITom other 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. 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 be financing the extension of sewer, water, public street inITastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the future residents and tenants will be fire, police, school facilities and services. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and this development will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. AZ-05-018, 1'1'-05-020. CUP-05-027 W."borough Squar<,AZ,PI',CUP.doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: June 2,2005 Page II 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; The most recent traffic count for Chinden Boulevard, taken on January 30, 2003, was 15,30I ADT, west of Meridian Road. ACHD estimates that this development will generate 529 additional vehicle trips per day. Staff recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of a development on this site; however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Further, staff does not anticipate that annexation and development in accordance with Current city code and the Comprehensive Plan will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. However, staff finds that if all of this property were to develop as proposed, the subsequent uses proposed in the R-15 zone may be detrimental to people, property and/or the general welfare of the area because it would not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. J. Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; The applicant is proposing to construct one entrance into the site from Jericho Road. The proposed entrance is located approximately 285 feet south of Chinden Boulevard, and meets ACHD's requirements for location. If the proposed access and internal driveways are approved and constructed in accordance with ACHD and the City's policies, staff does not believe that the development will create interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets. K. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance; and Staff finds that the proposed annexation and zoning should not result in the loss or damage of any natural or scenic features, as long as any existing trees are protected/mitigated. Any existing trees larger than 4" caliper that are removed shall be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance (MCC 12-13-13). Staff is not aware of any natural or scenic feature(s) that would be lost, damaged or destroyed by allowing this site to be annexed, zoned and developed. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to detennine 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. 592,11~17~1992)? In accordance with the findings listed above. staff finds that the annexation/zoning of this property as proposed would not be in the best interest of tpe City. Staff recomrnend~ the City annex and zone the 17.02 acres to R-4 as requested: that the 5.53 acres proposed AZ-O5-018, PP-O5-020. CUP.O5-027 Wcstborough Squarc,AZ,PP.CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: June 2, 2005 Page 12 for R-8 zoning that contain simzle-familv homes on one-acre lots also be zoned to R-4; and that the 6.62 acres proposed for R-15 zoning be zoned to R-8. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the findings listed above. staff believes that the above recommended zones are appropriate for this property and zoning the properties as amended would be in the best interest of the City. PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS Meridian City Code (MCC) 12-3-3 1.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance of a proposed subdivision, the Commission/Council shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the following: A. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan; Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "A". B. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development; Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "G". C. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program; Because the developer will be required to install sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, staff finds that a development on this property will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. D. The public rmandal capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting services. Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments submitted from the public service providers (i.e. police, fire, ACHD, etc.) to detennine this finding. (See finding "G" under Annexation and Zoning Analysis, 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 finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's attention; no hazardous natural features have been identified on the site. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff finds the Commission and Council should rely on any public testimony that may be presented to detennine whether the proposed use may cause health, safety or environmental problems that staff is unaware of. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP/PD) ANALYSIS AZ-O5-018, PP-O5-020. CUP-O5-027 Westbo,ough Squ"'c,AZ,PP,CUP.doc D. E. F. Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: June 2,2005 Page 13 The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use in tenus of the following and may approve a conditional use pennit 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 relief ITom the standard street ITontage requirement and to construct multiple structures on a single lot. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested uses 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. 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; Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "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 of the same area; Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "E". That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity; Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "E" and "F" 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 & Zoning Analysis "G" and "H", the Other Agency/Department Comments and Conditions at the end of this report, and any comments that may be submitted to the City Clerk regarding this project. 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; AZ-O5-018. PP-O5-020. CUP-O5-027 W.'lborough Square,AZ,PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: June 2,2005 Page 14 Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "H". G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "1". H. That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "J". I. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "K". Other Aeencv/Department Comments & Conditions MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing shall be installed, drainage lots constructed, road base shall be approved by the Ada County Highway District, and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 3. All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 4. 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. 5. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC 12-2-4. 6. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. AZ-05-018. 1'1'-05-020. CUP-05.027 Westborough Squarc,AZ,PP.CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: June 2,2005 Page 15 7. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 8. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Anny Corps of Engineers. 9. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 10. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. II. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 12. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from 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. 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 per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans shall 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't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 14. Please submit all updated groundwater/soils monitoring data to the Public Works Department for review. Any drainage areas (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water is retained only during 1O0-year storm events, and for a period of time not to exceed 24 hours. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3: 1. 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 should pay close attention to the results of field studies determining the groundwater, soil type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases. 15. Two-hundred-fifty and One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. 16. Applicant's engineer shall 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. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least I-foot above. AZ-O5-0l8, PP-O5-020, CUP-O5.027 Wcstborough Square,AZ,PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: June 2, 2005 Page 16 MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 2. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 12" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec. d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant location. e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers when spacing permits. f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. g. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. h. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. 3. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 4. Provide a 20' wide Fire Lane for all internal roadways all roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 5. 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 should be separated by no less than Y2 the diagonal measurement of the full development. 6. Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one and two story construction. 7. Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 8. The proposed multi-family lot has an estimated 40 units. The Meridian Fire Department has experienced 2612 responses in the year 2004. According to a report completed by Fire & Emergency Services Consulting Group our requests for service are projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and 3800 by the year 2010. 9. The 6 office/commercial lots lot will have an unknown transient population and will have an unknown impact on Meridian Fire Department call volumes. The Meridian Fire Department has experienced 2612 responses in the year 2004. According to a report completed by Fire & Emergency Services Consulting Group our requests for service are projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and 3800 by the year 20 I O. 10. The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and AZ.O5.018. PP.OS-O20, cUP-OS-O27 WesIi:,orough Square,AZ,PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: June 2, 2005 Page 17 efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. installation is to be borne by the developer This cost of this II. Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 12. Provide a Knoxbox entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 13. The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall colTespond to the floor level. 14. The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan including a pylon/monument sign at the required intersection(s). 15. The Fire Dept. has concerns about the ability to address the project and have the addresses visible from the street which the project is addressed off of. Please contact Joe Silva (888- 1234) to address this concern prior to the public hearing. 16. All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 17. The proposed location of the Meridian Fire Station meets the general requirements of the Master Site Plan for fire station locations. The site appears to have met the minimum lot dimensions required for a satellite fire station location. 18. All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. 19. Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 20. Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from 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). 21. All R-2 occupancies with 6 or more units or with 3 floors shall be required to be fire sprinklered. This may be required for the subject 4-plexes. 22. There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all fire department connections. AZ-OS.O18, PP.O5-020. CUP-Oj-on We<Ioo'ough Squarc.AZ,PP,CUP,doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: June 2,2005 Page 18 MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT I. Minimum acreage standard for City Park: The City is willing to develop and maintain Community Parks, Urban Parks, and Neighborhood Parks. Neighborhood Parks will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The City may choose to maintain neighborhood parks at an acreage of seven acres or larger. It will be the responsibility of private homeowner groups or associations to develop and maintain the smaller mini parks and some Neighborhood Parks in their subdivision that the City does not maintain. 2. Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance (MCC 12-13-13-6) will be followed. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY 1. Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends that the City annex and zone the 17.02 acres to R-4 as requested; that the 5.53 acres proposed for R -8 zoning be annexed and zoned to R -4; and that the 6.62 acres requested for R-15 zoning be annexed and zoned to R-8. AZ-O5-01S. PP-O5-020. CUP-Q5-027 Westborough Square.AZ,PP,CUP,doe '.. .#';;~i t, '- ~ tk~ut1Ø ~ John S. Franden, President Sherry R. Huber, 1st Vice President David Bivens, 2nd Vice President Carol A. McKee, Commissioner Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner May 11, 2005 RECEIVED MAY 11 2005 To: Jim Jewett 516 South Capitol Boulevard Boise Idaho 83702 City oJ Meridian CIty e'erk Office Subject: Westborough Square Subdivision SEC Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard 7 -Lot Subdivision On May 10, 2005, the Ada County Highway District acted on your application for the above referenced project. The attached report lists site-specific requirements, conditions ot approval and street improvements, which are required. It you have any questions, please feel tree to contact me at 208-387-6177. Sincerely, /2 off') ,I " ..--- {. /litú!~ . .Ù ~ Andrea N. Tuning \ / Planner III J Right-ot-way & Development Services, Planning Divisio CC: Project file, Construction Services, Utilities City of Meridian The Land Group 462 East Shore Drive Eagle Idaho 83616 Ada County Highway District. 3775 Adams Street. Garden Oty, ID . 83714 . PH 208-387-6100 . FX 345-7650. www.achd.ada.id.us ~. ", .-i' ~ Right-of-Way & Development Services .;f-i:lt..,..lt" Planning Review Division ~'- Cø~edtø ~ This application does not require Commission action and is approved at the staff level on Tuesday May 10, 2005. Tech Review for this item was held with the applicant on Friday May 6, 2005. Please refer to the attachment for request for reconsideration guidelines. Staff contact: Andrea N. Tuning, 208-387-6177- phone, 208-387-6393-fax, atunina@.achd.ada.id.us File Numbers: Westborough Square Subdivision I MPP-O5-020 I MCUP-O5-027 I MAZ-O5-018 SEC Jericho Road and State Highway 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard) Site address: Owner: Stetson Properties 6152 West Half Moon lane Eagle Idaho 83616 Applicant: Jim Jewett 516 South Capitol Boulevard Boise Idaho 83702 Representative: The land Group 462 East Shore Drive Suite 100 Eagle Idaho 83616 Application Information: The applicant has submitted an application to the City of Meridian requesting annexation, rezone, conditional use and preliminary plat approval to construct a 7-lot mixed use subdivision on 5.39-acres. The site is currently zoned RUT and R-6 and is proposed to be rezoned to R-4, R-8 and R-15. The site is proposing to consist of 6-office buildings and 10-four-plexes. The site is located on the southeast corner of Jericho Road and State Highway 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard). Acreage: 29.18-acres Current Zoning: RUT and R-6 Proposed Zoning: R-4, R-8 and R-15 Buildable lots: 7 -lots Common lots: 1-lot Vicinity Map Church i , ,.-. School I ~'" : I '----------'--""'""1 ,'" L-" . . .." '.."""""",.-----,---......,.....-,..--.".,.,--.., . , ii: 1 " 8. 2 A. Findings of Fact 1. Trip Generation: This development is estimated to generate 529 additional vehicle trips per day (0 existing) based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. 2. Impact Fees: There will be an impact fee that is assessed and due prior to issuance of a building permit. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. 3. Traffic Impact Study: A traffic impact study was not required with this application. 4. Site Information: The site is currently vacant. 5. Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area: a. North: Spyglass Subdivision b. South: Jericho Subdivision and an Elementary School c. East: Church d. West: 22.95-acres zoned RUT 6. Impacted Roadways Jericho Road: Frontage: Functional Street Classification: Traffic count: Speed limit: 406-feet Commercial Street Not Available 20 MPH State Hiahwav 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard): Frontage: 532-feet Functional Street Classification: Principal Arterial Traffic count: East of Meridian Road was 15,301 on 1-30-03 level of Service: lOS E Speed limit: 55 MPH An acceptable Level of SelVice for this segment of roadway is a LOS E based on COMPASS Planning Thresholds 7. Roadway Improvements Adjacent To and Near the Site State Highway 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard) is improved with two travel lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. Jericho Road is improved with 24-feet of pavement with a 5-foot concrete sidewalk that is detached by a drainage swale. Existing Right-of..Way State Highway 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard) has a total of 107-feet of right-of-way (52-feet from centerline). Jericho Road has a total of 50-feet of right-of-way (25-feet from centerline). 9. Existing Access to the Site This parcel does not have a delineated access point to the public transportation system. 10. Site History The District has not previously reviewed a development application on this site. 11. Capital Improvements PlanlFive Year Work Program There are no roadways, bridges or intersections within this area that are scheduled in the District's Five Year Work Program or Capital Improvements Plan. B. Findings for Consideration 1. Jericho Road Right-ot-Way District policy requires 54-feet of right-of-way on industrial/commercial roadways (Figure 72-F1 B). This right-of-way allows for the construction of a 3-lane roadway with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks. . The applicant should dedicate a total of 27-feet of right-of-way (an additional 2-feet) from the centerline of Jericho Road. Roadway Improvements District policy 7202.8 and 72-F1A, requires roadways abutting commercial developments to be constructed as a 40-foot street section with curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk within 54-feet of right-of-way. . The applicant should construct Jericho Road as one half of a 40-foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk. Driveways District policy F2-F4 (1) and 72-F4 (2), requires driveways located on commercial/industrial roadways to offset a controlled and/or uncontrolled intersection a minimum of 50-feet (measured near edge to near edge). District policy 7207.9.3 restricts commercial driveways with daily traffic volumes over 1,000 vehicles to a maximum width of 36-feet. Most commercial driveways will be constructed as curb-cut type facilities if located on local streets. Curb return type driveways with 15-foot radii will be required for driveways accessing collector and arterial roadways. Graveled driveways abutting public street$ create maintenance problems due to gravel being tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with District policy, 7207.9.1, the applicant should be required to pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. . The applicant is proposing to construct a 30-foot wide curb return type driveway that intersects Jericho Road approximately 285-feet south of State Highway20/26 (Chinden Boulevard). This driveway width and location meets District policy and should be approved with this application. 2. State Highway 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard) State Highway 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard) is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department. The applicant should contact ITD to determine if any improvements and/or additional right-of-way will be required as a part of this application. C. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Dedicate 27-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Jericho Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will not be compensated for this additional right-of-way because Jericho Road is classified as a commercial roadway and is to be brought to adopted standards by the developers of abutting properties. 3 2. 3. 4. 2. 4. 8. 9. 4 Construct Jericho Road as one half of a 40-foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk. Construct a 30-foot wide curb return type driveway that intersects Jericho Road approximately 285- feet south of State Highway 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard), as proposed. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Jericho Road and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. . Comply with requirements of ITD for State Highway 20-26 (Chinden Boulevard) frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Contact District III Traffic Engineer Dan Coonce at 334-8340. 5. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. D. Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 3. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 5. All design and construction shall be in accordance'with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 6. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 10. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 11. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. E. Conclusions of Law 1. The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of Approval are satisfied. 2. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. Attachments 5 1. 2. 3. Vicinity Map Site Plan Appeal Guidelines W I~ ~ 6 Church School L PRELIMINARY PLAT WESTBOROUGH SUBDIVISION (5.3 ACRES) LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 30 TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE I EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2005 - S-~~~~:'~~~3~- ,~-..:::----;;':--i- 'I' ~_: ------ -- -,~!~-- ------- --'=--- . /-/ .--~--_.~ ..~- -------- ~ - -.- .- -- - -. /'--/------ LEGEND: ". Ö ~;~INITYMAP I'MI..NHARY ~ ." . II .........". "'-,-""'.... ><- -.::::::..~=::::- I ØZ 0 ~O..c O-(¡ a:C/):!2 O>g aJO:a J-aJ -¡:: C/)~~ WC/) ~ . ¡" ~ ¡ J, ~ . ~ ~. ~<!! t:I¡ HÛ¡ ~¡U¡l¡~ !í:Wm .~¿I~~ b", . J~~ì'. ~~:::?O'i-,~~,""..;,~=~"'.::."",:"....~i'!~':':~~":"""nNGI-- 042% O" '" """"" SE_.- "' ,- SE"'" "' ..., su'"'-- 'Q .... 'Q" ~- "'" "',",.91>< ....... " - U.. ""SU~I£D ..".,... "".Œ. ,,">Ocr "'.... II( -"OED ""'" 0'-'" ",..,." '.""""'" -'"'" "~mg. 'OS"", ,'"",.., """ U"" """OSID ""'^" "'" '"' SEE ..-, "" "'" """"" --<rs---- -"- "".., "'~. '"' ","""SID ".". '"' -'w--- -,----.. .."""'" ""'su", """ON ".. -"-'0-- ~ .."""'" """' OR"' "" .."""" "" ,","AI<, .."""'" .."""" SE- """ND.£ so: w-, "" ~, """",os e <t OR""'" "-ow ",,"ON "'" 'AlLON ""0 AN' """'" OR" "'eE' ~ '00""'" S!RID <>G<' DEVELOPMENT DATA TOT~ """"'Tv ..". C.II""""'" "" ""'-LO" '" " "",'" "'~ HOT' 1 cDT "'.....'" 'OT> """'" """"""" CDT .". "OT ",J"'" ",""""co. """"~,,, '.S_""",. , '."/"'" """'OSID """" 7. """,""SE18""',","""""""'"""""""'""""""""""",""""",,o,,,,, ""'O""'"""""""""""""""""""",. & .... ,." ~.... '"" WÐ.9I>< ""- " """""'" -... DOW"", .."" "'." " '"' O"" """",".0<'""""""""" ""'" "'.... BE <"",,,ClEO "",,- ON,.. """".. .."" ,~., TO"'- """'" TO "'" SU""..,.,. .<". """',.,-'U.""."'""'~"""'UC.."'~,,,....."""'"'""".,,""'" ',..,"""'",~""'L.O<>"""""G"""'"""',,",",,,""- " ""ER" """ "" ".. ~- .", "'.. "-000 """" "". 'J """"""""""""""".""""""",,,, ""~"Tt"""""""'-"-' R£WEN"", =- DEVELOPMENT CONTACTS ~~-OE""-"""_'" "'-"",,",,","',,", ". , '-""'" ..."'. '~SE, ~""'".., ö Preliminary Plat 5C~E, I' . JO' ZMK ZMK MIlL -- LO a 52 N 0 f- LU (f) 3: LU ;;: LU a: ",""""p¡, "O<IE«, <N.""', :::¡r'~"';;:' ::;¡~~:C 1--. '^""" ~""" ."" '^""'- ~'"o ."" ,,"ONE, ("") m-'." """,,. ""J .,.-'oo. CONT<cr"",",,,- 'ON"CT,"'""""-~""", PP-1 Request for Appeal of Staff Decision 1. Appeal of Staff Decision: The Commission shall hear and decide appeals by an applicant of the final decision made by the ROWDS Manager when it is alleged that the ROWDS Manager did not properly apply this section 7101.6, did not consider all of the relevant facts presented, made an error of fact or law, abused discretion or acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the interpretation or enforcement of the ACHD Policy Manual. . a. Filing Fee: The Commission may, from time to time, set reasonable fees to be charged the applicant for the processing of appeals, to cover administrative costs. b. Initiation: An appeal is initiated by the filing of a written notice of appeal with the Secretary of Highway Systems, which must be filed within ten (10) working days from the date of the decision that is the subject of the appeal. The notice of appeal shall refer to the decision being appealed, identify the appellant by name, address and telephone number and state the grounds for the appeal. The grounds shall include a written summary of the provisions of the policy relevant to the appeal and/or the facts and law relied upon and shall include a written argument in support of the appeal. The Commission shall not consider a notice of appeal that does not comply with the provisions of this subsection. c. Time to Reply: The ROWDS Manager shall have ten (10) working days from the date of the filing of the notice of appeal to reply to the notice of the appeal, and may during such time meet with the appellant to discuss the matter, and may also consider and/or modify the decision that is being appealed. A copy of the reply, and any modifications to the decision being appealed will be provided to the appellant prior to the Commission hearing on the appeal. d. Notice of Hearing: Unless otherwise agreed to by the appellant, the hearing of the appeal will be noticed and scheduled on the Commission agenda at a regular meeting to be held within thirty (30) days following the delivery to the appellant of the ROWDS Manager's reply to the notice of appeal. A copy of the decision being appealed, the notice of appeal and the reply shall be delivered to the Commission at least one (1) week prior to the hearing. e. Action by Commission: Following the hearing, the Commission shall either affirm or reverse, in whole or part, or otherwise modify, amend or supplement the decision being appealed, as such action is adequately supported by the law and evidence presented at the hearing. 7 II Development Process Checklist II [gISubmit a development application to a City or to the County [gIThe City or the County will transmit the development application to ACHD [gIThe ACHD Planning Review Division will receive the development application to review [gIThe Planning Review Division will do Q!J.§ of the following: DSend a "No Review" letter to the applicant stating that there are no site specific requirements at this time. DSend a "Comply With" letter to the applicant stating that if the development is within a platted subdivision or part of a previous development application and that the site specific requirements from the previous development also appl' to this development application. [gIWrite a Staff Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating thE proposal for its conformance to District Policy. DWrite a Commission Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Policy. [8The Planning Review Division will hold a Technical Review meeting for all Staff and Commission Level reports. DFor ALL development applications, including those receiving a "No Review" or "Comply With" letter: . The applicant should submit two (2) sets of engineered plans directly to ACHD for review by the Development RevieVl Division for plan review and assessment of impact fees. (Note: if there are no site improvements required by ACHD, then architectural plans may be submitted for purposes of impact fee calculation.) . The applicant is required to get a permit from Construction Services (ACHD) for ANY work in the right-of-way, includin, but not limited to, driveway approaches, street improvements and utility cuts. DPay Impact Fees prior to issuance of building permit. Impact fees cannot be paid prior to plan review approval. DID YOU REMEMBER: Construction (Zone) 0 Driveway or Property Approach(s) . Submit a "Driveway Approach Requesr form to Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Construction (for approval by Development Services & Traffic Services). There is a one week tumaround for this approval. 0 Working in the ACHD Right.of.Way . Four business days prior to starting work have a bonded contractor submit a "Temporary Highway Use Permit Application" to ACHD Construction - Permits along with: a) Traffic Control Plan b) An Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan Designer, if trench is >50' or you are placing >600 sf of concrete or asphalt. Construction (Subdivisions) 0 Sediment & Erosion Submittal . At least one week prior to setting up a Pre-Con an Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan Designer, must be turned into ACHD Construction - Subdivision to be reviewed and approved by the ACHD Drainage Division. 0 Idaho Power Company . Vie Steelman at Idaho Power must have his IPCO approved set of subdivision utility plans prior to Pre-Con being scheduled. 0 Final Approval from Development Services . ACHD Construction - Subdivision must have received approval from Development Services prior to scheduling a Pre-Con. 8 THE PROCESS Thtt8¡l¡¡1cIuII wtlllIIJIIrnä a dawlaponaN allllœtiDn to e ClIy or 10 fhII <:ounty. The OIly or!he County vdllr8nBmlt 0. ~Ippblianlo ACHD. ACtIO, PI8n~ Revillw DviIIDn ..... "",1hø 8Ø~ (In 1111 NIIt \IIIMII'S 8tQIIdI fa' 8IaIf IWVÌIW. S1Inf will8\'I9W 1111 de'oI8kIPm1l11 appbtiøland œn\pØe an .-man! 011118 deyelapmenf8 pOI8nIia ÍIII8df an 1M lIBn8pørIa1iana}i8l8m and evWal8 III de\'IIIomenfa pra¡Kiall for 1'8 cønIcmIalDl 10 [)jp¡çt paIIc:y. ¡.t 10 5 'Io'Q(qg dIyII) (Moncl8y th~ 1'tIday) I The appbnl wII melee wUh lIIIfl1or a tec:I1niQIl nMsw. Th. pt'tIC8Ø ÍI apan to 1hII pubIk: arid dll98flCÌU I Staff LIvei RevMIw and Appnml ""----- .........-..-- . Comml88lon a.-I R8vIew and Approval "'-"'_._-"~ ..-..-...-- f...m"""1 StIlI! wiII8dladulit Ihe ¡111m III the nlllll.. awIIbIa Conmjujcm øgønda. I. The fFI8III(I, ,lair I'8þDr\ 8IId II olher øertillllnl ..... "J InIc.m.1ion iadeiwer.d 10 !he CoinmÌ8&ÌDn. (7 da)'li PfÌ!II' 10 !he CommiNiIIn m..~ng) [I If !hit l18Ve1cpnenl me&I8 !Ok)' and !he L:the'ipp8canl rWquula I modll\r¡alion . Blllcant doe6 nOl app8BI or I8IUeII a modWicltion d 01' waiIIBr 01 IoiqP or II)ØÙ n the Dí8I1íct'I Nqu/røm8",-, a ølalllevøl BIpM'8! 8tte11_1 IPP~, !he ~Uon oM!! be : ! lellarooim be 8ØIIt cut (TU88dty) h..n:I by th8 ACHD Comm4u1cn. I The .ppølllnt 1IIUI11llbm1 e IetI1Ir elpll8lln¡ 8 etø1I 'I Theepplicìnt rnl.llll.UÞmlllllatt8r 10 etaff r&q1l8llktg e The Commí&aIon wli hIIIIr lIIe Iad& sa they 11'8 Iev8I BPiIrovat baIo.. the II)pII8I period hsI expi1IIL nIOIIIÐt:aIIon or WiIMIr of policy. PlUl8n18d by øIaff and IIIø Ippliœnl (The appeIanl 111111& VII:IIIIIn$J dIyI 1nIm1h1--dl18 The r&qU81t must III mIIWd within 2 -*tn1J ~ The Commlslion w111hen I8k8 IIdIGn on Ihe ejlpJlQII1Ion. oIlbe 118ft laval dadaIon - made) ~ IhlllIa th8 Tuuday IoUawInIJ Teen RaWlw) (WecIRIaday). " ilia llllcant acœp18 ill CIatIid'w. ~ ~I!he appIicarlt don not 8CC8Jt Ihtt Ccmmìealan's . eommUllifl IIMII appIIMIi will be 8l1/li 0IIl ac:öon. Ihe IIPIIkBnt OII'II8IUBllt l8I:!Ifl&idlllltioo. (TIwHay) . (The WIitIan.llquall mUll be IICiøved by !he . Dilind by !he roIQwØI¡ Tuesday 113:00 pm) , I Submk aD ~fl The ntqUeat Ì!I denied." The requeøl io &IIKMldl .-................... .................................................................-........"""""""""""""""""""""'j :~n;:n= .... ,. ~f1Iport II I~:r:::. ~¡Ud I R8viow OMolon. lI'ÆIaÐIe 8{enda. ;.:" 'T ~. (II ..... CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET DATE June 2, 2005 ITEM # 18 PROJECT NUMBER AZ 05-018 Westborough Square Subdivision PROJECT NAME NAME (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL Yl1 L r .-tA/lL- '{, j