HomeMy WebLinkAboutCrossfield Subdivision PPMERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 18, 2005
APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC
PP 05-017
ITEM NO. 14
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: 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 - 2820 West Pine Avenue
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
COMMENTS
See previous item packet / minutes In AZ Packet
See attached staff report
Date: 9 -15 -05 -
Staff Initials:
cep
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
CITY 01-�
el
..77 st rc
1903
STAFF REPORT: P&Z Hearing Date:
JW-Y� Au ust 18 2005
Transmittal Date: 1K" Au ust 10 2005
To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Craig Hood, Associate City Planner 44 R-ECEIVED
Michael Cole, Development Services CoordinatorM C, AUG 10 2005
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 -05-015)
• 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 Permit 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 Permit/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 %Z a
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Crosslield.AZT?,CUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005
Page 2
mile east of Meridian Road. The subject property iPlanning the current City o f Area Impact and. zoned RUT in Ada County.s within the Urban Service Area and
Of the 246 proposed buildable lots, the applicant is proposing: 18 zero lot 1'
loaded lots; 31 patio home lots; 128 single-family lots; 1 daycare lot; and 1 clue lots; 67 alley
lot (the only buildable common lot). clubhouse and pool
proposed between each pair of attached units. Access to the alley the attached units a
patio home lot is
14 -feet of pavement within a 20 -foot wide alley easement (3 feet one her side proposed from
proposed to be grassed). All patio home lots, alley loaded lots, and attached lots are llley is
north of Jasper Street. The clubhouse and pool area and all of the 128 sin le-fami ocated
lots are located south of Jasper Street. Jasper Street is proposed as an east -west ly detached
The applicant expects to development the project in four phases, startingfrom st stub street.
The gross density of the proposed development is 4.13 dwelling units per cre Ustick Road.
A CUP/PD application is required because Chapter VII of the Comprehensive P1
new uses designated for mixed use on the Future Land Use Map to be processed as Planned
Developments. The an requires all
Purpose of this policy is to encourage more collaboration between
developer and the City to help create neighborhood centers that have unique
regard to both site layouts and structures. With the subject PDq designs, with
reduced building setbacks, reduced lot sizes, reduced lot frontages�,eredapplicant has requested
size and increased maximum block length. The applicant r also s, reduced
approval
house
accessory dwelling units to be constructed within the project. s accessory dwelling
for 12
habitable unit established in conjunction with and subordinate to a single-famil d a
Accessory dwelling units are commonly referred to as guest houses, grams y flats,
unit.
houses, caretaker unit, and mother-in-law quarters, y s, carriage
The applicant is proposing to construct one block (10) that exceeds the 1,000 foo
established by MCC. The minimum lot size for the R-8 zone is 6,500 square -feet
the
minimum lot frontage requirement of the R-8 zone is 65 feet. As mentioned above
9 and the
four types of dwelling lots proposed. The smallest detached patio home lot there are
preliminary plat is 5,063 square -feet and the shortest frontage is 52 feet. The smallest
shown on the
detached non -patio home lot is 6,380 square -feet and the shortest frontage is 58 proposed
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. et. The
submitted preliminary plat, only 52 of the proposed 246 proposed lots have 65 feet or On the
of
frontage. The applicant is proposing a minimum house size for this project of 1,300
30 more square -
feet, 1 foot below the 1,301 square -foot minimum. The proposed minimum lot size 0 square-
house size and building setbacks are detailed below.
, frontage,
R
Lot Size - Cit Minimum Re uirement
6,500 sq. ft. (detached)
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Shown on Prelimma Plat
6,380, sq. ft. (minimum, detached)
5,000 sq. ft.(m-inimum, detached, patio home)
Crossfield.AZ.pp. CUp.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005
Page 3
loaded)
4,000 sq. ft. (attached)
Lot Frontage - Cit Minimum Re uirement
65 feet (non cul-de-sac)
40 feet (cul-de-sac)
4,200 sq, ft -(minimum, detached, alley
3,950 sq. ft -(minimum, attached)
Shown on Prelimin Plat
50 feet (minimum, detached)
34 feet (minimum, detached, alley loaded)
40 feet (minimum, attached)
15 feet (cul-de-sac)
House Size – Cit Minimum Re uirement
EMposed
1,301 sq. ft. (detached)
1,300 sq. ft. (detached)
Pro osed Residential Buildin Setbacks –
Detached
alley loaded)
(not Detached
Attached
Front & Street Side (Living Space)
(alley loaded)
15 feet
Front (Face of Garage)2
0 feet
12 feet
15 feet
Rear
Interior Side*
15 feet
15 feet
20 feet
15 feet
S feet
5 feet
0' feet one side, 5 -
No additional setback per story
feet o osite side
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 d rea
Property line of the alley loaded lots goes to the center of the alley. If a p r
there would only be 5 feet between the alley easement and the face of the garage. This wiould'
only allow approximately S feet between the pavement of the proposed alley and the face of the
garage. Staff believes that this width will encourage cars to park o front of the garages and block
the alley, and does not detour people enough from parking in front of theara es. See
Preliminary Plat Analysis below. NOTE: Staff will provide an exhibit for the public hearin tha
g g
further shows the concern about garage setbacks and parking adjacent to the alleys. g t
The proposed PD amenities 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 (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 a licant to clarif at the
ublic hearin how the intend to miti ate the flood "ini" —A a..._, __
.11
AZ -05.015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Crossfield.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 (A7 OS-OIS
(PP -OS -017) and conditional use permit (CUP-p5-p22)for the reasons listed her
�, preliminary plat
eon.
LOCATION
The subject site is located on the south side of Ustick Road, approximate)
Meridian Road, in Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 1 West. Y V. mile west of
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North: Single-family homes and unplatted agricultural land, zoned RUT (Ada Cou
South: Five Mile Creek; Meadowview Subdivision, zoned R-4. nty).
East: Venable Lane; Waterbury Park Subdivision; zoned R-4; Salisbury Subdivision
R-8; Single-family homes and unplatted agricultural land, zoned RUT (Ada C untY)•
' zoned
West: Several 5 -acre, unplatted parcels being utilized for agricultural u oses
(Ada County); Meridian Park Subdivision, zoned R-4. P ,zoned RUT
Recently, the City has reviewed and approved annexation and zoning and development
applications for Cedar Springs Subdivision and Salisbury #2 Subdivision (final platted asVall
Courts). Salisbury is a residential subdivision consisting of 81 lots. This development s sated
directly east of the subject site, on the east side of Venable Lane. Cedar Springs p a 1s located
development located on the north side of Ustick Road, on the east side of Venable Lane.
rt
of the Cedar Springs development, a car wash and office is a mixed-use
2004. Althou space was approved by he Cit yin
there have been recent it -a roved develo meats in this area thea royal of
the sub'ect develo meat will create aseven-acre enclave to the southeast. Parcel #S1201244500
lies directly between the subject site, Waterbury Park Subdivision and Salisbury Subdivision 1244500
has not been annexed into the City. Y ivision and
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 zonin
combined the analysis of use with the annexation and zoning amendment findings_ g' staff has
According to Meridian City Code (MCC) 11-15-11, General Standards A
Amendments, both the Planning &Zoning Commission and Council are replicable d "to review
a ening
the particular facts and circumstances require of each proposed zoning amendment in ter
following standards and shall find adequate evidence answering the followin s of the
the proposed zoning amendment. " g questionns about
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; an
AUS -015, PP_05-017, CUP -05-022
Cross fie1d.AAZ. PP.CUP.d0 c
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 Use/Neighborhood 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 VTI -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,
does not believe that the project fully complies dwith ed rthe eet pintent of a mixxede, etcse ar staff
ea as
described in the Comprehensive Plan. After detailed evaluation of the u ose statement
olicies deli standards and ob'ectives for mixed use areas staff does not believe that
the sub'ect lot com lies with the Com rehensive Plan and cannot recommend a roval
of the rimient as submitted.
1 uneeast side of V
of the Cit or two ee no
ars has +vassed Staff believes nthat ethe City e e inlshou de 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 performed to see if non-residential uses can
by supported in this area. If the market analysis determines 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 determines 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 -05-015, PP,05-017, CUP -05-022
CrOssf7e1d.AZ. PP.CUP. d,,
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005
Page 6
Performed, 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 Cha ter VII o
the Comprehensive Plan, medium density is defined as areas including single-familyf
homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. The overall proposed densit
of 4.13 dwelling units/acre is within the target density for this area. y
Staff also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to
this application (staff analysis is in italics below policy):
—1, -c-Gd �--om clan Policies taken from Cha ter VII
"All development proposed in these areas will require approval as planned
developments under the Conditional Use Permit application process. In these
locations, the developer has the option to develop either a neighborhood center in
conformance 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 fu Ills 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) 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) Pate: 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 1 0 -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
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Cr0s5fie1d.AZ. PP, CLIP, doc
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 -foot wide. In
accordance with the Future Land Use Map and the subject finding, staff believes
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) Densi : 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 4,4pQ and �, 0D0 square feet. To obtain a residential densi closer to the
tar et o (e 1' ht dwellin s er acre sta recommends that an additional block
south o Parkstone Street Black 11 be desi ned with n17o„ I,,,,a a r_._.
"The following standards will serve as guidelines for development of the
neighborhood center areas:
a• Most blocks are 300' maximum, similar to Old Town.
b. Larger blocks along arterial streets and for traffic calming.
C. Neighborhood Center Commercial area is located at the % mile, not at
arterial intersections.
d
e Schools are located mid-section, with frontage along a collector street.
Interconnected circulation that is convenient for automobiles, pedestrians,
and transit.
f Variety of housing choices.
9. Housing is arranged in a radiating pattern of lessening densities.
h• Transition between different housingtypes
at alleys.
i• Residents can access neighborhood commerciale esities rvices without bein
forced onto arterial streets. g
J Facilitates more efficient transportation along arterials.
k• Grid street pattem within the neighborhood allows traffic to disperse,
eases congestion, slows traffic, and is safer for residents.
1• Connects to and integrates with the larger street and pathway system.
M. Reduced right -of --way widths are encouraged.
n• Open space must be provided.
o• 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),sta znds that
the proposed development generally complies with the design standads of a
neighborhood center.
(See Chapter YIl, 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 -05-015, PP -05,017, CUP -05-022
Crossricld.AZ.pp, CUP, do c
B.
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
representatives of key service providers to thisProperty.with
deficiencies of public services to serve this property were raised. In that meeting no
• "Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended
Approach" from the National Center for Bicycling and Walking
decisions." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obi. A, #3) y g g m all land use
This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkwayfacilities
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." (Cha ter V
Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 2) P II,
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 ACHD's requirements for location.
• "Improve and protect creeks (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South
Slough, and Jackson and Evans drainages) throughout
residential areas." (Chapter V, Goal 1, Objective A, Action Titem�111)ndustrial and
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, berms, 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, outs de 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
section below. y3, Plat
S
ll
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future;
A2-05-015, PP -05.017, CUMS-022
Cr0ssfic1dA2.P1,.CUP d0c
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005
Page 9
If the concurrent preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications area approved,
staff does not believe that the applicant intends to rezone the property in the fits
pp ved,
However, staff recommends that at least a portion of the site be held out from being re
Platted so the City can further analyze if future commercial/office/entertainment ug final
called for in the Comprehensive Plan, are appropriate in this area. Once there is
as
residential housing base established in this area that can support non-residential uses thiss
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 develo e
d 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; area
Staff finds that the proposed single-family development could be allowed within
the
requested R-8 zone, if the accompanying Conditional Use Permit 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
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 therop osed
subdivision, with single-family dwelling units. Meridian Park, Meadowv ew 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 t
m this property and also mains runk lines located
that are currently under construction in Ustick 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 -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
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 home
look. The pictures of the alley loaded homes and patio homes differ from he design
o
existing residences in this area. However, if the homes are constructed in substantial
compliance with the submitted pictures, staff believes the homes will be harmonious
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
the tone for how the rest of the area on the south side of Ustick Road desi nated set
g
mixed use neighborhood center develops, or does not develop. Staff f -m -d - that if the
northeast
time the ro osed R-8 zoning an.� ortion of this site isnot develo ed with sin le-famil detached units at this
_ _ .,..u„u —waut Com rehensive Plan. er or the vicinit as noted on the Future Land �Use1 Ma ill the
F. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing o
g r 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 determine whether the
proposed use will be disturbing or hazardous to the existing neighboring uses and future
expected uses in this vicinity.
G. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such
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 Ustick 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 routin
shall be coordinated with the Public Works Department. g
The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay park and hi hwa
impact fees as well as construct on-site storm water drainage facilities. g y
This item was approved by the ACHD Commission on May 18, 2005. No significant
changes were made to the plat by the ACRD; all internal roads are required to be a
minimum of 36 feet wide.
Az -05-015, pp -05-017, CUp_05-022
Cross fic1d.A2.pp,CU p.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 conime1ts 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 s
service this project. ervice provider, regarding their ability to adequately
H• Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities
and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community;
If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, public street
infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public
costs to serve the future residents 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.
Z• Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials a u'
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to an persons, ' q Apperty r the
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noises okefumese
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 Blairmore 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 Blairmore 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 (Blairmore Way)
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP_05-022
Cro ss fi eld. AZ. PP. CLIP. do c
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 surrounding
public streets. Please review any comments from ACHD for this project for additional
information regarding this finding.
K• Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of
major importance; and
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 determined 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
Creason Lateral) abutting the site. Staff believes that the Five Mile Creek
and the Creason Lateral 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
manner that does not negatively impact 80ed+--�,Creason Lateral aretheir beauty. Staff snot aware protected
anyctother
natural or scenic feature(s) that would be lost, damaged or destroyed by allowing his 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
determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or
scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware.
L. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. Ord.
592, 11-17-1992)?
reliminar lat and conditional use�ermit noted below. ith the char es to the concurren
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 -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Crossfic1d,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 J.2 and 12.3-5 D read as follows: "In detenn
acceptance of a proposed subdivision, the Commission and Council hall consider then objectives
Of ththe
is title and at least the following;
A. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan;
lan;
Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "A".
B. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
p nt,
Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "G".
C. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improVementr
p ogram;
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
the expenditure of capital improvement funds. require
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 from the
Public service providers (i.e. police, fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine 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 brow t
Commission's attention. brought o the
Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems
associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's
attention; no hazardous natural features have been identified on the site. ACHD
considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff finds the Commission and Council etermine whether the
should rely on any public testimony that may be presented to d
proposed use may cause health, safety or environmental problems that staff is unaware
of.
1.
PLAT
Venable Lane: A future co_77llector street gits shown in the Comprehensive Plan(Chapter
Page 74) halfway between Meridian Road and Linder Road, where the exist ng 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)
Property with non-residential uses difficult. Because Venable Lane ais planned ast comer ofs a
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Crossficld.AZ.PP. C CTP. du,
Planning & Zoning Coznznission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005
Page 14
collector street, staff believes that non-residential uses near the Ustick/Ve
intersection may be appropriate. Staff realizes, however, that it is difficult for nable
applicant to design a project around a street that does not currently exist, and its the
know when it may be constructed. However, staff believes that Venable Lane not
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
awner(s) as a public street, access to Vproperty
property. enable Lane will not be available to the subject
The applicant is proposing to pipe the Flack Drai
Provided when Venable Lane is consn abutting Venable Lane and Provide rov'de a
stub street, Jasper Street, to the east property line so access to and from this site can
tructed 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 Com rehensive Plan:
Mixed Use —Nei hborhood Center: As noted in the
approximately half of this site lies within the Mixed Use--Communityxation designationZoning Analysis,
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Except for a potential day care on Lot 5e
Block 4, the applicant is only proposing single-family dwelling lots within
development. Staff believes that the applicant should be required to wait on platting �e
proposed lots east of Blairmore Way and north of Parkstone Street
until g tthe
he
appropriateness of non-residential uses can be further analyzed.
Staff believes that the City should adopt the following course of action reg ardin
development of the North Parkstone Area (the area north of Parkstone Street
(approximately) and east of Blairmore Way. The North Parkstone Area should not be
allowed to final plat until one of the following occur: 1) A market analysis iserforme
to see if non-residential uses can by supported in this area. If the market analysis
determines that non-residential uses can not be supported, then the applicant should b
allowed to plat the area with residential lots as proposed. If the market analysis
determines 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 develo ment
thereby providing collector road access for a non-residential uses. The a p
applicant should
e required to submit a new preliminary plat and rezone application for the North
Parkstone Area that includes non-residential use(s) c
Plan. onsistent with the Comprehensive
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
Performed, then the applicant should be allowed to plat
proposed. the area with residential lots as
AZ -05-015, pp -05-017, CUP -05-022
Crossficld.AZ, pp. CUP, d0c
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005
Page 15
De— nslty: 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 S 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 Parkstone Street
See Site Specific Condition #2 below.
3• Alleys: The applicant has proposed to construct four private alleys for the alleyloaded
lots. As shown on the preliminary plat, the alleys are proposed in a 20 -foot wii
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 (0') 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 the
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 from the alley).
See Site Specific Condition #3 below. Y)
4• Groundwater/Flood lain: Because certain areas of Meridian are affected by the 00 -year
e
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 o en
space, recreational, and agricultural land uses and do not hinder the movementpof
floodwaters.
There are approximately 56 proposed buildable lots and 6 common lots that are currently
discussion in the application that mentions what measures are to bwithin the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. There is no submitted engineering detail or
floodplain. Staff believes that there are two opt, e taken to deal with the
ons for dealing with floodplains, the first
is to engineer the site so that the 100 -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 -05-015, PP -05.017, CUP -05-022
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 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 utiliti
would like theaes that would be in the flood plain. Staff
licant to clarifv at the. htn-r; ., j,,. ,L_
code. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference MCC 11--1 14 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 pnfIlAxnalt.. 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 10 -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 10 -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 conform 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.
6. Pi in 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 1-�Creason Lateral). Further, Meridian City Code 12-4-13.A.2 allows
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
CCOssficld.AZ.PP, C UP.doc
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 "
public purpose requiring such will not be served in the individual case. �t finds that the
Creek and the Creason Lateral to the east and west of the site are currently • The Five Mile
approval of Salisbury Subdivision #2 to the east, the Cit Y °pen' With the
requirement to the the y recently waived the
eugl} Creason Lateral and/ Five Mile ason Creek were tiled or believes that if the .�4
valuable natural feature. Further, if the applicant were to fence the, we
would lose a
fencing, the use of the waterway as a visual amenity would be significantlynal with solid
Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant not be required or allowed reduced.
the South Slough/Creason Lateral or the Five Mile Creek. Staff believe to cover or the
fencing these sections of the s that tiling and
fencing will not improve public health, safety, ason Lateral and the Five Mile with solid
accordance with Meridian City Code, the appliat should be�req required to the or
it. In
other irrigation ditches, laterals or canals that cross, intersect or lie adjacent
site (including the Flack Drain, as proposed). See Site Specific Condition r c°ver any
J to the subject
xtion #9 below.
7 Fencing` The applicant has not shown any proposed fencing on the
the submitted preliminary plat. g landscape plan or an
The applicant has � proposed to construct wrou ht
s aces and athwa s and vin 1 fences along the nPr;ronNfencin alon the o en
91nna Rl�,,..,.. __ ter, _
nces adjacent
recommended to be see-through. If solid fencing is used adjacent to athw pathways are
not exceed four feet in height (MCC12-13-15-9). pathways, it should
adjacent to the multi -use pathways and micropaths should be placed on t
A note restricting fencing directly
final plats containing pathways A detailed fencing plan should be submitteda lace of all
application of the final plat (MCC 12-4-10•F.3). All fences should taper donto upon
maximum within 20 feet of all right_o fiwaY. All P n to 3 feet
ing should
accordance with MCC 12-4-10. See Site Specific Condition #10 belowbe installed in
g EXlstln Structures: There are several buildings within the boundaries
plat. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing house on the Proposed of the proposed
4. Some of the other existing buildings span across proposed lot lines and/or d°t 5, Block
the setback requirements of the requested zone. Further, most of the structuresdo not meet
accessory to the existing house and cannot be located on their own lot without'.a rim
ary
residence. Prior to signature of the final plat by the Cit Engineer are
across proposed lot lines and/or do not meet the setback requirements buildings that span
are not principally permitted buildings should be removed, as proposed.SeeSite of the zone
and/or
Specific Condition #11 below.
e
9. Landsca in :
Street Buffers: The applicant is proposing to dedicate 48 feet of right-of-way
Road abutting this site. The applicant is proposing to construct a 5 -foot wide for ed
detached,
AZ -05-015, Pr -05-017, Cur -05-022
Cross field. AZ Y P. C uP, & c
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005
Page 18
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
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 (wig the sidewalk in the
right -alk as en . 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 propos
strips. ed lineal open space landscape
Unim roved Ri t-of--Wa : Meridian City Code 12-13-10-9 requires a 10 -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 groundcover. 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 10 -foot wide gravel shoulder on Ustick Road, with the remaining
Portion of the right-of-way being landscaped with lawn or other vegetative groundcover.
Existin 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.
Landsca e Plan: The submitted three-page landscape plan prepared by Harvest Desi
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.
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Crossftc1d.AZ.1'p. CUP. doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005
Page 19
b. 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.
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
29- or 36 -foot street section. Except for Blairmore 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 Irri anon: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigations stems 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.
12• Sanitar 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.
west and southeast, and is extending stub streets from the e
13. Stub Streets: The applicant is providing stub streets to the undeveloped parcels to the
ast 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 -05.015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Crassfiel d.AZ.PP. CUP. doc
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 SPECYvrr CONDITIONS—PRELIMINARy PLAT
1 All comments and conditions of the accompanying Annexation and Zoning (AZ -05-015
and Conditional Use Permit (CUP -05-022) application shall also be considered
conditions of the Preliminary plat (PP -05-017)-
2. The area north of Parkstone Street and east of Blairmore Way shall not be allowed to
final plat until one of the following occur: 1) A market analysis is performed to see if
non-residential uses can by supported in this area. If an accepted market analysis
determines 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
determines 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 performed, 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
_.,,•. . __
the preliminaryPlat should be amended to desi nate at
least 12 lots on the north side of V. Jasper Street that will be regwired to contain
accessory 4we21fl1iLnLgMits. At least 10 da s rior to the Cit Council hearin
11" co submit 10
full-size and one 8.5" x y of a revrcPri „rPu�,,;, . _,_� . ,
3. 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 wid
dedicated to ACRD. e common lots OR
4• 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 -05-022
Crossfield.AZTP.C[ iP.doc
Planning & Zoning Cornmission/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 plat(s), 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 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 ma
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 floodstage.
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 v�ith 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.
7• 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:
A7-05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Cro ss fiel d, AZ. PP, C UP. do,
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 corner.
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
information 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
Building Department prior to commencement of any framing. the Meridian
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 10 -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
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 conform 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
ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersectio crossiln i o 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.
A7-05-015, PP•05-017, CUP -05-022
Cross Cic1d, AZ. PP_ CUP. do c
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 finalplat.
a licant has ro osed to construct a vin 1 fence alon the exterior boundaro he
subdivision. If permanent fencing is not provided Prior to issuance of buildin ermits
temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter
prior to issuance of building permits. 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 pathwa s and
micropaths shall be placed on the face of all final Tats containin y
shall be installed in accordance with MCC 12-4-10p g pathways. All fencing
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 permitted buildings shall be removed, as proposed.
12. The submitted three-page landscape plan prepared by Harvest Design, Inc., dated 2-1405
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 -
install
gll '
• 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 o
approved groundcover. ther ACRD
• The applicant shall work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on designing,
implementing a protection and mitigation plan for the existing trees os adopting, and
• All micropaths within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in accordance with
MCC 12-13-15 "Micropath Landscaping" and MCC 12-43 '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 stormwater 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.
13. The applicant has indicated that the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District will own and
operate the pressurized irrigation system within this development. Underground year-
round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development. The
City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
CrOssficld,AZ.PP, CUp, doc
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 thea
areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer.
�assesments for the common
14. Maintenance of all connnon 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 shall be via extensions from existing mains i
n Ustick Road.
The applicant shall provide an easement through common Lot 5 Block 17(s labeled on
the preliminary plat dated 2/15/05), to allow for a future connection to the main in NW
10, Avenue. Applicant shall be responsible to construct water mains to androe this
th
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.
17. In addition to the stub streets proposed, provide an additional stub street to the 7 acre
Parcel to the south from Sommersby Drive.
18. 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• 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.
3. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Cross Ecld,AZ,PP. CUP, doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005
Page 25
4. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms 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 USEPERMIT CUP/PDI
1 ANALYSIS
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each
Proposed conditional use in terms of the following and may approve a conditional use permit if
they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (11-17-3):
A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open
spaces, parking, landscaping and other features as may be required by this
ordinance;
As part of the Planned Development (PD) the applicant is requesting relief from the
standard street frontage 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".
D. 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.
E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, street, police, and fire protection, drainage structures,
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
CrOsshcld,AZ.PP,CQP. doc
Planning & 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 economic
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
ffic
general welfare by reason of excessive production of tra, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare or odors; s
Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis 111".
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".
Reduced Standards: As stated earlier, the applicant is requesting modifications from
standard ordinance requirements for street frontage, lot size, house size,
block length. setbacks and
Lot Size &Lot Fronta e: 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 -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Crossfield.AZ.PP_CUP.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-inchmi
paving. nus crushed gravel and 2 1/2 inches of asphaltic concrete
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 Len tgth: As depicted, Block 10 exceeds the maximum 11000 -foot length for a
block. If a stub street were provided to the 7 -acre outparcel to the east from
in this situation. ro
Avenue, the block length modification would not be necessary. Staff re omme ds that
the Commission and Council determine whether a 1,400 -foot block length is appnate
p
Staff is generally supportive of the proposed setbacks. However, staff has two concerns
with the proposal. The first concern is regarding theproposed 15 -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 alle
to discourage cars from parking in front of the garages. y)
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 -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP_05-022
Ce03Ae1d.A Z.PP, CUP.duc
Detached (not
Detached
Attached
Front &Street Side (Living Space
alle loaded
15
alle loaded
Front (Face of Garage)
feet
12 feet
15 feet
Rear
20 feet
20 feet
Interior Side*
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet
5 feet
5 feet
O'feet one side,
5 feet opposite
* No additional setback per story
side
Staff is generally supportive of the proposed setbacks. However, staff has two concerns
with the proposal. The first concern is regarding theproposed 15 -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 alle
to discourage cars from parking in front of the garages. y)
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 -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP_05-022
Ce03Ae1d.A Z.PP, CUP.duc
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— ems: MCC 12-4-2.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 10 -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 conformance to the design standards for uses within a mixed use
area. See Site Specific Condition #4 below.
4 Accessor Uses: The purposes of the planned development are: "... fosters innovative
design concepts and promotes flexibility in site design
Projects, and to permit secondary uses which are integrated with and support thmixed-use 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.
R79
the accessor dwellin units.
[IN
5• Elev� 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 -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Cro ssficld.AZ_PR CURdo c
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 on
Building Department and in
accordance with the most recent Building Code. See Site Specific Condition #6 below.
�.L."� 1 "VINAL 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 of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP -05-022).
2• The project shall conform 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)
• Residential Buildin Setbacks —
Front &Street Side (Livi
Front or alley (Face of G
Rear
Interior Side*
Detached (not
Detached
lley loaded)
(alle loaf
5 feet
12 feet
0 feet
I
20 feet5
feet
18 feet
feet
5 feet
Attached
15 feet
20 feet
15 feet
0' feet one side, 5
* No additional setback per story feet o osite side
** 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.
AZ -05-015, PP -05.017, CUT -05-022
CrossfieldAZTP, 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
Permit 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 AgencV and De artment Comments & Conditions
MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing shall be
installed, drainage lots constructed, road base shall be approved by the Ada County Highway
District, and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for
building permits.
2. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to
signature on the final plat.
3. All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro -paths,
pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining
certificates of occupancy.
4. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final
plat per Resolution 02-374.
5. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC 12-2-
4.
6. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
7. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting
that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
8. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
9. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
10. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CT TP -05-022
Crossficld.AZ.PP. CUP.do c
Planning & Zoning Cozrnnission/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,
ithin this project shall be removed fr
12. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems wom
domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for fr
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 100 -year storm events, and for a period
of time not to exceed 24 hours. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3:1. Any
portion of a drainage area not improved with sod 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 determining the groundwater, soil
type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases. The engineer shall be
required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3 -feet above the
highest established normal groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation
of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1 -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 determined after power designs are completed by Idaho
Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public
Works Department prior to commencing installations.
15. Applicant's engineer shall be required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying that
all street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the highest
established normal groundwater elevation.
MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. One and two family dwellings will require a fire -flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available
for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average
Of 500' apart. International 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 %" 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 permits.
f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
AZ -05.015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Cr0 ss£7 e1d. AZ. PP. CUP. d,,
Planning & Zoning Colninission/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 permanent 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 %a 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' 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 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) 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 -05-015, PP -05.017, CUP -05-022
Cross ficld,AZ.PP. CUP. doc
Planning & Zoning Cominission/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
4: Pathway and Trail standards: Construction of tThe proposed pathway and/or trail shall
'
Department. be coordinated with the Parks
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 -05-015),
preliminary plat (PP -05-017), and conditional use permit (CUP -05-022) applications, with
the conditions listed herein.
AZ -05.015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Crossfie1 d.AZ.PP. CUP.dOc
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE August 18, 2005 ITEM # 14
PROJECT NUMBER PP 05-017
PROJECT NAME Crossfield Subdivision
N E (P PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL
C r1� 49rd-Q,f- a a,s,�t
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE July 21, 2005
PROJECT NUMBER
ITEM # 7
PP 05-017
PROJECT NAME Crossfield Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE PRIN
FOR I AGAINSTI NEUTRAL
PP 05-017
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING JUly 21, 2005
APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO. 7
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: Preliminary Plat approval of 246 building (24
(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 - 2820 West Pine Avenue
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
COMMENTS
See previous item packet / minutes
See attached staff report
XD
See attached comments
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See letter from Christopher Broer
Contacted Date: one:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City kgridion.
CIT t O
,1
IDAHO )�
lr
_,_ r
JUL.HEXITIVq)
15 2005
CITY OF MERIDIAN
STAFF REPORT: P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005
Transmittal Date: July 15, 2005
To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Craig Hood, Associate City Planner 44
Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator►"°'4 Cr
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 Permit 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 Permit/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 % a
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Crossfield.AZ.PP,CU+
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 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 - City Minimum Requirement Shown on Preliminary Plat
6,500 sq. ft. (detached) 6,380, sq. ft. (minimum, detached)
5,000 sq. ft.(minimum, detached, patio home)
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
CrOssfield.A,Z.PP.CUP. do c
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005
.Page 3
loaded)
4,000 sq. ft. (attached)
Lot Frontage - City Minimum Requirement
65 feet (non cul-de-sac)
40 feet (cul-de-sac)
House Size — City_Minimum Requirement
1,301 sq. ft. (detached)
Proposed Residential Building Setbacks —
Detached
alley load
Front & Street Side Living Space) 15 feet
Front (Face of Garage) 20 feet
Rear 15 feet
Interior Side* 5 feet
* No additional setback per story
4,200 sq. ft.(minimum, detached, alley
3,950 sq. ft.(minimum, attached)
Shown on Preliminary Plat
50 feet (minimum, detached)
34 feet (minimum, detached, alley loaded)
40 feet (minimum, attached)
15 feet (cul-de-sac)
Prol!osed
1,300 sq. ft. (detached)
(not Detached
1) (alle loaded
12 feet
15 feet
5 feet
Attached
15 feet
20 feet
15 feet
0' feet one side, 5 -
feet opposite side
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 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 (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 clarifv at the
public hearin2 how they intend to mitigate the flood plain and deal with the high gound water.
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022 Crossfield.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 -05-015), preliminary plat
(PP -05-017), and conditional use permit (CUP-05-022)_for the reasons listed herein.
LOCATION
The subject site is located on the south side of Ustick Road, approximately %2 mile west of
Meridian Road, in Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 1 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 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 Ustick 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. Althouah there have been recenLCity-approved developments in this area thea royal of
the subject develol2ment will create a seven -acre enclave to the southeast. Parcel #51201244500
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) 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 -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Cro ss fic1d. AZ. PP. CUP. do c
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 Use/Neighborhood 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 th i jose statement
olicies desio standards and objectives for mixed use areas staff does not believe that
the subject plat con lies with the Comprehensive Plan and cannot recommend a roval
of the project, as submitted.
Staff recommends that the! applicant delay develo in the lots north of Parkstone Street
until either the arcel on the east side of Venable Lane d C! is, an acce itable market
study concludes that additional non-residential uses are not needed in the northern ortion
of the tii, or two ears 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 performed to see if non-residential uses can
by supported in this area. If the market analysis determines 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 determines 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
A7-05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Cross fie1d.ALM CCUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005
Page 6
performed, 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 (staffanalysis is in italics below policy):
Mixed Use Area Comi Plan Policies 11taken from Cha ter VII
• "All development proposed in these areas will require approval as planned
developments under the Conditional Use Permit application process. In these
locations, the developer has the option to develop either a neighborhood center in
conformance 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 fulfalls 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) OUen 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) Pathways: 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
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Crossfield,AZ.PP. CUP.doc
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 -foot wide. In
accordance with the Future Land Use Map and the subject finding, staff believes
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) Densi :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 ensitiv closer to the
tar et of ei ht dwellin s er acre staIrrecommends that an additional block
south o Parkstone Street Block 11 be desi ned with alle loaded lots similar to
the north side o Parkstone Street see Site S eci ac Condition #2 below).
• "The following standards will serve as guidelines for development of the
neighborhood center areas:
a• Most blocks are 300' maximum, similar to Old Town.
b. Larger blocks along arterial streets and for traffic calming.
C. Neighborhood Center Commercial area is located at the %Z mile, not at
arterial intersections.
d. Schools are located mid-section, with frontage along a collector street.
e. Interconnected circulation that is convenient for automobiles, pedestrians,
and transit.
f. Variety of housing choices.
g- Housing is arranged in a radiating pattern of lessening densities.
h. Transition between different housing types or densities at alleys.
i- Residents can access neighborhood commercial services without being
forced onto arterial streets.
i. Facilitates more efficient transportation along arterials.
k. Grid street pattern within the neighborhood allows traffic to disperse,
eases congestion, slows traffic, and is safer for residents.
1• Connects to and integrates with the larger street and pathway system.
in. Reduced right-of-way widths are encouraged.
n. Open space must be provided.
o• 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 VII, 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 l and 4)
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUM5-022
Crossfield. AZ.PP. CUP. doc
Planning & Zoning Cominission/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 ofpublic 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 VTI,
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 ACHD'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, berms, 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.
Sta nds that exce t for the northeast portiQlLoLthe sub'ect develo meat the ro'ect
enerall Conorms to the ur ose statements and intent o the Com rehensive Plan. St--"'
also zeds that the ro osed uses sin le- ami__y homes and a nntPnth77 da carei will be
harmonious with and in accordance with the Com rehensive Plan.
B. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future;
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Crossfield.AZ.PP.CCIP. do c
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005
Page 9
If the concurrent preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications are approved,
staff does not believe that the applicant intends to rezone the property in the fixture.
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 Permit 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.
A 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 Ustick 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 -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Cross field.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 harmonious 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 12ortion of this site is not develo ed with sin le -family detached units at this
time the Rroposed R-8 zoning and sub se uent residential use pLQRosed with the
concurrent preliminary plat will be harmonious and qVi2ropriate to the intended character
of the vicinity. However if this develo ment is,U12 roved as ra osed staff finds that it
Will significantly chan a not only the existinQ, character of the area but will also change
the intended character of the vicinit as noted on the Future Land Use Ma 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 determine whether the
proposed use will be disturbing or hazardous to the existing neighboring uses and future
expected uses in this vicinity.
G. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,
water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning
amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services;
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. 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.
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, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Ctossfield.AZPP.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 irrigation 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.
r• 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 Blairmore 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 Blairmore 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 (Blairmore Way)
AZ -05-015, P1-05-017, CUP -05-022
Cros,A1e1dAZ, 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 surrounding
Public streets. Please review any comments from ACHD for this project for additional
information regarding this finding.
K. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of
major importance; and
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 determined 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 determine whether or
not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of
major importance of which staff is unaware.
L. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. (Ord.
592, 11-17-1992)?
In accordance with the findin s listed above staff finds that the annexation and zonin of
this ro ert would be in the best interest of AL with the chap es to the concurrent
reliminar plat and conditional use ermit 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 -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05.022
Crossfield.AZ.PR CUP.&,
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005
Page 13
Meridian City Code (MCC) 12-3-3 J.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 from the
public service providers (i.e. police, fire, ACRD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See
finding "G" under Annexation and Zoning Analysis, and the Agency Comments and
Conditions at the end of this report for more detail.)
E. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the
Commission's attention.
Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems
associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's
attention; no hazardous natural features have been identified on the site. ACHD
considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff finds the Commission and Council
should rely on any public testimony that may be presented to 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 corner of the
property with non-residential uses difficult. Because Venable Lane is planned as a
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Crassfleld.AZ. PP. CUP.doa
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 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 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 Blairmore 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 Blairmore Way. The North Parkstone Area should not be
allowed to final plat until one of the following occur: 1) A market analysis is performed
to see if non-residential uses can by supported in this area. If the market analysis
determines 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
determines 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.
Ifwithin 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
performed, then the applicant should be allowed to plat the area with residential lots as
proposed.
AZ -05-015, FP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Cross field. A!„ PP. CUP, do c
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005
Page 15
Density. situ: 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 Parkstone 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 ACRD. (Please see Special
Consideration #1 in the CUP section of this report for building setbacks from the alley).
See Site Specific Condition #3 below.
4. Groundwater/Floodplain: Because certain areas of Meridian are affected by the 100 -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 currently
within the FEMA 100 -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 100 -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 -05-015, PP -05.017, CUP -05-022
Crossfi e1d.AZ.PP.CUP. doo
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 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 thea licant to clan at the hearin how the seasonal hi oundwater will
be accounted for and how the lots will meet the se aration re uirements of the buildin
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 Pathwa s: 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 10 -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 10 -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 conform 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.
6. PiRing 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
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Co'055fie1d.AZ. PP. CUP.do c
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 currently 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 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 would like the "h"' to clarify at the pqblic
hearin,g if any nermnnent fencin is ro osed around the erimeter of the develo ment.
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 12-4-10.17.3). 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. Existin 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 permitted buildings should be removed, as proposed. See Site
Specific Condition #11 below.
9. 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 -05-015, PP -05.017, CUP -05-022
Crossfield.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 Ri -of-Way: Meridian City Code 12-13-10-9 requires a 10 -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 groundcover. 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 10 -foot wide gravel shoulder on Ustick Road, with the remaining
portion of the right-of-way being landscaped with lawn or other vegetative groundcover.
Existin 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.
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Cro ssfield.AZ.PP. CUP.& c
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005
Page 19
b. 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.
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 Blairmore 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.
12. Sanita 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.
13. 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 -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP-OM22
Crossfteld.AZ.PP. CUP.doc
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 -05-015)
and Conditional Use Permit (CUP -05-022) application shall also be considered
conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP -05-017).
2. The area north of Parkstone Street and east of Blairmore Way shall not be allowed to
final plat until one of the following occur: 1) A market analysis is performed to see if
non-residential uses can by supported in this area. If an accepted market analysis
determines 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
determines 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 performed, 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 days prior to the Cit Council hearin submit 10
full-size and one 8.5" x 11" c012Y of a revised ---IiminNy V1at to the Cit —Clerk -
3. 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 ACRD.
4. 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 -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Cr055fic1d.AZ. PP_CUP.doc
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. Staff is concerned about the potential effects of high groundwater in the proposed project
area. Two significant waterways affect this property: the Creason Lateral ruruling
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 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.
7. 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 -05-015, P&05-017, CUP -05-022
Cross ficld.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 corner.
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
information 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 10 -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 Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District (NMID). The applicant shall conform 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.
AMS -015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Cro ss ficl d, AZPP. CUP. do c
Planning & Zoning Cotnmission/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 permanent
fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be
installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of building permits. 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 rnicropaths 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 permitted buildings shall be removed, as proposed.
12. 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 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 rnicropaths 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 stormwater 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.
13. The applicant has indicated that the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District will own and
operate the pressurized irrigation system within this development. Underground year -
mad pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development. The
City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water. 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, PP -05-017, CUP -05.022
Cromfield.AZ.PP.CUP.&O
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
forms 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
11th 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.
17. In addition to the stub streets proposed, provide an additional stub street to the 7 acre
parcel to the south from Sommersby Drive.
18. 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. 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.
3. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
4. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation
and conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Cr0s5fic1d-AZ.PP. CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Cominission/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 CUP/PD ANALYSIS
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed conditional use in terms of the following and may approve a conditional use permit if
they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (11-17-3):
A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open
spaces, parking, landscaping and other features as may be required by this
ordinance;
As part of the Planned Development (PD) the applicant is requesting relief from the
standard street frontage 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".
D. 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.
E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, street, police, and fire protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of
proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services;
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Cr0555c1d.AZ.PP.CUP. doc
Planning & Zoning Comanission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005
Page 26
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 economic
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
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.
P.Z-05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05.022
Crossficld-AZ.PP. CUP.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 'h 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 Len h: 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 determine whether a 1,400 -foot block length is appropriate
in this situation.
Front & Street Side
Front (Face of Gara
Rear
Interior Side*
rfeet
alley
Space)
* No additional setback per story
Detached
alle loa
12 feet
15 feet
5 feet
Attached
15 feet
20 feet
15 feet
O'feet one side,
5 feet opposite
side
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 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.
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Crossfield, AZ.PP. CUP.do c
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 10 -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. Dayare 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 01 :1111 at the ublic hearinilly if the accessa dwellin s
are 3r1,11 osed on the alle loaded lots or the detached lots or both. Further staff would
like to have thea licant clarif how the re uired off street arkin will be rovided for
the accessorydwellin units.
5. 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 -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Crossf e1d.AZ,PP.CUP.do,
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 -05-017) as a
condition of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP -05-022).
2. The project shall conform 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)
• Residential
Front & Street Side
Front or alley (Face
Rear
Interior Side*
Setbacks —
Detached (not I DetachedAttached
alley loaded) (allev loaded)
(Living ace) 15 feet 12 feetli
1 S feet
HofGaage)*** 20 feet 20 feet feet15 feet 18 feet feet5 feet S feet0feet one side, 5
* No additional setback per story feet opposite side
** 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 1Block
12. ,
4. Any future day care use on Lot 5, Block 4, shall be required to obtain separate CUP
approval.
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
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
permit 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 Agency and De artment Comments & Conditions
MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing shall be
installed, drainage lots constructed, road base shall be approved by the Ada County Highway
District, and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for
building permits.
2. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to
signature on the final plat.
3. All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro -paths,
pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining
certificates of occupancy.
4. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final
plat per Resolution 02-374.
5. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC 12-2-
4.
6. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
7. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting
that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
S. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
9. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
10. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
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 -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Crossfield,AZ.PP.CUP.do c
Planning & Zoning Cominission/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 100 -year storm events, and for a period
of time not to exceed 24 hours. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3:1. Any
portion of a drainage area not improved with sod 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 determining the groundwater, soil
type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases. The engineer shall be
required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3 -feet above the
highest established normal groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation
of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1 -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 determined after power designs are completed by Idaho
Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public
Works Department prior to commencing installations.
15. Applicant's engineer shall be required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying that
all street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the highest
established normal groundwater elevation.
MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. One and two family dwellings will require a fire -flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available
for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average
of 500' apart. International 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 %Z" 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 permits.
f, Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
g. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade.
h. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5.
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022
Crossfield.AZ-MC UP. doc
Planning & Zoning Coinrmssion/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 permanent 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 V2 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' 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 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) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire
hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings
equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance
with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183).
a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet
(183 m).
b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system
installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement
shall be 600 feet (183 m).
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017. CUP -05-022
Cromfield.AZ.PP. CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Comrmssion/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 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 -05-015),
preliminary plat (PP -05-017), and conditional use permit (CUP -05-022) applications, with
the conditions listed herein.
AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CLIP -05-022
Crossfield.AZ.PP.CLIP. 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 21 st, 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, I 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 I remember their last meeting
that we were pretty full that night. And I agree with Commissioner Moe, 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.
CHD
gocilew
(iorwrwe�eo��o ]rt-wret
May 23, 2005
To: Packard Estates Development
6223 N. Discovery Way, Suite 120
Boise, ID 83713
Subject: MPP05-017/MCUP05-022/MAZ05-015
Crossfield Subdivision
955 W. Ustick Road
John S. Franden, President
Sherry R. Huber, 1st Vice President
David 8ivens, 2nd Vice President
Carol A. McKee, Commissioner
Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner
MAY 2 7 2005
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
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- 411_ka4440avv
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 9 Garden City, ID • 83714 9 PH 208-387-6100 • FX 345-7650 • www,achd.ada.id.us
Right -of -Way & Development Department
Planning Review Division
CHD
crate 5"w
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:
crichardson@achd. ada. id. us
Project/File: Crossfield Subdivision/MPP05-017/MCUP05-022/MAZ05-015
Lead Agency: 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
Site Information: The site is currently bare ground.
2. Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area:
Direction
Land Use
Zoni-ng
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 ACHD 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
Classification
Traffic Count
Level of
Service
Speed
Limit
Nearest
Intersection
Ustick Road
1,285
10,800 w/o
Meridian,
feet
Minor Arterial
Meridian Road in
LOS C
40 mph
stop -
2005
controlled
Meridian Road
7,355 s/o Ustick
Ustick, stop -
None
Minor Arterial
Road on 4-23-02
getter
35 mph
controlled
than C
`Acceptable level of service for a two lane arterial roadway (Ustick Road) is "D" (14,000 VPD).
7. Capital Improvements Plan/Five Year Work Program
There are no roadways in this area listed in the FYWP or CIP.
8. Other Development in Area/Miscellaneous
On May 2, 2005, ACHD 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.
E
B. Findings for Consideration
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.
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 ADT. 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.
2. Right -of -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.
3. 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.
3
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.
4. 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.
5. 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. Stub 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
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 Roiid. 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`h 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.
9. 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 100 -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.
10. 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 15 -feet when it is impractical to remove existing obstructions.
41
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. Site S ecific Conditions of roval
Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Locate the main entrance as proposed to intersect Ustick Road approximately 600 -feet west of
Venable Lane.
7. Construct left and right turn lanes 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 lanes.
8. 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." Ir
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.
n
9. Extend all existing or proposed stub streets into the site as proposed.
10. Islands shall be constructed a minimum of 4 -feet wide with a minimum area of 100 -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.
11. The proposed alleys may be constructed as public alleys, subject to all ACHD policies.
12. The future Daycare Facility driveways shall be reviewed and approved with a future application.
13. Direct lot access to Ustick Road is prohibited and shall be noted on the final plat.
14. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
D. Standard Conditions of Approval
Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
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.
9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The
applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant
shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking
ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in
the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction.
7
10. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and
signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized
representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to
obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District,
11. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or
other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest
advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a
waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at -
the time the change in use is sought.
E. Conclusions of Law
The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of Approval
are satisfied.
2. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an
undue burden on the existing vehicular transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the
proposed development.
0
KUSSFIELD SUBDIVISIC
A\ �
n es�sb- r eH.Er
■ � llll
•A - � d-- r� � 6
- fls 41,
�w -
— MM _
644 It -esu\
ir
_-------------- ..,------a�k:dw.�+�r"""`+vr_ tw �
us
w�� V
CROSSFIELD 9UDD MION ENGINEERINGE�P�e PLANNER /CONTACT DEVELOPER OWNERS OF RECORD
g Z7 s
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT .sGIUTIGNS,� eecKr uelur M wb ESTATES p(vElppuprt. LLc $�NlIN1EM PPoe(xn�s tib PAmMI
y o m - ,w E. A�PEtis wn 6 en] x. M- —, SIL �]n JOE r w ueEAw sw.KN
11 $ smEEr, LNR a LwE[. o,aele l�tS[ o eJ1I] T.
rvu
iorwrm u n,c x. ip 6 ¢rnon i. I.x, x.ir, ak ^NieA awo e]eie r.,... ueei ue.eue I>an .>~w. r. aw v, -.,m
.TRoxM, rel CPnm', oro n 1>41 u.-ew - a � w...PI� m, -wed
Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action
Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action: A Commissioner, a member of ACHD
staff or any other person objecting to any final action taken by the Commission may request
reconsideration of that action, provided the request is not for a reconsideration of an action
previously requested to be reconsidered, an action whose provisions have been partly and
materially carried out, or an action that has created a contractual relationship with third parties.
a. Only a Commission member who voted with the prevailing side can move for
reconsideration, but the motion may be seconded by any Commissioner and is voted on by
all Commissioners present.
If a motion to reconsider is made and seconded it is subject to a motion to postpone to a
certain time.
b. The request must be in writing and delivered to the Secretary of the Highway District no later
than 3:00 p.m. on the day prior to the Commission's next scheduled regular meeting
following the meeting at which the action to be reconsidered was taken. Upon receipt of the
request, the Secretary shall cause the same to be placed on the agenda for that next
scheduled regular Commission meeting.
c. The request for reconsideration must be supported by written documentation setting forth
new facts and information not presented at the earlier meeting, or a changed situation that
has developed since the taking of the earlier vote, or information establishing an error of fact
or law in the earlier action. The request may also be supported by oral testimony at the
meeting.
d. If a motion to reconsider passes, the effect is the original matter is in the exact position it
occupied the moment before it was voted on originally. It will normally be returned to ACHD
staff for further review. The Commission may set the date of the meeting at which the
matter is to be returned. The Commission shall only take action on the original matter at a
meeting where the agenda notice so provides.
e. At the meeting where the original matter is again on the agenda for Commission action,
interested persons and ACHD staff may present such written and oral testimony as the
President of the Commission determines to be appropriate, and the Commission may take
any action the majority of the Commission deems advisable.
f. If a motion to reconsider passes, the applicant may be charged a reasonable fee, to cover
administrative costs, as established by the Commission.
w]
Development Process Checklist
®Submit a development application to a City or to the County
®The City or the County will transmit the development application to ACHD
®The ACHD Planning Review Division will receive the development application to review
®The Planning Review Division will do one of the following:
[]Send a "No Review" letter to the applicant stating that there are no site specific requirements at this time
❑Send 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 th ±site specific requirements from the previous development also
apply to this development application.
❑Write a Staff Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating
the proposal for its conformance to District Policy.
®Write a Commission Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and
evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Policy.
❑The Planning Review Division will hold a Technical Review meeting for all Staff and Commission Level reports.
❑For ALL development applications, including those receiving a "No Raview" 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.
❑Pay Impact Fees prior to issuance of building pen -nit. Impact fees cannot be paid prior to plan review approval.
DID YOU REMEMBER:
Construction (Zone)
❑ Driveway or Property Approach(s)
• Submit a "Driveway Approach Request" form to Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Construction (for approval by
Development Services & Traffic Services). There is a one week turnaround for this approval.
❑ Working in the ACHD Right -of -Way
• Four business days prior to starting work have a bonded contractor submit a "Temporary Highway Use Permit Application"
to ACHD Construction — Permits along with:
a) Traffic Control Plan
b) An Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan Designer, if trench is X50' or you are
placing >600 sf of concrete or asphalt.
Construction (Subdivisions)
❑ Sediment & Erosion Submittal
• At least one week prior to setting up a Pre -Con an Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan
Designer, must be turned into ACHD Construction — Subdivision to be reviewed and approved by the ACHD Drainage
Division.
❑ Idaho Power Company
• Vic Steelman at Idaho Power must have his IPCO approved set of subdivision utility plans prior to Pre -Con being
scheduled.
❑ Final Approval from Development Services
• ACHD Construction — Subdivision must have received approval from Development Services prior to scheduling a Pre -Con.
10
j3EGEIVEjj
Submission for Public IIearing on the proposed Crossfield subdivision JUL 1 5 2005
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, July 21, 2005 CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFIrF
The families and neighbors in Waterbury Park subdivision have very serious concerns about the
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 our 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 Ustick. 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 firm, and held neighborhood meetings. Salisbury I'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 Vallin 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 turd 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 corner of Ustick
and Venable Lane, the planning staff may recomrnen, 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 Ustick, 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 of the parcel directly to our west (the southern
half of the 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 of the 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 Ustick.
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
- v--•-�• -..a ..........i.,��� cut+ a�t7 u��l 1
I: P.
E EI!LE4 I I
4OLUTIONS
May 17, 2005
Plwuling & Zoning Commission
Mayor and City Council
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: Crossfield SubdivisionbyJe
AZ 05-015 Request for An
PP 05-017 Request for Prel
proposed R -S zone
CUP 05-022 Request for a
Dear Commissioners, Mayor and
The above -referenced matters are on
Stasi has made us aware of issues in`
We would like the opportunity to wo
you on the Crossfield Subdivision.
We respectfully request that the publ
July 21, 2005, to allow us additional
consideration.
Sincerely,
Engineering Solutions, LLp
'04!
L 4
Becky M , Partner
Project ager
BM:ss
CADocwnents and serlimgs12003130481Deferral.doc
I
150 East Aikens street, s1ulte a
1
Eagle, to 3616
I Phcwe: (208) 93 -0980
Fax: po8) 93-0941
E�wil: eabecicym(o3gvvJ'st.oet
RECEIVED
MAY 17 2005
City OfMe-ridian
City Clerk Office i
turd Estates IDevelopi hent, LLC — 955 W. Ustick
ion and Zoning of 59.30 acres from RUT to R-8
uY Plat Approval of 246 building lots on 59.30 acres in a
ditional Use Permit for a Planned Development
i
cil: '
j
e Planning &
Zoning Commission's agenda of May 19, 200.
ved with the project area we would like to further investigate.
with staff on this project prior to making our presentation to
hearings for the above -referenced matters be continued to
ne to respond to staff's requests. Thank you for your
MAY 17 '05 15:33 "
202 932 8941 pdr=-, Pi
6 May, 2005
MAY 16 200,5
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
• ! Z)' +W
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
on SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
William G. Berg Jr., City Cleric
City of Meridian �� I�
33 East Idaho Ave,I
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 information.
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 Irrigation 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.
sirL oral Tri
111 H�nso
Asst. Water Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
BH/dbg
C: A. Damberg,er
File - Office/Shop
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
12 May 2005
MAY 16 2001
City of Meridian
City clerk office C
� g
�j
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
Becky McKay SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
Engineering Solutions, LLP
150 E. Aikens Street, Suite B
Eagle, ID 83616
RE: Land Use Change Application — Crossfield Subdivision
Please note the, District, now requires three (.3) sets of plans
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.
Sinc ely,
e
Donna N. Moore, Asst. Secretary/Treasurer
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 PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE May -1.9, 2005
__ PROJECT NUMBER
ITEM # 18
PP 05-017
PROJECT NAME Crossfield Subdivision
NAME PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST I
NEUTRAL
PP 05-017
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 19, 2005
APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO. 18
REQUEST Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval of 246 building (244 residential units, 1 daycare
and 1 pool/locker facility/restroom) lots and 26 other lots on 59.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Crossfield Subdivision - 2820 West Pine Avenue
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
COMMENTS
72-W-1.1111, M1
See attached Comments
See attached Comments
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See letter from Christopher Broer
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
RECEIVEI?
MAY 16 2005
Submission for Public Hearing on the proposed Crossfield subdivision City of Meridian
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, May 19, 2005 City Clerk Office
The families and neighbors in Waterbury Park subdivision have very serious concerns about the
proposed R-8 Crossfield subdivision, and respectfully request you consider the following:
Background-
1.
ackground:
1_ Waterbury Park, our R4 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 our 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 Ustick. 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 firm, and held neighborhood meetings. Salisbury I'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.
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 l 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 fixture, 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 or the call centers south of the
interstate, or for shopping at Wal-Mart, etc. In the aftemoon, 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 corner of Ustick
and Venable Lane, the planning stats 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 Ustick, 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 of the parcel directly to our west (the southern
half of the parcel) should be of similar or lesser density than Waterbury Park. It is not the same
to say Waterbury Park is R4 and the part of the 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.
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 Ustick.
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 developed, 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
CCENTRAL
DISTRICT CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
ED
�•
116rHEALTH Environmental Health Divisio
DEPARTMENT � EC E' V
Rezone #
APR 21 2005
Conditional Use # City i Meridian
Cleric Office
Prelimi / Final / Short Plat —fZ"�—•
W
Return to:
❑ Boise
❑ Eagle
❑ Garden City
XMeridian
❑ Kuna
❑ ACZ
❑ Star
❑ 1. We have No Objections to this Proposal.
❑ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal.
❑ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal.
❑ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
❑ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of:
❑ high seasonal ground water ❑ waste flow characteristics
❑ or bedrock from original grade ❑ other
❑ 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or
surface waters.
❑ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and
water availability.
1X8. After wri a approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
entral sewage community sewage system L) community water well
interim sewage Adcentral water
❑ individual sewage ❑ individual water
,9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division of Vvironmental Quality:
entral sewage community sewage system ❑ community water
sewage dry lines entral water
>41.0. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
❑ 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
❑ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State
Sewage Regulations.
❑ 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
❑ food establishment ❑ swimming pools or spas ❑ child care center
❑ beverage establishment ❑ grocery store
Please see attached stormwater management recommendations
15726.001EHO904 Review Sheet
•
•
Joint School District No. 2
911 Meridian Road • Meridian, Idaho 83642 • (208) 855-4500 • Fax (208) 888-6700
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr. Linda Clark
April 14, 2005
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Planners:
RECEIVE[
APIA 18 2005
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
The Meridian School District has experienced phenomenal student growth the last ten
years. The high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools throughout the district
are operating over capacity.
Approval of Crossfield Subdivision will have a significant impact on school enrollments
at Chief Joseph Elementary, Sawtooth Middle, and Eagle High School.
We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house sixty (60) elementary aged
children, fifty-five (55) middle school aged children, and forty-five (45) senior high aged
students. Additional students will further compound the current overcrowded situation.
Residents cannot be assured of attending the neighborhood school, as it may be necessary
to bus students to other schools across the district.
School capacity is addressed in Idaho Code 67-6508. The Meridian School District is
currently operating beyond capacity. Future development will continue to have an impact
on the district's capacity. If you have any questions, please contact me at 855-4500.
Sincerely,
Wendel Bigharn
Supervisor of Facilities and Construction
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Shaun Wardle
William L. M. Nary
CITY OF 41
. 7�
eri�ilcn
`l 117AHO
1
1 '1r ti LEGAL DEPARTMENT
272 -FAX 466-4405
N
RECREATION
(2.4 $8 -3 9 • Fax 898-5501
+ IC WORKS
(208) 8898-5500 -Fax 887-1297
Charles M. Rountree �^�eR �Tae�suRcV� A, v-�4i aING DEPARTMENT
11 - Fax 887-1297
Keith Bird TE WATER G & ZONING
RM4 3 • Fax 888-6854
TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning
and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Clerk's Office
Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: May 12, 2005
Transmittal Date: Aril 11, 2005 Hearing Date: May 19, 2005
File No.: PP 05-017
Request: Public Hearing: 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
Location of Property or Project: 2520 West Pine Avenue
David Zaremba, P/Z (No FP)
David Moe, P/Z (No FP)
Wendy Newton-Huckabay, P/Z (No FP)
Michael Rohm, P/Z (No FP)
Keith Borup, P/Z (No FP)
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
Bill Nary, C/C
Charlie Rountree, C/C
Keith Bird, C/C
Shaun Wardle, C/C
Water Department
Sewer Department
Sanitary Service (No vAR, vac, FP)
Building Department
Fire Department
Police Department
City Attorney
City Engineer
City Planner
Parks Department
Your Concise Remarks:
Meridian School District (No FP)
Meridian Post Office (FP/PP only)
Ada County Highway District ,
Ada County Development Services
Central District Health
Nampa Meridian Irrig. District
Settlers Irrigation District
Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP1cuP only)
Qwest (FP/PP only)
Intermountain Gas (FP/PP only)
Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PP only)
Idaho Transportation Department (No FP)
Ada County Land Records
Meridian Development Corporation
HIstoriw.,WpJ1qTq W mission
33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE • MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 • (208) 888-4433
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 • Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 • Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-4813