HomeMy WebLinkAboutCrossfield Subdivision AZ
AZ 05-015
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 18, 2005
APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO. 13
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from July 21.2005: Annexation and Zoning of 59.30
acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision - 2820 West Pine Avenue
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
See previous Item packet / minutes
y
/\) . ~\J~Ø' ;;J
~ ~t~
~
cAJ
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
See attached Staff Comments
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:
SmLERS'IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: ~lIl l ~
Emailed: ~
Date: ð-{ So'(£)
Staff Initials:
Phone: 95 g .- f!J rg ñ
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
./
//
Memo
To:
Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor & City Council
RECEIVED
AUG ": 2 2005
From: Craig Hood, Associate City Planner
cc:
Anna Canning, City Clerk
City of Meridian
City Clerk Officlê
Date: August1S,200S
Re: Continued Public Hearing for Crossfield Subdivision (AZ.OS-o1S, PP-OS~O17, CUP-
OS-o22)
At the July 21, 200S hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the
public hearing and requested staff to make some changes to the report. Staff has
met with the applicant and staff has revised the conditions of approval to reflect the
changes both the applicant and staff have agreed to (see the Etrikcthr-oughs and
bold underlines in the revised staff report).
There are still a few conditions that the applicant has not consented to, These
conditions will need to be further discussed at the public hearing. Staff recommends
a roval of Crossfield Subdivision with the chan es noted in the revised staff re ort
dated AuQust 10. 2005.
~/
i
;.
"-U /,WYO. ~-"".
\.JYI tJrldiãn~'~; .~\
I
~ IDAHO Þ
~4 J?
~r-, . .:-/)
"!~~ , "NeE
, , 1903
STAFF REPORT:
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21 AU!mst 18, 2005
Transmittal Date: July 15 Au2ust 10, 2005
To:
Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
Craig Hood, Associate City Planner (1#
Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinatorfil C
RECEIVED
AUG 1 0 2005
From:
Re:
Crossfield Subdivision REVISED
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
. Annexation and Zoning of 59.30 Acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8
(Medium Density Residential), by Packard Estates Development, LLC. (File
No. AZ-05-0l5)
. Preliminary Plat Approval of Two-Hundred-Forty-Five (245) Single-Family
Residential Lots and Twenty-Seven (27) Other/Common Lots on 59_3D Acres
in a Proposed R-8 Zone, by Packard Estates Development, LLC- (File No. PP-
05-017)
.
Conditional Use Pennit Approval for a Planned Development Consisting of
Single-Family Attached and Detached Homes, Accessory Dwelling Units, and
a Potential Day Care on 59.30 Acres, with Reduced Building Setbacks,
Reduced Minimum Lot Frontages, Reduced Minimum Lot Sizes, Reduced
Minimum House Sizes, and Increased Maximum Block Length, by Packard
Estates Development, LLC. (File No. CUP-05-022)
We have reviewed the above referenced submittals and offer the following comments and
conditions of the applicant:
APPLICATIONS SUMMARY
The applicant, Packard Estates Development, LLC, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ),
Preliminary Plat (PP) and Conditional Use Pennit/Planned Development (CUP/PD) approval of
245 single-family residential building lots and 27 other/common lots on 59.30 aCres in the
proposed R-8 zone. There is cuITently a single-family home and several outbuildings on the site.
The applicant is proposing to retain the existing home near Ustick Road and remove some of the
accessory structures. The site is located on the south side of Ustick Road, approximately Y2 a
AZ-OS-OlS, PP-O5"OI7. CUP-O5-0ll
C'ossfidd.AZ.PP.CUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 2
mile east of Meridian Road. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area and
the current City of Area Impact and zoned RUT in Ada County.
Of the 246 proposed buildable lots, the applicant is proposing: 18 zero lot line lots; 67 alley
loaded lots; 31 patio home lots; 128 single-family lots; 1 daycare lot; and 1 clubhouse and pool
lot (the only buildable common lot). To break up the attached units, a patio home lot is
proposed between each pair of attached units. Access to the alley loaded lots is proposed from
14-feet of pavement within a 20-foot wide alley easement (3 feet on either side of the alley is
proposed to be grassed). All patio home lots, alley loaded lots, and attached lots are located
north of Jasper Street. The clubhouse and pool area and all of the 128 single-family detached
lots are located south of Jasper Street. Jasper Street is proposed as an east-west stub street.
The applicant expects to development the project in four phases, starting from Ustick Road.
The gross density of the proposed development is 4.13 dwelling units per acre.
A CUPIPD application is required because Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan requires all
new uses designated for mixed use on the Future Land Use Map to be processed as Planned
Developments. The purpose of this policy is to encourage more collaboration between the
developer and the City to help create neighborhood centers that have unique designs, with
regard to both site layouts and structures. With the subject PD the applicant has requested
reduced building setbacks, reduced lot sizes, reduced lot frontages, reduced minimum house
size and increased maximum block length. The applicant is also requesting approval for 12
accessory dwelling units to be constructed within the project. An accessory dwelling unit is a
habitable unit established in conjunction with and subordinate to a single-family dwelling unit.
Accessory dwelling units are commonly referred to as guest houses, granny flats, carriage
houses, caretaker unit, and mother-in-law quarters.
The applicant is proposing to construct one block (10) that exceeds the 1,000 foot maximum
established by MCc. The minimum lot size for the R-8 zone is 6,500 square-feet and the
minimum lot frontage requirement of the R-8 zone is 65 feet. As mentioned above there are
four types of dwelling lots proposed. The smallest detached patio home lot shown on the
preliminary plat is 5,063 square-feet and the shortest frontage is 52 feet. The smallest proposed
detached non-patio home lot is 6,380 square-feet and the shortest frontage is 58 feet. The
smallest proposed alley loaded lot is 4,200 square-feet and the shortest frontage is 34 feet. The
smallest proposed attached lot is 3,958 square-feet and the shortest frontage is 40 feet. On the
submitted preliminary plat, only 52 of the proposed 246 proposed lots have 65 feet or more of
frontage. The applicant is proposing a minimum house size for this project of 1,300 square-
feet, 1 foot below the 1,301 square-foot minimum. The proposed minimum lot size, frontage,
house size and building setbacks are detailed below.
R-8 Zone:
Lot Size -
City Minimum ReQuirement
6,500 sq. ft. (detached)
Shown on Preliminary Plat
6,380, sq. ft. (minimum, detached)
5,000 sq. ft.(minimum, detached, patio home)
AZ-O5-015.I'P-O5-017. CUI'-O5-022
Crossfield.AZ.I'I'.CUI'.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 3
loaded)
4,200
sq.
ft. (minimum,
detached,
alley
4,000 sq. ft. (attached)
3,950 sq, ft.(minimum, attached)
Lot Frontage - Citv Minimum Requirement
65 feet (non cul-de-sac)
40 feet (cul-de-sac)
Shown on Preliminary Plat
50 feet (minimum, detached)
34 feet (minimum, detached, alley loaded)
40 feet (minimum, attached)
15 feet (cul-de-sac)
House Size - Citv Minimum Requirement
1,301 sq. ft. (detached)
Proposed
1,300 sq. ft. (detached)
p
d R 'd ti I B ild'
S tb k
ropose eSI en a u m2 e ac s -
Detached (not Detached Attached
alley loaded) (alley loaded)
Front & Street Side (Living Space) 15 feet 12 feet 15 feet
Front (Face of Garage) 20 feet 20 feet
Rear 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Interior Side* 5 feet 5 feet 0' feet one side, 5-
feet opposite side
* No additional setback per story
NOTE: Staff has concerns with the proposed 15 foot rear setback for alley loaded dwelling units.
Because the alleys are proposed as easements within the buildable lots, the proposed rear
property line of the alley loaded lots goes to the center of the alley. If approved as submitted,
there would only be 5 feet between the alley easement and the face of the garage. This would
only allow approximately 8 feet between the pavement of the proposed alley and the face of the
garage. Staff believes that this width will encourage cars to park in front of the garages and block
the alley, and does not detour people enough from parking in front of the garages. See
Preliminary Plat Analysis below. NOTE: Staff will provide an exhibit for the public hearing that
further shows the concern about garage setbacks and parking adjacent to the alleys.
The proposed PD amenities include: a lO-foot wide asphalt pathway leading to the existing
pathway along the Five Mile Creek; 5.45 acres (over 9% of the site) of common areas; and a
pool with restrooms and changing areas, a splash pad (fountain) area, and play area within Lot
1, Block 12. See Special Considerations in the Conditional Use Permit section below for a
detailed analysis of the proposed amenities.
Fifty-six of the proposed buildable lots are within the FEMA 100 year floodplain. The applicant
has submitted no engineering plans as to how this flood plain is to be addressed. There is
seasonal high ground water in this area as well. Staff would like the applicant to clarify at the
public hearing how thev intend to mitÜmte the flood plain and deal with the high ground water.
AZ-O5-015, PP-O5-017. CUP-O5-0ll
Crossficld.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 4
Staff recommends approval of the subject annexation and zoning (AZ-O5-015), preliminary plat
(PP-O5-017), and conditional use permit (CUP-OS-O22) for the reasons listed herein.
LOCATION
The subject site is located on the south side of Ustick Road, approximately 'l2 mile west of
Meridian Road, in Section I, Township 3 North, Range I West.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North: Single-family homes and unplatted agricultural land, zoned RUT (Ada County).
South: Five Mile Creek; Meadowview Subdivision, zoned R.4.
East: Venable Lane; Waterbury Park Subdivision; zoned R-4; Salisbury Subdivision #2, zoned
R-8; Single-family homes and unplatted agricultural land, zoned RUT (Ada County).
West: Several S-acre, unplatted parcels being utilized for agricultural purposes, zoned RUT
(Ada County); Meridian Park Subdivision, zoned R-4.
Recently, the City has reviewed and approved annexation and zoning and development
applications for Cedar Springs Subdivision and Salisbury #2 Subdivision (final platted as Vallin
Courts). Salisbury is a residential subdivision consisting of 81 lots. This development is located
directly east of the subject site, on the east side of Venable Lane. Cedar Springs is a mixed-use
development located on the north side of Us tick Road, on the east side of Venable Lane. As part
of the Cedar Springs development, a car wash and office space was approved by the City in
2004. Although. there have been recent City-approved developments in this area, the approval of
the subject develor>ment will create a seven-acre enclave to the southeast. Parcel #S1201244S00
lies directly between the subject site, Waterbury Park Subdivision and Salisbury Subdivision and
has not been annexed into the City.
OWNER OF RECORD
The property owners of record are Joe and Catherine Simunich. Joe Simunich has provided
notarized consent for Packard Estates Development, LLC, to submit the subject applications.
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS
Because the analysis below applies both to the proposed use and the proposed zoning, staff has
combined the analysis of use with the annexation and zoning amendment findings.
According to Meridian City Code (MCC) II-IS-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 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 II-IS-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;
AZ-OS-OIS, PP-OS-OI7, cUP-OS-Oll
Crossficld.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 5
The subject property is located in the heart of a Mixed UselNeighborhood Center
designation on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The 2002 Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map designates approximately half of this property as 'Mixed Use
- Community' with a Neighborhood Center. The purpose of this designation is "to
provide a blend of high-density residential, small-scale commercial, entertainment, office
and open space uses that are geared to serve all residents within a one to two square mile
area. The developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual
neighborhood center plan depicted in Figure VII-3. The purpose of these centers is to
create a centralized, pedestrian-oriented, identifiable and day-to-day service oriented
focal point for neighborhood districts. The centers should offer an internal circulation
system that connects with adjacent neighborhoods or regional pathway(s). They will also
serve as public transit locations for future park-and-ride lots, bus stops, shuttle bus stops
or other alternative modes of transportation." (See Chapter VII, pg. 95.)
During preliminary discussions with the applicant's representative, staff encouraged the
applicant to include other, non-residential uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
within the development. Although the applicant has included several of the key concepts
of a neighborhood center in the design (short blocks, interconnectivity, transitional
densities, transitional housing types, alleys, gridded street pattern, open space, etc.), staff
does not believe that the project fully complies with the intent of a mixed use area as
described in the Comprehensive Plan. After detailed evaluation of the purpose statement.
olicies desi standards and ob' ectives for mixed use areas staff does not believe that
the subject plat complies with the Comprehensive Plan and cannot recommend apProval
of the Dfoject. as submitted.
Staff recommends that the applicant delay developill!! the lots north of Parkstone Street
until either the parcel on the east side of Venable Lane develops. an acceptable market
stud concludes that additional non-residential uses are not needed in the northern ortion
of the City. or two years has passed. Staff believes that the City should adopt the
following course of action regarding development of the North Parkstone Area. The area
north of Parkstone Street (approximately) should not be allowed to final plat until one of
the following occur: 1) A market analysis is perfonned to see if non.residential uses can
by supported in this area. If the market analysis detennines that non-residential uses can
not be supported, then the applicant should be allowed to plat the area with residential
lots as proposed. If the market analysis detennines that additional non-residential uses
can be supported, then the applicant should be required to submit a new preliminary plat
and rezone application for the North Parkstone Area that includes non-residential use(s)
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The property to the east has been approved
for development, thereby providing collector road access for a non-residential uses. The
applicant should be required to submit a new preliminary plat and rezone application for
the North Parkstone Area that includes non-residential use(s) consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
If within two years of the first final plat being recorded on this property, the property to
the east has not been approved for development and a market study has not been
AZ"OS,O15, PP-O5-017, CUP-Oj-on
Cros>ficld.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 6
perfonned, then the applicant should be allowed to plat the area with residential lots as
proposed.
The remainder portion (the southern half) of the subject site is designated 'Medium
Density Residential' on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of
the Comprehensive Plan, medium density is defined as areas including single-family
homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. The overall proposed density
of 4.13 dwelling units/acre is within the target density for this area.
Staff also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to
this application (staff analysis is in italics below policy):
Mixed Use Area Comp Plan Policies (taken from Chapter VII)
. "All development proposed in these areas will require approval as planned
developments under the Conditional Use Pennit application process. In these
locations, the developer has the option to develop either a neighborhood center in
confonnance with the City's neighborhood center design ordinance, or develop a
conventional mixed use project."
A CUP application accompanies the annexation and zoning request; which fulfills the
first part of this policy. To date, the City has not adopted a neighborhood center
design ordinance. This application is being processed as a "conventional mixed use
project. " (See next bullet.)
.
"If developing a conventional mixed use project, four specific design elements must
be incorporated into the development: a) street connectivity, b) open space, c)
pathways, and d) density, not below eight (8) dwelling units per acre."
a) Street Connectivity: The development proposes to connect the development with
Ustick Road with a single public street, Blairmore Way. There are several other
public streets and alleys that are all interconnected to each other and adjacent
parcels.
b) Oven Space: The applicant is proposing to construct a 1.8 acre neighborhood
park and set aside approximately nine percent of the site for open space. The
Comprehensive Plan is not more explicit with regard to open space, other than it
must be provided somewhere within neighborhood centers.
c) Pathwavs: Two public pathways are called for in this area on the Future Land
Use Map as part of the regional system. One multi-use pathway is shown along
the Five Mile Creek and another is shown along the Creason Lateral. The multi-
use pathway along the Five Mile Creek currently exists adjacent to this site. The
applicant is proposing to construct a 10joot wide asphalt path to tie in with the
existing path along the Five Mile Creek. A public pedestrian pathway is proposed
along the north side of the Creason Lateral in Salisbury Subdivision. This
pathway will connect to the previously approved pathway along the Creason in
Clearbrook Estates. The applicant is proposing to construct their portion of the
AZ-O5.015, PP-O5-017. CUP-O5-0ll
Crossfidd.AZ.PP.CUP.do<
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 7
Creason pathway on the south side of the lateral as only 5-jÓot wide. In
accordance with the Future Land Use Map and the subject finding, staffbelieves
that a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway should be constructed along the Creason
Lateral from the east property line to the west. (See Special Considerations in the
Preliminary Plat section for more discussion.)
d) Density: The overall density of this project is 4.13 dwelling units per acre (gross)
(not including accessory dwelling units). The residential portion of the project
that is within the mixed use area is below the 8 dwelling units per acre target
density. Although the density is below the target, most of the proposed lots are
between 4,400 and 6,000 square-feet. To obtain a residential density closer to the
tar et 0 ei ht dwellin s er acre sta "recommends that an additional block
south 0 Parkstone Street Block 11 be desi ned with aile loaded lots similar to
the north side 0 Parkstone Street see Site S eci IC Condition #2 below.
.
"The following standards will serve as guidelines for development of the
neighborhood center areas:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
1.
J.
k.
1.
m.
n.
o.
Most blocks are 300' maximum, similar to Old Town.
Larger blocks along arterial streets and for traffic calming.
Neighborhood Center Commercial area is located at the Yz mile, not at
arterial intersections.
Schools are located mid-section, with ffontage along a collector street.
Interconnected circulation that is convenient for automobiles, pedestrians,
and transit.
Variety of housing choices.
Housing is alTanged in a radiating pattern of lessening densities.
Transition between different housing types or densities at alleys.
Residents can access neighborhood commercial services without being
forced onto arterial streets.
Facilitates more efficient transportation along arterials.
Grid street pattern within the neighborhood allows traffic to disperse,
eases congestion, slows traffic, and is safer for residents.
Connects to and integrates with the larger street and pathway system.
Reduced right-of-way widths are encouraged.
Open space must be provided.
Unless a Specific Area Plan has been adopted, Neighborhood Centers
must be developed under a Planned Development/CUP application."
Except for the commercial component (standards He" and Hi" above), stafffinds that
the proposed development generally complies with the design standards of a
neighborhood center.
(See Chapter VII, pes. 97-98, for the above-mentioned mixed-use policies.)
"Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public
services" (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action items 1 and 4)
.
AZ-OS-O15, PP-OS-OI7. cUP-as-on
Crossficld.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 8
On April 29, 2005, a joint agency and 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 to Ustick Road, an arterial
roadway. The location of the proposed Blairmore Way intersection of Ustick Road
meets A CHD 's requirements for location.
.
"hnprove and protect creeks (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South
Slough, and Jackson and Evans drainages) throughout commercial, industrial and
residential areas." (Chapter V, Goal 1, Objective A, Action item 11)
The Five Mile Creek and the South Slough (aka Creason Lateral) course through this
site. The applicant is proposing to pipe the Creason Lateral. Staff believes that the
creeks should be protected and enhanced by leaving them open and constructing
pathways adjacent to them (see Site Specific Condition #9 below).
.
"Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback,
vegetation, low walls, benns, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item
4)
The applicant is proposing to construct a 25-foot wide landscape berm along Ustick
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 25-foot wide buffer
(or increase buffer to 30-feet). See Site Specific Condition #12 in the Preliminary Plat
section below.
B.
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future;
AZ-OS-OIS, PI'-OS-OI7, CUP-Oj-on
Ùossfidd.A.Z.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 9
If the concurrent preliminary plat and conditional use pennit applications are approved,
staff does not believe that the applicant intends to rezone the property in the future.
However, staff recommends that at least a portion of the site be held out from being final
platted so the City can further analyze if future commercialloffice/entertaimnent uses, as
called for in the Comprehensive Plan, are appropriate in this area. Once there is a
residential housing base established in this area that can support non-residential uses, this
area may be rezoned to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (non.residential).
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 the proposed single-family development could be allowed within the
requested R-8 zone, if the accompanying Conditional Use Pennit for a Planned
Development is also approved. Because the potential day care lies within a mixed use
area on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, a CUP will be required in the
future.
D.
Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the
area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad
access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion
similar to the proposed rezone area;
Staff finds that a substantial portion of the land to the south, southeast and southwest
have been developed (or approved for development) in a manner similar to the proposed
subdivision, with single-family dwelling units. Meridian Park, Meadowview and
Waterbury Park, all have lot sizes similar to the detached lots proposed in Crossfield.
There have been no recent street improvements in the area. Further, Ustick Road is not
currently scheduled within ACHD's Five Year Work Program and is not within the
Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for roadway widening.
This development is currently serviceable by the City of Meridian's sanitary sewer
system. Sewer service for this development will be via extension of trunk lines located
in this property and also mains that are currently under construction in Us tick road.
Water is available in Ustick Road. Other urban services are near to this site and the
applicant should be able to extend such services to the site. Staff finds that the subject
site is proposed for development in a fashion similar to other properties in the 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;
AZ.O5-015, PP-O5-017. CUP-O5-022
Crossfield.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 10
The applicant has submitted 17 pictures of how the proposed single-family homes will
look. The pictures of the alley loaded homes and patio homes differ from the design of
existing residences in this area. However, if the homes are constructed in substantial
compliance with the submitted pictures, staff believes the homes will be hannonious and
appropriate in appearance to the existing and intended residential stock in this area. The
existing character of the area will, and is, cuITently changing. This development will set
the tone for how the rest of the area on the south side of Ustick Road designated for a
mixed use neighborhood center develops, or does not develop. Staff finds that if the
northeast portion of this site is not developed with sinele-family detached units at this
time the ro osed R-8 zonin and subse uent residential use ~ ro~osed with the
concurrent preliminary plat will be hannonious and appropriate to the intended character
of the vicinity. However. if this development is approved as proposed. staff finds that it
will si ificant! chan e not onl the existin character of the area but will also chan e
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 or 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 ITom 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;
Sewer service for this development will be yia extension of trunk lines located in this
property and also mains that are currently under construction in Ustick road. Water is
ayailable in Ustick Road. Other urban services are near to this site and the applicant
should be able to extend such services to the site. The applicant shall be responsible for
the extension of utilities to and through this proposed development. Sizing and routing
shall be coordinated with the Public Works Department.
The applicant andlor 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 by the ACHD Commission on May 18, 2005. No significant
changes were made to the plat by the ACHD; all internal roads are required to be a
minimum of 36 feet wide.
AZ-05-015, 1'1'-05-017, CUP-05-0n
Crossfield,ALpp.CUp.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 11
On April 29, 2005, a joint agency and 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 and departments are at the end of this
report. Based on the comments received from other agencies and 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
infrastructure, utilities and imgation services to serve the project. The primary public
costs to serve the future residents 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.
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 Ustick Road west of Meridian Road is 10,800 ADT. A
traffic impact study was prepared by Washington Group International for this
development. This traffic study anticipates that 1,923 vehicle trips per day will be
generated at full build out. Based on the traffic study, left and right turn lanes on Ustick
Road are waITanted near the Blainnore Way entrance into the development. 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. Staff further finds that if all of this
property were to develop with only single-family dwellings before a market study can
analyze the appropriateness of non-residential in this area, the proposed residential
zoning and uses may be detrimental to people, property and/or the general welfare of the
area. However, if the property east of Blainnore Way and north of Parkstone Street
(approximately) is not developed right away, the subject applications should not
adversely affect any person or property.
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 public street entrance into the site from
Ustick Road. The proposed public street entrance to Ustick Road (Blainnore Way)
AZ-OS-OI5, PP-O5"OI7, CUP.O5-on
Crossficld.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 12
offsets Venable Lane by approximately 600-feet. If the public streets and alleys are
approved and constructed in accordance with ACHD and the City's policies, staff does
not believe that the subdivision will create interference with traffic on the sUlTounding
public streets. Please review any comments from ACHD for this project for additional
infonnation regarding this finding.
K.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of
major importance; and
Staff finds that there are some large existing trees on this site. Any existing trees larger
than 4" caliper that are removed shall be mitigated for, as detennined by the City Arborist
(MCC 12-13-13). The applicant should work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on
designing and implementing a protection/mitigation plan. 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.
The applicant is proposing to leave the Five Mile Creek open and is proposing to pipe the
South Slough (Creason Lateral) abutting the site. Staff believes that the Five Mile Creek
and the South Slough Creason Lateral are scenic features that should be protected. See
Special Considerations in the Preliminary Plat section ofthis report for further analysis.
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 the existing trees are protected or
mitigated and the Five Mile Creek and South Slough Creason Lateral are protected in
manner that does not negatively impact their beauty. Staff is not aware of any other
natural or scenic feature(s) that would be lost, damaged or destroyed by allowing this site
to be annexed, zoned and developed with residential uses. 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 and zoning of
this property would be in the best interest of the City. with the changes to the conCUlTent
preliminary plat and conditional use pennit noted below.
ADDITIONAL ANEXATION & ZONING FACTS
1. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped by Lawrence H.
Koerner, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the
City of Meridian.
PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS
AZ-OS-OI5. PP-OS-OI7. cuP-as-on
Crossfield.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 13
Meridian City Code (MCC) 12-3-3 1.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In detennining the
acceptance of a proposed subdivision, the Commission and Council shall consider the objectives
of this title and at least the following:
Á.
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 fmandal 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 trom 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
ComDÙssion'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 Councilor 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 determine whether the
proposed use may cause health, safety or environmental problems that staff is unaware
of.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
1. Venable Lane: A future collector street is shown in the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter VI,
Page 74) halfway between Meridian Road and Linder Road, where the existing Venable
Lane is. The subject property does not abut Venable Lane, which is currently a 20-foot
wide private access, but is only a few feet away from the future anticipated boundary of
Venable. As the applicant has stated to staff, the lack of access to a collector or arterial
street makes developing (or even planning to develop) the northeast comer of the
property with non-residential uses difficult. Because Venable Lane is planned as a
AZ-05-0I5, 1'1'-05-017, CUP-05-0n
Crossfield.AZ.I'I'.CUI'.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 14
collector street, staff believes that non-residential uses near the Ustick/Venable
intersection may be appropriate. Staff realizes, however, that it is difficult for the
applicant to design a project around a street that does not cuITently exist, and it is not
know when it may be constructed. However, staff believes that Venable Lane will be
constructed in the near future and that the Venable Lane/Ustick Road intersection will
one day be signalized. Until Venable Lane is constructed by the adjacent property
owner(s) as a public street, access to Venable Lane will not be available to the subject
property.
The applicant is proposing to pipe the Flack Drain abutting Venable Lane and provide a
stub street, Jasper Street, to the east property line so access to and from this site can be
provided when Venable Lane is constructed as a public street. The applicant is also
providing a 25-foot wide landscape buffer along the east property line with no front-on
housing. Staff is supportive of the treatment being proposed for the eastern boundary of
this property.
2.
Comprehensive Plan:
Mixed Use - Neighborhood Center: As noted in the Annexation and Zoning Analysis,
approximately half of this site lies within the Mixed Use-Community designation on the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Except for a potential day care on Lot 5,
Block 4, the applicant is only proposing single-family dwelling lots within the
development. Staff believes that the applicant should be required to wait on platting the
proposed lots east of Blainnore Way and north of Parkstone Street until the
appropriateness of non-residential uses can be further analyzed.
Staff believes that the City should adopt the following course of action regarding
development of the North Parkstone Area (the area north of Parkstone Street
(approximately) and east of Blainnore Way. The North Parkstone Area should not be
allowed to final plat until one of the following occur: 1) A market analysis is perfonned
to see if non-residential uses can by supported in this area. If the market analysis
detennines that non-residential uses can not be supported, then the applicant should be
allowed to plat the area with residential lots as proposed. If the market analysis
detennines that additional non-residential uses can be supported, then the applicant
should be required to submit a new preliminary plat and rezone application for the North
Parkstone Area that includes non-residential use(s) and zoning consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. 2) The property to the east has been approved for development,
thereby providing collector road access for a non-residential uses. The applicant should
be required to submit a new preliminary plat and rezone application for the North
Parkstone Area that includes non-residential use(s) consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
If within two years of the first final plat being recorded on this property, the property to
the east has not been approved for development and a market study has not been
perfonned, then the applicant should be allowed to plat the area with residential lots as
proposed.
AZ-OS.OIS, PP-OS-017, cup-os-on
C'ossfield.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 15
Densitv: On page 97 of the Comprehensive Plan, residential densities within mixed use
neighborhood centers are prohibited ITom being below 8 dwelling units per acre. The
residential portion of the project that is within the mixed use area designation on the
Comprehensive Plan is below the 8 dwelling units per acre target density. To obtain a
residential density closer to the target of eight dwellings per acre, staff recommends that
an additional block south of Parkstone Street (Block 11), be designed with alley loaded
lots similar to those on the north side of Parks tone Street
See Site Specific Condition #2 below.
3.
Allevs: The applicant has proposed to construct four private alleys for the alley loaded
lots. As shown on the preliminary plat, the alleys are proposed in a 20-foot wide
easement, with 14-feet of pavement and 3-feet of landscaping on either side. The Ada
County Highway District requires public residential alleys to be a minimum of 16-feet
wide. Meridian City Code 11-14-3 requires a public or private alley to have an improved
driving surface of not less than sixteen feet (16') nor more than twenty feet (20') in
width. In addition to the substandard width, staff also has concerns with the alleys being
proposed in easements along the rear of the buildable lots and not in a separate lot or
dedicated as right-of-way. Staff recommends that the proposed alleys in Blocks 2, 5, 6,
and 8, be constructed with a minimum driving surface of at least 16 feet and that they
either be in 20-foot wide common lots or dedicated to ACHD. (Please see Special
Consideration #1 in the CUP section of this report for building setbacks ITom the alley).
See Site Specific Condition #3 below.
4.
Groundwater/Floodplain: Because certain areas of Meridian are affected by the 1 DO-year
floodplain, the City has developed a floodplain overlay district. The purpose of the
district is to guide development in the flood-prone areas of any watercourse that is
consistent with the requirements for conveyance of flood flows and to minimize the
expense and inconveniences to the individual property owners and the general public
through flooding. Uses pennitted in this district are generally associated with open
space, recreational, and agricultural land uses and do not hinder the movement of
floodwaters.
There are approximately 56 proposed buildable lots and 6 common lots that are currently
within the FEMA 1 aD-year floodplain. There is no submitted engineering detail or
discussion in the application that mentions what measures are to be taken to deal with the
floodplain. Staff believes that there are two options for dealing with floodplains, the first
is to engineer the site so that the 1 DO-year flood is contained entirely within the banks of
the water way, and apply for a letter of map revision ITom FEMA. The second is to
design the buildings and utilities to comply with MCC 10-6-5.
Past approvals of subdivisions with potential for groundwater in crawlspaces has
developed a concern for the health and safety and welfare of future owners. Conventional
wisdom holds that shallow ground water tables recede once development occurs and
agricultural irrigation ceases and waterways are tiled. However, many homeowners over-
AZ-O5-015, PP-O5-017. CUP.O5-022
Crossfield.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 16
water their lawns, and every year a number of homeowners contact the Public Works
Department regarding water in their crawl spaces.
There are two major waterways affecting this property, the Creason Lateral and the Five
Mile Creek. Neither waterway completely contains a 100-year flood event within its
channel. The applicant should provide detailed engineering data proving that structures I)
can be located in areas of plateaus, benches or upon manmade fills or 2) can be otherwise
elevated so as not to be affected by flood waters. A third alternative is for the applicant to
provide design criteria of buildings and utilities that would be in the flood plain. Staff
would like the applicant to clarify at the hearing how the seasonal high groundwater will
be accounted for and how the lots will meet the separation requirements of the building
code. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference MCC 11-11-4 A-F,
and MCC 10-6-5 for any additional conditions, limitations, impositions, and
floodproofing measures that may be deemed appropriate. See Site Specific Condition # 6
below.
5.
Multi-use Pathways: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map depicts multi-use
pathways along the Five Mile Creek and the Creason Lateral. The applicant is proposing
to construct a 1O-foot wide pathway in common Lots 5 and 9, Block 17, that tie into the
existing multi-use pathway on the north side of the Five Mile Creek that goes between
Meridian Road and Tully Park. Staff is supportive of the proposed pathway connection.
The applicant is proposing to construct a five-foot wide pathway along the south side of
the Creason Lateral. The proposed pathway along the Creason should meet the standards
as set forth in the August 2003 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan, pgs. 3-
2 and 3-3, sections B & C and be constructed 1O-feet wide. The pathway must connect
from one major arterial to another, and either an easement or ownership deed must be
granted before the city will assume the maintenance of any section of pathway. The
applicant should construct the pathway along the Creason from the east property line
(adjacent to Simunich 7-acres) to the west property line (adjacent to the Kellogg 5.6-
acres) so that it can be extended in both directions in the future. The applicant should
work with the City Parks Department to acquire the necessary approvals through the
City's Master Pathway Agreement with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District (NMID).
The applicant should confonn to the Parks Department's standards for construction ofthe
pathway- All landscaping adjacent to the pathway must be maintained by the Home
Owners' Association. See Site Specific Condition #8 below.
6.
Piping of Ditches: Meridian City Code l2-4-13.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. The applicant is proposing to leave the Five
Mile Creek open and pipe the Creason Lateral.
Chapter Five of the Comprehensive Plan calls for the City to protect the Five Mile Creek
and the South 8løugh (Creason Lateral). Further, Meridian City Code 12-4-13.A.2 allows
AZ-O5-015, PP-OS-OI7, CUP-OS-Oll
Crossfield,AZ.PP,CUP.doc
9.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 17
the City to waive the requirement for covering a ditch, lateral or canal, if it finds that the
public purpose requiring such will not be served in the individual case. The Five Mile
Creek and the Creason Lateral to the east and west of the site are cuITently open. With the
approval of Salisbury Subdivision #2 to the east, the City recently waived the
requirement to tile the South Slough Creason Lateral. Staff believes that if the 8etHft
Slough Creason Lateral and/or Five Mile Creek were tiled or covered, we would lose a
valuable natural feature. Further, if the applicant were to fence the canal with solid
fencing, the use of the waterway as a visual amenity would be significantly reduced.
Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant not be required or allowed to cover or tile
the South Slough/Creason Lateral or the Five Mile Creek. Staff believes that tiling and
fencing these sections of the South Slough Creason Lateral and the Five Mile with solid
fencing will not improve public health, safety, or welfare; it will detract from it. In
accordance with Meridian City Code, the applicant should be required to tile or cover any
other irrigation ditches, laterals or canals that cross, intersect or lie adjacent to the subject
site (including the Flack Drain, as proposed). See Site Specific Condition #9 below.
7.
Fencing: The applicant has not shown any proposed fencing on the landscape plan or on
the submitted preliminary plat. Staff woHld lib the ":,,lieam to el~ at :::: :..':~
hearlflC If anv permafl€lnt feflClfl£: IS proposed around th \Jenmeter of th dev p .
The applicant has flet proposed to construct wrought iron fencing along the open
spaces and pathways and vinvl fences along the perimeter of the subdivision and
along Blairmore Way. Aany fencing adjacent to the multi use pathway sections or
micropaths. Ho'Never, future property owners adjacent to micropaths may want to
construct fencing adjacent to the pathway. Fences adjacent to pathways are
recommended to be see-through. If solid fencing is used adjacent to pathways, it should
not exceed four feet in height (MCC12-13-15-9). A note restricting fencing directly
adjacent to the multi-use pathways and micropaths should be placed on the face of all
final plats containing pathways. A detailed fencing plan should be submitted upon
application of the final plat (MCC 12-4-1O.F.3). All 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 #10 below.
8.
Existinl! Structures: There are several buildings within the boundaries of the proposed
plat. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing house on the proposed Lot 5, Block
4. Some of the other existing buildings span across proposed lot lines and/or do not meet
the setback requirements of the requested zone. Further, most of the structures are
accessory to the existing house and cannot be located on their own lot without a primary
residence. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, all buildings that span
across proposed lot lines and/or do not meet the setback requirements of the zone and/or
are not principally pennitted buildings should be removed, as proposed. See Site
Specific Condition #11 below.
Landscaping:
Street Buffers: The applicant is proposing to dedicate 48 feet of right-of-way for Ustick
Road abutting this site. The applicant is proposing to construct a 5-foot wide detached,
AZ-O5-015. PP-O5-017, CUP.O5-0ll
Crossficld.AZ.PP.CUP.Joc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 18
meandering sidewalk adjacent to Ustick Road, in a 25-[00t wide landscape buffer. Staff
recommends that the applicant be required to comply with the ACHD's requirements for
right-of-way dedication and sidewalk construction along Ustick Road. The ACHD is
requiring the applicant to either dedicate 48 feet of right-of-way (with the sidewalk in the
right-of-way) OR 38 feet of right-of-way along Ustick Road (with a 10-foot wide
sidewalk easement).
MCC 12-13-10-4 requires a 25-foot wide landscape buffer along Us tick Road and a 20-
foot wide buffer adjacent to any collector street. 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. A 25-foot wide landscape buffer,
located entirely outside of the right-of-way and not including the width of the sidewalk,
should be provided along Ustick Road. Landscaping and sidewalks adjacent to Ustick
Road should be constructed in compliance with MCC 12-13-10. NOTE: The applicant is
proposing 15 and 20-foot wide landscape strips adjacent to several of the internal streets
and a 25-foot wide buffer along the east property line. Although buffers along local
streets are not required, staff is supportive of the proposed lineal open space landscape
strips.
Unimproved Right.of-Way: Meridian City Code 12-13-10-9 requires a lO-foot wide
gravel shoulder abutting right-of-way where the unimproved portion of the right-of-way
is greater than 13 feet (measured trom the edge of pavement to the edge of sidewalk or
property line), and road widening is not in the ACHD Five Year Work Program. The
remainder of the unimproved right-of-way should be landscaped with lawn or other
vegetative ground cover. Ustick Road abutting this site meets the wan-ants for the 10-foot
wide gravel shoulder requirement listed above. Therefore, the applicant should be
required to construct a lO-foot wide gravel shoulder on Ustick Road, with the remaining
portion of the right-of-way being landscaped with lawn or other vegetative ground cover.
Existing Trees: There are several mature trees on the subject site. Any existing trees
larger than 4" caliper 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 designing and implementing a protection plan. 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.
Landscape Plan: The submitted three-page landscape plan prepared by Harvest Design,
Inc., dated 2-14-05 is approved as submitted, with the following modifications:
a. Construct either a 25-foot wide landscape buffer OR a 3D-foot wide landscape
buffer along Ustick Road. If the sidewalk for Ustick Road is constructed
within the right-of-way, the buffer shall be 25 feet. The width of the landscape
buffer shall be 30-feet if the sidewalk is constructed within the common lot. In
accordance with MCC 12-13-10, install one tree within said buffer for every
35 feet oftrontage on the Ustick Road right-of-way.
AZ,OS.OJS, PP-OS-OI7. CUP-OS-O22
Crossfidd.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
12.
13.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 19
b. In addition to sidewalk, construct a minimum lO-foot wide gravel shoulder
along Ustick Road and landscape the remaining portion of the right-of-way
with lawn or other ACHD approved groundcover.
c. The applicant shall work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on designing,
adopting, and implementing a protection and mitigation plan for the existing
trees on site.
See Site Specific Condition #12 below.
10.
Internal Streets: The applicant is proposing to construct all internal streets with either a
29- or 36-foot street section. Except for Blainnore Way (residential collector), which has
detached sidewalks, all other proposed sidewalks are 5 feet wide and lie within the right-
of-way. ACHD is requiring the applicant to construct all local streets with a minimum
36-foot street section. The ACHD is allowing the applicant to detach the sidewalks on the
local streets. Staff is supportive of either attached or detached sidewalks on the local
streets. However, to keep cars that park in front of garages ffom blocking the detached
sidewalk, all future face-of-garage setbacks should be 20 feet (measured from the
property line or the back of sidewalk, whichever is more restrictive) if detached
sidewalks are constructed.
11.
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 use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface
or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system
shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer shall be
responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on
the [mal plat by the City Engineer. 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 #13
below.
Sanitary Sewer: Sewer service for this development will be via extension of trunk lines
located in this property, and also mains that are currently under construction in Ustick
Road. See Site Specific Condition #15 below.
Stub Streets: The applicant is providing stub streets to the undeveloped parcels to the
west and southeast, and is extending stub streets from the east and west. Staff is
supportive of the proposed stub streets and their locations. However, staff is
recommending that the Commission and Council consider requiring an additional stub
street to the seven-acre parcel to the southwest. There is currently a stub street from
Waterbury Park Subdivision to the south to the seven-acre parcel. For this existing stub
street to be extended, however, a crossing of the Five Mile Creek would need to be
constructed. Staff believes that there is a possibility that this stub street may not be
extended when the seven-acre parcel develops in the future. Even if the stub street is
extended to the north, an additional stub street from the subject development will
AZ-O5-015. PP.O5-017. CUP-O5.on
Crossfield,AZ.PP,CUP.doc
3.
4.
Platming & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 20
enhance neighborhood interconnectivity. NOTE: Staff has spoken to some residents in
Waterbury Park to the south and they are concerned about cut-through traffic if an
additional stub street is provided to the seven-acre parcel. Therefore, staff recommends
that the Commission and Council determine whether a stub street should be provided to
the enclave from the west, from Sommersby Drive. See Site Specific Condition #17
below. This recommendation will also break up the 1,300 foot Sommersby Drive,
thereby making Block 10 compliant with the maximum block length allowed by Code.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
1. All comments and conditions of the accompanying Annexation and Zoning (AZ-OS.OlS)
and Conditional Use Pennit (CUP-OS-a22) application shall also be considered
conditions of the Preliminary Plat (pp-Os-a 17).
2.
The area north of Parkstone Street and east of Blainnore Way shall not be allowed to
final plat until one of the following occur: 1) A market analysis is perfonned to see if
non-residential uses can by supported in this area. If an accepted market analysis
detennines that non-residential uses can not be supported, then the applicant should be
allowed to plat the area with residential lots as proposed. If the market analysis
detennines that additional non-residential uses can be supported, then the applicant shall
be required to submit a new preliminary plat and rezone application for the North
Parkstone Area that includes non-residential use(s) and zoning consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan OR 2) The property to the east has been approved for development,
thereby providing collector road access (Venable) for a non-residential uses. The
applicant shall be required to submit a new preliminary plat and rezone application for
the North Parkstone Area that includes non-residential use(s) and zoning consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. If within two years of the first final plat being recorded on this
property, the property to the east has not been approved for development and a market
study has not been perfonned, then the applicant should be allowed to plat the area with
residential lots as proposed.
To obtain a residential density closer to the target of eight dwellings per acre, the
~:m:~ar¿ ~~~~~all be ameaded te ine1ude all adèitieual block of alley loaded lots,
south of Parkstene Street. the preliminary plat should be amended to desie:nate at
least 12 lots on the north side of W. Jasper Street that will be required to contain
accessory dwelline: units. At least 1 a days prior to the City Council hearing. submit I a
full-size and one 8.5" x II" coPy of a revised preliminary plat to the City Clerk.
The proposed alleys in Blocks 2, S, 6, and 8, shall be constructed with a minimum driving
surface of at least 16-feet and shall either be located in 20-foot wide common lots OR
dedicated to ACHD.
The applicant shall clarify at the public hearing how the seasonal high groundwater will
be accounted for and how the lots will meet the separation requirements of the building
code. Sewer and water systems shall be floodproofed and approved by the District Health
Department of the Department of Health and Welfare. The main floor of buildings and
AZ-05-015. PP-05-017, CUP-05-0ll
Cl'ossfield.A.Z.PP.CUP.doc
7.
Plmming & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 21
structures shall be a minimum of one foot above the elevation of the 100-year flood level.
No basement floor shall be below this one-foot safety margin. Foundations of all
structures shall be designed and constructed to withstand flood conditions at the site.
Prior to signature of the final plates), the applicant shall provide to the City an engineer's
certification that the above requirements have been fulfilled.
5.
Staff is concerned about the potential effects of high groundwater in the proposed project
area. Two significant waterways affect this property: the Creason Lateral running
through the center of this property and Five Mile Creek along the southern boundary of
this project. Conventional wisdom holds that the shallow ground water table recedes
once development occurs and agricultural ilTigation ceases and waterways are tiled.
However, every year a number of homeowners contact the Public Works Department
regarding water in their crawl spaces in developments that have been completely built
out. 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 seasonal high groundwater elevation.
6.
Due to proposed development in a flood plain the applicant shall obtain a letter of map
revision from FEMA, which modifies the flood plain boundary to be contained within the
banks of Five Mile Creek, OR all buildings must comply with MCC 10-6-5. Meridian
City Code 10-6-5 outlines general standards for building in a flood plain, this code
includes but is not limited to the following:
a. All new construction shall be anchored to prevent flotation.
b. All building utility systems, including electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing,
air conditioning, ductwork and other service facilities shall be elevated above the
BFE or otherwise protected so that floodwaters cannot enter or accumulate within
the system components during flood stage.
c. An adequate drainage system that removes floodwaters from the interior of the
crawl space, within a reasonable time after a flood event shall be required for all
homes with a below grade crawl space. The design of the drainage plan shall be
approved by the public works department prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
d. Applicants building below grade crawl spaces within the floodplain shall be
notified that flood insurance premiums will not be able to be determined by
agents using the NFIP flood insurance manual. They must submit for a special
rating under the "submit to rate process" by an underwriter familiar with below
grade crawl space construction.
e. The lowest finished floor area of the residential structures shall be elevated to be
no less than twelve inches (12") above the flood elevation.
Due to relatively high existing groundwater levels, applicant shall submit a Master
Grading and Drainage plan as part of the development plans to be submitted with each
phase of this development. The Master Grading and Drainage plan shall include at a
minimum the following:
AZ-OS-OlS, pp.oS-O17. CUP-Oj-all
Crossfield.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 22
a.) Groundwater contours for this development at peak seasonal high depth.
b.) Finish floor elevation for all houses in this development.
c.) Elevation of crawl space for all houses in this development.
d.) Finish grade elevation at each lot comer.
e.) Drainage flow patterns on all lots.
Applicant shall maintain a minimum of five ground water monitoring wells in project, at
locations approved by the Public Works Department. Applicant shall continue monthly
ground water monitoring for two years after final approval of each phase and provide
infonnation to the Public Works Department.
If structural fill is to be placed on any lot, material specifications and compaction
requirements shall be detailed and submitted to Public Works and the Building
Department.
If slab.on-grade construction is utilized in conjunction with typical footings, builders of
each lot shall comply with all requirements contained in the International Building Code
regarding slab-on-grade construction. The builder of each lot shall provide fill material
gradation certification and a minimum of one compaction testing report per 500 square
feet of first floor area (including garage) and provide such reports to the Meridian
Building Department prior to commencement of any framing.
The Master Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Public Works
Department prior to overall plan approval. Builders must provide finish floor and crawl
space elevation certification for each house prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.
8.
Construct a lO-foot wide pathway in common Lots 5 and 9, Block 17, that tie into the
existing multi-use pathway on the north side of the Five Mile Creek, as proposed.
Construct a 1O.foot wide multi-use pathway along the Creason Lateral (South Slough).
The applicant shall construct said pathway along the Creason Lateral from the east
property line (adjacent to Simunich 7 acres) to the west property line (adjacent to the
Kellogg 5.6 acres) so that it can be extended in both directions in the future. The
applicant shall work with the City Parks Department to acquire the necessary approvals
through the City's Master Pathway Agreement with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District (NMID). The applicant shall confonn to the Parks Department's standards for
construction of the pathway. All landscaping adjacent to the pathway must be maintained
by the Home Owners' Association.
9.
Except for the Five Mile Creek and the Creason Lateral (South Slough), 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
(including the Flack Drain). Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation
and/or drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval
or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association
approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer prior to final plat signature.
AZ-OS-OI5. PP-O5-017. CUP-O5-0ll
Crossfidd.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
12.
13.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 23
10.
A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the final plat. lli
a licant has ro osed to construct a vin I fence alon the exterior boundar of the
subdivision. If pennanent fencing is not provided prior to issuance of buildinl! permits,
temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter
prior to issuance of building pennits. All fences shall taper down to 3-feet maximum
within 20 feet of all right-of-way. Fences adjacent to pathways are recommended to be
see-through. If solid fencing is used adjacent to pathways it shall not exceed four feet in
height. A note restricting fencing directly adjacent to the multi-use pathways and
micropaths shall be placed on the face of all final plats containing pathways. All fencing
shall be installed in accordance with MCC 12-4-10.
11.
Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, all buildings that span across
proposed lot lines and/or do not meet the setback requirements of the zone and/or are not
principally pennitted buildings shall be removed, as proposed.
The submitted three-page landscape plan prepared by Harvest Design, Inc., dated 2-14-05
is approved as submitted, with the following modifications:
. Construct either a 25-foot wide landscape buffer OR a 30-foot wide landscape buffer
along Ustick Road. If the sidewalk for Ustick Road is constructed within the right-of-
way, the buffer shall be 25-feet. The width of the landscape buffer shall be 30-feet if the
sidewalk is constructed within the common lot. In accordance with MCC 12-13-10,
install one tree within said buffer for every 35-feet of ITontage on the Ustick Road right-
of-way.
. In addition to sidewalk, construct a minimum 10-foot wide gravel shoulder along Ustick
Road and landscape the remaining portion of the right-of-way with lawn or other ACHD
approved groundcover.
. The applicant shall work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on designing, adopting, and
implementing a protection and mitigation plan for the existing trees on site.
. All micropaths within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in accordance with
MCC 12-13-15 "Micropath Landscaping" and MCC 12-4-3 "Pedestrian Walkways."
Micropath fencing shall be constructed per MCC 12-13-15-9.
. All areas being counted toward the open space requirement shall be tree of "wet ponds"
or other such nuisances. All stonnwater detention facilities incorporated into the required
open space are subject to Ordinance 12-13-14 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and
trees, as depicted on the submitted landscape plan.
The proceeding modifications and notes should be shown on a revised landscape plan
submitted with the final plat application.
The applicant has indicated that the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District will own and
operate the pressurized ilTigation 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 ilTigation systems be supplied by a year-round
AZ,O5-015, PP-O5-0 17, CUP-O5-022
Crossfield.A.Z.Pl'.CUP.doc
17.
18.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 24
source of water. 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.
14.
Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Crossfield
Homeowners' Association.
15.
Sanitary sewer for this development is being proposed via extensions of an existing trunk
line that is located in this property, and from stubs that are currently under construction in
Ustick Road. The sewer mains coming from Ustick Road that are not in the ACHD right-
of-way shall be centered in 20-foot wide easements which shall be free from large
landscaping and other fixed vertical objects. If there are manholes out of the ACHD
right-of-way, an all weather access road shall be installed to Meridian Public Works
Standards. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public
Works Department. Minimum cover over sanitary sewer mains is three feet as measured
from the top of the pipe to finish grade. If cover is less than three feet from sub-grade to
the top of pipe, alternate pipe materials shall be used per the Meridian Public Works
Department's Standard Specifications. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard
forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service.
16.
Municipal water to this site shan be via extensions from existing mains in Ustick Road.
The applicant shan provide an easement through common Lot 5 Block I7(as labeled on
the preliminary plat dated 2/15/05), to allow for a future connection to the main in NW
11 th Avenue. Applicant shall be responsible to construct water mains to and through this
proposed development, thereby making them available to adjacent properties.
Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works
Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for
any mains that are required to provide service.
In addition to the stub streets proposed, provide an additional stub street to the 7 acre
parcel to the south from Sommersby Drive.
Other than the public street accesses approved by ACHD, direct lot access to Ustick Road
is prohibited.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
1. Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the
subdivision pursuant to MCC 12-13-10-8.
2.
3.
A detailed landscape 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.
Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
AZ-O5-015. PP-O5-017, ClJP-O5.022
Crossfle1d.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
B.
C.
D.
E.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 25
4.
Staffs failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or tenus of the approved annexation
and conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
5.
Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC
12-2-4.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUr/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):
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 fÌom the
standard street fÌontage requirement, lot size requirement, setbacks, house size and
maximum block length, established by Meridian City Code. See Special Consideration
#1 below for detailed analysis.
Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested use
and all other required features. Although the site is large enough to accommodate all of
the features required by ordinance, the applicant has asked, through the Planned
Development, to modify specific development standards.
That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance;
Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "A".
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;
If the applicant complies with all conditions of approval, staff finds that the proposed use
will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity.
That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, street, police, and fire protection, drainage structures,
AZ-O5-015. PP-O5-017, CUP-O5-022
Crossfield.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Plmming & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 26
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 and
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 econollÙC
welfare of the community;
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 "I".
H.
That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be
so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
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".
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1. Reduced Standards: As stated earlier, the applicant is requesting modifications from
standard ordinance requirements for street frontage, lot size, house size, setbacks and
block length.
Lot Size & Lot Frontage: The minimum lot size in the R-8 zone is 6,500 square-feet for
detached lots and 4,000 square-feet for attached units. The minimum street frontage
requirement for the R-8 zone is 65 feet (detached) and 40 feet (attached). The smallest
detached patio home lot proposed is 5,063 square-feet and the shortest frontage is 52
feet. The smallest proposed detached non-patio home lot is 6,380 square-feet and the
shortest frontage is 58 feet. The smallest proposed alley loaded lot is 4,200 square-feet
and the shortest frontage is 34 feet. The smallest proposed attached lot is 3,950 square-
feet and the shortest frontage is 40 feet. Staff is supportive of reducing the frontage for
AZ-O5-015, PP-O5-017, CllP-O5-022
Crossfietd.AZ.PP.CllP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 27
some of the lots as proposed, as it provides lot diversity and allows greater density for the
project than if the standard R-8 dimensions are required.
NOTE: The applicant has requested to reduce the frontage for lots on a cul-de-sac and
curves to 15 feet, when 40 feet is typically required. Staff recommends that any lot with
20 feet or less of frontage be required to have a common driveway with the adjacent
lot(s). MCC 12-4-14 allows up to four dwelling units to access a common driveway.
Common drives serving two dwelling units shall be a minimum of 16 feet in width.
Common drives less than 150 feet in length shall be constructed of at least 6 inches of
well-compacted, 2-inch minus crushed gravel and 2 112 inches of asphaltic concrete
paving.
House Size: The applicant is requesting a 1,300 square-foot minimum detached house
size. The City established minimum for a detached house in the R-8 zone in 1,301
square. feet. Staff does not see a problem with the proposed modification of one foot.
Block Length: As depicted, Block 10 exceeds the maximum 1,000-foot length for a
block. If a stub street were provided to the 7-acre outparcel to the east, trom Sommersby
Avenue, the block length modification would not be necessary. Staff recommends that
the Commission and Council detennine whether a 1,400-foot block length is appropriate
in this situation.
B 'ld'
S tb k'
UI 1ll.Jt e ac s.
Detached (not Detached Attached
alley loadeq) (alley loaded)
Front & Street Side (Living Space) 15 feet 12 feet 15 feet
Front (Face of Garage) 20 feet 20 feet
Rear 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Interior Side* 5 feet 5 feet O'feet one side,
5 feet opposite
side
* No additional setback per story
Staff is generally supportive of the proposed setbacks. However, staff has two concerns
with the proposal. The first concern is regarding the proposed 15-foot rear setback of
alley loaded dwelling units. Staff believes that at least 20 feet should be maintained trom
the face of an alley loaded garage and the edge of the alley driving surface. This will
allow a standard car to park in tront of the garage without blocking the alley travel lane.
If a 20 foot setback is not agreeable to the applicant, then a maximum 5-foot setback
should be established (measured from the face of the garage to the pavement of the alley)
to discourage cars from parking in tront of the garages.
Similar to the concern with cars hanging out in the alley, the second concern staff has is
with detached sidewalks and garage setbacks. If detached sidewalks are constructed,
setbacks to the face of garages should be measured from the sidewalk OR property line,
AZ.O5-0!5. PP.O5-0!7, cUP.OS-O22
Crossfidd.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
5.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 28
whichever is more restrictive. This recommendation will ensure that cars parked in front
of a garage will not hang out over the sidewalk.
See Site Specific Condition #2 below.
2.
Amenities: MCC 12-6-2.A.3 requires two or more amenities to be provided as part of
each planned development. The proposed amenities for the subject planned development
include: a 10-foot wide asphalt pathway leading to the existing pathway along the Five
Mile Creek; 5.45 acres (over 9% of the site) of common areas; and a pool with restrooms
and changing areas, a splash pad, and play area within Lot 1, Block 12. In addition, the
applicant should construct a lO-foot wide multi-use pathway along the Creason Lateral
(see Preliminary Plat analysis). Staff believes that the proposed park area, pathways,
green space, and play equipment provide sufficient amenities relative to the size of the
proposed development. See Site Specific Condition #3 below.
3.
Day Care Lot: The applicant is proposing a future daycare on Lot 5, Block 4. Because
this lot lies within the mixed-use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land
Use Map, a detailed CUP is required. Conceptually, staff does not have any issue with a
day care facility in this location. When the future CUP is submitted, however, staff will
evaluate the site plan for conformance to the design standards for uses within a mixed use
area. See Site Specific Condition #4 below.
4.
Accessory Uses: The purposes of the planned development are: "... fosters innovative
design concepts and promotes flexibility in site design... ", "encourage mixed-use
projects, and to permit secondary uses which are integrated with and support the primary
use" (MCC 12-6-1). As part of the Planned Development the applicant has requested to
construct twelve accessory dwelling units (on 5% of the lots). The applicant has not
designated specific lots for these accessory units. Staff is supportive of allowing
accessory and secondary dwellings within this development as the comprehensive plan
calls for higher residential densities in this area. However, limiting accessory dwelling
units to twelve would be hard to track, and because the new, proposed Uniform
Development Code (as currently drafted) allows accessory and secondary dwellings in
the R-8 zone, staff recommends that all detached lots be allowed to contain accessory
dwellings (if an accessory use permit is approved). To increase residential densities near
this neighbor center, a minimum of twelve of the proposed lots should include accessory
dwelling units. See Site Specific Condition #5 below.
Staff would like the applicant to clarify at the public hearin~ if the accessory dwellings
are proposed on the allev loaded lots or the detached lots. or both. Further. staff would
like to have the applicant clarify how the required off-street parkin~ will be provided for
the accessory dwellin~ units.
Elevations: The applicant has submitted 17 pictures of the different types of dwelling
units proposed. Staff believes that the dwelling units will be compatible with the
adjoining uses, if the buildings are constructed as shown on the submitted elevations.
Construction within Crossfield Subdivision should substantially comply with the
AZ-O5-015, PP-O5-017, CUP-O5.0ll
Crossfield.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 29
seventeen elevations submitted by the applicant. Construction materials used on the
structures should be approved by the City of Meridian Building Department and in
accordance with the most recent Building Code. See Site Specific Condition #6 below.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1. The site plan prepared by Engineering Solutions, LLP, dated February 15, 2005, is
approved, with the conditions listed herein. Applicant shall meet all of the requirements
of the Annexation and Zoning (AZ-05.015) and Preliminary Plat (PP-05.017) as a
condition ofthe Conditional Use Pennit (CUP-05-022).
2.
The project shall confonn to the R-8 dimensional standards, except as follows:
. Lot Size -
6,380, sq. ft. (minimum)(detached)
5,000 sq. ft.(minimum)(detached, patio home)
4,200 sq. ft.(minimum)(detached, alley loaded)
3,950 sq. ft.(minimum)
. Lot Frontage -
50 feet (minimum, detached)
34 feet (minimum, alley loaded)
40 feet (minimum, attached)
15 feet (cul-de-sac)**
.
House Size - 1,300 sq. ft. (detached)
R °d fiB ldo
S tb k
. eSI en la Ul IDJ;?; e ac s-
Detached (not Detached Attached
alley loaded) (alley loaded)
Front & Street Side (Living Space) 15 feet 12 feet 15 feet
Front or alley (Face of Garage)*** 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
Rear 15 feet 18 feet 15 feet
Interior Side* 5 feet 5 feet 0' feet one side, 5
feet opposite side
* No additional setback per story
** Any lot with 20 feet or less of frontage shall be required to share a common driveway with an
adjacent lot(s).
*** Face of garage setbacks shall be measured from the property line or the back of sidewalk for
detached units and from the property line or the edge of the driving lane for alley loaded
units, whichever is more restrictive.
3.
As amenities for the subject planned development, construct: a lO-foot wide asphalt
pathway leading to the existing pathway along the Five Mile Creek; a lO-foot wide
pathway along the Creason Lateral; set aside 5.45 acres of common areas; and construct a
pool with restrooms and changing areas, a splash pad, and play area within Lot 1, Block
12.
AZ-O5-015, PP-O5-017, CUP-O5-on
Crossfield.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 30
4.
Any future day care use on Lot 5, Block 4, shall be required to obtain separate CUP
approval.
5.
All detached lots shall be allowed to contain accessory dwellings (if an accessory use
pennit is obtained). At a minimum, twelve of the lots within this development shall
contain accessory dwelling units.
6.
Construction within Crossfield Subdivision shall substantially comply with the 17
elevations submitted by the applicant. Construction materials used on the structures shall
be approved by the City of Meridian Building Department and in accordance with the
most recent Building Code.
Other A2encv and Department Comments & Condit~
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 pennits.
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 detennined 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.
7. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Pennitting
that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
8. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Pennitting that may be required by the Anny Corps of Engineers.
9. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
10. All grading ofthe site shall be perfonned in confonnance with MCC 11-12.3H.
AZ.O5-015, PP-O5.017, CUP.O5-022
Crossfield.AZ.PP.CUI'.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 31
11. 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 fi-om
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. Please submit all updated groundwater and soils monitoring data to the Public Works
Department for review. Any drainage areas (detention and/or retention basins) must be
designed to ensure that water is retained only during 1O0.year stonn 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 or 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 detennining the groundwater, soil
type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases. The engineer shall be
required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the
highest established nonnal groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation
of the crawl spaces of homes is at least I-foot above.
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 detennined 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 nonnal groundwater elevation.
MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. One and two family dwellings will require a fire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available
for duration of2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average
of 500' apart. futemational Fire Code Appendix C
2. 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.
3. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 W' outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec.
d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the
hydrant location.
e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing peImits.
f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
AZ-OS.OlS, PP.OS-O17, cUP-OS.O22
Crossfi<1d.AZ.PP.CUI'.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 32
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.
4. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150' in length that is not
provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around.
5. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside
radius.
6. Operational fire hydrants, temporary or pennanent street signs and access roads with an all
weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site.
7. To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required
for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. The two entrances should
be separated by no less than Y2 the diagonal measurement of the full development.
8. Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one and two story
construction.
9. The proposed 245-lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have
a total estimated population of711 residents at build out.
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
11. Maintain a separation of5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure.
12. Provide a Knoxbox entry system for the clubhouse prior to occupancy.
13. All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage
practices of the chemicals for the pool shall be required to comply with the Intemational Fire
Code.
14. 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).
AZ-OS-O1S. PP-O5.017. CUP-OS-Oll
Crosstìdd.AZ.PP.CDP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 33
b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system
installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement
shall be 600 feet (183 m).
MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT
-l-. Pathway and Trail standards: Construction of t+he proposed pathway and/or trail shall
meet the standards as set forth in the f~ugust 2003 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation
System Plan, pgs. 3 2 and 3 3, sections B & C. be coordinated with the Parks
Department.
2. Standard for City to assume Maintenance of a section of Pathway: The pathway must
connect from one major arterial to another, and either an easement or ownership deed
must be granted before the city will assume the maintenance of any section of pathway.
MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
1. The Meridian Police Department requests that open-vision fencing be constructed along
the Five Mile and Creason pathways.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the submitted annexation and zoning (AZ-O5-015),
preliminary plat (PP-O5-017), and conditional use permit (CUP-O5-0ll) applications, with
the conditions listed herein.
AZ-O5-015. PP-O5-017, CUP-O5-0ll
O'ossfidd.AZ,I'P.CUP.doc
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 21,2005
Page 9 of 90
that person ten minutes. And that's exclusive of any additional questions we may ask
after that. But, then, even if you have signed up, we ask that you just respond that you
gave your time to Sam or Susie or whoever spoke. Following the general testimony,
then, we do ask during that time that the applicant be taking notes and we give the
applicant an opportunity to come back and explain to us one final time anything that
they can resolve that's been brought up, whether it's a new subject or something they
thought up before, we give them ten minutes to answer any of the questions that have
come up and resolve things. And, then, following that, theoretically, we close the Public
Hearing and deliberate on what our recommendation to the City Council should be and
forward it onto City Council one way or the other and, then, the City Council will have a
Public Hearing, which will also be noticed. The same way that you found out about this
meeting you'll find out about the City Council meeting. So, that's pretty much our
procedure. We have a handy lighting system here. There is a green light and, then, a
yellow light and, then, a red light. When the green light is on you have time to speak.
When it goes to yellow you should begin to conclude. And when it's red your time is up
and we do ask that you either ask somebody else to continue your comments or just
conclude quickly. That helps us get everything done, so we do appreciate that.
Item 6:
Item 7:
Item 8:
Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: AZ 05-015 Request for
an Annexation and Zoning of 59.30 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for
Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955
West Ustick Road:
Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: PP 05-017 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 246 building (244 residential units, 1 daycare
& 1 pool/locker facility / restroom) lots and 26 other lots on 59.30 acres in
a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates
Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road
Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: CUP 05-022 Request for
a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family
residential units with a request to allow for reduced setbacks, reduced lot
size, reduced frontages, reduced house sizes and block lengths in excess
of 1,000 feet in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by
Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road:
Zaremba: And with that I will open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-015, PP 05-
017, and CUP 05-022. All these relate to Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates
Development, LLC, at 965 West Ustick Road. And we will begin with the staff
comments.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This item was on the agenda
a few months ago and was not the subject of discussion. However, the applicant
submitted a letter requesting some additional time to do some more groundwater
monitoring out there. Staff did receive an updated report last week or the week before
from their soil scientist and have had a chance to review that and that's -- based on that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
JUly 21, 2005
Page 10 of 90
report have sent this revised staff report. For the site that's located on the south side of
Ustick Road, approximately one half mile west of Meridian Road. The property is within
our urban services planning area and is in within the current city area of impact. It's
zoned RUT in Ada county. Approximately half of this site lies within the mixed use
community designation on the Comprehensive Plan, those half moons on the
Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is proposing single family dwelling lots within the
development, except for a potential day care site, and I will point that out here when we
get to the site plan. There is currently a single family home and some out buildings on
the site. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing home near Ustick Road and
remove the accessory structures. To the north of the site, just to orient you a little bit
better, are some single family homes and unplatted ag land zoned RUT in Ada county.
To the northeast of the site, just across Venable Lane, there has been a development
Cedar Springs Subdivision is further north, right on that corner. As a professional
center, a car wash has been approved for that corner of Ustick and Venable. To the
south is the File Mile Creek traverses the south property right here. The File Mile. And
the Meadow View Subdivision is just on the other side of that, zoned R-4 in the city. To
the west are several five acre parcels of long, skinny five acre parcels. Unplatted. They
are currently being utilized for agricultural purposes and they are zoned in the county.
Excuse me. To the east is Venable Lane, which currently is a private flag lane. It's not
improved to any type of public standards or recognized as a public -- improved public or
private street. Waterbury Park Subdivision is also to the east, zoned R-4. Salisbury
Subdivision No.2, also known as Valen Courts, was recently approved. The lots are not
shown here, which is a 2003 aerial. But that was also recently approved for
development of single family homes. Recently the city has approved annexation and
zoning developments, again, for Cedar Springs and Salisbury. Although there have
been recent city approved developments in this area, the approval of this subject
development will create a seven acre enclave and I just wanted to point that out, that if
this development gets approved, the seven acres here will be surrounded by the city
limits. Of the 246 proposed buildable lots -- I'm sorry it doesn't come out very well, it's a
pretty big project. Of the 246 proposed buildable lots, 56 are within the FEMA one
hundred year flood plane. The applicant is proposing to conduct 18 zero lot line lots, 67
alley loaded lots, 31 patio home lots, 128 single family detached lots, one day care lot,
and one clubhouse and pool lot. To break up the attached units, a patio home lot is
proposed between each pair of the attached units. And it's kind of tough to show at this
scale, but, basically, you have the attached units and, then, you have the detached
units, attached and, then, detached kind of on the perimeter on the north side of their
collector street there. I did want to point out just one other thing with the plats and its
condition in the staff report. The applicant was proposing an 18 foot wide alley within a
20 foot -- within a 20 foot easement on the back side of the buildable lots. This was a
little problematic, as far as staff -- kind of played that out and there wouldn't be a rear
setback for the garage and the garages could potentially be hanging out into the alley
and not be a driveable surface. The structures on the property lines that basically go
down the center of the alley, so staff recommended that they put the alleys within a
common lot or dedicate it to the highway district, kind of getting some separation to
buildings, that way people that park in front of their garage aren't blocking an alleyway.
So, as staff has recommended, there will be 18 feet between the face of the garage and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 21, 2005
Page 11 of 90
the property line and 20 feet to the asphalt of the alley. We did receive a letter from the
applicant today about that condition and they seemed to be okay with that condition. All
patio home lots, alley-loaded lots, and attached lots are located north of Jasper Street.
That's the -- what I referred to as a collector. It's not really a collector, but this is Jasper
and the pool area and all 128 single family detached lots are located south of that. So,
this is kind of a demarcation line between the small lots and larger lots. The common lot
with the park is right at the terminus of the collector roadway coming into a development
and I will show you that a little bit more in the landscape plan in just a second. Jasper
Street is proposed as an east-west stub and I think that's important, because today
Venable Lane does not currently exist. There is a 20 foot wide flag, if you will, down to
the seven acres. That is not improved and cannot really be improved as a street today
until the property further to the east develops and is in alignment with Venable across
on the north side of Ustick Road. So, the applicant is proposing to tie into that future
street, what the city has designated as a collect -- north-south collector at Venable. The
gross density of the subdivision is 4.13 dwelling units per acre. With the subject PO the
applicant has requested reduced building setbacks, reduced lot sizes, reduced lot
frontages, reduced minimum house size, and increased maximum block length. The
applicant is also requesting approval for 12 accessory dwelling units to be constructed
within the project. Staff is supportive of the accessory dwelling units as noted in the staff
report. It's a good way to get the densities up and provide some innovative ways to
provide some smaller units on single family -- traditional single family lots. I just want to
really quickly touch on the PO amenities. Here is kind of a blow up of the pool and park
area, again, the main entrance to the subdivision goes up to Ustick here. The applicant
is proposing a ten foot wide asphalt pathway along the existing Ten Mile -- better go to
the other slide. The existing pathway that leads to Tully Park, they are proposing to tie
into that in this location down here and construct a pool with restrooms, changing areas,
a splash pad area and the play area for the residents of this subdivision. I did just want
to touch on a couple of things from the letter today received from Engineering Solutions
and, then, hopefully, the applicant can clarify and expand on some of those things that
are in there that I'm not going to address. First, I want to just explain that the design of
the subdivision, staff -- I believe I could have supported it fully if the Comp Plan
designation did not call for a mix of uses in this area and that's why the staff report
recommended that the area north of Parkstone be left out of being final platted. So, that
would be this general block here. That, basically, the applicant wait a little while until the
city sees how it develops on the other side of Venable and how Venable is constructed
and what kind of uses are put in there and/or a market study is performed to see if any
nonresidential uses can be supported in this area. The other thing that I did just want to
clarify is in the letter it does state that Meridian has too many offices, basically, to
simplify the letter, but it did say it was 22 percent, I believe. That mixed use area does
not just mean office uses, it can be retail, coffee shops, restaurants, you know, those
types of other uses, not just professional offices or dentist offices. So, just to clarify that,
that the Comp Plan does call for these mix of uses. And I would like the applicant -- we
talked a little bit before the presentation, but just to clarify how the 12 accessory
dwelling units on the north side, to be constructed on the smaller lots and to talk about
the parking for them and how the city should specify, you know, we have to designate
somehow on a plat that these 12 lots or however many lots need to have an accessory
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 21,2005
Page 12 of 90
use on it, there is no way for us to really track it in the planning department, so if the
applicant could just talk about that for a minute. And, finally, the only amendment that is
recommended that the Commission make to the staff report is on page 33. Staff
concurs with the applicant that the parks requirements for the pathway cross-sections
are pretty eccentric and would just maybe recommend some other language that the
applicant shall -- I have some here, if you would like, but, basically, the point is the
applicant shall coordinate the construction of the multi-use pathway with the Meridian
Parks Department. I guess one more thing. The applicant did drop off a little post-it
about the fencing -- perimeter fencing was questioned. Wrought iron is proposed along
all the open spaces, including the park areas and pathway and, then, there will be vinyl
all along the exterior and along the collector coming into the development. So, I did
want to just go on record with that. And staff is recommending approval with the
conditions as stated in the staff report. With that I will stand for any questions you may
have.
Zaremba: Commissioners, questions at this point?
Moe: I think I'll wait until after the applicant.
Zaremba: In that case, we are ready for the applicant.
McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aiken Street, Eagle. I'm
representing the applicant Packard Estates Development on this application. If I could
put some boards up. Hopefully, the Commission can see that. This particular site, as
Craig indicated, is approximately 59 acres. It's kind if an unusual site, obviously, in its
configuration with this square up here and, then, this kind of long leg down in here. We
had some challenges in design for this particular site. We had three existing stub
streets. We have one here and a second one here on the western side. A third one here
on the east. We have existing Waterbury Park here and, then, Meridian Park
Subdivision, I believe, is located right here. We have Five Mile Creek that runs along the
southern boundary. There is also an existing multi-use pathway that comes down,
crosses the creek and goes on east. One of the other challenges we had to work
around is the city installed a 21 inch sewer trunk through this property a few years ago
and that trunk comes up through this property like this and, then, exits into Waterbury
Park. Our fourth constraint here is the Creason Lateral that runs diagonally across it
here and, then, our other thing we had to work around was the existing dwelling that's
located right there on Ustick Road and currently fronts on Ustick Road. So, taking all
those factors into consideration, we worked and reworked this site, we came up with
three or four different ideas on it, met with staff I think at least three times, maybe more.
I lost count after awhile. Trying to determine what was the best use for this particular
piece of property. These neighborhood centers that are designated on the
Comprehensive Plan, as Craig indicated, there is one that comes around this property
kind of like this in this fashion. It encompasses about roughly 29 or 26 acres, I think, of
this 59 acres. The rest of this is designated medium density residential. So, as you well
know, in the Comprehensive Plan, the neighborhood centers call for a certain criteria to
be utilized in the design of the subdivision. That criteria is a more gridded pattern of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 21, 2005
Page 13 of 90
subdivision as short blocks, incorporation of alleyways, the usage of reduced roadways,
centrally located open space, pedestrian friendly interconnectivity. A variety of housing
choices. It talks about creating a site where you have a radiating pattern of housing
types where it's denser and, then, it decreases in density and the lot sizes and home
sizes, obviously, increase. We feel that in working with this site, we incorporated those
factors. And when you -~ when you look at the Comprehensive Plan and it gives you this
more gridded central half mile collector concept to work with, you know, it is not
intended to be this is the only way to do it, but it is intended as, obviously, a guideline of
one way to do it and that is how the staff has explained it to us in the past in our
discussions. Now, one of the problems that we had with the neighborhood center is,
obviously, the center of it is right there and -- but there is no collector roadway in that
location and that collector roadway can't be built in that location until the Ward property
to the east were to redevelop -- or to develop, excuse me, which, then, would allow for
an alignment of the public portion of Venable to the north that goes into Cedar Springs.
The other second factor is when -- when the Comprehensive Plan showed a half mile
collector coming down, there were no provisions when Waterbury Park came through --
and Capital Development did that, for any interconnectivity. So, there was no
mechanism for this -- a collector here to ever feed this main interior out to Ustick Road.
So, it's one of those situations -- I think we have talked about it before on other projects,
where, you know, kind of the sins of the past are affecting what we are able to do in the
future. So, we had to come in with a central collector here. The best solution I could
come up with is there is a flag drain that comes down the east boundary. We intend to
pipe that and, then, have that landscaped through there -- that would be like a
perforated pipe that goes down and dumps into the Creason Lateral and, then, we
created this kind of -- what I call kind of an east-west residential collector. We have
landscaping that runs adjoining it on the south side, we do have front-on housing here,
but they are alley loaded right through here. So, there would not be ingress and egress
to those lots. So, it could function kind of like a residential collector. What I envision
when the Ward property -- oh, oh. I think I ran out of -- I ran out of juice. I think when the
Ward property -- thank you. When the Ward property develops and the property to the
west develops, this would be kind of like -- not like a frontage road up next to the
arterial, but it would act as a main thoroughfare for interconnectivity between the
subdivisions. This particular product here is about 4,200 square foot lots. The question
was asked, I think by Craig, how could -- how can you accommodate the driveways or
parking for these type of units when you have got say 40 foot lots. We did bring some
examples. We brought some examples. I have some pictures. I got too many pictures.
These are some examples of pictures where -- where they have taken that accessory
structure -- it's above the garage, so as you can see, this picture, for example, here --
Canning; Mrs. McKay, for the benefit of those in the audience, are they the same as the
ones that are up on the board?
McKay; Yes. Yes, ma'am.
Canning: Can you use those, then?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
JUly 21, 2005
Page 14 of 90
McKay: Yes, I can. I didn't know you had those up on the screen. As you can see, the
accessory structure would be here. This is the alley. Here is their driveway. We agreed
with staff, we will expand the hard surface area to 16 feet. We will allocate a 20 foot
separate lot. There will be a 20 foot setback from edge of garage to edge of travel
surface. So, here would be the two car garage for the main primary residence. The
accessory use, like a mother-in-Iaw's quarters, or say a college kid, it would have the
one car garage here. And so that's how it would be accommodated. What I indicated to
staff is we do have some of these lots here that are say 36 feet wide. We would have to
either only utilize the wider lots that we have in here that are 40 and above or widen
these out to accommodate this type of accessory use. We designated 12 and my
suggestion would be add a condition that when the final plat comes in, that final plat
designates exactly which lots would have those 12 accessory use structures. Now, staff
did criticize us of the density. Our density -- as you well know, those neighborhood
centers call for a minimum of eight dwelling units per acre. Our overall gross density is
4.43 and our net density is 5.46. But as I stated in my responses to staff, when we look
at this area up here where the concentration of most of that neighborhood center lies,
our density is pretty high. It's above eight. I think it's 8.1 -- 8.16 dwelling units per acre
and that takes into consideration the alley loaders and the patio homes and the
accessory use structures. Now, one thing that we did do -- and I think staff did like it, is
we did alternate through here where we would have like two attached dwellings and,
then, the next lot over would be wider and it would be detached patio-type homes. So,
that -- we wouldn't have everything in a row and they wouldn't be identical in width and
look and bulk. When we got down in through this area here on the south, we had to,
obviously, consider compatibility with the existing single family residential. We did have
a neighborhood meeting, did get some -- have some discussions with the neighbors. I
think a majority of them came from Meridian Park Subdivision here. There was
discussions about fencing and a ditch. All in all, I was quite happy with the response
that we received. We did make effort to try to match, obviously, their width and square
footage to make sure that these were as compatible as possible. All of our open space
is kind in the central core right here. As you come in the collector roadway, what you will
see is the pool -- swimming pool facility, the clubhouse, which is restrooms, locker,
changing room, and, then, we will have a -- what we call a splash pad, like you're seeing
-- like a lot of the cities have now where the water come up and the kids can play in it,
it's very safe, and, then, it goes back down. It just kind of squirts up at about waist level.
We thought that would be a nice feature to incorporate into this project. We have got
central pathways coming up through here and, then, linking down into this southern
portion. We also have linkage in through this area here. Now, staff and I have discussed
the Creason Lateral. There is differing opinions. Staff has indicated that the
Comprehensive Plan calls this the South Slough. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District is
saying that is not correct. The South Slough stops at Venable Lane. As this waterway
goes westward to Venable Lane, it is the Creason Lateral. Bill Henson indicated to me
on the phone that they will be writing a letter to the Council stating their objection to any
pathway within their designated easement, which I think is 60 feet. Nampa-Meridian,
obviously, wants us to pipe it. It will take a 48 inch concrete pipe to pipe it. We did show
on our preliminary plat that that would be piped. Staff has asked that it be open. We did
take a look at it. I did bring some pictures today to submit to the -- to the Commission,
.'~'
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 21, 2005
Page 15 of 90
so they can kind of judge on their own. There are some areas of the facility where it is
about knee deep, a little over 20 feet wide, does have some esthetic value. There are
others where it's narrower and it is deeper, so we do have to, obviously, take into
consideration ditch safety and other issues when we are leaving these facilities open.
This is the facilities -- I'll submit that for the record. Now, Waterbury Subdivision has
improved a portion of it. They do have an area that is eastward where they have
installed some grass along the Creason Lateral. You can see the Creason there. It
weaves next to the manicured grass. But, then, as we go looking west, they just left it in
weeds, not improved. So, it's kind of -- it's kind of a difficult call. We -- in Bridgetower we
had the Creason Lateral traverse through our project there. We piped it. We piped it for
two reasons. Ditch safety and we pipe it for ground water purposes. We found that we
had to accelerate our plan to pipe that facility due to the fact that as soon as we
installed a phase next to it, we could see that we were getting seepage from that canal
and that we wanted to make sure prior to those homes being -- any homes being
constructed, that we got that facility in pipe, we piped it, and we didn't have any
problems adjoining it thereafter. If you would at look at my responses, staff and I do
have some things that, obviously, we don't see eye to eye on. We do not want to have
to do the grading and drainage plan on each lot. I have consulted with the project
engineer. She indicates based on the city and ACHD's requirements, we have to have a
three foot separation from the roadway to the groundwater. Also, if you utilize the
drainage swales, we got to have 4.7 feet. So, she feels that, obviously, that is overkill
from a technical perspective. Do you have any questions?
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Rohm: That's a lot to digest.
McKay: I know. Sorry.
Zaremba: It's been very enlightening so far.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, not at this time. I will have -- Commissioner Rohm said it best.
There is a lot to digest here with your answers to --
Zaremba: I would suggest that we go on with public testimony and, then, we will ask you
our questions after that, if that's okay.
Rohm: Works for me.
Zaremba: Okay.
McKay: Thanks.
Zaremba: The first person signed up is Alisha Lopez. From the audience she says she's
just signed in. She's marked as being for and didn't care to actually speak, so she's had
the opportunity. The next name is Christopher Brower and while he's coming forward I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 21, 2005
Page 16 of 90
will comment that we have received a very well reasoned and thorough letter and that is
in the public record and we have all read it. Thank you.
Brower: Chris Brower, 387 West Woodbury Drive in Meridian. I live in Waterbury Park
and am here on behalf of the residents of Waterbury Park and just wanted to --
Zaremba: Are you speaking as a spokesman for several people?
Borup: Yes, I am.
Zaremba: The whole group? Or most of it or --
Borup: After speaking with the board I believe I was the only person that --
Zaremba: Are there people here that -- just raise your hand -- that he's speaking for?
Okay. We will let you be a spokesman.
Brower: The reason I came as a spokes person is on the Valen Court Subdivision, if you
remember, Mark Snodgrass was the representative, because there was many of us, so
we endeavored to just have one person come. To summarize, Waterbury Park, after it
was built, the then existing Comprehensive Plan did not envision any neighborhood
center and when the neighborhood center idea of high density was introduced, we did
cite that the other 13 were all semi circles around Meridian, but this one was a full circle
and thought to see if just the northern half of Ustick Road could be a semi circle to be
consistent with the others, but that was turned down. And, then, when Valen Court was
proposed, which is immediately to our north, we in Salisbury one were concerned about
two things, the fact that the lot sizes next to us were actually smaller than our homes
and the traffic was being routed through the existing subdivision. So, it was worked out
-- was to have the traffic, instead, come through Indian Rocks Road, kind of a buyer
beware, those people moving in after the neighborhood center idea came forth and to
adjust the lot sizes that were next to our two subdivisions, so that they would be
compatible. Our concern with this project is that seven acre parcel there -- you'll see a
stub street on the northwest part of our subdivision that we are the primary direction of
travel and from that stub street all the way to Meridian Road there is no stop sign or
anything and we believe that the high density traffic will, essentially, come through our
lower density existing subdivision that existed before the neighborhood center idea was
proposed. We are fine with the stub street on the bottom and if this had been a similar
or lesser density, we wouldn't be here. We are only here because we are concerned
that being the primary direction of travel, the high density traffic is going to come
through in the morning and, then, as a shortcut to Meridian Road, that they would not
want to drive all the way up to Ustick Road, go to Ustick Road and, then, come down
Meridian Road. So, what we are asking for is that although this parcel is not -- the seven
acres is not being discussed per se tonight, we are asking if, as a condition to
development of this 59 acres, that that northwest stub street -- it could be agreed it
won't be developed in the future, because our concern is that if we wait until this seven
acres is developed, with all the stub streets from the high density leading to it, that the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 21, 2005
Page 17 of 90
proposal will, then, be to connect into that stub street, because it's already there and all
that traffic will flow through. So, like I -- the other concern we have is that -- if you notice
directly to our west there is eight lots where we have seven lots. So, it's, again, not --
you would think that if you're interior that you would be the same or less density driving
through on the way to Meridian Road. And so those are our concerns that we discussed
at our neighborhood association meeting and I just wanted to make myself available to
answer questions and to share our concerns, that we have tried to work first when the
neighborhood center idea was proposed and, then, tried to work when Va/en Court was
established and given the precedent that Salisbury One was accommodated with the
similar lot sizes and the redirected travel, that's all we are asking for is similar protection
of that northwest stub street and that the lot sizes directly to our west between the two
existing subdivisions kind of match the lot size. I agree they are also R-4, but they are
still smaller than ours, even though they are interior of our location. And that's really all I
had in trying to summarize in my written testimony.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners?
Brower: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Let's see. I'm guessing it's Joe Semanich. We also have a letter
from you about Venable Lane. Thank you for that.
Semanich: I'm Joe Semanich and I reside at 955 West Ustick. My wife and I sold this
property to Crossfield Subdivision and not until today did I get a copy of the staff report
or the responses from Engineering Solutions. We still own seven acres adjacent to the
Crossfield Subdivision and I tried to analyze the staff report and Engineering Solutions'
responses in a couple hours, I find there is some questions that need to be asked and
maybe get some answers. I will start with covering or leaving open the Creason Lateral.
In 1995, 1996, before this very same body, the plat was approved after considerable
discussion to not cover the Creason Lateral. It was not required to be piped. The
Creason Lateral upstream or the Finch Lateral clear up to Meridian Road or farther, it
has lawn on one side, bike path or a pathway on the other side, and it's a real good
feature for the neighborhood. The lots back right up to the pathway. Also, it was
mentioned that the Creason Lateral will prevent seepage to the adjacent lots. I have
been there for many many years. The Creason Lateral through our property or the
property we had, through the seven acres, to the Kellogg property, is a swale, it's like a
creek. The water does not go from the Creason Lateral to the adjacent ground. As a
matter of fact, an analysis during the wintertime, water flows into the Creason Lateral
from springs. So, I really think the Creason Lateral should be left open and let that water
establish a good pathway and, apparently, Nampa-Meridian wants all these ditches
piped, but a nice flowing stream -- people go to the mountains to see those things, now
you have got them right in town and you want to cover it up. And the Creason is not
used for irrigation until it gets about two miles downstream. The Finch Lateral has
pathways, lawn, trees, and it's good for the area and there is a final -- as a financial
situation, if the Creason Lateral is piped on the Crossfield Subdivision, they have got
700 feet. So, I'm sure if that's required to be piped, then, when I develop my seven
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 21,2005
Page 18 of 90
acres, I'll have 660 feet that we will need to pipe and it will not fit within the Finch Lateral
that's upstream or the bike path that I donated on the -- for the Five Mile Creek pathway.
So, I think we have got a good thing going there and I hate to see it changed for this
subdivision. Now, on page 19 we go to stub streets. After reading the staff report, I see
a lot of work that has to be done and mistakes are human, but I need to bring this
paragraph to your attention. It states that the street from Waterbury Subdivision to the
north would cross Five Mile Creek and may not be extended. This is the Creason
Lateral -- or am I mistaken? I'd like for someone to answer this question for me.
Hood: That's the Creason. You're correct.
Semanich: Is it the Creason or the Five Mile?
Hood: The Creason Lateral has a stub street to itself.
Zaremba: I think the one you're talking about does cross the Creason. You're talking
about this area right here?
Semanich: Yes. In the staff report it says that may not be extended in the future. Is that
right?
Zaremba: The director may have some input on that.
Hood: I can tell you what the staff report and analysis was, is, basically, if that road were
to be extended it would be on your dime and you would have to pay for a bridge
crossing of that. So, the reason I put it may not be extended is because I can envision
you coming in and requesting from this body a variance to not have to extend that stub
street.
Semanich: That's very nice of you, but that -- that pipe or bridge or whatever, it should
have been put in when Waterbury Five was developed, because that is on their
property.
Canning: Chairman, I need to remind you that his time is up and he has been notified of
that and his time is up and unless you plan on giving everyone free reign tonight, you
need to keep to your three minutes. Also, I would ask if anyone in the audience, if you
have questions of staff, please, direct them to the chairman and the chairman will tell us
if they want us to answer it, just to keep the Public Hearing running. Thank you.
Zaremba: Yes. May I ask you to conclude quickly, please.
Semanich: Well, Mr. Chairman, and Planning and Zoning staff, these are very important
issues that need to be discussed and I guess if you cut me off, that's the way it's going
to be, but there is a couple more items here and I think they are very important.
Zaremba: If you would mention what those are and not discuss them at length, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 21, 2005
Page 19 of 90
Semanich: Well, they need to be discussed at length. One of them is the stub street that
I was just beginning to talk about and the Venable Lane issue. You have got facts in
here or information that is not all there. There is -- I own 20 feet of Venable Lane and
the county owns 20 feet. Nobody mentions that 20 feet. When Cedar Springs was being
developed, that was before this very same body, and they said there would be no
problem connecting Venable Lane south to Venable Lane north of Ustick Road. So, we
are getting mixed information here. Ada County Highway District owns 20 feet of -- on
the east side of Venable Lane.
Zaremba: Okay. Next point.
Semanich: You know, if you are going to put me on the spot, I can't answer this in detail
in a minute, I'll do it by correspondence. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. No one else has signed up, but this would be your opportunity to
speak if you need to. Seeing none, we will ask for the applicant to come back and
respond to the issues that have been raised.
McKay: Becky McKay. I guess I'd like to talk about the neighborhood center. The
representative of Waterbury Park brought up a good point, that it makes the most sense
that that circle -- or that half circle be to the north of Ustick, because that's where the
public collector lies. That's where the elementary is going, that's where we are seeing a
mixture of neighborhood, commercial, and office take place. That has opportunity to
interconnect to Cedar Springs to flow that traffic out. I guess from my perspective --
Craig, can you put the vicinity map up real quick? If you look at this, there is really no
ability of this interior to flow out to a future Venable. And if we create a little
neighborhood center there at that half mile, it's going to function, at least from a
planning perspective, more like a -- kind of a strip commercial with access being taken
off of Ustick versus the intent of the neighborhood center capturing that traffic and
keeping it within section, instead of pushing it out to the arterial. So, I tend to agree with
-- I think his name is Chris, that the neighborhood center concept south of Ustick is not
what I would call a good idea. The seven acre parcel, Mr. Semanich owns that particular
property. He has a 20 foot flag that goes out to Ustick where the Venable private lane
portion lies. He intends to build a home on it. I think it's construction at this time or
getting there. He, obviously, wants to protect his right in the future to potentially develop
that property. He went before the Council I think here a few months ago. The Council
granted him, I think, a hook up to sewer and water, even though he was outside the city
limits, because he did not want to be annexed and staff mentioned that is an enclave,
but that he chose not to be annexed. We are providing a stub street to Mr. Semanich on
his north boundary. I have been coordinating with him to make sure that that stub street
is where it will benefit him, because it's solely for his benefit to feed out from his
property. He voiced his concerns to me that when our subdivision develops and if he
develops his seven acres, he sees that all the neighbors always come out and start to
complain about any interconnectivity to these stub streets, even though it has been
planned for years. So, he wants, obviously, to be on the record that at some point in
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 21, 2005
Page 20 of 90
time that stub street through this project will connect to other lots that may develop his
seven acres. I have spoken to -- to my client on the Creason Lateral. We are not
opposed to leaving it open. I would like to see staff work with Nampa-Meridian to help
try to get them to come around. It is on the Comprehensive Plan that that is designated
a pathway. Mr. Semanich is absolutely correct. There is one on Five Mile Creek, one on
Creason. We can work with it. We have designed around it in its natural alignment, so
we are not moving it in any shape or form. We were going to just propose putting it in
pipe, because at that particular time when we made that decision we felt that that was
the best. But, obviously, it's up to the Commission and the Council, but we are not
opposed to that. The stub street I think that Mr. Semanich was talking about is the one
coming out of Waterbury and as Craig indicated, they stopped -- Capital Development
stopped that stub street short of crossing the Creason. So, I think what staff was trying
to elaborate in their report that it's highly unlikely that that stub street will make a
connection to the seven acres. Staff suggested the possibility of another stub street on
the western side of Mr. Semanich. I did discuss that with him a couple days ago. He
wasn't too keen on that idea. But, you know, I think the fact that it's only seven acres,
we do have that one stub that should be able to, obviously, support any traffic that that
seven acres could generate. with the fact that we have got this east-west street with the
no front-on driveways or anything, you know, they will come up there -- if Venable were
ever developed, when the Ward property develops, then, this interconnectivity could be
made. We feel this is a good project on a very difficult piece of property. We monitored
the ground water for a year and a half at this site and we worked diligently to try to come
up with a project that meets what we believe the intent is, more of a neo-traditional
residential subdivision. We are keeping that house there, I forgot to mention, and we'd
like it to be a day care. We understand it takes a Conditional Use Permit and we have
drawn in kind of a circle drive, we thought that would be great, people who live there
could come in, drop their kids off right there, and, then, go on to work and take that
direct driveway off Ustick. So, we tried to incorporate what we feel are some good ideas
and complimentary to this area. Do you have any questions?
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I think you have done a marvelous job. I am serious. I think you have taken a
piece of property that has a lot of issues associated with it. My comment -- I don't have
a question, but I do have a comment. And the comment is there are so many issues
associated with the development of this property that I can't digest all of those things as
-- over a course of 15 minutes while we are sitting here deliberating and from my
personal perspective, I think that we, as a Commission, would do a better job
addressing your concerns and the balance of the public, if, in fact, we -- I don't know if
continue is the right word for it. I think we can actually close the Public Hearing and go
back and digest this and, then, reopen it at a later date and ask the right questions,
rather than close it out and not come up with the right solution. And that's -- right now
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 21, 2005
Page 21 of 90
McKay: And we appreciate that, sir. And we know this is a complicated project.
,~
'I
that's the way I feel about this project. And that's not saying that you haven't done an
excellent job, both yourself and staff.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Mr. Baird.
Baird: If you choose to go that way, I would recommend that you actually make the
motion to continue it to a date certain. That would also leave the record open and give
Mr. Semanich an opportunity to put his concerns in writing, since he indicated that he
just got that report today. So, then, he would be able address those specifically and get
them here in time and the applicant could also review that and we could have an
efficient continued hearing when we come back.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: And to continue that thought, any responses that we get with plenty of time to
digest it, gives us an opportunity to do a better job and so if Mr. Semanich has
additional concerns or wants to put his concerns in writing and submit them to the city,
we get a copy of that stuff like the next day and we are -- I'm not opposed to reading
that stuff on my own time and I think that we can do a much better job if we can just
move forward with that commitment.
Zaremba: I would say that thinking parallels Commissioner Rohm's. It is a difficult piece
of property. There are many elements of what you're proposing that I think are just right
in line with what would be good for Meridian. I think there are some kinks that still need
to be worked out and I do appreciate that you provide a very thorough answer to the
staff's comments. However, I reviewed this just as I sat down this evening and not to
give anybody a short shift, I'm agreeing with Commissioner Rohm, I would like time to
study it. What you have said, I think, is to continue the Public Hearing, give Mr.
Semanich a chance to put his very thorough comments on all of the subjects, which I
would like to hear, into writing, so that we can study those as well. And maybe, in the
meantime, there is some additional agreements that you and staff or even Mr.
Semanich come to, incorporate any ideas of all the speakers and so I guess my thought
is I would support the idea of continuing this and August 4th is very full and my thinking
would be August 18th. Commissioner Moe, you're nodding your head. Do you have
further comment?
Moe: Well, I guess I would just -- I would just reiterate the same that the other two
Commissioners have. When I read the staff report I anticipated that I would see
comments from you, which, of course, I did get when I sat down also tonight. You have
done a thorough job going through this, through the public hearing so far there have
been issues come up and I am, as well, am not ready to make a decision tonight and I
think these things need to be worked out and I think the 18th would be perfect.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 21,2005
Page 22 of 90
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
McKay: Mr. Chairman, we do apologize. We received the staff report at noon on Friday
and it takes a few days to, obviously, get with our client, talk with the highway district,
talk with staff -- I talked with Mr. Semanich on the phone, but I had to talk to so many
parties -- and I realize you just received that today.
Zaremba: And it was also a very lengthy and thorough staff report.
McKay: Yes, sir. So, it took us awhile, so we do appreciate you taking the effort this
evening and I agree that the 18th would probably most appropriate.
Zaremba: This is not a ding for having just received it today, but just we are trying to
give it thorough thought and not jump to conclusions. So, a lot of issues have been
raised, so I don't think we have anymore questions that we need to ask.
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Where did that voice come from? Mr. Hood.
Hood: May I just -- based on the discussions you just had, a couple of things. I am not
going to be here on the 18th, so I just wanted to point out a couple things. I'm, actually,
getting married that weekend, so I won't be here on the 18th, so -- I did just want to -- I
can prepare the staff report for that meeting, however, and I just wanted to see if there
is any things that you would like me to change between now and the next hearing or if
you want just basically the same staff report with no changes and digest all of that or if
there is one or two glaring things that we can clean this up now, I can make those
changes. Again, if you have thought about that, fine. I just thought if there were some
things to lessen the amount of time we have to spend on it next time, we can get those
cleaned up and if there is anything now, I can do that in the next three weeks, so -- and,
then, finally, what I'd like to do is just get -- since I'm not going to be here, is maybe
explain just a little bit more about what's going on on Venable south of Ustick. I did talk
with Christy Richardson at ACHD as well and she -- she made a couple of different
statements and I will -- some of the pertinent ones, I guess, to this are, basically, the
alignment of Venable north requires the parcel -- and as I said before, that that parcel to
develop, even though Mr. Semanich has been discussing with ACHD the possibility of
dedicating that as a right of way for Venable, the offsets -- it just doesn't work to have
them line up. So, that's -- I don't know what all his concerns were and I'm not going to
try to address all those, it's just -- I know that was one of the things that he has talked
with Christy about at ACHD is how does -- how to get Venable down south, anyways, or
what to do with that 20 foot flag that he owns now just to ACHD and ACHD can't accept
a 20 foot right of way that's not improved, so -- they accept right of ways that's fully
improved with curb, gutter, and sidewalk and a driveable surface. So, that's kind of the
long and short of that. So, just for what I know about Venable, I just thought I'd pass that
along as well, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 21,2005
Page 23 of 90
Zaremba: Well, I understand that the majority of the -- the center line of the roadway
has to be farther east for this to align with the other portion of Venable. Is any portion of
his 20 feet going to be involved?
Hood: I believe that probably the curb, gutter, and sidewalk can be constructed within
the 20 feet, but, basically, the whole pavement and the other curb, gutter, sidewalk on
the other side of the street is going to be in the new right of way.
Zaremba: Okay. I'm sorry. Can I ask you to explain that in the letter that you're going to
submit.
Semanich: Well, you have given him an opportunity, you should give me an opportunity.
Baird: Sir, you've had your time tonight. The hearing is about to be continued.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of Craig.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: In your staff report you have brought up the mixed use neighborhood center as
kind of an issue on this development and from testimony heard tonight and the
comments, it appears as if there is some question about maybe that's not the right or
appropriate place for that type of development. Is there room for you to move off of that
or are you pretty stuck with that?
Hood: I mean that analysis is based on the Comprehensive Plan and, like I said at the
beginning, I like the design of the subdivision. I think it's very innovative. We don't see a
lot of short blocks, alley-loaded units -- pretty nice. But I do think the site specific
condition number two of the preliminary plat does have an out. It doesn't say you have
to put in these units, it just says -- can you give us, you know, a couple of years or until
a market analysis is done or until the other property develops to further analyze whether
residential uses are appropriate here or non-residential uses are appropriate. But at
your -- you know, if that's -- if you say, no, residential works, then, I'll do whatever --
whatever you -- however you tell me to change the staff report, so --
Rohm: And I question, from my perspective, having not digested this whole proposal,
the residential doesn't look out of line to me. But I'm only one of five and so that would
just be my comment.
Zaremba: I don't so much have an issue with the residential as I think that we need to
give the original neighborhood center concept a chance to work. We keep finding
reasons not to really implement it the way it was intended and, I don't know, like I say,
there are things -- if you just handed me this plan, I would like this plan, but since it
overlays -- and we don't have that many neighborhood centers laid out, it overlays the
neighborhood center, and, like I say, we keep undercutting that idea and it needs a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 21, 2005
Page 24 of 90
chance to actually happen somewhere. So, now, I'm not giving an answer, the jury is
still out, in my opinion.
Rohm: Well, I think that there is room for continued discussion between the developer
and staff and maybe there is some compromise there that can be arrived at over the
next three weeks. But with that being said, I think that it's time to make a motion and --
Moe: Well, before you do that, I do have one other comment for Craig and it's just a
fairly minimal item, but I do believe we do need another notation on the preliminary plat
that they do identify the locations for those accessory structure uses. At least that for
sure.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think I will go ahead and make the
changes that the applicant has agreed to, if you feel that's appropriate as well. I won't --
anything that's bold I won't -- I won't change or alter, but anything that appears that we
are on the same page, I will reflect that in the staff report.
Zaremba: Reflect the agreements.
Rohm: All right.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we continue items AZ 05-015, PP 05-017, and CUP 05-022 to the
regularly scheduled meeting of August 18th. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 9:
Continued Public Hearing from July 7, 2005: AZ. 05-026 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 15.32 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for
Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and
540 East Ustick Road:
Item 10:
Continued Public Hearing from July 7, 2005: PP 05-025 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 56 building lots and 6 common lots on 15.32
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook,
LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road:
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE August 18, 2005 ITEM # 13
PROJECT NUMBER AZ 05..015
PROJECT NAME Crossfield Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL
C" ß (~l.~lt 4oal'\jWU' ~J~~ \0'(19 X
~> i1J'U" rt\~ -S-v'... ~ ( ~~~I\.~'
, I
t/
Joe ana AII)' ~Imuruçn
955 W. Ustick: Rd.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
,'R~~CEIVEr~'l
AUG 1 8 2005
CITY OF MERIDIA~,<
CITY CLERK CCC!('r
August 16,2005
Atte ûon Cbainnan Zaremba;
On July 21,2005 I attended the Planning and Zoning meeting for the Crossfield
subd vi.ion- Th. itom. t was COIICer 10<1 .bout were ditch piping, pat/JwoYO, future .""... to th.
seve acres we own at the end O(Vfllable Lane, and the availability of Venable Lane as a
coD or road fur the !Ubdivislon. wbich oulTOUnd our property. I was unable to finish my
testi any at the meeting and am wri :1n8 this Jetter to complete that communication.
As you can see these are quit e a few items to address in the time aJlotted to private
citi.z . during. planning and .mnin¡¡ ,,-jng. A.! was giving DJy testimony Mrs. Canning
int- pled me and Slated that I had -ed my three minute tim_limit (Please see pa¡¡e 18 of
19 0 the draft copy the Planning and Zoning minutes for the meeting dated July 2 J. 2005.) I had
aske a question to which Mr. Hood repJied; Mrs. Canning then made an issue army questions
bein direçted 10 the chainnan. I re.llhat M'.. Canning W8s extremely rude towwd me, especially
wh one considers that she repreSeHts a gOVernment agency and I aut one of the citizens she
we for,
Be that as it may~ here is the rest of the information I was tJying to share with you,
Cu tIt decisions are being made (In a case by case basis regarding subdivision access, ditch
pipi and access -. without "",ch rq¡an to the future deveJo- of a4isœm property.
At t e July 21" meeting Mr Bower (-epresenting Waterbury Park sub.) requested that the stub
st:r NW lOtb not be extended in t he future as a condition of approvw for Crossfield
Sub ivision (see pages 16 and 17 P and Z meeting minutes 7121/05). At the south end of
Cro field a stub street is scheduled ~o connect our property to SOQlmertoø St. rfNW 10th is
not ended as requested I am concerned that SommertoD may not be adequate to handle the
tr flow and that residents in Cra Jsfield may object to the increased traffic even jf studies show
So ertoD to be adequate.
On August 10, 2005 my wife Katy and J met with Andrea TulUÙng and her co-worker
(bot ACHD emDJöveet) IiIntf M-A thA ,..,.,..."......... -.....~-.t .1..---- ""L__. no.'..' .
.-
-
-
AZ 05-01 5
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
July 21, 2005
APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO. 6
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 19,2005: Annexation and Zoning of 59.30
, acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision - 2820 West Pine Avenue
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
See previous item packet / minutes
CITY ENGINEER:
AZ 05-015
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
July 21, 2005
APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO. 6
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 19,2005: Annexation and Zoning of 59.30
, acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision - 2820 West Pine Avenue
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
See previous item packet / minutes
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
See attached staff report
~~O~
\)~ ~I
~. fò'"
)Ç>
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:
See attached comments
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See letter from Christopher Broer -
CO~:;::= ~J ~~ Date 2 ~1~ . ~ o~ q~ {ft 8ò
. ateria's presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clt. of eridian.
"r '
c:-M'e;;dl~n ~ . '~\
~ IDAHO II
", )f
~C'~~~"11 ... /
",~ ,SlNcr
190~
RECEIVED
JUl 15 2005
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICE
STAFF REPORT:
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Transmittal Date: July 15, 2005
To:
Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
Craig Hood, Associate City Planner (II/
Michael Cole, Development Services CoordinatorrYI G
From:
Re:
Crossfield Subdivision REVISED
. Annexation and Zoning of 59.30 Acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8
(Medium Density Residential), by Packard Estates Development, LLC. (File
No. AZ-05-015)
. Preliminary Plat Approval of Two-Hundred-Forty-Five (245) Single-Family
Residential Lots and Twenty-Seven (27) Other/Common Lots on 59.30 Acres
in a Proposed R-8 Zone, by Packard Estates Development, LLC. (File No. PP-
05-017)
.
Conditional Use Pennit Approval for a Planned Development Consisting of
Single-Family Attached and Detached Homes, Accessory Dwelling Units, and
a Potential Day Care on 59.30 Acres, with Reduced Building Setbacks,
Reduced Minimum Lot Frontages, Reduced Minimum Lot Sizes, Reduced
Minimum House Sizes, and Increased Maximum Block Length, by Packard
Estates Development, LLC. (File No. CUP-05-022)
We have reviewed the above referenced submittals and offer the following comments and
conditions of the applicant:
APPLICATIONS SUMMARY
The applicant, Packard Estates Development, LLC, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ),
Preliminary Plat (PP) and Conditional Use Pennit/Planned Development (CUP/PD) approval of
245 single-family residential building lots and 27 other/common lots on 59.30 acres in the
proposed R-8 zone. There is currently a single-family home and several outbuildings on the site.
The applicant is proposing to retain the existing home near Ustick Road and remove some of the
accessory structures. The site is located on the south side of Ustick Road, approximately Y2 a
AZ-O5-0IS, PP-OS-O17. cUP-Oj-all
Crossfield.AZ,PP.CUP
-
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 2
mile east of Meridian Road. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area and
the current City of Area Impact and zoned RUT in Ada County.
Of the 246 proposed buildable lots, the applicant is proposing: 18 zero lot line lots; 67 alley
loaded lots; 31 patio home lots; 128 single-family lots; 1 daycare lot; and 1 clubhouse and pool
lot (the only buildable common lot). To break up the attached units, a patio home lot is
proposed between each pair of attached units. Access to the alley loaded lots is proposed from
14-feet of pavement within a 20-foot wide alley easement (3 feet on either side of the alley is
proposed to be grassed). All patio home lots, alley loaded lots, and attached lots are located
north of Jasper Street. The clubhouse and pool area and all of the 128 single-family detached
lots are located south of Jasper Street. Jasper Street is proposed as an east-west stub street.
The applicant expects to development the project in four phases, starting from Us tick Road.
The gross density of the proposed development is 4.13 dwelling units per acre-
A CUP/PD application is required because Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan requires all
new uses designated for mixed use on the Future Land Use Map to be processed as Planned
Developments. The purpose of this policy is to encourage more collaboration between the
developer and the City to help create neighborhood centers that have unique designs, with
regard to both site layouts and structures. With the subject PD the applicant has requested
reduced building setbacks, reduced lot sizes, reduced lot frontages, reduced minimum house
size and increased maximum block length. The applicant is also requesting approval for 12
accessory dwelling units to be constructed within the project. An accessory dwelling unit is a
habitable unit established in conjunction with and subordinate to a single-family dwelling unit.
Accessory dwelling units are commonly referred to as guest houses, granny flats, carriage
houses, caretaker unit, and mother-in-law quarters.
The applicant is proposing to construct one block (10) that exceeds the 1,000 foot maximum
established by MCC. The minimum lot size for the R-8 zone is 6,500 square-feet and the
minimum lot frontage requirement of the R-8 zone is 65 feet. As mentioned above there are
four types of dwelling lots proposed. The smallest detached patio home lot shown on the
preliminary plat is 5,063 square-feet and the shortest frontage is 52 feet. The smallest proposed
detached non-patio home lot is 6,380 square-feet and the shortest frontage is 58 feet. The
smallest proposed alley loaded lot is 4,200 square~feet and the shortest frontage is 34 feet. The
smallest proposed attached lot is 3,958 square-feet and the shortest frontage is 40 feet. On the
submitted preliminary plat, only 52 of the proposed 246 proposed lots have 65 feet or more of
frontage. The applicant is proposing a minimum house size for this project of 1,300 square-
feet, 1 foot below the 1,301 square-foot minimum. The proposed minimum lot size, frontage,
house size and building setbacks are detailed below.
R-8 Zone:
Lot Size -
C'ossficld.AZ.PP.C\!P.doc
City Minimum Requirement
6,500 sq. ft. (detached)
Shown on Preliminary Plat
6,380, sq. ft. (minimum, detached)
5,000 sq. ft.(minimum, detached, patio home)
AZ-OS-OIS. PP-OS-Oll, ClIP-OS-O22
.---.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 3
loaded)
4,200
sq.
ft. (minimum,
detached,
alley
4,000 sq. ft. (attached)
3,950 sq. ft.(minimum, attached)
Lot Frontage - City Minimum Requirement
65 feet (non cul-de-sac)
40 feet (cul-de-sac)
Shown on Preliminary Plat
50 feet (minimum, detached)
34 feet (minimum, detached, alley loaded)
40 feet (minimum, attached)
15 feet (cul-de-sac)
Hoose Size - City Minimum Requirement
1,301 sq. ft. (detached)
ProDosed
1,300 sq. ft. (detached)
p
d R "d t" I B ild"
S tb k
ropose eSI en la 0 ill.x e ac s-
Detached (not Detached Attached
alley loaded) iall~ loaded)
Front & Street Side (Living Space) 15 feet 12 feet 15 feet
Front (Face of Garage) 20 feet 20 feet
Rear 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Interior Side* 5 feet 5 feet 0' feet one side, 5-
feet opposite side
* No additional setback per story
NOTE: Staff has concerns with the proposed 15 foot rear setback for alley loaded dwelling units.
Because the alleys are proposed as easements within the buildable lots, the proposed rear
property line of the alley loaded lots goes to the center of the alley. If approved as submitted,
there would only be 5 feet between the alley easement and the face of the garage. This would
only allow approximately 8 feet between the pavement of the proposed alley and the face of the
garage. Staff believes that this width will encourage cars to park in front of the garages and block
the alley, and does not detour people enough from parking in front of the garages. See
Preliminary Plat Analysis below. NOTE: Staff will provide an exhibit for the public hearing that
further shows the concern about garage setbacks and parking adjacent to the alleys.
The proposed PD amenities include: a lO-foot wide asphalt pathway leading to the existing
pathway along the Five Mile Creek; 5.45 acres (over 9% of the site) of common areas; and a
pool with restrooms and changing areas, a splash pad (fountain) area, and play area within Lot
1, Block 12. See Special Considerations in the Conditional Use Pennit section below for a
detailed analysis of the proposed amenities.
Crossfield,AZ.PP,CUP.doc
Fifty-six of the proposed buildable lots are within the FEMA 100 year floodplain. The applicant
has submitted no engineering plans as to how this flood plain is to be addressed. There is
seasonal high ground water in this area as well. Staff would like the applicant to clarify at the
public hearing how they intend to mitigate tillúJood Dlain and deal with tþe high 2found water.
AZ.OS-OlS, PJ'-OS-O17, cup-as-on
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 4
Staff recommends approval of the subject annexation and zoning (AZ-O5-015), preliminary plat
(PP-O5-017), and conditional use permit (CUP-O5-022) for the reasons listed herein.
LOCATION
The subject site is located on the south side of Ustick Road, approximately ~ mile west of
Meridian Road, in Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 1 West.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North: Single-family homes and unplatted agricultura11and, zoned RUT (Ada County).
South: Five Mile Creek; Meadowview Subdivision, zoned R-4.
East: Venable Lane; Waterbury Park Subdivision; zoned R-4; Salisbury Subdivision #2, zoned
R-8; Single-family homes and unplatted agricultural land, zoned RUT (Ada County).
West: Several 5-acre, unplatted parcels being utilized for agricultural purposes, zoned RUT
(Ada County); Meridian Park Subdivision, zoned R-4.
Recently, the City has reviewed and approved annexation and zoning and development
applications for Cedar Springs Subdivision and Salisbury #2 Subdivision (final platted as Vallin
Courts). Salisbury is a residential subdivision consisting of 81 lots. This development is located
directly east of the subject site, on the east side of Venable Lane. Cedar Springs is a mixed-use
development located on the north side of Us tick Road, on the east side of Venable Lane. As part
of the Cedar Springs development, a car wash and office space was approved by the City in
2004. Althou there have been recent Cit -a roved develo ments in this area the a roval of
the subject development will create a seven-acre enclave to the southeast. Parcel #S1201244500
lies directly between the subject site, Waterbury Park Subdivision and Salisbury Subdivision and
has not been annexed into the City.
OWNER OF RECORD
The property owners of record are Joe and Catherine Simunich. Joe Simunich has provided
notarized consent for Packard Estates Development, LLC, to submit the subject applications.
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS
Because the analysis below applies both to the proposed use and the proposed zoning, staff has
combined the analysis of use with the annexation and zoning amendment findings.
Crossficld.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
According to Meridian City Code (MCC) 11-15-11, 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 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;
AZ-O5.015, PP-O5-017, CUP-O5-on
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 5
The subject property is located in the heart of a Mixed UselNeighborhood Center
designation on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The 2002 Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map designates approximately half of this property as 'Mixed Use
- Community' with a Neighborhood Center. The purpose of this designation is "to
provide a blend of high-density residential, small-scale commercial, entertainment, office
and open space uses that are geared to serve all residents within a one to two square mile
area. The developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual
neighborhood center plan depicted in Figure VII-3. The purpose of these centers is to
create a centralized, pedestrian.oriented, identifiable and day-to-day service oriented
focal point for neighborhood districts. The centers should offer an internal circulation
system that connects with adjacent neighborhoods or regional pathway(s). They will also
serve as public transit locations for future park-and-ride lots, bus stops, shuttle bus stops
or other alternative modes of transportation." (See Chapter VII, pg. 95.)
During preliminary discussions with the applicant's representative, staff encouraged the
applicant to include other, non-residential uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
within the development. Although the applicant has included several of the key concepts
of a neighborhood center in the design (short blocks, interconnectivity, transitional
densities, transitional housing types, alleys, gridded street pattern, open space, etc.), staff
does not believe that the project fully complies with the intent of a mixed use area as
described in the Comprehensive Plan. After detailed evaluation of the purpose statement.
policies. desÚm standards. and objectives for mixed use areas. staff does not believe that
the subject plat complies with the Comprehensive P¡an and cannot recommend apProval
of the project. as submitted.
Staff recommends that the applicant delay developing the lots north of Parkstone Street
until either the parcel on the east side of Venable Lane develops. an acceptable market
studv concludes that additional non.residential uses are not needed in the northern portion
of the City. or two vears has passed. Staff believes that the City should adopt the
following course of action regarding development of the North Parkstone Area. The area
north of Parks tone Street (approximately) should not be allowed to final plat until one of
the following occur: 1) A market analysis is perfonned to see if non-residential uses can
by supported in this area. If the market analysis detennines that non-residential uses can
not be supported, then the applicant should be allowed to plat the area with residential
lots as proposed. If the market analysis detennines that additional non-residential uses
can be supported, then the applicant should be required to submit a new preliminary plat
and rezone application for the North Parkstone Area that includes non-residential use(s)
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The property to the east has been approved
for development, thereby providing collector road access for a non-residential uses. The
applicant should be required to submit a new preliminary plat and rezone application for
the North Parkstone Area that includes non-residential use(s) consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Crossfield.AZ,PP,CUP,do<
If within two years of the first final plat being recorded on this property, the property to
the east has not been approved for development and a market study has not been
AZ-O5-015, PP-O5-017, CUP-O5-022
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 6
perfonned, then the applicant should be allowed to plat the area with residential lots as
proposed.
The remainder portion (the southern halt) of the subject site is designated 'Medium
Density Residential' on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of
the Comprehensive Plan, medium density is defined as areas including single-family
homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. The overall proposed density
of 4.13 dwelling units/acre is within the target density for this area.
Staff also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to
this application (staff analysis is in italics below policy):
Mixed Use Area Comp Plan Policies (taken fi-om ChaDter VII)
. "All development proposed in these areas will require approval as planned
developments under the Conditional Use Pennit application process. In these
locations, the developer has the option to develop either a neighborhood center in
confonnance with the City's neighborhood center design ordinance, or develop a
conventional mixed use project."
A CUP application accompanies the annexation and zoning request, which fulfills the
first part of this policy. To date, the City has not adopted a neighborhood center
design ordinance. This application is being processed as a "conventional mixed use
project. " (See next bullet.)
. "If developing a conventional mixed use project, four specific design elements must
be incorporated into the development: a) street connectivity, b) open space, c)
pathways, and d) density, not below eight (8) dwelling units per acre."
a) Street Connectivitv: The development proposes to connect the development with
Ustick Road with a single public street, Blairmore Way. There are several other
public streets and alleys that are all interconnected to each other and adjacent
parcels.
b) Open Space: The applicant is proposing to construct a 1.8 acre neighborhood
park and set aside approximately nine percent of the site for open space. The
Comprehensive Plan is not more explicit with regard to open space, other than it
must be provided somewhere within neighborhood centers.
c) Pathwavs: Two public pathways are called for in this area on the Future Land
Use Map as part of the regional system. One multi-use pathway is shown along
the Five Mile Creek and another is shown along the Creason Lateral. The multi-
use pathway along the Five Mile Creek currently exists adjacent to this site. The
applicant is proposing to construct a 10-foot wide asphalt path to tie in with the
existing path along the Five Mile Creek. A public pedestrian pathway is proposed
along the north side of the Creason Lateral in Salisbury Subdivision. This
pathway will connect to the previously approved pathway along the Creason in
Clearbrook Estates. The applicant is proposing to construct their portion of the
Cl'ossfidd.AZ,PP.CUP,doc
AZ-O5-015. PP-O5-017, CUP-O5-022
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 7
Creason pathway on the south side of the lateral as only 5-jòot wide. In
accordance with the Future Land Use Map and the subjectfinding, staffbelieves
that a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway should be constructed along the Creason
Lateralfrom the east property line to the west. (See Special Considerations in the
Preliminary Plat section for more discussion.)
d) Densitv: The overall density of this project is 4.13 dwelling units per acre (gross)
(not including accessory dwelling units). The residential portion of the project
that is within the mixed use area is below the 8 dwelling units per acre target
density. Although the density is below the target, most of the proposed lots are
between 4,400 and 6,000 square-feet. To obtain a residential density closer to the
tarf!et of eif!ht dwellinf!s per acre, staff recommends that an additional block
south of Parkstone Street ( Block 11). be desif!ned with allev loaded lots similar to
the north side of Parkstone Street (see Site Specific Condition #2 below).
.
"The following standards will serve as guidelines for development of the
neighborhood center areas:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
1.
J.
k.
1.
m.
n.
o.
Most blocks are 300' maximum, similar to Old Town.
Larger blocks along arterial streets and for traffic calming.
Neighborhood Center Commercial area is located at the Yz mile, not at
arterial intersections.
Schools are located mid-section, with frontage along a collector street.
Interconnected circulation that is convenient for automobiles, pedestrians,
and transit.
Variety of housing choices.
Housing is arranged in a radiating pattern of lessening densities.
Transition between different housing types or densities at alleys.
Residents can access neighborhood commercial services without being
forced onto arterial streets.
Facilitates more efficient transportation along arterials.
Grid street pattern within the neighborhood allows traffic to disperse,
eases congestion, slows traffic, and is safer for residents.
Connects to and integrates with the larger street and pathway system.
Reduced right-of-way widths are encouraged.
Open space must be provided.
Unless a Specific Area Plan has been adopted, Neighborhood Centers
must be developed under a Planned Development/CUP application."
Except for the commercial component (standards "c" and "i" above), staff finds that
the proposed development generally complies with the design standards of a
neighborhood center.
(See Chapter VIl,pgs. 97-98, for the above-mentioned mixed-use policies.)
.
"Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public
services" (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action items 1 and 4)
AZ-O5-015. PP-O5-017, CUP-O5-0ll
Crossficld.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
. ,
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 8
On April 29, 2005, a joint agency and 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 to Ustick Road, an arterial
roadway. The location of the proposed Blairmore Way intersection of Ustick Road
meets A CHD 's requirements for location.
.
"Improve and protect creeks (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South
Slough, and Jackson and Evans drainages) throughout commercial, industrial and
residential areas." (Chapter V, Goal 1, Objective A, Action item 11)
The Five Mile Creek and the South Slough (aka Creason Lateral) course through this
site. The applicant is proposing to pipe the Creason Lateral. Staff believes that the
creeks should be protected and enhanced by leaving them open and constructing
pathways adjacent to them (see Site Specific Condition #9 below).
.
"Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback,
vegetation, low walls, benDs, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item
4)
Crossfield.AZ,PP.CUP,doc
The applicant is proposing to construct a 25-foot wide landscape berm along Ustick
Road. Staff is supportive of these widths, as long as the entire buffer lies outside the
ultimate right-ol-way, and the sidewalk is located outside of the 25-foot wide buffer
(or increase buffer to 30-feet). See Site Specific Condition #12 in the Preliminary Plat
section below.
B.
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future;
AZ-OS-OI5. PP-O5-017, CUP-OS-O22
-
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 9
If the conCUITent preliminary plat and conditional use pennit applications are approved,
staff does not believe that the applicant intends to rezone the property in the future.
However, staff recommends that at least a portion of the site be held out from being final
platted so the City can further analyze if future commercial/office/entertainment uses, as
called for in the Comprehensive Plan, are appropriate in this area. Once there is a
residential housing base established in this area that can support non-residential uses, this
area may be rezoned to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (non-residential).
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 the proposed single-family development could be allowed within the
requested R-8 zone, if the accompanying Conditional Use Pennit for a Planned
Development is also approved. Because the potential day care lies within a mixed use
area on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, a CUP will be required in the
future.
D.
Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the
area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad
access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion
similar to the proposed rezone area;
Staff finds that a substantial portion of the land to the south, southeast and southwest
have been developed (or approved for development) in a manner similar to the proposed
subdivision, with single-family dwelling units. Meridian Park, Meadowview and
Waterbury Park, all have lot sizes similar to the detached lots proposed in Crossfield.
There have been no recent street improvements in the area. Further, Ustick Road is not
cUITently scheduled within ACHD's Five Year Work Program and is not within the
Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for roadway widening.
This development is currently serviceable by the City of Meridian's sanitary sewer
system. Sewer service for this development will be via extension of trunk lines located
in this property and also mains that are currently under construction in Us tick road.
Water is available in Ustick Road. Other urban services are near to this site and the
applicant should be able to extend such services to the site. Staff fmds that the subject
site is proposed for development in a fashion similar to other properties in the 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;
Crossfidd.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
'<\Z-OS-OIS. PP-OS-017. CUP-Oj-on
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 10
The applicant has submitted 17 pictures of how the proposed single-family homes will
look. The pictures of the alley loaded homes and patio homes differ from the design of
existing residences in this area. However, if the homes are constructed in substantial
compliance with the submitted pictures, staff believes the homes will be hannonious and
appropriate in appearance to the existing and intended residential stock in this area. The
existing character of the area will, and is, currently changing. This development will set
the tone for how the rest of the area on the south side of Ustick Road designated for a
mixed use neighborhood center develops, or does not develop. Staff finds that if the
northeast portion of this site is not developed with sin¡zle-family detached units at this
time. the proposed R-8 zoninl! and subsequent residential use prol,Josed with the
concurrent preliminary plat will be hannonious and appropriate to the intended character
of the vicinity. However. if this development is approved as proposed. staff finds that it
will si!!I1ificantly chanl!e not only the existinl! 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 or 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 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;
Sewer service for this development will be via extension of trunk lines located in this
property and also mains that are currently under construction in Us tick road. Water is
available in Ustick Road. Other urban services are near to this site and the applicant
should be able to extend such services to the site. The applicant shall be responsible for
the extension of utilities to and through this proposed development. Sizing and routing
shall be coordinated with the Public Works Department.
The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay park and highway
impact fees as well as construct on-site storm water drainage facilities.
Crossfield,AZ,PP.CUP,doc
This item was approved by the ACHD Commission on May 18, 2005. No significant
changes were made to the plat by the ACHD; all internal roads are required to be a
minimum of 36 feet wide.
AZ-OS-O15. PP-OS.OI7, CUP-O5-on
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 11
On April 29, 2005, a joint agency and 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 and departments are at the end of this
report. Based on the comments received from other agencies and 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
infrastructure, utilities and iITigation services to serve the project. The primary public
costs to serve the future residents 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.
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 Ustick Road west of Meridian Road is 10,800 ADT. A
traffic impact study was prepared by Washington Group International for this
development. This traffic study anticipates that 1,923 vehicle trips per day will be
generated at full build out. Based on the traffic study, left and right turn lanes on Ustick
Road are warranted near the Blainnore Way entrance into the development. 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. Staff further finds that if all of this
property were to develop with only single-family dwellings before a market study can
analyze the appropriateness of non-residential in this area, the proposed residential
zoning and uses may be detrimental to people, property and/or the general welfare of the
area. However, if the property east of Blainnore Way and north of Parkstone Street
(approximately) is not developed right away, the subject applications should not
adversely affect any person or property.
Crossficld.Az.¡>¡>.cUr.doc
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 public street entrance into the site from
Ustick Road. The proposed public street entrance to Ustick Road (Blainnore Way)
AZ"05-015, 1'1'.05-017, CUr-05,022
-
PI aIming & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 12
offsets Venable Lane by approximately 600-feet. If the public streets and alleys are
approved and constructed in accordance with ACHD and the City's policies, staff does
not believe that the subdivision will create interference with traffic on the suITounding
public streets. Please review any comments from ACHD for this project for additional
infonnation regarding this finding.
K.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of
major importance; and
Staff finds that there are some large existing trees on this site. Any existing trees larger
than 4" caliper that are removed shall be mitigated for, as detennined by the City Arborist
(MCC 12-13.13). The applicant should work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on
designing and implementing a protection/mitigation plan. 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.
The applicant is proposing to leave the Five Mile Creek open and is proposing to pipe the
South Slough (Creason Lateral) abutting the site. Staff believes that the Five Mile Creek
and the South Slough are scenic features that should be protected. See Special
Considerations in the Preliminary Plat section of this report for further analysis.
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 the existing trees are protected or
mitigated and the Five Mile Creek and South Slough are protected in manner that does
not negatively impact their beauty. Staff is not aware of any other natural or scenic
feature(s) that would be lost, damaged or destroyed by allowing this site to be annexed,
zoned and developed with residential uses. 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 finclines listed above. staff finds that the annexation and zoning of
this property would be in the best interest of the Citv. with the chanees to the concurrent
preliminary plat and conditional use pennit noted below.
ADDITIONAL ANEXATION & ZONING FACTS
1. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped by Lawrence H.
Koerner, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the
City of Meridian.
Crossfi.ld.AZ.I'P.CUP.doc
PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS
AZ-O5-015.I'P-O5-017, CUP-O5-022
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 13
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 and 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 financial 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 fi-om 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 Councilor 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 determine whether the
proposed use may cause health, safety or environmental problems that staff is unaware
of.
SP.ECIAL CONSIDERATIONS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
1. Venable Lane: A future collector street is shown in the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter VI,
Page 74) halfway between Meridian Road and Linder Road, where the existing Venable
Lane is. The subject property does not abut Venable Lane, which is currently a 20-foot
wide private access, but is only a few feet away fi-om the future anticipated boundary of
Venable. As the applicant has stated to staff, the lack of access to a collector or arterial
street makes developing (or even planning to develop) the northeast comer of the
property with non-residential uses difficult. Because Venable Lane is planned as a
Cro"ficld,AZ.PP.CUP,doc
AZ-OS-OIS, PP-OS-Ot7. CUP-OS-O22
-
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 14
collector street, staff believes that non-residential uses near the U stick/V enable
intersection may be appropriate. Staff realizes, however, that it is difficult for the
applicant to design a project around a street that does not currently exist, and it is not
know when it may be constructed. However, staff believes that Venable Lane will be
constructed in the near future and that the Venable Lane/Ustick Road intersection will
one day be signalized. Until Venable Lane is constructed by the adjacent property
owner(s) as a public street, access to Venable Lane will not be available to the subject
property.
The applicant is proposing to pipe the Flack Drain abutting Venable Lane and provide a
stub street, Jasper Street, to the east property line so access to and fi.-om this site can be
provided when Venable Lane is constructed as a public street. The applicant is also
providing a 25-foot wide landscape buffer along the east property line with no fi.-ont-on
housing. Staff is supportive of the treatment being proposed for the eastern boundary of
this property.
2.
Com~rehensive Plan:
Mixed Use - Neicl1borhood Center: As noted in the Annexation and Zoning Analysis,
approximately half of this site lies within the Mixed Use-Community designation on the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Except for a potential day care on Lot 5,
Block 4, the applicant is only proposing single-family dwelling lots within the
development. Staff believes that the applicant should be required to wait on platting the
proposed lots east of Blainnore Way and north of Parkstone Street until the
appropriateness of non-residential uses can be further analyzed.
Staff believes that the City should adopt the following course of action regarding
development of the North Parkstone Area (the area north of Parkstone Street
(approximately) and east of Blainnore Way. The North Parkstone Area should not be
allowed to final plat until one of the following occur: 1) A market analysis is perfonned
to see if non-residential uses can by supported in this area. If the market analysis
detennines that non-residential uses can not be supported, then the applicant should be
allowed to plat the area with residential lots as proposed. If the market analysis
detennines that additional non-residential uses can be supported, then the applicant
should be required to submit a new preliminary plat and rezone application for the North
Parkstone Area that includes non-residential use(s) and zoning consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. 2) The property to the east has been approved for development,
thereby providing collector road access for a non-residential uses. The applicant should
be required to submit a new preliminary plat and rezone application for the North
Parkstone Area that includes non-residential use(s) consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
If within two years of the first final plat being recorded on this property, the property to
the east has not been approved for development and a market study has not been
perfonned, then the applicant should be allowed to plat the area with residential lots as
proposed.
AZ-05-015. PP-05-0t7. CUP-05-022
Ctossficld.AZ,PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 15
Density: On page 97 of the Comprehensive Plan, residential densities within mixed use
neighborhood centers are prohibited from being below 8 dwelling units per acre. The
residential portion of the project that is within the mixed use area designation on the
Comprehensive Plan is below the 8 dwelling units per acre target density. To obtain a
residential density closer to the target of eight dwellings per acre, staff recommends that
an additional block south of Parkstone Street (Block 11), be designed with alley loaded
lots similar to those on the north side of Parks tone Street
See Site Specific Condition #2 below.
3.
Alleys: The applicant has proposed to construct four private alleys for the alley loaded
lots. As shown on the preliminary plat, the alleys are proposed in a 20-foot wide
easement, with 14-feet of pavement and 3-feet of landscaping on either side. The Ada
County Highway District requires public residential alleys to be a minimum of 16-feet
wide. Meridian City Code 11-14-3 requires a public or private alley to have an improved
driving surface of not less than sixteen feet (16') nor more than twenty feet (20') in
width. In addition to the substandard width, staff also has concerns with the alleys being
proposed in easements along the rear of the buildable lots and not in a separate lot or
dedicated as right-of-way. Staff recommends that the proposed alleys in Blocks 2, 5, 6,
and 8, be constructed with a minimum driving surface of at least 16 feet and that they
either be in 20-foot wide common lots or dedicated to ACHD. (Please see Special
Consideration #1 in the CUP section of this report for building setbacks ITom the alley).
See Site Specific Condition #3 below.
4.
Groundwater/Floodplain: Because certain areas of Meridian are affected by the 1 DO-year
floodplain, the City has developed a floodplain overlay district. The purpose of the
district is to guide development in the flood-prone areas of any watercourse that is
consistent with the requirements for conveyance of flood flows and to minimize the
expense and inconveniences to the individual property owners and the general public
through flooding. Uses permitted in this district are generally associated with open
space, recreational, and agricultural land uses and do not hinder the movement of
floodwaters.
There are approximately 56 proposed buildable lots and 6 Common lots that are culTently
within the FEMA 1 DO-year floodplain. There is no submitted engineering detail or
discussion in the application that mentions what measures are to be taken to deal with the
floodplain. Staff believes that there are two options for dealing with floodplains, the first
is to engineer the site so that the 1 DO-year flood is contained entirely within the banks of
the water way, and apply for a letter of map revision from FEMA. The second is to
design the buildings and utilities to comply with MCC 10-6-5.
Past approvals of subdivisions with potential for groundwater in crawlspaces has
developed a concern for the health and safety and welfare of future owners. Conventional
wisdom holds that shallow ground water tables recede once development occurs and
agricultural irrigation ceases and waterways are tiled. However, many homeowners over-
AZ-OS.O1S, PP-OS.O17, CUP-OS-O22
Crossficld.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 16
water their lawns, and every year a number of homeowners contact the Public Works
Department regarding water in their crawl spaces.
There are two major waterways affecting this property, the Creason Lateral and the Five
Mile Creek. Neither waterway completely contains a 1O0-year flood event within its
channel. The applicant should provide detailed engineering data proving that structures 1)
can be located in areas of plateaus, benches or upon manmade fills or 2) can be otherwise
elevated so as not to be affected by flood waters. A third alternative is for the applicant to
provide design criteria of buildings and utilities that would be in the flood plain. Staff
would like the a licant to clarif at the hearin how the seasonal hi oundwater will
be accounted for and how the lots will meet the seDaration requirements of the building
code. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference MCC 11.11-4 A-F,
and MCC 10.6-5 for any additional conditions, limitations, impositions, and
floodproofing measures that may be deemed appropriate. See Site Specific Condition # 6
below.
5.
Multi-use Pathways: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map depicts multi-use
pathways along the Five Mile Creek and the Creason Lateral. The applicant is proposing
to construct a lO-foot wide pathway in common Lots 5 and 9, Block 17, that tie into the
existing multi-use pathway on the north side of the Five Mile Creek that goes between
Meridian Road and Tully Park. Staff is supportive of the proposed pathway connection.
The applicant is proposing to construct a five-foot wide pathway along the south side of
the Creason Lateral. The proposed pathway along the Creason should meet the standards
as set forth in the August 2003 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan, pgs. 3-
2 and 3-3, sections B & C and be constructed lO-feet wide. The pathway must connect
:trom one major arterial to another, and either an easement or ownership deed must be
granted before the city will assume the maintenance of any section of pathway. The
applicant should construct the pathway along the Creason :trom the east property line
(adjacent to Simunich 7-acres) to the west property line (adjacent to the Kellogg 5.6-
acres) so that it can be extended in both directions in the future. The applicant should
work with the City Parks Department to acquire the necessary approvals through the
City's Master Pathway Agreement with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District (NMlD).
The applicant should confonn to the Parks Department's standards for construction of the
pathway. All landscaping adjacent to the pathway must be maintained by the Home
Owners' Association. See Site Specific Condition #8 below.
Crossficld.I\.Z.PP.ClIP.doc
6.
PiDinl! 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. The applicant is proposing to leave the Five
Mile Creek open and pipe the Creason Lateral.
Chapter Five of the Comprehensive Plan calls for the City to protect the Five Mile Creek
and the South Slough (Creason Lateral). Further, Meridian City Code 12-4-13.A.2 allows
I\.Z.05-015, PP-O5.0J 7, CUP-OS-Oll
9.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 17
the City to waive the requirement for covering a ditch, lateral or canal, if it finds that the
public purpose requiring such will not be served in the individual case. The Five Mile
Creek and the Creason Lateral to the east and west of the site are culTently open. With the
approval of Salisbury Subdivision #2 to the east, the City recently waived the
requirement to tile the South Slough. Staff believes that if the South Slough and/or Five
Mile Creek were tiled or covered, we would lose a valuable natural feature. Further, if the
applicant were to fence the canal with solid fencing, the use of the waterway as a visual
amenity would be significantly reduced. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant
not be required or allowed to cover or tile the South Slough/Creason Lateral or the Five
Mile Creek. Staff believes that tiling and fencing these sections of the South Slough and
the Five Mile with solid fencing will not improve public health, safety, or welfare; it will
detract ITom it. In accordance with Meridian City Code, the applicant should be required
to tile or cover any other irrigation ditches, laterals or canals that cross, intersect or lie
adjacent to the subject site (including the Flack Drain, as proposed). See Site Specific
Condition #9 below.
7.
Fencing: The applicant has not shown any proposed fencing on the landscape plan or on
the submitted preliminary plat. Staff would like the applicant to clarify at the public
hearinl! if any pennanent fencing: is proposed around the perimeter of the development.
The applicant has not proposed to construct any fencing adjacent to the multi-use
pathway sections or micropaths. However, future property owners adjacent to
micropaths may want to construct fencing adjacent to the pathway. Fences adjacent to
pathways are recommended to be see-through. If solid fencing is used adjacent to
pathways, it should not exceed four feet in height (MCC12-13-15-9). A note restricting
fencing directly adjacent to the multi-use pathways and micropaths should be placed on
the face of all final plats containing pathways. A detailed fencing plan should be
submitted upon application of the final plat (MCC 12-4-1O.F.3). All 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 #10 below.
8.
Existim! Structures: There are several buildings within the boundaries of the proposed
plat. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing house on the proposed Lot 5, Block
4. Some of the other existing buildings span across proposed lot lines and/or do not meet
the setback requirements of the requested zone. Further, most of the structures are
accessory to the existing house and cannot be located on their own lot without a primary
residence. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, all buildings that span
across proposed lot lines and/or do not meet the setback requirements of the zone and/or
are not principally pennitted buildings should be removed, as proposed. See Site
Specific Condition #11 below.
Landscaping:
Street Buffers: The applicant is proposing to dedicate 48 feet of right-of-way for Ustick
Road abutting this site. The applicant is proposing to construct a 5-foot wide detached,
meandering sidewalk adjacent to Ustick Road, in a 25-foot wide landscape buffer. Staff
recommends that the applicant be required to comply with the ACHD's requirements for
AZ-OS-OIS, pp.oS-O17, cUP-Oj-all
CrOSSficld.AZ,PP.CUP,doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 18
right-of-way dedication and sidewalk construction along Ustick Road. The ACHD is
requiring the applicant to either dedicate 48 feet of right-of-way (with the sidewalk in the
right-of-way) OR 38 feet of right-of-way along Ustick Road (with a 10-foot wide
sidewalk easement).
MCC 12-13-10-4 requires a 25-foot wide landscape buffer along Ustick Road and a 20-
foot wide buffer adjacent to any collector street. 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. A 25-foot wide landscape buffer,
located entirely outside of the right-of-way and not including the width of the sidewalk,
should be provided along Ustick Road. Landscaping and sidewalks adjacent to Ustick
Road should be constructed in compliance with MCC 12-13-10. NOTE: The applicant is
proposing 15 and 20-foot wide landscape strips adjacent to several of the internal streets
and a 25-foot wide buffer along the east property line. Although buffers along local
streets are not required, staff is supportive of the proposed lineal open space landscape
strips.
Unimproved Right-of-Way: Meridian City Code 12-13-10-9 requires a lO-foot wide
gravel shoulder abutting right-of-way where the unimproved portion of the right-of-way
is greater than 13 feet (measured from the edge of pavement to the edge of sidewalk or
property line), and road widening is not in the ACHD Five Year Work Program. The
remainder of the unimproved right-of-way should be landscaped with lawn or other
vegetative ground cover. Ustick Road abutting this site meets the warrants for the 10-foot
wide gravel shoulder requirement listed above. Therefore, the applicant should be
required to construct a lO-foot wide gravel shoulder on Ustick Road, with the remaining
portion of the right-of-way being landscaped with lawn or other vegetative ground cover.
Existing Trees: There are several mature trees on the subject site. Any existing trees
larger than 4" caliper 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 designing and implementing a protection plan. 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.
Landscape Plan: The submitted three-page landscape plan prepared by Harvest Design,
Inc., dated 2-14-05 is approved as submitted, with the following modifications:
a. Construct either a 25-foot wide landscape buffer OR a 30-foot wide landscape
buffer along Ustick Road. If the sidewalk for Ustick Road is constructed
within the right-of-way, the buffer shall be 25 feet. The width of the landscape
buffer shall be 30-feet if the sidewalk is constructed within the common lot. In
accordance with MCC 12-13-10, install one tree within said buffer for every
35 feet of frontage on the Ustick Road right-of-way.
Crossfield.AZ,PP.CUI',doc
AZ.O5-015, PP-O5-017, CUP.O5-0ll
12.
13.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 19
b. In addition to sidewalk, construct a minimum lO-foot wide gravel shoulder
along Ustick Road and landscape the remaining portion of the light-of-way
with lawn or other ACHD approved groundcover.
c. The applicant shall work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on designing,
adopting, and implementing a protection and mitigation plan for the existing
trees on site.
See Site Specific Condition #12 below.
10.
Internal Streets: The applicant is proposing to construct all internal streets with either a
29- or 36-foot street section. Except for Blainnore Way (residential collector), which has
detached sidewalks, all other proposed sidewalks are 5 feet wide and lie within the right-
of-way. ACHD is requiring the applicant to construct all local streets with a minimum
36-foot street section. The ACHD is allowing the applicant to detach the sidewalks on the
local streets. Staff is supportive of either attached or detached sidewalks on the local
streets. However, to keep cars that park in front of garages from blocking the detached
sidewalk, all future face-of-garage setbacks should be 20 feet (measured from the
property line or the back of sidewalk, whichever is more restrictive) if detached
sidewalks are constructed.
11.
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 use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface
or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system
shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer shall be
responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on
the final plat by the City Engineer. 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 #13
below.
Sanitary Sewer: Sewer service for this development will be via extension of trunk lines
located in this property, and also mains that are currently under construction in U stick
Road. See Site Specific Condition #15 below.
Stub Streets: The applicant is providing stub streets to the undeveloped parcels to the
west and southeast, and is extending stub streets from the east and west. Staff is
supportive of the proposed stub streets and their locations. However, staff is
recommending that the Commission and Council consider requiring an additional stub
street to the seven-acre parcel to the southwest. There is currently a stub street from
Waterbury Park Subdivision to the south to the seven-acre parcel. For this existing stub
street to be extended, however, a crossing of the Five Mile Creek would need to be
constructed. Staff believes that there is a possibility that this stub street may not be
extended when the seven-acre parcel develops in the future. Even if the stub street is
extended to the north, an additional stub street from the subject development will
;\2-0S-0IS, PP-OS-017, cup-os-on
Crossfield.AZ.PP.CUI'.doc
3.
4.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 20
enhance neighborhood interconnectivity. NOTE: Staff has spoken to some residents in
Waterbury Park to the south and they are concerned about cut-through traffic if an
additional stub street is provided to the seven-acre parcel. Therefore, staff recommends
that the Commission and Council determine whether a stub street should be provided to
the enclave from the west, from Sommersby Drive. See Site Specific Condition #17
below. This recommendation will also break up the 1,300 foot Sommersby Drive,
thereby making Block 10 compliant with the maximum block length allowed by Code.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
1. All comments and conditions of the accompanying Annexation and Zoning (AZ-OS-OIS)
and Conditional Use Pennit (CUP-OS-022) application shall also be considered
conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP-OS-O 17).
2.
The area north of Parkstone Street and east of Blainnore Way shall not be allowed to
final plat until one of the following occur: 1) A market analysis is perfonned to see if
non-residential uses can by supported in this area. If an accepted market analysis
detennines that non-residential uses can not be supported, then the applicant should be
allowed to plat the area with residential lots as proposed. If the market analysis
detennines that additional non-residential uses can be supported, then the applicant shall
be required to submit a new preliminary plat and rezone application for the North
Parkstone Area that includes non-residential use(s) and zoning consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan OR 2) The property to the east has been approved for development,
thereby providing collector road access (Venable) for a non-residential uses. The
applicant shall be required to submit a new preliminary plat and rezone application for
the North Parkstone Area that includes non-residential use(s) and zoning consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. If within two years of the first final plat being recorded on this
property, the property to the east has not been approved for development and a market
study has not been perfonned, then the applicant should be allowed to plat the area with
residential lots as proposed.
To obtain a residential density closer to the target of eight dwellings per acre, the
preliminary plat shall be amended to include an additional block of alley loaded lots,
south of Parkstone Street. At least 10 davs prior to the City Council hearing. submit 10
full-size and one 8.5" x 11" cop v of a revised preliminary plat to the City Clerk.
The proposed alleys in Blocks 2, 5, 6, and 8, shall be constructed with a minimum driving
surface of at least 16-feet and shall either be located in 20-foot wide common lots OR
dedicated to ACHD.
The applicant shall clarify at the public hearing how the seasonal high groundwater will
be accounted for and how the lots will meet the separation requirements of the building
code. Sewer and water systems shall be floodproofed and approved by the District Health
Department of the Department of Health and Welfare. The main floor of buildings and
structures shall be a minimum of one foot above the elevation of the 100- year flood level.
No basement floor shall be below this one-foot safety margin. Foundations of all
AZ-O5-015. PP-O5-017, CUP-O5-022
c,.ossfield,AZ.PP.CUP.doc
7.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 21
structures shall be designed and constructed to withstand flood conditions at the site.
Prior to signature of the final plat(s), the applicant shall provide to the City an engineer's
certification that the above requirements have been fulfilled.
5.
Staffis concerned about the potential effects of high groundwater in the proposed project
area. Two significant waterways affect this property: the Creason Lateral running
through the center of this property and Five Mile Creek along the southern boundary of
this project. Conventional wisdom holds that the shallow ground water table recedes
once development occurs and agricultural irrigation ceases and waterways are tiled.
However, every year a number of homeowners contact the Public Works Department
regarding water in their crawl spaces in developments that have been completely built
out. 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 seasonal high groundwater elevation.
6.
Due to proposed development in a flood plain the applicant shall obtain a letter of map
revision from FEMA, which modifies the flood plain boundary to be contained within the
banks of Five Mile Creek, OR all buildings must comply with MCC 10-6-5. Meridian
City Code 10-6-5 outlines general standards for building in a flood plain, this code
includes but is not limited to the following:
a. All new construction shall be anchored to prevent flotation.
b. All building utility systems, including electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing,
air conditioning, ductwork and other service facilities shall be elevated above the
BFE or otherwise protected so that floodwaters cannot enter or accumulate within
the system components during flood stage.
c. An adequate drainage system that removes floodwaters from the interior of the
crawl space, within a reasonable time after a flood event shall be required for all
homes with a below grade crawl space. The design ofthe drainage plan shall be
approved by the public works department prior to the issuance of a building
pennit.
d. Applicants building below grade crawl spaces within the floodplain shall be
notified that flood insurance premiums will not be able to be detennined by
agents using the NFIP flood insurance manual. They must submit for a special
rating under the "submit to rate process" by an underwriter familiar with below
grade crawl space construction.
e. The lowest finished floor area of the residential structures shall be elevated to be
no less than twelve inches (12") above the flood elevation.
Due to relatively high existing groundwater levels, applicant shall submit a Master
Grading and Drainage plan as part of the development plans to be submitted with each
phase of this development. The Master Grading and Drainage plan shall include at a
minimum the following:
a.) Groundwater contours for this development at peak seasonal high depth.
b.) Finish floor elevation for all houses in this development.
AZ-O5-015. PP-O5-017. cuP-as-on
Cro"field.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 22
c.) Elevation of crawl space for all houses in this development.
d.) Finish grade elevation at each lot comer.
e.) Drainage flow patterns on all lots.
Applicant shall maintain a minimum of five ground water monitoring wells in project, at
locations approved by the Public Works Department. Applicant shall continue monthly
ground water monitoring for two years after final approval of each phase and provide
infonnation to the Public Works Department.
If structural fiIl is to be placed on any lot, material specifications and compaction
requirements shall be detailed and submitted to Public Works and the Building
Department.
If slab-on-grade construction is utilized in conjunction with typical footings, builders of
each lot shall comply with all requirements contained in the International Building Code
regarding slab-on-grade construction. The builder of each lot shall provide fill material
gradation certification and a minimum of one compaction testing report per 500 square
feet of first floor area (including garage) and provide such reports to the Meridian
Building Department prior to commencement of any framing.
The Master Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Public Works
Department prior to overall plan approval. Builders must provide finish floor and crawl
space elevation certification for each house prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.
8.
Construct a lO-foot wide pathway in common Lots 5 and 9, Block 17, that tie into the
existing multi-use pathway on the north side of the Five Mile Creek, as proposed.
Construct a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway along the Creason Lateral (South Slough).
The applicant shall construct said pathway along the Creason Lateral from the east
property line (adjacent to Simunich 7 acres) to the west property line (adjacent to the
Kellogg 5.6 acres) so that it can be extended in both directions in the future. The
applicant shall work with the City Parks Department to acquire the necessary approvals
through the City's Master Pathway Agreement with the Narnpa Meridian lITigation
District (NMID). The applicant shall confonn to the Parks Department's standards for
construction of the pathway. All landscaping adjacent to the pathway must be maintained
by the Horne Owners' Association.
9.
Except for the Five Mile Creek and the Creason Lateral (South Slough), 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
(including the Flack Drain). Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation
and/or drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval
or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association
approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer prior to final plat signature.
AZ-O5-015, PP-O5-017. CUP-O5.on
Crossfield.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
12.
13.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 23
10.
A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the final plat. If pennanent
fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be
installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of building pennits. All fences shall taper
down to 3-feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of-way. Fences adjacent to pathways
are recommended to be see-through. If solid fencing is used adjacent to pathways it shall
not exceed four feet in height. A note restricting fencing directly adjacent to the multi-use
pathways and micropaths shall be placed on the face of all final plats containing
pathways. All fencing shall be installed in accordance with MCC 12-4-10.
11.
Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, all buildings that span across
proposed lot lines and/or do not meet the setback requirements of the zone and/or are not
principally pennitted buildings shall be removed, as proposed.
The submitted three-page landscape plan prepared by Harvest Design, Inc., dated 2-14-05
is approved as submitted, with the following modifications:
.
Construct either a 25-foot wide landscape buffer OR a 30-foot wide landscape buffer
along Ustick Road. If the sidewalk for Ustick Road is constructed within the right-of-
way, the buffer shall be 25-feet. The width of the landscape buffer shall be 30-feet if the
sidewalk is constructed within the common lot. In accordance with MCC 12-13-10,
install one tree within said buffer for every 35-feet of frontage on the Ustick Road right-
of-way.
In addition to sidewalk, construct a minimum lO-foot wide gravel shoulder along Ustick
Road and landscape the remaining portion of the right-of-way with lawn or other ACHD
approved groundcover.
The applicant shall work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on designing, adopting, and
implementing a protection and mitigation plan for the existing trees on site.
All micropaths within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in accordance with
MCC 12-13-15 "Micropath Landscaping" and MCC 12-4-3 "Pedestrian Walkways."
Micropath fencing shall be constructed per MCC 12-13.15-9.
All areas being counted toward the open space requirement shall be free of "wet ponds"
or other such nuisances. All stonnwater detention facilities incorporated into the required
open space are subject to Ordinance 12-13-14 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and
trees, as depicted on the submitted landscape plan.
.
.
.
.
The proceeding modifications and notes should be shown on a revised landscape plan
submitted with the final plat application.
The applicant has indicated that the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District will own and
operate the pressurized ilTigation system within this development. Underground vear-
round pressurized inigation 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. 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
AZ.05-015, 1'1',05.017, CUp-05-0n
Crossfidd.AZ.pP.CUp.doc
17.
18.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 24
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.
14.
Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Crossfield
Homeowners' Association.
15.
Sanitary sewer for this development is being proposed via extensions of an existing trunk
line that is located in this property, and from stubs that are currently under construction in
Ustick Road. The sewer mains coming from Ustick Road that are not in the ACHD right-
of-way shall be centered in 20-foot wide easements which shall be free from large
landscaping and other fixed vertical objects. If there are manholes out of the ACHD
right-of-way, an all weather access road shall be installed to Meridian Public Works
Standards. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public
Works Department. Minimum cover over sanitary sewer mains is three feet as measured
from the top of the pipe to finish grade. If cover is less than three feet from sub. grade to
the top of pipe, alternate pipe materials shall be used per the Meridian Public Works
Department's Standard Specifications. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard
foTITIS of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service.
16.
Municipal water to this site shall be via extensions from existing mains in Ustick Road.
The applicant shall provide an easement through common Lot 5 Block 17(as labeled on
the preliminary plat dated 2/15/05), to allow for a future connection to the main in NW
11 th Avenue. Applicant shall be responsible to construct water mains to and through this
proposed development, thereby making them available to adjacent properties.
Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works
Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard fonus of easements, for
any mains that are required to provide service.
In addition to the stub streets proposed, provide an additional stub street to the 7 acre
parcel to the south from Sommersby Drive.
Other than the public street accesses approved by ACHD, direct lot access to Ustick Road
is prohibited.
GENERAL RE UIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
1. Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the
subdivision pursuant to MCC 12-13-10-8.
2.
3.
4.
A detailed landscape 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.
Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
Staffs failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or tenus of the approved annexation
and conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
AZ-O5-015, PP-OS-OI7, CUP-OS-O22
Cwssfield,AZ.PP.CUP,doc
D.
E.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 25
5.
Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC
12-2-4.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CU~
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 aU 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 from the
standard street ffontage requirement, lot size requirement, setbacks, house size and
maximum block length, established by Meridian City Code. See Special Consideration
#1 below for detailed analysis.
Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested use
and all other required features. Although the site is large enough to accommodate all of
the features required by ordinance, the applicant has asked, through the Planned
Development, to modify specific development standards.
B.
That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance;
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;
If the applicant complies with all conditions of approval, staff finds that the proposed use
will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity.
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;
AZ-OS-OIS. pp.oS.OI7. cUP-OS.O22
Crossfield.A%,PP.CUP.doc
H.
I.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 26
Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "G" and "R", the Other Agency and
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 "R".
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 "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 "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".
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
--........-....
1. Reduced Standards: As stated earlier, the applicant is requesting modifications from
standard ordinance requirements for street frontage, lot size, house size, setbacks and
block length.
Lot Size & Lot Frontage: The minimum lot size in the R-8 zone is 6,500 square-feet for
detached lots and 4,000 square-feet for attached units. The minimum street frontage
requirement for the R-8 zone is 65 feet (detached) and 40 feet (attached). The smallest
detached patio home lot proposed is 5,063 square-feet and the shortest frontage is 52
feet. The smallest proposed detached non-patio home lot is 6,380 square-feet and the
shortest frontage is 58 feet. The smallest proposed alley loaded lot is 4,200 square-feet
and the shortest frontage is 34 feet. The smallest proposed attached lot is 3,950 square-
feet and the shortest frontage is 40 feet. Staff is supportive of reducing the frontage for
some of the lots as proposed, as it provides lot diversity and allows greater density for the
project than if the standard R-8 dimensions are required.
AZ.Oò-Olò, PP-Oò-OI7, CliP-OÒ-O22
Crossficld.AZ.l'P.CliP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 27
NOTE: The applicant has requested to reduce the frontage for lots on a cul-de-sac and
curves to 15 feet, when 40 feet is typically required. Staff recommends that any lot with
20 feet or less of frontage be required to have a common driveway with the adjacent
lot(s). MCC 12-4-14 allows up to four dwelling units to access a common driveway.
Common drives serving two dwelling units shall be a minimum of 16 feet in width.
Common drives less than 150 feet in length shall be constructed of at least 6 inches of
well-compacted, 2-inch minus crushed gravel and 2 In inches of asphaltic concrete
pavmg.
House Size: The applicant is requesting a 1,300 square-foot minimum detached house
size. The City established minimum for a detached house in the R-8 zone in 1,301
square-feet. Staff does not see a problem with the proposed modification of one foot.
Block Lencth: As depicted, Block 10 exceeds the maximum 1,000-foot length for a
block. If a stub street were provided to the 7-acre outparcel to the east, from Sommersby
Avenue, the block length modification would not be necessary. Staff recommends that
the Commission and Council detennine whether a 1,400-foot block length is appropriate
in this situation.
B ild'n S tb k
U 1 ~ e ac s:
Detached (not Detached Attached
all~ loade<!l lallelloaded)
Front & Street Side (Living Space) 15 feet 12 feet 15 feet
Front (Face of Garage) 20 feet 20 feet
Rear 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Interior Side* 5 feet 5 feet O'feet one side,
5 feet opposite
side
* No additional setback per story
Staff is generally supportive of the proposed setbacks. However, staff has two concerns
with the proposal. The first concern is regarding the proposed l5-foot rear setback of
alley loaded dwelling units. Staff believes that at least 20 feet should be maintained from
the face of an alley loaded garage and the edge of the alley driving surface. This will
allow a standard car to park in front of the garage without blocking the alley travel lane.
If a 20 foot setback is not agreeable to the applicant, then a maximum 5-foot setback
should be established (measured from the face of the garage to the pavement of the alley)
to discourage cars from parking in front of the garages.
Similar to the concern with cars hanging out in the alley, the second concern staff has is
with detached sidewalks and garage setbacks. If detached sidewalks are constructed,
setbacks to the face of garages should be measured from the sidewalk OR property line,
whichever is more restrictive. This recommendation will ensure that cars parked in front
of a garage will not hang out over the sidewalk.
Crossficld.AZ.PP.CUP.dDC
AZ-O5-015. PI'-O5-017, CUP-O5-on
5.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 28
See Site Specific Condition #2 below.
2.
Amenities: MCC 12-6-2.A.3 requires two or more amenities to be provided as part of
each planned development. The proposed amenities for the subject planned development
include: a 10-foot wide asphalt pathway leading to the existing pathway along the Five
Mile Creek; 5.45 acres (over 9% of the site) of common areas; and a pool with restrooms
and changing areas, a splash pad, and play area within Lot 1, Block 12. In addition, the
applicant should construct a lO-foot wide multi-use pathway along the Creason Lateral
(see Preliminary Plat analysis). Staff believes that the proposed park area, pathways,
green space, and play equipment provide sufficient amenities relative to the size of the
proposed development. See Site Specific Condition #3 below.
3.
Dav Care Lot: The applicant is proposing a future daycare on Lot 5, Block 4. Because
this lot lies within the mixed-use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land
Use Map, a detailed CUP is required. Conceptually, staff does not have any issue with a
day care facility in this location. When the future CUP is submitted, however, staff will
evaluate the site plan for confonnance to the design standards for uses within a mixed use
area. See Site Specific Condition #4 below.
4.
Accessory Uses: The purposes of the planned development are: "... fosters innovative
design concepts and promotes flexibility in site design... ", "encourage mixed-use
projects, and to pennit secondary uses which are integrated with and support the primary
use" (MCC 12-6-1). As part of the Planned Development the applicant has requested to
construct twelve accessory dwelling units (on 5% of the lots). The applicant has not
designated specific lots for these accessory units. Staff is supportive of allowing
accessory and secondary dwellings within this development as the comprehensive plan
calls for higher residential densities in this area. However, limiting accessory dwelling
units to twelve would be hard to track, and because the new, proposed Unifonn
Development Code (as cUlTentIy drafted) allows accessory and secondary dwellings in
the R-8 zone, staff recommends that all detached lots be allowed to contain accessory
dwellings (if an accessory use pennit is approved). To increase residential densities near
this neighbor center, a minimum of twelve of the proposed lots should include accessory
dwelling units. See Site Specific Condition #5 below.
Staff would like the apDlicant to clarify at the Dublic hearing if the accessory dwellings
are Dfoposed on the allev loaded lots or the detacill&Jots. or both. Further. staff would
like to have the aDDlicant clarify how the required off-street Darking will be provided for
the accessory dwelling units.
Elevations: The applicant has submitted 17 pictures of the different types of dwelling
units proposed. Staff believes that the dwelling units will be compatible with the
adjoining uses, if the buildings are constructed as shown on the submitted elevations.
Construction within Crossfield Subdivision should substantially comply with the
seventeen elevations submitted by the applicant. Construction materials used on the
structures should be approved by the City of Meridian Building Department and in
accordance with the most recent Building Code. See Site Specific Condition #6 below.
AZ-O5-015, PP-O5-017. CUP-O5-0l2
Crossfidd.AZ,PP.CUP,doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 29
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1. The site plan prepared by Engineering Solutions, LLP, dated February 15, 2005, is
approved, with the conditions listed herein. Applicant shall meet all of the requirements
of the Annexation and Zoning (AZ-05-015) and Preliminary Plat (PP-05-0l7) as a
condition of the Conditional Use Pennit (CUP-05-022).
2.
The project shall confonn to the R-8 dimensional standards, except as follows:
. Lot Size -
6,380, sq. ft. (minimum)(detached)
5,000 sq. ft.(minimum)(detached, patio home)
4,200 sq. ft.(minimum)(detached, alley loaded)
3,950 sq. ft.(minimum)
. Lot Frontage -
50 feet (minimum, detached)
34 feet (minimum, alley loaded)
40 feet (minimum, attached)
15 feet (cul-de-sac)**
. House Size - 1,300 sq. ft. (detached)
R .d fIB Old.
S tb k
. eSI en la Ul fi!g e ac s-
Detached (not Detached Attached
alley loaded) (alley loadedl
Front & Street Side (Living S.Race) 15 feet 12 feet 15 feet
Front or alley (Face of Garage)*** 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
Rear 15 feet 18 feet 15 feet
Interior Side* 5 feet 5 feet 0' feet one side,S
feet ojllJosite side
* No additional setback per story
** Any lot with 20 feet or less of frontage shall be required to share a common driveway with an
adjacent lot(s).
*** Face of garage setbacks shall be measured from the property line or the back of sidewalk for
detached units and from the property line or the edge of the driving lane for alley loaded
units, whichever is more restrictive.
3.
As amenities for the subject planned development, construct: a 10-foot wide asphalt
pathway leading to the existing pathway along the Five Mile Creek; a 10-foot wide
pathway along the Creason Lateral; set aside 5.45 acres of common areas; and construct a
pool with restrooms and changing areas, a splash pad, and play area within Lot 1, Block
12.
4.
Any future day care use on Lot 5, Block 4, shall be required to obtain separate CUP
approval.
AZ-05-015, PP-OS-017. cUP.OS-Oll
Crossfield.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 30
5.
All detached lots shall be allowed to contain accessory dwellings (if an accessory use
pennit is obtained). At a minimum, twelve of the lots within this development shall
contain accessory dwelling units.
6.
Construction within Crossfield Subdivision shall substantially comply with the 17
elevations submitted by the applicant. Construction materials used on the structures shall
be approved by the City of Meridian Building Department and in accordance with the
most recent Building Code.
Other Ae:encv and DeDartment 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 pennits.
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 detennined 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 ofthe 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 Pennitting
that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
8. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Pennitting that may be required by the Anny Corps of Engineers,
9. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
10. All grading ofthe site shall be perfonned in confonnance with MCC II-I2-3H.
11. 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.
AZ.O5-015, PP-O5-017. cUP-OS-O22
C'ossficlcLAZ,PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 31
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. Please submit all updated groundwater and soils monitoring data to the Public Works
Department for review. Any drainage areas (detention and/or retention basins) must be
designed to ensure that water is retained only during lOa-year stonn 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 or 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 detennining the groundwater, soil
type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases. The engineer shall be
required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the
highest established nonnal groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation
of the crawl spaces of homes is at least I-foot above.
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 detennined 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 nonnal groundwater elevation.
MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. One and two family dwellings will require a fITe-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available
for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average
of 500' apart. mternational Fire Code Appendix C
2. 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.
3 - Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 Yz" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec.
d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the
hydrant location.
e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing pennits.
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.
Crossficld.AZ.PP.CUI'.doc
AZ-OS-OIS. PP-OS-OI7. CUP-Oj-on
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 32
4. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150' in length that is not
provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around.
5. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside
radius.
6. Operational fire hydrants, temporary or pennanent street signs and access roads with an all
weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site.
7. To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required
for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. The two entrances should
be separated by no less than Y2 the diagonal measurement of the full development.
8. Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one and two story
construction.
9. The proposed 245-lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have
a total estimated population of 711 residents at build out.
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
11. Maintain a separation of 5' trom the building to the dumpster enclosure.
12. Provide a Knoxbox entry system for the clubhouse prior to occupancy.
13. All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage
practices of the chemicals for the pool shall be required to comply with the International Fire
Code.
14. Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) trom 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. F or 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).
Ctossfield.AZ.PP,CUP.doc
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).
AZ-O5-015, PP.O5-017, CUP.O5-0ll
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21,2005
Page 33
MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT
1. Pathway and Trail standards: The proposed pathway and/or trail shall meet the standards
as set forth in the August 2003 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan, pgs. 3-
2 and 3-3, sections B & c.
2. Standard for City to assume Maintenance of a section of Pathway: The pathway must
connect ttom one major arterial to another, and either an easement or ownership deed
must be granted before the city will assume the maintenance of any section of pathway.
MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
1. The Meridian Police Department requests that open-vision fencing be constructed along
the Five Mile and Creason pathways.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the submitted annexation and zoning (AZ-O5-015),
preliminary plat (PP-O5-017), and conditional use permit (CUP-O5-022) applications, with
the conditions listed herein.
AZ-OS-OIS, pp.oS-OI7. CUP-Oj-all
CrossfieJd.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 63 of 67
Hood: 2 1/2 Street. Yeah. And that would also taper down to, you know, three feet and
be clear vision within 20 feet of the right of way. But we can work with them on
designing that.
Zaremba: Or you could just say there is more fence than shows on the drawing.
Rohm: Well, I have already written this now.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman --
Borup: That landscape drawing does show a fence all the way to the street, I believe. It
just can't -- doesn't -- the height is maybe what's changed.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of CUP 05-025, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of May 19th,
2005, and received May 16th, 2005, with one change, which would be an additional
bullet on page 11, item five, and the bullet would read: Applicant to build a six foot
fence to the oak and a four foot fence or less the remainder of the distance to 2 1/2
Street.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: End of motion.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-015 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of
59.30 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by
Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road:
Item 18:
Public Hearing: PP 05-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 246
building (244 residential units, 1 daycare & 1 pool/locker facility /
restroom) lots and 26 other lots on 59.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955
West Ustick Road:
Item 19:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for single-family residential units with a request to
allow for reduced setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced
house sizes and block lengths in excess of 1,000 feet in a proposed R-8
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 19, 2005
Page 64 of 67
zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC
- 955 West Ustick Road:
Zaremba: Thank you all. Okay. We'd like to open the Public Hearing for Items 17, 18
and 19. That is AZ 05-015, PP 05-017, CUP 05-022. All of these regarding Crossfield
Subdivision. And a motion would be in order to continue these to July 21st, 2005.
Borup: So moved.
Zaremba: So moved. Do we have a second?
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 20:
Discuss Request for Continuance for Bellingham Park Subdivision:
Zaremba: Okay. Item 20. This is a discussion and we are cautioned that we cannot
discuss the merits of the case itself, but we can discuss the continuance. Bellingham
Park Subdivision, I believe, has been continued too many -- three times and is now
scheduled for us to hear on June 2nd. Staff has been supplied with the details that they
need. They are prepared to write the report. The applicant has requested another
continuance, just because it's inconvenient for them to be here that night. Our
discussion is do we want to -- on June 2nd come prepared to continue it again or do we
want to insist that the applicant show up on June 2nd?
Moe: In our -- in our last discussions on this issue we set it out to the 2nd, so they, in
fact, would have everything done, over with, and we made statement, then, that if they
couldn't make the 2nd, it was over. And as far as I'm concerned that's -- if they can't
make it on the 2nd, J guess it's over.
Zaremba: I remember a similar discussion.
Newton.Huckabay: I would want to know what works for you guys, because you're the
ones that are going to have to do the work over again, potentially, and we certainly don't
want to -- you know, that all costs money.
Borup: And along that -- and along with that, it seems like J remember their last meeting
that we were pretty full that night. And I agree with Commissioner Mae, but -- was it the
2nd one that -- where you said we wouldn't get through everything? Or was that the
16th?
Zaremba: Actually, it was tonight.
.'
--:;;a.a..-à:,
.¿tiff "! -~""7 ~ ~ ~
~
(h,~ut1õ ~
John S. Franden, President
Sherry R. Huber, 1st Vice President
David Bivens, 2nd Vice President
Carol A. McKee, Commissioner
Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner
May 23, 2005
To:
Packard Estates Development
6223 N. Discovery Way, Suite 120
Boise, 10 83713
~,:tCEIVEÐ
MAY 27 2005
City of Meridian
City Clerk office
Subject:
MPP05-017/MCUP05-0221MAZ05-015
Crossfield Subdivision
955 W. Ustick Road
On May 18, 2005, the Ada County Highway District acted on your application for the above
referenced project. The attached report lists site-specific requirements, conditions of approval and
street improvements, which are required.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 208~387-6178.
Sincerely,
C, ~øu
Christy Richardson
Planning Review Supervisor
Right-of-way & Development Services, Planning Division
CC:
Project file, Construction Services, Utilities
City of Meridian
Engineering Solutions
Ada County Highway District. 3775 Adams Street. Garden City, ID . 83714 . PH 208-387-6100 . FX 345-7650 . www.achd.ada.id.us
,-.£ ~--
~f '¿~~""1ft~ ~
Q.
Right-of Way & Development Department
Planning Review Division
&,~ut;(C ~
This application requires Commission action due to the size of the development, and will be on the consent
agenda on May 18, 2005 at 12:00 PM. Tech Review for this application was held on May 6, 2005. Staff
contact: Christy Richardson, Planning Review Supervisor, phone: 387-6178; fax: 387-6393; e-mail:
crichardsonCã2achd. ada. id. us
Project/File:
Lead Agency:
Crossfield Subdivision/MPPOS-O17/MCUPOS..O22/MAZOS-O1S
City of Meridian
Site address:
955. W. Ustick Road
Applicant:
Packard Estates Development
6223 N. Discovery Way, Suite 120
Boise, ID 83713
Representative:
Becky McKay
150 E. Aikens Street, Suite B
Eagle, ID 83616
Application Information:
Acreage: 59.30
Current Zoning: RUT
Proposed Zoning: R-8
Proposed Lots: 246 buildable lots, 26 common lots
1
A. Findings of Fact
Existing Conditions
1.
Site Information: The site is currently bare ground.
2.
Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area:
Direction Land Use Zoni"-g
North Residential/Office I-L
South Residential I-L
East Residential R-8/RUT
West Residential I-L
3.
Existing Roadway Improvements and Right..of-Way Adjacent To and Near the Site
Ustick Road is currently improved with 2-traffic lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. There will be
sidewalk on Ustick Road on the north side of Ustick Road as a part of the Meridian City Park and
Cedar Springs Subdivision.
Venable Lane is currently an unimproved 20-foot wide private road with a lateral that runs to the
west side of the road. East of the road is a strip of ACHO right-of-way that is unopened.
Development Impacts
4.
Trip Generation:
This development is estimated to generate 1,923 vehicle trips per
day based on the submitted traffic impact study.
5.
Impact Fees:
There will be an impact fee that is assessed and due prior to issuance of any
building permits. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee
ordinance that is in effect at that time.
6.
Impacted Roadways:
Roadway Frontage Functional Traffic Count Level of Speed Nearest
Classification Service Limit Intersection
Ustick Road 1,285 10,800 w/o Meridian,
Minor Arterial Meridian Road in LOSC 40 mph stop-
feet 2005 controlled
Meridian Road 7,355 s/o Ustick Better Ustick, stop-
None Minor Arterial Road on 4-23-02 than C 35 mph controlled
*Acceptable level of service for a two lane arterial roadway (Ustick Road) is "0" (14,000 VPD).
7.
8.
2
Capital Improvements Plan/Five Year Work Program
There are no roadways in this area listed in the FYWP or CIP.
Other Development in Area/Miscellaneous
On May 2, 2005, ACHO provided comments to the City of Meridian related to a rezone and
annexation application for a 2.3-acre parcel located at the southwest corner of Meridian Road and
Ustick Road.
3.
3
B. Findings for Consideration
1.
Traffic Impact Study
Washington Group International prepared a traffic impact study for this development and the
conclusions are as follows:
. The proposed development is projected to generate 1,923 vpd, of which the peak
hour traffic is projected to be 191 vph.
. The development proposes one public street access to Ustick Road and several stub
streets to connect to future developments and unplatted parcels.
. All access locations conform with the ACHD policy manual.
. Right turn lanes and left turns lanes into the site will be required.
. A roadway capacity analysis was performed for Ustick Road west of Meridian Road
to ensure that adequate capacity is available for the projected increase in traffic.
Capacity is available for the 2014 build out volumes.
. All of the internal streets with front on housing have daily traffic projections lower
than 1,000 vpd.
2.
Staff Comments and Note to Meridian: The TIS uses a 2.5% growth rate from 2002 traffic
counts to arrive at a 2014 traffic projection of 8,455 ADT. However, ACHD has recently
completed a traffic count in 2005 on Ustick Road west of Meridian Road and the current
count is 10,800 ACT. This calculates to a 19". growth rate from 2002 to 2005 on Ustick Road
west of Meridian. If the counts increase at just a 2% rate using the 2005 counts, the traffic
projection for 2014 is 12,900 ADT. Adding the site traffic volume to the 2014 projection
would push Ustick Road over the 14,000 ADT COMPASS threshold for a 2~lane roadway.
Right-af-Way & Street Sections - Ustick Road
Arterial Roadway Policy: District policy requires 96~feet of right~of-way on arterial roadways
(Figure 72~F1 B). This right-of~way width allows for the construction of a 5-lane roadway with curb.
gutter, bike lanes and 5~foot wide detached sidewalks.
Although this roadway is not listed in the FYWP or CIP, ACHD has set aside funds to purchase
right-of~way on priority corridors. Right~of~way on this segment of Ustick Road can be purchased.
The applicant may dedicate right~of-way to total 48~feet from centerline, and will be compensated
for 23~feet, or may dedicate right~of~way to total 38-feet from centerline, and will be compensated
for 13-feet, so long as a sidewalk easement is provided.
District policy requires the construction of 5.foot wide detached sidewalk on arterial roadways. The
face of sidewalk should be located a minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of the roadway.
Right-of-Way & Street Sections
Local Street Policy: District policy 7204.4.1 and Figure 72-F1A requires 50-feet of right.of-way on
local streets. This right-of-way allows for the construction of a 2-lane roadway with curb, gutter and
5-foot wide concrete sidewalks.
District policy 7204.4.2 states, "developments with any buildable lot that is less that 1-acre in size
will typically provide streets having a minimum pavement width of 32-feet with curb, gutter and
sidewalks. The total street width shall be 36-feet from back-of-curb to back.of-curb. Variations of
this width may be allowed, depending on traffic volumes forecast to be generated by the
development. Concrete sidewalks shall be a minimum of 5-feet in width unless they are separated
from the curb 5-feet or more in which case the sidewalk shall be a minimum of 4-feet in width.
4.
5.
Applicant Proposal: The applicant has proposed to construct all of the roads as 36-foot street
sections with curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk within 50-feet of right-of-way, The
applicant has proposed roadways in the northern quadrants as 29-foot street sections within 42-feet
of right-of-way.
Staff Comment/Recommendation: The proposed street section should be approved. The main
entrance roadway should be constructed as a residential collector (vertical curb and sign for "NO
PARKING" from Ustick Road to Jasper Street. the second public street intersection off of Ustick
Road.
The 29-foot street sections should not be approved in their locations as proposed because the
streets surround alley-loaded residential dwellings. The 29-foot section requires that parking be
restricted to one side of the road only, and in this specific location that could cause parking
problems where there are no driveways.
Main Entrance Location
Policy: District policy requires local roadways intersecting arterials to align or offset a minimum of
300-feet measured centerline to centerline.
Applicant Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct the main entrance to intersect Ustick
Road approximately 600-feet west of Venable Lane.
Staff Comment/Recommendation: The proposed street is located in conformance with policy and
should be approved as proposed.
Turn Lanes on Ustick Road
The submitted TIS indicates that the main entrance will require both left and right turn lanes on
Ustick Road. Coordinate the length and design of the turn lanes with District staff.
6.
Venable Lane
There is a 20-foot wide private road adjacent to the east property line of this site. To the east of the
private road there is a 20-foot wide ACHD right-of-way. The private road and right-of-way are in
alignment with Venable Lane on the north side of Ustick Road. While it would be ideal to have
Venable extend south of Ustick to serve this area, the applicant does not have frontage on ACHD
right-of-way, and therefore cannot be required to construct a street abutting the east property line.
The applicant is proposing to construct a stub street to the private road in the event that the
roadway is constructed in the future.
The parcel east of the right-of-way is undeveloped and when/if ACHD reviews a development
application on that site, it will need to be determined if Venable Lane should be constructed.
7.
Stu b Streets
Policy: District policy 7205.5 states that stub streets will be required to provide intra-neighborhood
circulation or to provide access to adjoining properties. Stub streets will conform with the
requirements described in Section 7204.5, 7204.6 and 7204.7, except a temporary cul-de-sac will
not be required if the stub street has a length no greater than 150-feet. A sign shall be installed at
the terminus of the stub street stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE."
In addition, a stub street must meet the following conditions:
1. A stub street shall be designed to slope towards the street intersection and drain
surface water toward that intersection, unless a satisfactory storm drain system is
installed.
4
9.
10.
5
2. The District may require appropriate covenants guaranteeing that the stub street will
remain free of obstructions.
Applicant Proposal:
. The applicant is proposing to construct a stub street to the east property line to the private
road. No turnaround is required. This stub street should be fenced to prevent motorists or
pedestrians from accessing the private road. If the private road is converted to a public road
in the future then there will be a connection. There is an irrigation ditch located along the
east property line that will be piped and therefore can be crossed when/if this street is
extended eastward.
. The applicant is proposing to construct a stub street to the south property line to the
undeveloped 7.acre parcel. No turnaround is required.
. The applicant is proposing to construct a stub street to the west property line to a narrow
parcel with limited frontage on Ustick Road. No turnaround is required.
. The applicant is proposing to extend all existing or proposed adjacent stub streets into the
site.
Staff Comment/Recommendation:
. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's proposal and does not suggest additional stub
streets.
. 11 th Street is a stub street south of this site, but not adjacent to the site. The property
located between the stub and this site is currently owned by the City of Meridian and
therefore the stub will not likely be extended. There is a good north-south connectivity
network without this connection.
8.
Turnarounds
Policy: District policy 7205.2.1 requires turnarounds to be constructed to provide a minimum
turning radius of 45-feet. The applicant should also be required to provide a minimum of a 29-foot
street section on either side of any proposed center islands within the turnarounds. The medians
should be constructed a minimum of 4-feet wide to total a minimum of a 100-square foot area.
Islands/Medians
Policy: District policy 7202.7 and 7207.5 require islands to be constructed a minimum of 4-feet
wide with a minimum area of 1 OO-square feet and designed to safely channel traffic. The roadway
on either side of the traffic island should maintain a minimum of a 21-foot street section. District
policy also requires any proposed landscape islands/medians within the public right-of-way
dedicated by this plat should be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of
this should be required on the final plat. The design should be reviewed and approved by ACHD's
Development staff.
Alleys
The applicant is proposing to construct non-public alleys in the northern quadrants of the
subdivision. If the alleys are public, then all ACHD policies will apply, and include:
. Parking in alley is not allowed (District policy 7204.10.3).
. Access is allowed to and from a fully improved alley (District policy 7204.10.2). Parking shall
be designed so the minimum clear distance from the back of the parking stall to the opposite
side of the alley is 22-feet for perpendicular parking. An access to an alley shall be located a
minimum of 25-feet from the nearest public street.
. District Policy 7204.10.3 states a minimum of back-of-curb radius of 15-feet is required at all
alley intersections. For the reconstruction of existing alleys, the back-of-curb radius may be
less than i5-feet when it is impractical to remove existing obstructions.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
6
. Residential alleys are typically improved with 16-feet of pavement within 20-feet of right-of-
way.
11.
Daycare Access
The applicant has identified a conceptual daycare facility location on the map, located at the
southeast corner of Ustick Road and Blairmore Way (the main entrance). This driveway(s) should
be located on Blairmore Way, a minimum of 100-feet south of Ustick Road. Access to Ustick Road
is prohibited. This use will require a separate application in the future and the exact driveway
locations will be reviewed at that time.
12.
Other Access
Direct lot access to Ustick Road is prohibited and should be noted on the final plat.
C. Sit!..§pecific Conditions of AlWroval
1.
Dedicate 48-feet of right~f-way from the centerline of Ustick Road abutting the parcel by means of
a warranty deed. The right-of-way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be completed and
signed by the applicant prior to scheduling the final plat for signature by the ACHD Commission or
prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever Occurs first. Allow up to
30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The
owner will be paid the fair market value of the right-of-way dedicated which is an addition to existing
ACHD right-of-way. OR The applicant may dedicate 38-feet of right-of-way (with compensation)
from the centerline and provide a minimum 10-foot wide sidewalk easement.
2.
Construct a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk on Ustick Road abutting the site a minimum of 41-feet
from the centerline of the roadway. If the sidewalk is located outside of the right-of-way provide a
sidewalk easement.
3.
Construct all local streets as 36~foot street sections with curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalks within 50-feet of right-of-way.
The main entrance roadway shall be constructed as a 36-foot wide residential collector (vertical
curb, gutter and sidewalk and sign for "NO PARKING" from Ustick Road to Jasper Street, the
second public street intersection off of Ustick Road.
Sidewalks are required on both sides of all of the new streets within the subdivision. The sidewalks
may be 5-foot wide attached sidewalks or 4-foot wide detached sidewalks with a 5-foot wide
landscape strip. Detached sidewalks may be located in an easement.
Locate the main entrance as proposed to intersect Ustick Road approximately 600-feet west of
Venable Lane.
Construct left and right turn Janes on Ustick Road at the main entrance. Coordinate the length and
design of the turn lanes with District staff. The applicant will not be compensated for right-of-way
required for the turn Janes.
Construct stub streets to the east, south and west as proposed. A sign shall be installed at the
terminus of the stub street stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE" In
addition, a stub street must meet the following conditions: a) A stub street shall be designed to
slope towards the street intersection and drain surface water toward that intersection, unless a
satisfactory storm drain system is installed and b) The District may require appropriate covenants
guaranteeing that the stub street will remain free of obstructions.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Extend all existing or proposed stub streets into the site as proposed,
Islands shall be constructed a minimum of 4-feet wide with a minimum area of 1 OO-square feet and
designed to safely channel traffic. The roadway on either side of the traffic island shall maintain a
minimum of a 21-foot street section and additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to accommodate
the roadway section. District policy also requires any proposed landscape islands/medians within
the public right-of-way dedicated by this plat shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners
association. Notes of this shall be required on the final plat. The design shall be reviewed and
approved by ACHD's Development staff.
The proposed alleys may be constructed as public alleys, subject to all ACHD policies.
The future Daycare Facility driveways shall be reviewed and approved with a future application.
Direct lot access to Ustick Road is prohibited and shall be noted on the final plat.
Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
D. Standard Condi~ions of AllJ)roval
1.
Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
2.
All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne
by the developer.
3.
Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the
construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file
number) for details.
4.
Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by
the.District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details.
5.
All design 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.
8.
Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance
with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
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.
9.
7
10.
11.
No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid Unless they are in writing and
signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized
representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to
obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or
other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest
advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a
waiverlvariance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at
the time the change in use is sought.
E. Conclusions of Law
1.
2.
IDMI
o::r:s::
~
---- ~
~
~~
'\( À'
-Æ
r
I
==='
-
:;7£
~
I
8
The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of Approval
are satisfied.
ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an
undue burden on the existing vehicular transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the
proposed development.
WI\. ..l '11 ~ ~
..l
T
...
~~; .
I
L-
~ ~ ~~
::: , / (I
~ '1
ü f
"OS
~
-
~~w
L
--......... .-
J~l r"'1
SITE~
-
1- IlL J
, 1'1'íi
I-
t-
~
L~~~
.;\-1-
~J~
y.t-
-
JJl
t----
'<.(ij;§"
'(~\i
Z
D
II
:---~
I I ml I I Iin
II I " I;¡>. 1/111
II III 'I II 'I T
111 I III T
þ.,....... ~ --..L II
~~~~
~ml~~
II.
id
I
-r
EffiE
III III
I I
~I
--LL L
~
,,'!$,.\'r ~
If
",¿
~J-,
II ":~~'~
'-.J '/
ITIIIIIJ f'); ') 1 lTl r -,
OIIIID VS< }): :: -< II.:DlIl¡: ':r :.L II
1I1I II I ~~ ~~~F-i;:t,~}
'V~I- .J
III ~ ""í III IT
IIIIIII~IH t3- ~ ~ I- J I I I
I-
111111111111111 t: ~ Ii
I.. Ef9:L §
J I- I" ~t
cO I- ':1lr'r t
11
I-U
cO ft -~ It! M
,
CROSSFIELD SUBDIVISION
LOCATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTlON 1, T.3N., R.1W., 8.M.
MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
....
N
I
"'"
1~T~
~ti ~' F
f- 1-1 1.obJ<'t I-~ f-
W lliB ~b ~
~ - ~¡
~~ ~tIt- e
~~~ ~
~t¡_. ---- ~
R1 ,........,. :2
II I Tn
fr~~~1 I 1[k~~
B ~Y2\Ç ~ 1 ITn ~~
U ..,!J:¡ I r v '-----
IJ..-I-l::~ ~
~ '-LJ J I TTTTTTTTl f="
II It- IITT Tn '1-
hì If II
I-- I I I I I TTTTl T
"~;NJ~'H:-~
t:~W&?~I~ Ì~
K ~n<~ : ~H
f--,.,I I '\ ~) .
TI 1 I ì/ FŒ:JE
r1 íTT T II rTí TTfTTIt
I I I tf.r1::, II .............::(? --r TTTT
I II ),---q-¡¡'.J W~ L
I t-ff-!. r f-Y-) - 7 ~ ~
1=, D-, }-.. f/ ..Jo. 'F.~' \\¿ ~ f--
~~ .~ '-'" 1 ~
~ -(', 'ì ~ ~
~>( JliL Æ@ ~
3:: ~ '" ~ TTTTT \ '!. [[
ì \ I 8J:Wf¡ ì'f4f
t=~I.J::::1IT J~ TT 1.
t-- f-+- I- I H )- 1- I r I I f-
x;:: 1111 TïiíTTT J
;: I J I I-I
~K f-~ 1IL- r__-
~'- þ-A- I- ? W-L (r-P- ¡ 7'--
7TITr I- Pì I- r-- ,... I
,~ " Jffi.Ë ~ !ri
¡-..
SCALE 1" ~ 100a
OWG.DATE 02110105
PIIOJ. NO. 3048
sHEET
10F1
VICIN
IJO48.APR BKB
,'\.LillI Î1IñlTI'I"ir1-'~ IIIIIII!I
I ~ ^ = 1::::1 ¡:::: I~-!,l-
LL...l; ¡-..., ~ I ~ f- I I
tJbi= 0' ì \ II I I
HI I IIIII -r I
...
'.
I I I I I I I I I I I TTTl 0
,,;1 Iff nil r 1;1 J~:=~t
V1 r ---1- ':~ \. I L yo-
il r --Iv /-\): ~ \TT" ~
I ),..- )I)' x ~ y('t
Π~ ~ V\: ."-?\ ')< 1111 I-
r$'-J III-C'-
w f-+- I~
uT.,...:.",Sffi r+ "" 6:
"'"
M
...
I)
----r--.I
.."
I--
~~~~
ï------
LoO
fI.4
I----.
-"""'...
LoO
:2
1M
1"\1.11 I /
H
J I
..
,:',;':' II
,~
,II
I
..
>
:[Z
~W
~
h
II-r I T IIITITIII JI
I
~f--!\ -=
...
R ~
I-
~ ¡.....
I-
h
lR:B F H U J!i D-=-
l 1 ~~ M-
J I ~I II I
1 I.l~~1 IIIII II
ITlìT II I III
nlll~, TfITî 1IIIITTTìl
~
<.../..Llllll IIIIIII I II1I IIIII'!
\'I'[ I IIIIII TTTTT I ~(A II 11.r:rID
1IIIIIITlTrT ':5:...1111111
,,111111 111111111111""1 '111"111
I ~-!ITTTTTT I IILrllT
t,,:. ~~!:!ÞÆ\II I
: 'coW ~~ -
=mß~I~<
'r1 [ II I I \ Y Îii T I /I I ~-=--
~--
~~
E~
t: Î JTL.) Ç\
ì I VI\=\.
.hl ~p. ~
':::',.;,
þIr ",,",;",; , , ' ,;"
L ;i",~~
"',';
~
EBIB
~
r---
.
l"-i I
"NI: I
f
...".
.n__---.
~GINEERING
~ OLUTIONS
UP
1/2 MILE VICINITY MAP
150 E- AlKENS:moEET. SUITE B
EAGlE. IDAHO 113618
-(:¡oBI- ...(:¡oBI-'
I
=:-,':- -.-.'-: -~_.
------.,-
----
-----
u_-
~
(j
~
--'¡¡¡¡'¡;¡;;¡¡¡-"---
~~
~J.;~::y
,/ -"'~
'-"'<.~:::.//
-.....
-........
"-
þ;
d
"'3
ã
"
~ a ~
~
~
§
~
~ q Æ CROSSFIELD SUBDIVISION ENS/IIEER/NII
~"U ~ ~ ~
<! -; PlANNED DEVELOPMENT SOLUT/ONS",
:0 g n ã
L"'TID.T¡""I/""""~"'.T."'....".... ' ~-<.,~""i' .~ .
J """'.... r;r.JNry,"'" ~,.,""._,
".,,"',
. .-
~
'¡¡
j= ~
~!,
~ ~;;
d ~~ ~
..,~' "¡;
I
B
.~
! ¡ : I ¡ ¡ I :
¡¡'H I, i:
¡ ¡ : I ¡ ¡ I 'I
!1=IUHi!~i
!P~i§J ~~j
n~~m ~
¡If
\ j n t *. : ¡ 1¡ ¡
f U I ¡ I ¡j
I! ~ pIn II U ì
~I ~ 6 ~ § i ~ I ~ ~ J ~
~~ ~ I g P ~ i ~ § ~
. i ~ ~ ~
¡?i;¡ ;;:! ~ Iffi i
~ -j H~
5/ ~!: :::;:;
~ ! ~~~~~I o:~~ I
~~~ 8~~~§ ~~~
0 .,,¡ "I;; '¡~:i ~
)'j i a~~ ,~~~ g
J " !t~~~ ;¡U. ~
~ ¡
~Q~~i! .œ~~i!I
D1~~~3 *~5~~
~i';i';Æ
M~~
.,'-,.._,'-~~,..
~_..._."-~.-
""_._.d_-
-'_~.n...~~.
---'"""~_L._.,.
DEVELOPER OWNERS OF RECORD
PlANNER I CONTACT ",,"N~M 'Ro"""",, lm '_RSHIP
"<0.. "<I<A' M':O,.., ""AITS OMloP"ENT. lLc 0....
'50 ,. A""'" "'IT' . .." N. 00<"""" WAY. >TE. '" Jo, . KAT""".' ",,"Me.
""'-'. .. "... '0", ~ "", ." .. ""« ""'"
'- ... --- '~"'" .,.."" " .,..- '~"'" -"" ",,'..... m. "."
......"""..,-""
~.
9
.._-,
Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action
1.
Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action: A Commissioner, a member of ACHD
staff or any other person objecting to any final action taken by the Commission may request
reconsideration of that action, provided the request is not for a reconsideration of an action
previously requested to be reconsidered, an action whose provisions have been partly and
materially carried out, or an action that has created a contractual relationship with third parties.
a. Only a Commission member who voted with the prevailing side can move for
reconsideration, but the motion may be seconded by any Commissioner and is voted on by
all Commissioners present.
If a motion to reconsider is made and seconded it is subject to a motion to postpone to a
certain time.
b. The request must be in writing and delivered to the Secretary of the Highway District no later
than 3:00 p.m. on the day prior to the Commission's next scheduled regular meeting
following the meeting at which the action to be reconsidered was taken. Upon receipt of the
request, the Secretary shall cause the same to be placed on the agenda for that next
scheduled regular Commission meeting.
c. The request for reconsideration must be supported by written documentation setting forth
new facts and information not presented at the earlier meeting, or a changed situation that
has developed since the taking of the earlier vote, or information establishing an error of fact
or law in the earlier action. The request may also be supported by oral testimony at the
meeting.
d. If a motion to reconsider passes, the effect is the original matter is in the exact position it
occupied the moment before it was voted on originally. It will normally be returned to ACHD
staff for further review. The Commission may set the date of the meeting at which the
matter is to be returned. The Commission shall only take action on the original matter at a
meeting where the agenda notice so provides.
e. At the meeting where the original matter is again on the agenda for Commission action,
interested persons and ACHD staff may present such written and oral testimony as the
President of the Commission determines to be appropriate, and the Commission may take
any action the majority of the Commission deems advisable.
f. If a motion to reconsider passes, the applicant may be charged a reasonable fee, to cover
administrative costs, as established by the Commission.
II
Development Process Checklist
II
[8JSubmit a development application to a City or to the County
[8JThe City or the County will transmit the development application to ACHD
[8JThe ACHD Planning Review Division will receive the development application to review
[8JThe Planning Review Division will do one 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
apply to this development application.
DWrite a Staff Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating
the proposal for its conformance to District Policy.
I8IWrite a Commission Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and
evaluating the proposal for Its conformance to District Policy.
DThe Planning Review Division will hold a Technical Review meeting for all Staff and Commission Level reports.
DFor ALL development applications, including those receiving a "No Review" or "Comply With" letter:
. The applicant should submit two (2) sets of engineered plans directly to ACHD for review by the Development
Review 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,
including, 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)
D Driveway or Property Approach(s)
. Submit a "Driveway Approach Requesf form to Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Construction (for approval by
Development Services & Traffic Services). There is a one week tumaround for this approval.
D Working in the ACHD Right~f-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)
D 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.
D Idaho Power Company
. Vie Steelman at Idaho Power must have his IPCO approved set of subdivision utility plans prior to Pre-Con being
scheduled.
D Final Approval from Development Services
. ACHD Construction - Subdivision must have received approval from Development Services prior to scheduling a Pre-Con.
10
RECEIVED
Submission for Public Hearing on the proposed Crossfield subdivision JUL 1 5 2005
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, July 21,2005 CITY OF MERIDIAN
Cr1Y CLERK OFFIC'-F
The families and neighbors in Waterbury Park subdivision have very serious concerns about the .J.
proposed R-8 Crossfield subdivision, and respectfully request you consider the following:
Background:
1. Waterbury Park, our R-4 subdivision, was completed prior to the new comprehensive plan
which was proposed in 2000. The then-existing comprehensive plan called for eventual similar
or lesser density to our north and west, especially since we are in the primary direction of travel
from those parcels. Many of the homeowners, including the undersigned, have lived in our
homes for 12 or more years.
2. When a new Comprehensive Plan was proposed in 2000, we pointed out that all of the other
13. proposed high-density neighborhood centers were semi.circles, except for a full circle one
proposed for Ustick Road, to OUf northwest and near our stub street to the northwest. We asked
if the proposed neighborhood center on Ustick could be similar to the others and be a semi-
circle, on the north side of Us tick. We were turned down.
3. When Salisbury II / Vallin Court was proposed as an R-8 subdivision to our north, we in
Waterbury Park and the Salisbury I subdivision attended Planning and Zoning meetings, met
with the developer's engineering finn, and held neighborhood meetings. Salisbury 1's families
had two concerns: the homes in the proposed Vallin Court near them were of higher density than
theirs, and Salisbury I was in the primary direction of travel for those higher density homes. Our
families in Waterbury Park were concerned that not addressing those two problems (higher
interior density, and primary direction of travel from higher density to lower density) would lead
to similar problems if there was development someday near our northwest stub street. Mark
Snodgrass was our spokesperson for those meetings. Salisbury I was accommodated on both of
their concerns, by requiring the developer instead put similar-sized or larger homes near their
homes, and re-drawing the street layout so that high density traffic would instead flow through
undeveloped Indian Rocks Road, just to our north. Planning Director Anna Canning and I asked
for stubs streets to the west of Vall in Court, so traffic from potentially higher density interior
parcels could eventually go through as yet undeveloped Indian Rocks Road rather than our
neighborhood, but we were turned down.
Concerns:
1. The two accommodations given to Salisbury I when Vallin Court was proposed, which were
to serve as a precedent for other interior higher density proposals in our area, are not provided for
in the Crossfield proposal. For example, there are 8 proposed lots along the western boundary of
Waterbury Park where we have 7, and the density throughout the bottom half of the parcel is
greater than ours.
2. The 50 acre parcel to our north isn't part of the proposal, yet it is critical it be considered
when looking at this proposal, since it backs up to our stub street to the northwest. The proposal
calls for one street from the north to enter this 50 acre area, and someday there will be 1 or 2
additional entrance points to it from Venable Lane. The planning staff may propose an
additional access point from the west as part of this proposal, very close to our stub street. If
there isn't a condition to this proposal that our stub street to the northwest will not be developed
in the future, high density neighborhood center traffic will eventually pour through our stub
street to the northwest, since there isn't a stop sign or barely a curve from our stub street all the
way to Meridian Road. 90%+ of the vehicle trips that will emanate from the proposed R-8
subdivision will have as their primary direction of traffic the southeast where our homes are,
headed to downtown Meridian, the interstate to drive to Boise, etc. In the afternoon, the tide of
high density traffic will reverse, as the vehicle trips will come through our neighborhood from
Meridian Road back to their high density neighborhood center. No one in the bottom two thirds
of this proposed subdivision would want to go north to Ustick, wait at the future light at Venable
and Ustick, and then wait to turn onto Meridian Road at Ustick, when instead they can just drive
through our neighborhood.
3. Although the developer has not proposed any commercial development at the comer of Us tick
and Venable Lane, the planning staff may recommend such commercial development even
though it would further increase the vehicular traffic of this proposed development.
4. This proposal has been called a "planned development", but a planned development is
supposed to be primarily self-contained. This proposal provides only one entrance from their
property, for over 240 homes, in this case to Us tick, and primarily uses access roads to
surrounding parcels to handle their high density traffic.
Recommendations / Possible Solutions:
1. It is reasonable to ask that the similar protections given to Salisbury I be applied to protect
Waterbury Park as well. The density of the part ofthe parcel directly to our west (the southern
half ofthe parcel) should be of similar or lesser density than Waterbury Park. It is not the same
to say Waterbury Park is R-4 and the part ofthe parcel to our west is also R-4; both may be R-4,
but the parcel to our west as currently proposed has higher density than we have.
2. We ask that as a condition of this planned development that our stub street to the northwest
will not eventually be developed. This is the most important concern to us.
3. The other 13 neighborhood centers are semi-circles; please let any commercial part of the
neighborhood center proposal stay on the north side of Us tick.
Now is the time to place reasonable restrictions on the proposal. It will be too late if we wait
until only the 50 acre parcel immediately next to our stub street is proposed for development,
given all the proposed access points from this parcel heading to it. If that happened, there almost
assuredly would be a request from the planning staff at that future point to connect the 50 acre
parcel to our stub street to the northwest. Right now, there is plenty of leverage with the
developer because the parcel isn't yet in Meridian's incorporated area.
If this parcel were being developed with similar or lesser density than Waterbury Park, we
wouldn't be requesting any changes. It's only because the comprehensive plan was changed
after our subdivision was finished that we ask that our stub street to the north not be developed,
and that if the applicant is approved, that that be made part of the approval process, even if the
parcel doesn't today quite reach that stub street.
Thank you for your consideration,
Christopher Broer, 387 West Woodbury Drive
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN..UP SHEET
DATE
July 21,2005
ITEM #
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 05-015
PROJECT NAME
Crossfield Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE PRINT)
FOR
AGAINST NEUTRAL
x
6
/'
/
J
"
Es~t!f,fIls~
150 East Aikens Street, Suite B
Eagle, ID 83616
Phone: (208) 938-0980
Fax: (208) 938-0941
E-mail: es-beckym@qwestnet
REC,EIVED
JUL 2 1 2005
July 21,2005
Ci(y Of Mn:tidi:ül
City CJ(~rk OHic(!
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Re:
Crossfield Subdivision
Files Nos. AZ-O5-015, PP-O5-017, CUP-OS-O22
Dear Commissioners:
We have reviewed staff comments for the hearing date of July 21, 2005, and have the following
responses:
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PRELIMINARY PLAT
2.
1.
Noted.
Although development is booming throughout the valley, vacancy rates for office
are quite high in the City of Meridian. In a year-end report by Colliers
International, Meridian had an office vacancy rate of 22.91 %, while downtown
Boise had a vacancy rate of 11.67%. With the Silverstone and El Dorado
developments, Winston Moore's proposed development at Ustick and Eagle Road,
and other office developments already approved, office space will be abundant. The
need for single-family housing is much greater at this time. The development
community is having difficulty providing the lots and homes to keep pace with the
market demand. Lot prices are escalating by the week in the Meridian area. We
are quickly reaching a point where affordable lots and homes cannot be provided in
Meridian.
To our knowledge, there are no plans to develop the Ward parcel east of the subject
site. The alignment of Venable Lane to the north within Cedar Springs is such that
it is not possible to construct Venable and obtain alignment without the Ward
property developing.
C:\Documents and Settings\grcent\Local Settings\Temporaty Internet Files\OLK24\RecsResponse,doc
Planning & Zoning Commission
July 21,2005
Page 2
Staff indicates that the project cannot meet the target density of 8 dwelling units per
acre. The area north of W. Jasper Street is 15.68 acres in size. The number of patio
and alley-loaded homes is 116. We are also proposing 12 accessory dwelling
structures within the block. Therefore, the total number of dwelling units would be
128. This equates to a density of 8.16 dwelling units per acre in the area north of W.
Jasper Street, which is within the target density range as recommended by the
Comprehensive Plan.
We respectfully request that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend
approval of the project as currently planned with the mixed residential design.
Considering the fact that the project has no access to a center section collector, we
believe the incorporation of a mixed residential use utilizing alleys, grid streets and
an east/west residential collector meets the intent of the Neighborhood Center.
3.
The applicant will comply with staffs request to increase the drivable surface in the
alleys to 16 feet and provide a 20-foot-wide separate lot to accommodate the alley.
4.
The applicant retained Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (geotechnical engineers), to install
test holes and monitor the groundwater on the subject site. The engineers installed 13 test
holes on the site. They have been monitoring and graphing the groundwater since
March 24, 2004. Their team has been tracking the groundwater for a year and half.
When the parcel was in agricultural production, the groundwater readings were high in
some areas. During 2005, the property has not been fanned. We are seeing a significant
improvement in the groundwater readings.
There are some areas on the property where we believe the groundwater is perched. The
soil scientists believe the water is perched because the groundwater level (at the northeast
comer) is higher than the water in the Flack Drain. The Flack Drain has not been cleaned
for over 15 years (infonnation provided by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District). The soil
scientists believe that, by cleaning the drain, we will break up the sides of the drain which
have sealed up with clay and silt. This project adjoins subdivisions on three sides, some
approved within the last year. We will be able to meet the standards set forth by ACHD
and the City for appropriate separation of groundwater from streets, crawlspaces and
stonn drainage facilities.
The applicant will comply with the City of Meridian's regulations concerning provisions
for flood hazard reduction (10-6-5). The applicant will go through the Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) process or provide certification that the finished floor elevation of all
structures meets the requirements of the City and FEMA.
Staff's comments imply that there is a floodway or floodplain associated with the
Creason Lateral. The facility is only an irrigation lateral and bas no floodway or
plain.
5.
Staff indicates that "conventional wisdom holds that water tables recede once
development occurs and agricultural irrigation ceases and water ways are tiled." In our
C:\Documents and Settings\greentlLocal Settings\Temporary hltemet Files\OLK24\RecsResponse.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission
July 21,2005
Page 3
past experience, we believe this assumption is correct. One of the main factors that
impacts the groundwater is open laterals. We find that, when we pipe these laterals, we
see a significant improvement in groundwater levels. This is one reason we proposed to
pipe the Creason Lateral. The Creason Lateral traversed the Bridgetower Subdivision.
We found that lots adjoining the facility showed signs of seepage from the lateral. We
accelerated our plans to pipe the Creason. Once completed, no groundwater interference
was encountered within the vicinity of the Creason Lateral.
I spoke with Bill Henson ofNampa-Meridian Irrigation District today. He indicates that
the Creason Lateral is not the South Slough. The South Slough is east of Venable Lane
and is referred to as the Finch Lateral. NMID will not allow a multi-use pathway next to
a live ditch ofthis size [requiring 48" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP)]. If the facility is
piped, the District will allow a pathway.
6.
The applicant will submit a LOMR or provide certification that the required base floor
elevation being constructed is one foot above flood elevation. This subdivision is not
appropriate for basements. No basements should be allowed within the development.
7.
Consulting with my civil engineer, she believes this requirement is not necessary.
When we design the subdivision, we have to meet a three-foot separation from
groundwater to finished centerline of the roadway. When utilizing the drainage
swales, we have to have a three foot separation from the bottom of the swale to
groundwater which equates to a 4.7-foot separation from the centerline of roadway.
The conditions of this site are not unusual; we have encountered these conditions in
other projects and take great care to design the project to meet or exceed the
requirements of all applicable agencies. For these reasons, we respectfully request
that a Master Grading and Drainage Plan not be required.
8.
The applicant proposed a 14-foot-wide access road along the piped Creason Lateral to
provide access to NMID. Ifthe Creason were piped, the access road could be used for
NMID access and a multi-use pathway.
9.
The applicant believes it is in the best interest of the future homeowners that the
Creason Lateral be piped. This is a large irrigation delivery lateral which requires
a 48-inch pipe. We are concerned about the safety of children in this neighborhood
with such a large open facility and promoting pedestrian access within close
proximity of the live ditch. NMID has requested that we pipe the facility. We
respectfully request that the condition to pipe the Creason Lateral be deleted.
10.
The applicant will provide a fencing plan for review by staff.
11.
The applicant will comply.
12.
The applicant will comply.
13.
The applicant will comply.
C:\Documents and Settings\greent\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK24\RecsResponse.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission
July 21, 2005
Page 4
14.
The applicant will comply.
15.
The applicant will comply.
16.
The applicant will comply.
17.
Mr. Joe Simunich was contacted concerning the additional stub street to his seven-
acre parcel. He indicated that he did not want another stub street. He believed the
number provided was acceptable. His main concern was the assurance that, if he
develops the seven-acre parcel and utilizes the stub street provided within the
Crossfield development, neighborhood opposition would not restrict the access or
lot size and density.
18.
Noted.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS - PRELIMINARY PLAT
1. The applicant will comply.
2. The applicant will comply.
3. The applicant will comply.
4. Noted.
5. Noted.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1. The applicant will comply.
2. The applicant will comply.
3. The applicant will comply.
4. The applicant will comply.
5. The applicant will comply.
6. The applicant will comply.
MERIDIAN PUBLIC WQRKS DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS
1.
The applicant will comply.
C:\Docwncnts and Settings\greent\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK24\RecsResponse.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission
July 21,2005
Page 5
2. The applicant will comply.
3. The applicant will comply.
4. The applicant will comply.
5. The applicant will comply.
6. Noted.
7. The applicant will comply.
8. The applicant will comply.
9. The applicant will comply.
10. The applicant will comply.
11. The applicant will comply.
12. The applicant will comply.
13. The applicant will comply.
14. The applicant will comply.
15. The applicant will comply.
MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT
1.
The applicant will comply.
2.
Noted.
3.
The applicant will comply.
4.
Noted.
5.
The applicant will comply.
6.
The applicant will comply.
7.
The applicant will comply with the two points of access; we respectfully request that
the last sentence of this item be deleted.
8.
The applicant will comply.
CIDocuments and SettingslgreentlLocaJ SettingslTemporary Internet FiJesIOLK24\RecsResponse.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission
July 21, 2005
Page 6
9.
Noted.
10.
The applicant will comply.
11.
No trash enclosures are planned within this development. However, if trash enclosures
are incorporated, the applicant will comply.
12. The applicant will comply.
13. The applicant will comply.
14. The applicant will comply.
MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT
1.
We respectfully request that pathway standards be coordinated with the Parks
Department, as the adopted standards exceed those of public streets.
2.
Noted.
MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
1.
The applicant will comply.
We believe this letter addresses all of your concerns. Please feel free to call me if you have
additional comments or questions.
Sincerely,
Engineering Solutions, LLP
Becky McKay, Partner
Project Manager
BM:ss
cc; R. Craig Groves
C:\Documents and SettingslgreentlLocal SettingslTempora¡y Internet FilesIOLK24IRecsResponse.doc
--\..
~
~
}\
~
l
\Â
::--
~
1
Q
~
H
~
Q
¡,.~
>:~
..~ .
'\
C"J
-i
~
...,
'-,-, ,..".
":¥
Commi8tionen,
7.h/~=S .
1 ' PT ¿ r:;ry
-- 7-J-I-os-
~.tm; nðS.
&r 7/2-
This Jetter is in reprd to the future deYeiopment ofplOpert)' we own at 2715 Veuabl
Lane, We haw watched with interasi U properU08 ße8I to m1l'& have undorsone develop t1û8
year. In particular. we have seen the difticully encountered. b:' the developer of the Va1ün C rt
subdivision reprdÎD8 proteats by exislins neighborhoOd IfO"'PS who feel the development wi I
cauae exceu.ive auto traffic. We WlU1t to make it known now that we plan on developing
property at some point in the ftJture. We understand neighbor. concerns reøardins increued
traftic, øcI w8Øt to miti¡ate that II nwcb 81 pouible. .
PUt plans have shown Venable Lane connectina acrOll Ustick Road, Until recently
Venable lane was not available to the city or county for uN at a œUector street. Tbat d1
with our purch88e of the Jaøe. It it now available and could t e usetW tor leuenin¡ tnIfIiç
oonpltion in the area,
Plœse keep this in mind when consìderina future dewlopment in the area.
City of Meridian
Planning aDd Zoning COIDßÛøion
City Haft
Meriel. Idaho 83642
RECEIV D
JUL 2. , 2005
C\Tt OF MER\ \AN
C\TY CLERK 0 flCF
-- ---., ,
~~T"'~~C:: a)o.
7.QARCI/F:AIiI7'.
tt:Ø0 966t/t£IL0
7?~~~S-
!/~~?7(; I/-.7 &nn~~?
l£sG e?7~~~
1.L-7tJL~ v } )
yg
/~ ¡2 // OJ ~(;;/
- //~ þ""'- C- <'>~ /y
/'V7 TA.
.-ßv A2 ð S---c?/~
¡;¡o ðS- 6'17
C~¡D os-o?--?-
-~~ ,.-
City of Meridian
Planning md Zoning Commî!Jlion
City Hat1
MerktiaR. Idaho 83642
-rf
s
Comøù88ioners,
TNS Jetter is in regard to the future deYeiopment ofploperty we own at 2715 Veoab
Lane, We have WitChed with inter.., u propertiea near 10 ~1fI have unde6øone develop this
yell. In particular. we have seen the difllçulty encountered b:( the developer oftbc Yellin C rt
subdivision reprcJilJa proteats by existina neighborhood JfOU¡¡JS who feet the devdopment wi I
ClUte exœsøive auto traffic. We want to make it known now that we plan on devdopiD¡
property at some point in the thtUN. W. undent8ad neiJhbort concems reprdinø íncreued
traffic. and want to mitigate that 88 much 81 pouible,
Pat plans have showa Venable Lane connectina acrom Ultick Road. Until recently
Venable Jane wall not available to the city or county fur ulCI &¡ a œUector street. That ch
with our purchø8e of the laøe. It is now available and could t e uaetb1 tOt leuenina traffic
oonpstion in the area,
Pteøøe keep this in mind when COft&ÌderiIia fi.ature dev1~opment ÌD the area.
S inaerely .
RECEI ED
JUt 2 1 20 5
CITY OF MER DIAN
CITY CLERK ... r-r-ICF
-- -~-,.
e"7'>t ^}, -:;¡c: cr~
7.C¡R~G¡/F:R¡;¡7.
11:e0 9661/1£/LØ
City of Meridian
Planning and Zoning Comnússion
City 1iall
Meridian. Idaho 83642
t~f
Commissioners,
s
This letter is in regard to the future development ofplopet1y we own at 2715 Venabl
Lane, We have watched with interest as properties near to ours have undergone developme this
year. In particular. we have seen the difficulty encount~ b:' the developer of the Vallin C rt
subdivision regarding protests by existing neighborhood grO~p9 who feet the development wi 1
cause excessive auto traffic. We want to make it known now that we plan on developing 0
property at some point in the future. We understand neighbors concerns regarding increased
traffic. and want to mitigate that as nwcb as possible.
Past plans have shown Venable Lane connectin.g acrOiS Usûck Road. Until recently
Venable lane was not available to the city Or county for use a ¡ a collector street. That chan
with our pw-chase of the lane. ]t is now available and could t e useful fOf lessening traffic
conøestion in the area.
ptease keep this in mind when considering future devcllopment in the area.
~'-
S' e1y. ~
ffioe an y I~
RE C E VEL)
JUL 2 1 005
CITY OF M RIDIAN
CITY CLERK OF!=/CF
CC: Ada County Highway District
10 39I;Jd
Z9889L£80Z
11:00 9551/1E/L0
S3~I^èJ3S 8èJ
07/30/1996 23:58
2083768852
RB SERVICES
PAGE 01
City fMeridian
P , and Zoning CoIDßÛssion
City I
Men' Idaho 83642
7ff=3~
. oners,
This letter is in regard to the 1uture development of property we own at 2715 Venable
Lane We have watched with interes~ lIS properties near to ours have undergone development this
year. In particular, we have seen the difficulty encountered by the developer of the Vallin Coun
SlIbdi 'sion regarding protests by exiilting neighborhood groups who feet the development will
tau excessive auto traftiç. We wart to mùe it known now that we plan on developing our
pro at some point in the future. We understand neighbors concerns regarding increased
traffi and want to mitigate that as n'iUch as po_ole,
Past plans have shown Venable Lane connecting across Ustick Road. Until reœntJy
Ve Ie lane was not available to the city or ¡;ounty for use as a collector street. That changed
with ur purchase of the lane, It is n,M' available and could be useful for lessening traffic
cons stiOn in the area.
Please keep thís in mind wher, considering future development in the area.
County Highway District
RE C E IVED
JUL I ! 2005
CITY OF MERIDIA~~
CITY CLERK OFFICE
City of Meridian
Phuuing aDd Zoning Commiaion
City Hail
Merktiø. Idaho 83642
771
C'O5
Comminionen.
This Jetter is in reprd to the future deYelopment of pi operty we own at 2115 Vcoab
Lane. We have watched with intoresL .. propertÏ08 near Lo ~L&'8 have underøone develop this
yeII'. In panicolar. we have seen the dift1cutty ençount.-ed b:, the developer of the Vallin C Ii
subdivision reprdiua protelts by exittin¡ neighborhood ßI'O\\pI who feel the development wi 1
C8Ule exceuive auto traffic. We want to make it kno1Nn now that we plan on devetoPÍDI
property at some point in the ku",. We undenI8nd nei¡Jabofl concerns reprdins increued
traftlc. and want to mitipt.e that IS IIIIcb u pouible.
Put plana have shown venable Lane conneetÎD8 acrolS Ulltick Road. Until recently
Venable lane wa. not available to tbe city or tOWIty for UIO &\ a collector street, That ch
with our purchue of the I... It it DOwavailable and could t e usetù1 tor leøunina traffic
oonøation in the area.
Pleue keep this in mind when COft&iderinø fUture dev1dopment ÌD the area.
'..
CC: Ad. County HiJbway Diøtrict
JU' ? " '2.005
.. L,. !, .
CITY OF MERIOI N
CITY CLERK OF ICE
-- -~...,
"'-:II"\T"~~ a~
7.QS:!f;¡Cl/F:s:!Fl7.
11:B0 95õ1/1EIL0
City of Meridian
Phuuing aDd Zoning Commission
City Hail
Merkt.. Idaho 83642
rF~-
c~
This Jetter is in reprd to the future development of pi operty we own at 2715 Vcoab
Lane. We have watched with inter.l II propertioa oar to OtO have undergone develop tlû.
year. In panioular. we have seen the difticulty em:ouPtcnd b:, the developer of the Vallin C rt
IMIbdivision reaardíua protests by C3datin¡ neiøhborhood ~PS who feet the deve1opInent wi I
CIIIQIe exceuive auto traffic. We want to make it known now thai we plan on developina
property at some point in the fbtuN. We underst8nd nei¡hbort concerns reprdina increued
trame, and went to mitipte that 88 much u pouible.
Pat plans have shown Venable Lane coonectinø 8cl'OIS Ulltic.k Road. Unti) recently
Venable lane was not available to the city OJ county for Ule .. a collector street. That
with our purchue of the Jaøe. ]t it now available and could t e u..w tor lessening traffic
co...-on in the area.
Please keep this in mind when cooaiderins future deV1~opment in the area.
"
CC : ~ Ad. County Highway District
I' ! 2 '1 ')DO ::;
,JI)..." .. L ..;¡
CITY OF MERIOI ~~
CITY CLEPL( (".C,-! ,r=
-- -~...,
e-::ntl\)J~ o)oJ
7.QARC!/I=:Rl'lr.
tt:Ø0 955t/tE/LØ
city of'M8idian
Planning aDd Zonin& CommillÎOn
City HaD
Merkt.. Idaho 83642
-r I~~f
Comnù"""
This Jetter is in reprd to the future development ofplOpert)' we own at 2715 Vc:aab
Lane. We have watched witJt interest. .. propertiea near to OUR bavo undorsone developme this
yeII'. In particular. we have seen the cUtBculty enoountcred b:, the developer ot the V.Uin C It
subdivision reprdinø protests by exi8tiol neighborhood ø,ro"'Ps who feet the development wi 1
ClUte excessive auto traffic. We want to make it known now that we plan on developing
property at some point in the bUN. W. undentand neiøJIbol'J concems reprclins íncreued
traft1~ and want to mitipto that u much 81 pouible.
Past plans have show1I Venable Lane eoanectÎD8 acrOIl Ustick RDad. Until recently
Venable 1IIte wa. not available to the city or county for u. a. a collector street, That ch
with our purc:ha8e of the ll1De. It it ~W available and could t e use1ùl for leuenina traffic
conplÛon in the 8I'e8.
Pteøøe keep this in mind when OOftIiderinø tùture ~dopment in the area.
r--......
CC; Ada County Hi.way Diøtrict
RECEIVD
JUL 2 1 :2005
CITY OF MERIOI ~~
CITY CLEP!,( nr"::c í':~
- - -~-".
~~TtI'IoI~1; a'lol
7.C¡ARC /F:R~7.
It:aB 9661/t€/Le
City of Meridian
Planning aDd Zoninø CO1MÛ_n
City Hall
MeridiaR. Idaho 83642
-f f- ~S-
Commi88l0net8,
Thi. Jetter is in reprd to the future development of pi operty we own at 2715 Veuab
Lane. We have watched with Întere8L .. propertioø near to Ot1f8 have underøone develop this
year, In parûcu1ar. we have 101ft the difticulty ençountered b:f the developer of the Vallin C It
subdivision reprdina protcats by exittinl neigtbJrhood ØfO"ps who feet the development wi I
(¡lUte exceuive auto traffic. We want to make it known now that we plan on devåopíng
property at some point in the tbture. We undersI8nd neiøJaborl concerns reprdins ÍIICn!ued
tratlic, 8Dd want to mitJpto that 81 much 81 pouible,
PUt plw have shown Venable Lane connectina acrOIS Ultick Road. Until recently
Venable lane wa. not available to the city OJ county fur u. a4 a coUector street, That
with our purchase of the J8IIe. It 11 now available and could t e uaefW tor leaenina traffic
conpRion in the arM.
Pteøøe keep this in mind when oouiderina future devt~opment in the area.
,,-
CC: Ada County Highway Diøtrict
RECEIV D
JLJL ì 1 .2005
CITy OF MERlO AN
CITYCLERf{rc-I¡-'h:"
-- -~_...
e"7'lT^1>I~C:: 01>1
7.qARC¡/F:R~7.
11:eø 9661/1€IL0
R,ECEIVED
MAY 1 6 2005
City of Meridían
City Clerk Office
~ & ~ 1~ 'Di4bUd
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651.4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
6 May, 2005
~rt M\ov.
S~\q-D5
J1-~: \1, \)š f \~
----------
---------------
phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
William G. Berg Jr., City Clerk
City of Meridian
-23 East-IlhhoAYe.--~----
Meridian, ID 83642
-..-. - ...-.--
RE:
PP 05-017, CUP 05-022 & AZ 05-015/Crossfield Subdivision
Dear Will:
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires that a Land Use Change Application be filed, for
review, prior to final platting. Please contact Donna Moore at 466- 7861 for further infonnation.
All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The District's Five-Mile Drain courses along the
south boundary of this proposed project. The District's Creason Lateral also courses through a
portion of this proposed project. These easements must be protected. Any encroachment without a
signed License Agreement and approved plan, before any construction is started, is unacceptable.
All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any municipal surface drainage leaves the
site, the Nampa & Meridian lITigation District must review drainage plans. The developer must
comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all
developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District.
Slrcerel~l,
~i~io~
Asst. Water Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian lITigation District
BH/dbg
c: A. Damberger
File - Office/Shop
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
RECEIVED
MAY 1 6 2005
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
~&~tfl
.
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651 ~4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
12 May 2005
phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466~7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
Becky McKay
Engineering Solutions, LLP
150 E. Aikens Street, Suite B
Eagle, 10 83616
- -
--- -- - ---------- -- - --
--- ----- - --RE:----Tand-Use--ChangeAp-pllCation - Crossfield Subdivision
Please note the District now re uires three 3
---- ----- -
--- --
Dear Ms. McKay:
Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation
District for its review on the above~referenced development. If this development is under a
"rush" to be finalized, I would recommend that you submit a cashier's check, money order or
cash as payment of the fees in order to speed the process up. If you submit a company or
personal check, it must clear the bank before processing the application.
Should this development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be owned,
operated and maintained by the Irrigation District, I strongly urge you to coordinate with John P.
Anderson, Water Superintendent for the Irrigation District, concerning the installation of the
pressure system. Enclosed is a questionnaire that you must fill out and return in order to initiate
the process of contractual agreements between the owner or developer and the Irrigation
District for the ownership. operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call on me at the District's
office, or John P. Anderson, at the District's shop.
SiL Ý/. ~
Donna N. Moore, Asst. Secretaryrrreasurer
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
DNM/smc
cc: File
Water Superintendent
Will Berg, City Clerk, Meridian City
Packard Estates Development, LLC, 6223 N. Discovery Way, Suite 120, Boise, ID 83713
Joe & Katherine Simunich, 955 W. Ustick Road, Meridian, ID 83642
enc.
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJEG RIGHTS. 40,000
na~ 11 ~UUb 2:54PM
En~ineerin~ Solutions
p. 1
i
OLUTIOIIS UP
May 17. 2005
Planning & Zoning Commission
Mayor and City Council
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ill 83642
208 938 0941
~ t~ M~
~/ l ~ jOc;
/t¿;ìlJ ~ 4)'1
;
ISO East Aikens Street, S Wtc B
Eagle, ID ~3616
PboDe: (208) 93æO98O
Fax: (208) 93 -0941
E-mail: e~beck:ym@q .net
!
RECEIVED
MAY 11 2005
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
!.
Crossfield Subdivision by P curd Estates I¡)evelopment, LLC - 955 W. Ustick
AZ 05-015 Request for Anne ation and Zoning of 59.30 acres from RUT to R-8 ,
PP 05-017 Request for Prer Plat Appro\-aI of246 building lots on 59.30 acres in a I
proposed R-8 zone I. ¡
CUP 05-022 Request for a C ditional Use Permit for a Planned Development I
Re:
Dear Comm.jssioners, Mayor and Co ciJ:
,
i
I
e Plamùng & ZOning Commission's agenda of May 19, 200~.
lved with the pioject area we would like to further investigate.
with staff on iliis project prior to making our presentation td
The above-referenced matters are on
Staff has made us aware of issues in
We would like the opportunity to we
you on the Crossfield Subdivision.
We respectfully request that the pub hearings for the above-referenced matters be continued to ¡
July 21, 2005, to allow us additional ime to respond to staff s requests. Thank you for your r
consideration.
Sincerely,
Engineering Solutions, LLP
BM:ss
C:\Documents WId Settings\2003\3048\DeremLl.~
MAY 17 '05 15:33
208938 0941
PAGE. 01