The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCrossfield Subdivision CUPCUP 05-022 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 18, 2005 APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO. is REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: CUP for Planned Development for single-family residential units with a request to allow for reduced setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced house sizes & block lengths in excess of 1,000 feet in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision - 2820 West Pine Ave 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•tS( '0- Phone:LZ Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. eYlll2 1 CITY op, IDAHO 1, Ic)j STAFF REPORT: P&Z Hearing Date: july21 August 18, 2005 Transmittal Date: Atly 13 August 10, 2005 To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission RECEIVED From: Craig Hood, Associate City Planner / Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinatorf'l C, AUG 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 %2 a AZ -05-015, PM5.017, CUP -05-022 Crossfield.AZ.PP. CLIP 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 PreliMinjg 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 Cross fie1d.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 - City Minimum Requirement 65 feet (non cul-de-sac) 40 feet (cul-de-sac) House Size - Cit Minimum Re uirement 1,301 sq. ft. (detached) Yro osed Residential Building Setbacks Detached alle 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, 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) Proposed 1,300 sq. ft. (detached) (not Detached 1) -(alley loaded 12 feet 15 feet 5 feet Attached 15 feet 20 feet 15 feet 0' feet one side, 5 - feet opposite side alley 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 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 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 clarify at the public hearing how they intend to miti goate the flood plain and deal with the hi ound water. AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022 Cross fic1d.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 -05-0.15), 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 %z 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 -S; 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. A' 111111111111 there have been recent City -approved develo ments in this area thea roval of the subJect development 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.Zaning 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 Crossfield, AZ_PP. CUP.dOc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 5 The subject property is located in the heart of a Mixed 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 the u ose statement policies,desi standards and objectives for mixed use areas staff does not believe that the subject plat com lies with the Comprehensive. Plan and cannot recommend a royal of the project, as submitted. Staff recommends that the apl2licant delay developing the lots north of Parkstone Street until either the parcel on the east side of Venable Lane develo s an acceptable market study concludes that additional nan-residential uses are not needed in the northern ortion of the City. or two years has assed- 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 AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022 Cm ss fi eld.AZ. P P. CUP. do c 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 (staff analysis is in italics below policy): Mixed Use Area Comp Plan 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 fulftlls 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 Connectivi : 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) Oen S ace: 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, Pr05-017, CUMS-022 Cromfi eld.AZPP. 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 densi closer to the tar et o ei ht dwellin s er acre sta recommends that an additional block south of Parkstone Street Block 11),be desi net 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. j. 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. 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), 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 1 and 4) AZ -05-015, PP -05-017. CUP -05-022 Cro ss field.AZ. PP. CUP. do c Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 8 On April 29, 2005, a joint agency and department comments meeting was held with representatives of key service providers to this property. In that meeting no deficiencies 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 11, 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 VIZ, 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. Staff -finds that except. or the northeast portion of the subject development, the project enerallcon orms to the ur ose statements and intent o the Comprehensive Plan. Staff also finds that the proposed uses sin le- amil homes and a Potential daycare) will be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive 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 Crossficld.AZ.PP.CUP.dOC Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 9 If the concurrent preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications are approved, staff does not believe that the applicant intends to rezone the property in the future. However, staff recommends that at least a portion of the site be held out from being final platted so the City can further analyze if future commercial/office/entertainment uses, as called for in the Comprehensive Plan, are appropriate in this area. Once there is a residential housing base established in this area that can support non-residential uses, this area may be rezoned to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (non-residential). C. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning —for example, a residential area turning into a commercial area by means of conditional use permits; Staff finds that the proposed single-family development could be allowed within the requested R-8 zone, if the accompanying Conditional Use 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 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 Cross5c1d.AZ.PP. CUP, do c 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 portion of this site is not develo ed with sin le-famil detached units at this time the Droposed R-8 zoning and subse uent residential us oro osed with the concurrent ireliminary Qlat will be harmonious and appropriate to the intended character of the vicinity. However, if this develo ment is npj2roved as proposed, staff finds that it will si ficantl change not only the existin character of the area but will also change the intended character of the vicinity,as noted on the Future Land UseMa 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 Crossfie(d.AZ. P P. 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. I. Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; The most recent traffic count for Ustick Road west of Meridian Road is 10,800 ADT. A traffic impact study was prepared by Washington Group International for this development. This traffic study anticipates that 1,923 vehicle trips per day will be generated at full build out. Based on the traffic study, left and right turn lanes on Ustick Road are warranted near the 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 Cr05sfic1d.AZ.PP. CUP.dc 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 Sauth Creason Lateral) abutting the site. Staff believes that the Five Mile Creek and the Setith Slough 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 Creason Lateral are protected in manner that does not negatively impact their beauty. Staff is not aware of any other natural or scenic feature(s) that would be lost, damaged or destroyed by allowing this site to be annexed, zoned and developed with residential uses. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to 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 zoning of this Property would be in the best interest of the City, with the changes to the concurrent preliminary plat and conditional use permit 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.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 deterinining 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, 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 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 Crossfield.AZ.PP.CUP.doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 14 collector street, staff believes that non-residential uses near the Ustick/Venable intersection may be appropriate. Staff realizes, however, that it is difficult for the applicant to design a project around a street that does not 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. 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. 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 15 Density: On page 97 of the Comprehensive Plan, residential densities within mixed use neighborhood centers are prohibited from being below 8 dwelling units per acre. The residential portion of the project that is within the mixed use area designation on the Comprehensive Plan is below the 8 dwelling units per acre target density. To obtain a residential density closer to the target of eight dwellings per acre, staff recommends that an additional block south of Parkstone Street (Block 11), be designed with alley loaded lots similar to those on the north side of 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 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 utilities that would be in the flood plain- Staff would like the applicant to clarif at the hearin how the seasonal hi oundwater will be accounted for and how the lots will meet the S !13aration re uirements of the building code. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference MCC 11-11-4 A -F, and MCC 10-6-5 for any additional conditions, limitations, impositions, and floodproofing measures that may be deemed appropriate. See Site Specific Condition # 6 below. 5. Multi -use Pathways: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map depicts multi -use pathways along the Five Mile Creek and the Creason Lateral. The applicant is proposing to construct a 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. Piping of Ditches: Meridian City Code 12-4-13.A.1 requires all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous, or which canals, ditches or lateral touch either or both sides of the area being subdivided, to be covered and enclosed with tiling or other covering equivalent in ability to detour access to said ditch, lateral or canal. 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 SleiaECreason Lateral), Further, Meridian City Code 12-4-13.A.2 allows AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022 Cross fic1d.AZ,PP. CLIP, 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, 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 Creason Lateral. Staff believes that if the See4h Sleugh Creason Lateral and/or Five Mile Creek were tiled or covered, we would lose a valuable natural feature. Further, if the applicant were to fence the canal with solid fencing, the use of the waterway as a visual amenity would be significantly reduced. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant not be required or allowed to cover or tile the South Slough/Creason Lateral or the Five Mile Creek. Staff believes that tiling and fencing these sections of the Seu4h Slough Creason Lateral and the Five Mile with solid fencing will not improve public health, safety, or welfare; it will detract from it. In accordance with Meridian City Code, the applicant should be required to tile or cover any other irrigation ditches, laterals or canals that cross, intersect or lie adjacent to the subject site (including the Flack Drain, as proposed). See Site Specific Condition #9 below. 7. Fencing: The applicant has not shown any proposed fencing on the landscape plan or on the submitted preliminary plat. Staff VA+uld like the appliga- to e! ld�t the publie The applicant has not proposed to construct wrought iron fencing alongthe o gen spaces and pathways and vinyl fences along the perimeter of the subdivision and along Blairmore Way, A 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.F.3). All fences should taper down to 3 feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of-way. All fencing should be installed in accordance with MCC 12-4-10. See Site Specific Condition #10 below. 8. Existing 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, AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022 crog3sela.AZYP.CUP.aoc 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 (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. 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. Existing Trees: There are several mature trees on the subject site. Any existing trees larger than 4" caliper that are removed shall be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance (MCC 12-13-13). The applicant should work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on designing and implementing a protection plan. If any trees are deemed to be a hazard, diseased or dying by the City Arborist, prior to removal, mitigation will not be required for those trees. Landscape Plan: The submitted three-page landscape plan prepared by Harvest Design, Inc., dated 2-14-05 is approved as submitted, with the following modifications: a. Construct either a 25 -foot wide landscape buffer OR a 30 -foot wide landscape buffer along Ustick Road. If the sidewalk for Ustick Road is constructed within the right-of-way, the buffer shall be 25 feet. The width of the landscape buffer shall be 30 -feet if the sidewalk is constructed within the common lot. In accordance with MCC 12-13-10, install one tree within said buffer for every 35 feet of frontage on the Ustick Road right -of way. 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 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. 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. 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 -05-022 Crossfield.AZ. PP. CUP.do, 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 south of Parkstene Stf the Preliminary 121at should be amended to, designate at least 12 lots on the north side of W. Jasper Street that will be required to contain accessory dwelling units. At least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing, submit 10 full-size and one 8.5" x 11" covv of a revised Dreliminga -plat to the City 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 ACHD. 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 Cross &eld.AZ. PP. CUP, do c Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 21. structures shall be a minimum of one foot above the elevation of the 100 -year flood level. No basement floor shall be below this one -foot safety margin. Foundations of all structures shall be designed and constructed to withstand flood conditions at the site. Prior to signature of the final 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 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: AZ -05-015, PP -05.017, CUP -05.022 Cr0ssfield.AZ, PP. CUP.&, 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 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 ofcertificate 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 , all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per MCC 12-4-13 (including the Flack Drain). Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation and/or drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat signature. AZ -05.015, PP -05-017, CUP -05.022 Crossfield_ Z.PP.CUP.doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 23 10. A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the final plat. The applicant has proposed to construct a vin 1 fence alon oF the exterior boundary of the subdivision. If permanent fencing is not provided Prior to issuance of build— ing Permits, 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 micropaths shall be placed on the face of all final plats containing pathways. All fencing shall be installed in accordance with MCC 12-4-10. 11. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, all buildings that span across proposed lot lines and/or do not meet the setback requirements of the zone and/or are not principally 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 micropaths within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in accordance with MCC 12-13-15 "Micropath Landscaping" and MCC 12-4-3 "Pedestrian Walkways." Micropath fencing shall be constructed per MCC 12-13-15-9. • All areas being counted toward the open space requirement shall be free of "wet ponds" or other such nuisances. All 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 ear - 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 -05-0 17, CUP -05-022 Cr0ssfie14.AZ. PP, CUP, dm Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 24 source of water. The applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is used, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 14. Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Crossfield Homeowners' Association. 15. Sanitary sewer for this development is being proposed via extensions of an existing trunk line that is located in this property, and from stubs that are currently under construction in Ustick Road. The sewer mains coming from Ustick Road that are not in the ACHD right- of-way shall be centered in 20 -foot wide easements which shall be free from large landscaping and other fixed vertical objects. If there are manholes out of the ACHD right-of-way, an all weather access road shall be installed to Meridian Public Works Standards. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Minimum cover over sanitary sewer mains is three feet as measured from the top of the pipe to finish grade. If cover is less than three feet from sub -grade to the top of pipe, alternate pipe materials shall be used per the Meridian Public Works Department's Standard Specifications. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. 16. Municipal water to this site 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 I Vh 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 ACRD, direct lot access to Ustick Road is prohibited. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ---PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to MCC 12-13-10-8. 2. 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 Crossfic1d.AZ.PP. CUP. doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 25 4. Staffs 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 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 Cade. 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 Crossfield.AZ PP.CUP,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 corrunents 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 AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022 Cross fl e1d.AZ. PP. CUP, & c Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 27 some of the lots as proposed, as it provides lot diversity and allows greater density for the project than if the standard R-8 dimensions are required. NOTE: The applicant has requested to reduce the frontage for lots on a cul-de-sac and curves to 15 feet, when 40 feet is typically required. Staff recommends that any lot with 20 feet or less of frontage be required to have a common driveway with the adjacent lot(s). MCC 12-4-14 allows up to four dwelling units to access a common driveway. Common drives serving two dwelling units shall be a minimum of 16 feet in width. Common drives less than 150 feet in length shall be constructed of at least 6 inches of well -compacted, 2 -inch minus crushed gravel and 2 1/2 inches of asphaltic concrete paving. House Size: The applicant is requesting a 1,300 square -foot minimum detached house size. The City established minimum for a detached house in the R-8 zone in 1,301 square -feet. Staff does not see a problem with the proposed modification of one foot. Block Length: As depicted, Block 10 exceeds the maximum 1,000 -foot length for a block. If a stub street were provided to the 7 -acre outparcel to the east, 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. Detached (not alley loaded) Front & Street Side (Living Space) 15 feet Detached alley loaded) 12 feet Attached 15 feet Front (Face of Garage) 20 feet 20 feet Rear 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Interior Side* 5 feet 5 feet O'feet one side, 5 feet opposite * 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 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, AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05.022 Crossfield, AZ.PP.CUP.&o Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 28 whichever is more restrictive. This recommendation will ensure that cars parked in front of a garage will not hang out over the sidewalk. See Site Specific Condition #2 below. 2• Amenities: MCC 12-6-2.A.3 requires two or more amenities to be provided as part of each planned development. The proposed amenities for the subject planned development include: a 10 -foot wide asphalt pathway leading to the existing pathway along the Five Mile Creek; 5.45 acres (over 9% of the site) of common areas; and a pool with restrooms and changing areas, a splash pact, 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 • Da 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 . ,, "encourage mixed-use projects, and to permit secondary uses which are integrateith 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. --- . «lam A� ui<cu urr-street arkin will be the accesso dwellin units. 5• Elev�n5: 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 CrOssfield.AZ.PP, CU'P. do, Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 29 seventeen elevations submitted by the applicant. Construction materials used on the structures should be approved by the City of Meridian Building Department and in accordance with the most recent Building Code. See Site Specific Condition #6 below. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. The site plan prepared by Engineering Solutions, LLP, dated February 15, 2005, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. Applicant shall meet all of the requirements of the Annexation and Zoning (AZ -05-015) and Preliminary Plat (PP -05-017) as a condition 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 — Detached (not Detached Attached alley loaded alley loaded) Front & Street Side (Living Space) 15 feet 12 feet 15 feet Front or alley (Face of Garage)*** 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Rear 15 feet 18 feet 15 feet Interior Side* 5 feet 5 feet 0' feet one side, 5 feet o osite side * No additional setback per story ** Any lot with 20 feet or less of frontage shall be required to share a common driveway with an adjacent lot(s). *** Face of garage setbacks shall be measured from the property line or the back of sidewalk for detached units and from the property line or the edge of the driving lane for alley loaded units, whichever is more restrictive. 3. As amenities for the subject planned development, construct: a 10 -foot wide asphalt pathway leading to the existing pathway along the Five Mile Creek; a 10 -foot wide pathway along the Creason Lateral; set aside 5.45 acres of common areas; and construct a pool with restrooms and changing areas, a splash pad, and play area within Lot 1, Block 12. AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022 Crosslield.AZ.PP.CUP.doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 30 4. Any future day care use on Lot 5, Block 4, shall be required to obtain separate CUP approval. 5. All detached lots shall be allowed to contain accessory dwellings (if an accessory use 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. 8. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Arany 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, CUP -05-022 CrossHcld.AZ.PP, CUP. doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date. July 21, 2005 Page 31 11- Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 12. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed 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 %" 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 -DS -017, CUP -05-022 Crossfield.A2. PP. CUP.do c Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 32 g. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. h. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. 4. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150' in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. 5. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 6. Operational fire hydrants, temporary or 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 %Z 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 Crossfleld.AZ.PP, CUP. do c Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 33 b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT 4- Pathway and Trail standards: Construction proposed pathway and/or trail shall . be coordinated with the Parks De artment. 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 Crosshcld.AZ.PP.CUP.doc DATE CITY OF 'WERIDIA PUBLIC HEARING N SIGN -Up SHEET August 18, 2005 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME ITEM # 15 C 5-022 I% '�,.�',' �:� :,i .l J00,ji TIM . kr OVAMWAWAM )%W�;VK17 WINEE AW pw Owl �fy•ZMA I�}'��,��, J L A'�,j, �'1d I; 1.`.1,','��,.�.u,.x� , , ;��'� rF ,�?t fir• ',�,;;',.��, � h.;,�+a„' � I ,.Aa;1 I r ed� ' A�^ r 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET DATE July 21, 2005 ITEM # 8 PROJECT NUMBER CUP 05-022 PROJECT NAME Crossfield Subdivision MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 21, 2005 CUP 05-022 APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO, 8 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: CUP for Planned Development for single-family residential units With a request to allow for reduced setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced house sizes & block lengths in excess of 1,000 feet in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision - 2820 West Pine Ave AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See previous item packet / minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: c CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: \ O7 CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See letter from Christopher Broer Contacte Date. �`ri "l Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City ofri Ian. .i w ( T A of, �Yll - hN tnnHo f u (RCASUYZHWN�zti�{'..y " �: S9MC1 Y9f1"i RECEIVED JUL. 15 2005 ,. ITY OF MERIDIAN STAFF REPORT: P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 To: Mayor, CTransmittal Date: July 15, 2005 ity Council and Planning & Zoning Commission From. Craig Hood, Associate City Planner 44 Michael Cole, Development Services CoordinatorM C, 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 Y2 a AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022 Cr0ssfX01cLAZ.PP. CUP Planning & Zoning COlnmission/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 Pl the current City of Area Impact and zoned RUT in Ada County. ming Area and. Of the 246 proposed buildable lots, the applicant is proposing: 18 zero lot line loaded lots; 31 patio home lots; 128 single-family lots; 1 daycare lot; and I club lots; 67 alley lot (the only buildable common lot). To break u houseunitsand pool proposed between each pair of attached units. Access to the alley loaded, lots a patio home lot is 14 -feet of pavement within a 20 -foot wide alley easement (3 feet on either side proposed from of the proposed to be grassed). All patio home lots, alley loaded lots, and attached lots are located t is north of Jasper Street. The clubhouse and pool area and all of the 128 single-famil aed lots are located south of Jasper Street. Jasper Street is proposed as an east-wes y detached The applicant expects to development the project in four phases, starting from U stub street. The gross density of the proposed development is 4.13 dwelling units per acre. stick Road. 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 bet developer and the City to help create neighborhood centers that have unique designs,ween the regard to both site layouts and structures. With the subject PD the applicant has with reduced building setbacks, reduced lot sizes, reduced lot frontages, reduced minas quested size and increased maximum block length, The applicant is also s, reduced approval m house accessory dwelling units to be constructed within the project. An accessory dwelling unit is a requesting for 12 habitable unit established in conjunction with and subordinate to a single-familydwell- Accessory dwelling units are commonly referred to as mg unit - houses, caretaker unit, and mother-in-law quarters. guest houses, granny flats, carriage The applicant is proposing to construct one block (10) that exceeds the 1,000 foot established by MCC. The minimum lot size for the R-8 zone is 6,500 square -feet um and minimum lot frontage requirement of the R-8 zone is 65 feet. As mentioned above the ere four types of dwelling lots proposed. The smallest detached patio home lot shown are 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 he submitted preliminary plat, only 52 of the proposed 246 proposed lots have 65 feet or more frontage. The applicant is proposing a minimum house size for this project of 1,300 re of feet, 1 foot below the 1,301 square -foot minimum. The proposed minimum lot size frontage, > square - house size and building setbacks are detailed below. tage, R-8 Zone'. Lot Size -907LMKWMmuma&qqjjement 6,500 sq. ft. (detached) AZ -05-015, Pp_OS-017, CUP -05-022 Shown on Prelim- Plat 6,380, sq, ft. (minimum, detached) 5,000 sq. ft.(minimurn, detached, patio home) Crossfield.AZ.ff CUP,doe Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 3 loaded) 4,000 sq. ft. (attached) Lot Frontage - CitMinimum Re uirement 65 feet (non cul-de-sac) 40 feet (cul-de-sac) House Size — Cit f Minimum Re uirement 1,301 sq- ft. (detached) Pro ased Residential Front & Street Side Front (Face of Gara Rear Interior Side* * No additional setback per story 4,200 sq. ft. (minimum, detached, alley 3,950 sq. ft.(minimum, attached) Shown on Preliminar Plat 50 feet (minimum, detached) 34 feet (minimum, detached, alley loaded) 40 feet (minimum, attached) 15 feet (cul-de-sac) Pro osed 1,300 sq. ft. (detached) Setbacks— Detached (not alle loaded Detached Attached �) 15 feet alle loaded 20 feet 12 feet 15 feet 15 feet15 feet 20 feet 5 feet 5 feet 15 feet 0' feet one side, 5 - feet o posite side NOTE: Staff has concerns with the proposed 15 foot rear setback for alley loaded Because the alleys are proposed as easements within the buildable lots t Property line of the alley loaded lots goes to the center y ded dwelling units. there would only be 5 feet between the alley easement of the alley. If approved as submitted, only allow approximately 8 feet between the pavement of the proposed alley and the face of the garage. This would garage. Staff believes that this width will encourage cars to y and the face of the the alley, and does not detour people enoughficar park in front of the garages and block Preliminary Plat Analysis below. NOTE: Staff 1 provide Parking exhibitinfront of the further shows the concern about garage setbacks and parking adjacent to garages. See or the public hearing that the alleys. The proposed PD amenities include: a 10 -foot wide asphalt pathway leading pathway along the Five Mile Creek; 5.45 acres (over 9 % of the site) of co n the existing Pool with restrooms and changing areas, a splash pad (fountain) area, and la area 1, Block 12. See Special Considerations in the Conditional moron areas; and a detailed analysis of the proposed amenities. p y ea within Lot Use Permit section below for a Fifty-six of the proposed buildable lots are within the FEMA 100 year floodplain. has submitted no engineering plans as to how this flood plain is r be pain. The applicant seasonal high ground water in this area as well. Staff would like the a licant to sed. There is ublic hearin how the intend to miti ate the flood lain and riPa1 , clarify at the AZ -05.015, PP -05-017, CUP•05-022 Cross field.AZ.PP_CUp, doc Planning & Zoning Colnmission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 4 Staff recommends approval of the subject annexation and zoning (AZ -05-015 rel (PP -05-017), and conditional use permit (CUP -05-022 )' r' zmanary plat for the reasons listed herein. LOCATION The subject site is located on the south side of Ustick Road, approximatel Meridian Road, in Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 1 West. y %m' ile west of SURROUNDING PROPERTIES North: Single-family homes and unplatted agricultural land, zoned RUT (Ada Count South: Five Mile Creek; Meadowview Subdivision, zoned R-4. y)' East: Venable Lane; Waterbury Park Subdivision; zoned R-4; Salisbury Subdivision R-8; Single-family homes and unplatted agricultural land, zoned RUT #t zoned West: Several 5 -acre, unplatted parcels being utilized for agricultural Purposes,lzo County). (Ada County); Meridian Park Subdivision, zoned R-4. zoned RUT Recently, the City has reviewed and approved annexation and zoning and development applications for Cedar Springs Subdivision and SalisburyasVall Courts). Salisbury is a residential subdivision consisting f $S 1os�vTh�s (final opmend as Vallin directly east of the subject site, on the east side of Venable Lane. Cedar Springs is a P is located development located on the north side of Ustick Road, on the east side of Venable Lane - g mixed-use of the Cedar Springs development, a car wash and office space was approved b the As part 2004. ij Althou there have been recent Cit -a roved develo ments in this area thea roCityval in the sub'ect develo went will create aseven-acre enclave to the southeast. Parcel #S 1201 oval of lies directly between the subject site, Waterbury Park Subdivision and Salisbury Subdi 244500 has not been annexed into the City. r3' vzsion 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 s combined the analysis of use with the annexation and zoning amendment findings. g' taff has According to Meridian City Code (MCC) 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both the Planning & review Zoning Commission and Council are required "tor the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed zoning amendment in terms following standards and shall find adequate evidence answering the following questions of the the proposed zoning amendment.- g q ns 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 Com rehs nsiPlan and, if not, has there been an application for a ComprehensivePlan e amendment; n AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022 Cr055fie1d.AZ.PP,C[Ip.d0c Planning & Zoning Commissill (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 designation on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Ma Centex Plan Future Land Use Map designates approximately half of his prop rt as 'Mixed Use — Community' with a Neighborhood Center. The u Y Mzxed Use provide a blend of high-density residential, small-scale commercial,ose of this designation is "to and open space uses that are geared to serve al residents within tto two square t� office area. The developments are encouraged to be designed accordingto mile neighborhood center plan depicted in Figure VII -3. The e conceptual create a centralized, pedestrian -oriented, identifiable and day -to day service f these toriented focal point for neighborhood districts. The centers should offer an interna c' d system that connects with adjacent neighborhoods or regional pathway(s). The will al circulation serve as public transit locations for future park-and-ride lots, bus stops, shuttle bus stops pg. 95.) During preliminary discussions with the applicant's representative, staff encouraged applicant to include other, non-residential uses consistent with the Comprehensive P the within the development. Although the applicant has included several of the keycon Plan of a neighborhood center in the design (short blocks, interconnectivity,tans. concepts densities, transitional hauling types, alleys, transitional does not believe that the project fully complieswith the lintentt oto' aemixed etc.), staff described in the Comprehensive Plan. After detailed evaluation of the d use area as olicies deli standards and ob'ectives for rnixPr� „tea nro , , ose statement of the ro'ect assubmitted. �li� um renensive P __.., ,.�, A1111_iC,wentlal uses are not needed in the northern lortion of the Cit or two ears has assed. Staff believes that the City should adopt following course of action regarding development of the North Parkstone Area. The the 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 ifnon-residentialuses of by supported in this area. If the market analysis determines that non-residential use 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 1 can be supported, then the applicant should be required to submit a new prelimin u lot and rezone application for the North parks tone Area that includes non-residential ause 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. applicant should be required to submit a new preliminary1 The the North Parkstone Area that includes non-residential ase( )r consistentezone ) with for Comprehensive Plan. the If within two years of the first final plat being recorded on this property, the property the east has not been approved for development and a market study has not rty to been AZ -05-015, PP_05-017, CUP -05-022 CrossficldA2,PP,CUP, 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 (staff analysis is in italics below policy): Mixed Use Area Comp Plan Policies Itaken from Chapter VII • "All development proposed in these areas will require approval lanned developments under the Conditional Use Permit pplicat on process. i 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 fulfills the first part of this policy. To date, the City has not adopted a neighborhood center design ordinance. This application is being processed as a "conventional mixed use project. " (See next bullet.) • "If developing a conventional mixed use project, four specific design elements must be incorporated into the development: a) street connectivity, b) open space, c) pathways, and d) density, not below eight (8) dwelling units per acre." a) Street Connectivity: The development proposes to connect the development with Ustick Road with a single public street, Blairmore Way. There are several other public streets and alleys that are all interconnected to each other and adjacent parcels. b) 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) 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 Cross ficld.AZ_PP. CUP, do c 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) Dens -1 .- 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 densi closer to the target of ei ht dwellin s er acre sta11 rrecommends that an additional black south o Parkstone Street Block 11 be desi ned with allev loaded lots similar to the north side o Parkstone Street see Site S eci r Condition 4v2 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 %2 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. 9- 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. j• 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. M. Reduced right -of --way widths are encouraged. n• Open space must be provided. 0. 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 W, 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 Cr0ssfi e1d.AZ.PP. CUP.&, Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page S On April 29, 2005, a joint agency and department comments meeting was held with representatives of key service providers to this property. In that meeting no deficiencies of public services to serve this property were raised. • "Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel. A Recommended Approach" from the National Center for Bicycling and Walking in all land use decisions." (Chapter VI, Goal 1I, Obj. A, #3) This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkway facilities in new construction and reconstruction projects, in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient. • "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 2) The applicant is only proposing one access point to Ustick Road, an arterial roadway. The location of the proposed Blairmore Way intersection of Ustick Road meets 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 portit in o the sub'ect develo meat the ro'ect enerall con orms to the purpose statements and intent of the Com rehensive Plan. Sta also ands that the 'pro12osed uses (sing ?-familv homes and a otential da care 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 Crossfidd.AZ.PP_CUP.doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 9 If the concurrent preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications are approved, staff does not believe that the applicant intends to rezone the property in the future. However, staff recommends that at least a portion of the site be held out from being final platted so the City can further analyze if future commercial/office/entertairunent 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. D. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area; Staff finds that a substantial portion of the land to the south, southeast and southwest have been developed (or approved for development) in a manner similar to the proposed subdivision, with single-family dwelling units. Meridian Park, Meadowview and Waterbury Park, all have lot sizes similar to the detached lots proposed in Crossfield. There have been no recent street improvements in the area. Further, Ustick Road is not currently scheduled within ACHD's Five Year Work Program and is not within the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for roadway widening. This development is currently serviceable by the City of Meridian's sanitary sewer system. Sewer service for this development will be via extension of trunk lines located in this property and also mains that are currently under construction in 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.AL.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 harinonious and appropriate in appearance to the existing and intended residential stock in this area. The existing character of the area will, and is, currently changing. This development will set the tone for how the rest of the area on the south side of Ustick Road designated for a mixed use neighborhood center develops, or does not develop. Staff finds that if the northeast portion of this site is not develolied with sin le-famili detached units at this time the ro osed R -S zonillic, and subs e uent residential use proposed with the concurrent preliminary Plat will be harmonious and a ro nate to the intended character of the vicinity. However if this develo Ment is a roved as ro Posed, staff finds that it will sienitiicantly chanaP not mill. +i,- o.: +:ww -I- - f the vir.ini Com rehensive 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 Cross ficld.AZTECUP. doc Planning & Zoning Comxnission/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 from other agencies and departments, staff finds report. Based on the comments received 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. I• Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes glare or odors; , The most recent traffic count for Ustick Road west of Meridian Road is 10,800 ADT. A traffic impact study was prepared by Washington Group International for this development. This traffic study anticipates that 1,923 vehicle trips per day will be generated at full build out. Based on the traffic study, left and right turn lanes on Ustick Road are warranted near the 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 Cr0mfieldAZ,PP. CUP, doc Planning & Zoning Colnmission/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 zoninQ of this PrMgrty would be in the best interest of the Cit with the chap es to the concurrent reliminar lat 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 Crossficld.AZTP.CUP.doc Planning & Zoning Coxnmission/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, 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 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 Cross field.AZ.PP, CUP. doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 14 collector street, staff believes that non-residential uses near the Ustick/Venable intersection may be appropriate. Staff realizes, however, that it is difficult for the applicant to design a project around a street that does not 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- Com rehensive Plan: Mixed Use — Nei borhood Center: As noted in the Annexation and Zonng Analysis, approximately half of this site lies within the Mixed Use—Community designation on the i 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. 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. Az -05-015, Pp -05-017, CUP -05-022 Cross fi e1 d, A2, PP_ CUp. do c Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 15 Dem 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, S, 6, and 8, be constructed with a minimum driving surface of at least 16 feet and that they either be in 20 -foot wide common lots or dedicated to ACHD. (Please see Special Consideration #1 in the CUP section of this report for building setbacks 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 Crossfidd.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 utilities that would be in the flood plain. Staff would like thea Dlicant to clarif at the heari_3, how the seasonal high gioundwater will be accounted for and how the lots will meet the seDiaration 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 Pathways: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map depicts multi -use Pathways along the Five Mile Creek and the Creason Lateral. The applicant is proposing to construct a 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. Pii2ing 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 Cr0ssfidd, AZ. PP.CUP. d,, 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 an 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 detract from it. In accordance with Meridian City Code, the applicant shoul the Five Mile with solid fencing will not improve public health, safety, or we d be required lfare; it will 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. Fen_ cffiL: The applicant has not shown any proposed fencing on the landscape plan or on the submitted preliminary plat. Staff would like thea licant to cl hearinari at the ublic if an ermanent fencin is ro osed around the nerimixtpr 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.F.3). All fences should taper down to 3 feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of-way. All fencing should be installed in accordance with MCC 12-4-10. See Site Specific Condition #10 below. 8. plat. The applicant is proposing to retain the exExistin Structures: There are several buildings within the boundaries of the proposed isting 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. Landsca in: 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 CT0SSfieldAZ, PP. CUP.doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 18 right-of-way dedication and sidewalk construction along Ustick Road. The ACHD is requiring the applicant to either dedicate 48 feet of right -of --way (with the sidewalk in the right-of-way) OR 38 feet of right-of-way along Ustick Road (with a 10 -foot wide sidewalk easement). MCC 12-13-10-4 requires a 25 -foot wide landscape buffer along Ustick Road and a 20 - foot wide buffer adjacent to any collector street. MCC 12-13-10-6 requires street buffers to be planted with trees and shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover, with a minimum density of one tree per 35 linear feet. A 25 -foot wide landscape buffer, located entirely outside of the right-of-way and not including the width of the sidewalk, should be provided along Ustick Road. Landscaping and sidewalks adjacent to Ustick Road should be constructed in compliance with MCC 12-13-10. NOTE: The applicant is proposing 15 and 20 -foot wide landscape strips adjacent to several of the internal streets and a 25 -foot wide buffer along the east property line. Although buffers along local streets are not required, staff is supportive of the proposed lineal open space landscape strips. Unimproved Right -of -Way. Meridian City Code 12-13-10-9 requires a 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. Existing Trees: There are several mature trees on the subject site. Any existing trees larger than 4" caliper that are removed shall be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance (MCC 12-13-13). The applicant should work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on designing and implementing a protection plan. If any trees are deemed to be a hazard, diseased or dying by the City Arborist, prior to removal, mitigation will not be required for those trees. Landscape Plan: The submitted three-page landscape plan prepared by Harvest Design, Inc., dated 2-14-05 is approved as submitted, with the following modifications: a. Construct either a 25 -foot wide landscape buffer OR a 30 -foot wide landscape buffer along Ustick Road. If the sidewalk for Ustick Road is constructed within the right-of-way, the buffer shall be 25 feet. The width of the landscape buffer shall be 30 -feet if the sidewalk is constructed within the common lot. In accordance with MCC 12-13-10, install one tree within said buffer for every 35 feet of frontage on the Ustick Road right-of-way. 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 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 Irri ation: 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. Sanital 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, CUM5-022 Crossfield.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 hearina, submit 10 full-size and one 8.5" x 11" cnmi of a revised relimin lat 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 CrossficldA7„ PP.CUP. do c 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 running through the center of this property and Five Mile Creek along the southern boundary of this project. Conventional wisdom holds that the shallow ground water table recedes once development occurs and agricultural irrigation ceases and waterways are tiled. However, every year a number of homeowners contact the Public Works Department regarding water in their crawl spaces in developments that have been completely built out. Applicant's engineer will be required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying that all street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the highest established seasonal high groundwater elevation. 6. Due to proposed development in a flood plain the applicant shall obtain a letter of map revision from FEMA, which modifies the flood plain boundary to be contained within the banks of Five Mile Creek, OR all buildings must comply with MCC 10-6-5. Meridian City Code 10-6-5 outlines general standards for building in a flood plain, this code includes but is not limited to the following: a. All new construction shall be anchored to prevent flotation. b- All building utility systems, including electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air conditioning, ductwork and other service facilities shall be elevated above the BFE or otherwise protected so that floodwaters cannot enter or accumulate within the system components during flood stage. c. An adequate drainage system that removes floodwaters from the interior of the crawl space, within a reasonable time after a flood event shall be required for all homes with a below grade crawl space. The design 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 fora 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, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022 Crussfield.A ZTP. CVP, d,, 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. AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUP -05-022 Crossfie(d.AZ.PP, CUP. & 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 final plat. If permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must n 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 micropaths shall be placed on the face of all final plats containing pathways. All fencing shall be installed in accordance with MCC 12-4-10. 11. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, all buildings that span across proposed lot lines and/or do not meet the setback requirements of the zone and/or are not principally 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 micropaths within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in accordance with MCC 12-13-15 "Micropath Landscaping" and MCC 12-4-3 "Pedestrian Walkways." Micropath fencing shall be constructed per MCC 12-13-15-9. • All areas being counted toward the open space requirement shall be free of "wet ponds" or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the required open space are subject to Ordinance 12-13-14 and shall befully 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 ear - round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. 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 Cross ficld.AZ.PP. CUP. doc 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 ACRD, direct lot access to Ustick Road is prohibited. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS— RELIMINARY 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. AUS -015, PP -05-017, CLIP -05-022 Crossfidd-AZ, PP. CUP.doc Planning & Zoning Coimnission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 25 S. 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, PMS -017, CUP -05-022 Cx0ss5e1d,AZ.PP.CC1'P.d0c Planning & Zoning Commission/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 "l". 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. AZ -05-015, PP -05.017, CUP -05-022 Cr0s5f e1d.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_ Length; As depicted, Block 10 exceeds the maximum 1,000 -foot length for a block. If a stub street were provided to the 7 -acre outparcel to the east, from Sornmersby 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. etb Front & Street Side (Livi Front (Face of Garage) Rear Interior Side* * No additional setback per story Detached (not Detached Attached alley loaded) alley loaded 15 feet 12 feet 15 feet 20 feet 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 5 feet 5 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 -0-022 Crossfield,AZ.PP.CUP.doc 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. Day Care Lot: The applicant is proposing a future daycare on Lot 5, Block 4. Because this lot lies within the mixed-use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, a detailed CUP is required. Conceptually, staff does not have any issue with a day care facility in this location. When the future CUP is submitted, however, staff will evaluate the site plan for conformance to the design standards for uses within a mixed use area. See Site Specific Condition #4 below. 4. Accessory Uses: The purposes of the planned development are: "...fosters innovative design concepts and promotes flexibility in site design...", "encourage mixed-use projects, and to permit secondary uses which are integrated with and support the primary use" (MCC 12-6-1). As part of the Planned Development the applicant has requested to construct twelve accessory dwelling units (on 5% of the lots). The applicant has not designated specific lots for these accessory units. Staff is supportive of allowing accessory and secondary dwellings within this development as the comprehensive plan calls for higher residential densities in this area. However, limiting accessory dwelling units to twelve would be hard to track, and because the new, proposed Uniform Development Code (as currently drafted) allows accessory and secondary dwellings in the R-8 zone, staff recommends that all detached lots be allowed to contain accessory dwellings (if an accessory use permit is approved). To increase residential densities near this neighbor center, a minimum of twelve of the proposed lots should include accessory dwelling units. See Site Specific Condition #5 below. Staff would like thea licant to clarify at the public hearing if the accessoKy dwellings are proposed on the alley loaded lots or the detached lots or both. Further, staff would like to have thea licant clarify how the required off-street parking will be . -Provided for the accessory dwelling 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, PM5-017, CUP -05-022 Crossfield.AZ.PP.CUP.doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 29 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. The site plan prepared by Engineering Solutions, LLP, dated February 15, 2005, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. Applicant shall meet all of the requirements of the Annexation and Zoning (AZ -05-015) and Preliminary Plat (PP -05-017) 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)** 0 House Size -- 1,300 sq. ft. (detached) * Residential Building Setbacks — Front & Street Side (Livi Front or alley (Face of G Rear Interior Side* Detached (not Detached alley loaded) (alle loaded ace) 15 feet 12 feet * * * 20 feet 20 feet 15 feet 18 feet 5 feet 5 feet Attached 15 feet 20 feet 15 feet 0' feet one side, 5 feet onnosite side * No additional setback per story ** Any lot with 20 feet or less of frontage shall be required to share a common driveway with an adjacent lot(s). *** Face of garage setbacks shall be measured from the property line or the back of sidewalk for detached units and from the property line or the edge of the driving lane for alley loaded units, whichever is more restrictive. 3. As amenities for the subject planned development, construct: a 10 -foot wide asphalt pathway leading to the existing pathway along the Five Mile Creek; a 10 -foot wide pathway along the Creason Lateral; set aside 5.45 acres of common areas; and construct a pool with restrooms and changing areas, a splash pad, and play area within Lot 1, Block 12. 4. Any future day care use on Lot 5, Block 4, shall be required to obtain separate CUP approval. AZ -05-015, PP -05-017, CUM5422 Cromficld.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 Department Comments & Conditions MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing shall be installed, drainage lots constructed, road base shall be approved by the Ada County Highway District, and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 3. All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro -paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 4. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. 5. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC 12-2- 4. 6. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 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 11-12-31-1. 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.doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 31 12. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed fxom 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 Crossficld.AZ.PP.CUP.doc Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 32 4. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150' in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. 5. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 6. Operational fire hydrants, temporary or 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 % 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 CrossficId.AZ.PP.CUP_&c Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council P&Z Hearing Date: July 21, 2005 Page 33 MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT 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, CUP -05-022 Crossficld.AZ.PP.CUPAOC Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 63 of 67 Hood: 2 1/2 Street. Yeah. And that would also taper down to, you know, three feet and be clear vision within 20 feet of the right of way. But we can work with them on designing that. Zaremba: Or you could just say there is more fence than shows on the drawing. Rohm: Well, I have already written this now. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman -- Borup: That landscape drawing does show a fence all the way to the street, I believe. It just can't -- doesn't -- the height is maybe what's changed. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-025, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of May 19th, 2005, and received May 16th, 2005, with one change, which would be an additional bullet on page 11, item five, and the bullet would read: Applicant to build a six foot fence to the oak and a four foot fence or less the remainder of the distance to 2 1/2 Street. Moe: Second. Rohm: End of motion. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 05-015 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 59.30 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC -- 955 West Ustick Road: Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 05-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 246 building (244 residential units, 1 daycare & 1 pool / locker facility / restroom) lots and 26 other lots on 59.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC — 955 West Ustick Road: Item 19: Public Hearing: CUP 05-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential units with a request to allow for reduced setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced house sizes and block lengths in excess of 1,000 feet in a proposed R-8 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 64 of 67 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC -- 955 West Ustick Road: Zaremba: Thank you all. Okay. We'd like to open the Public Hearing for Items 17, 18 and 19. That is AZ 05-015, PP 05-017, CUP 05-022. All of these regarding Crossfield Subdivision. And a motion would be in order to continue these to July 21st, 2005. Borup: So moved. Zaremba: So moved. Do we have a second? Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 20: Discuss Request for Continuance for Bellingham Park Subdivision: Zaremba: Okay. Item 20. This is a discussion and we are cautioned that we cannot discuss the merits of the case itself, but we can discuss the continuance. Bellingham Park Subdivision, I believe, has been continued too many -- three times and is now scheduled for us to hear on June 2nd. Staff has been supplied with the details that they need. They are prepared to write the report. The applicant has requested another continuance, just because it's inconvenient for them to be here that night. Our discussion is do we want to -- on June 2nd come prepared to continue it again or do we want to insist that the applicant show up on June 2nd? Moe: In our -- in our last discussions on this issue we set it out to the 2nd, so they, in fact, would have everything done, over with, and we made statement, then, that if they couldn't make the 2nd, it was over. And as far as I'm concerned that's -- if they can't make it on the 2nd, 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. f CH D J John S. Franden, President Sherry R. Huber, 1st Vice President David Bivens, 2nd Vice President lirom.Y."cct�nic� Carol A. McKee, Commissioner Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner May 23, 2005 `".. . 4'. MAY 2 7 2005 To: Packard Estates Development city of Meridian 6223 N. Discovery Way, Suite 120 City Clerk Officc Boise, ID 83713 Subject: MPP05-017/MCUP05-022/MAZ05-015 Crossfield Subdivision 955 W. Ustick Road On May 18, 2005, the Ada County Highway District acted on your application for the above referenced project. The attached report lists site-specific requirements, conditions of approval and street improvements, which are required. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 208-387-6178. Sincerely, C, A"42'�Aru 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 • PH 208-387-6100 • FX 345-7650 • www.achd.ada.id.us Right -of -Way & Development Department Planning Review Division f� CHD I It C 11.1aradt" 5e t. c. This application requires Commission action due to the size of the development, and will be on the consent agenda on May 18, 2005 at 12:00 PM. Tech Review for this application was held on May 6, 2005. Staff contact. Christy Richardson, Planning Review Supervisor, phone: 387-6178; fax: 387-6393; e-mail: crichardson@achd. ada. id. us Project/File: Crossfield Subdivision/MPP05-017/MCUP05-022/MAZ05-015 Lead Agency: City of Meridian 10 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 A. Findings of Fact Existing Conditions Site Information: The site is currently bare ground. 2. Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area: Direction Land Use Zoning 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 Better Ustick, stop - None Minor Arterial Road on 4-23-02 than C 35 mph controlled *Acceptable level of service for a two lane arterial roadway (Ustick Road) is "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. 6 B. Findings for Consideration 1 _ Traffic Impact Study Washington Group International prepared a traffic impact study for this development and the conclusions are as follows: • The proposed development is projected to generate 1,923 vpd, of which the peak hour traffic is projected to be 191 vph. • The development proposes one public street access to Ustick Road and several stub streets to connect to future developments and unplatted parcels. • All access locations conform with the ACHD policy manual. • Right turn lanes and left turns lanes into the site will be required. • A roadway capacity analysis was performed for Ustick Road west of Meridian Road to ensure that adequate capacity is available for the projected increase in traffic. Capacity is available for the 2014.build out volumes. • All of the internal streets with front on housing have daily traffic projections lower than 1,000 vpd. 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-FlA 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: 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 Roipd. 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"' 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. 5 • 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 Specific Conditions of Approval 1. 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." In addition, a stub street must meet the following conditions: a) A stub street shall be designed to slope towards the street intersection and drain surface water toward that intersection, unless a satisfactory storm drain system is installed and b) The District may require appropriate covenants guaranteeing that the stub street will remain free of obstructions. 1.1 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. Ire 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. RI ow SCALZ '.5' CROSSFIELD SUBDIVISIa TE owc.oAD2/1D/05 PROJ_NO_ .�D'48 1 AY`ATCrI 1►1 PLIC 411A� ./ IA �r e�rnr�r..� • r .... ....... 1� � �� ME G1fEw ---' ------T g CEOSSFIELD SUBDIVISION ENGINEERING - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS" Oe yL �^ g lOE�Tm w TME w1 I/T 5[nN I. T1 . R.I w, 0W. v:�R. uw [OUNTv, a+la w 1�1 utew g R !9.1540' w 0".6Y PLANNER / CONTACT DEVELOPER OWNERS OF RECORD DEC- u xwr W wO MAR pEvE O -NT. lLc i uwcR vRor[Hnp LRI wmmTuERSHw X50 E. rrWS`SWT[ w -I]! x, OMM- wnv. FE. +20 JOE r "TN .. snuE N En.. WEI •die-E�n .�!>W .+mow., nols[:000n rr (mEl ur�la: a w. umcx o� �q g o 12r g nFN w e PLANNER / CONTACT DEVELOPER OWNERS OF RECORD DEC- u xwr W wO MAR pEvE O -NT. lLc i uwcR vRor[Hnp LRI wmmTuERSHw X50 E. rrWS`SWT[ w -I]! x, OMM- wnv. FE. +20 JOE r "TN .. snuE N En.. WEI •die-E�n .�!>W .+mow., nols[:000n rr (mEl ur�la: a w. umcx 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. �evelopment 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 the�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 Review" or "Comply With" letter: • The applicant should submit two (2) sets of engineered plans directly to ACHD for review by the Development Review Division for plan review and assessment of impact fees. (Note: if there are no site improvements required by ACHD, then architectural plans may be submitted for purposes of impact fee calculation.) • The applicant is required to get a permit from Construction Services (ACHD) for ANY work in the right-of-way, including, but not limited to, driveway approaches, street improvements and utility cuts. ❑Pay Impact Fees prior to issuance of building permit. Impact fees cannot be paid prior to plan review approval. DID YOU REMEMBER: Construction (Zone) ❑ Driveway or Property Approach(s) • Submit a "Driveway Approach Request" form to Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Construction (for approval by Development Services & Traffic Services). There is a one week turnaround for this approval. ❑ Working in the ACHD Right -of -Way Four business days prior to starting work have a bonded contractor submit a "Temporary Highway Use Permit Application" to ACHD Construction — Permits along with: a) Traffic Control Plan b) An Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan Designer, if trench is X50' or you are placing X600 sf of concrete or asphalt. Construction (Subdivisions) ❑ Sediment R 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 REGEIVET) Submission for Public Hearing on the proposed Crossfield subdivision JUL 1 5 2005 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, July 21, 2005 CITY OF MERIDIAN CI l Y CLERK (-)FFI(-,F 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. It 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 11 / Vallin Court was proposed as an R-8 subdivision to our north, we in Waterbury Park and the Salisbury 1 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 I 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 bottorn 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 staff may recommen, 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. r 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_..--. �..b .....a....a�l�a CVO 2100 UZI-f , EIII.FNEENINSUTIONS May 17, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Mayor and City Council City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Crossfield Subdivision by AZ 05-015 Request for Ann PP 05-017 Request for Preli Proposed R -S zone CUP 05-022 Request for a C Dear Commissioners, Mayor and The above -referenced matters are on Staff has made us aware of issues in` We would like the opportunity to wo You on the Crossfield Subdivision. We respectfully request that the pub] July 21, 2005, to allow us additional consideration. Sincerely, Engineering Solutions, LLp A� Becky M , Partner Proj ect ager SM:ss C:1Documents and Settnga120031304s\DefenW.d0c p.l ISO East Aikens Street,to B Eagle, IDt3616 PbWe. (208) 93 -0990 Fax: (los) 934.094 i E -raid: e9-6eegm@g%4scnet i .RECEIVE MAY 17 2005 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office i ekard Estates pevelopment, LLC — 955 W. Ustick ation and Zoning of 59.30 acres from RUT to R -S nary Plat Appro'Val of 246 building lois on 59.30 acres in a iditional Use Peiruit for a Planned Development i lcil: ie Planning &oning Commission's agenda of May 19, 2005. lved with the project area we would like to further investigate. with staff on this project prior to making our presentation ta' hearings for the above -referenced matters be continued to ne to respond to staff's requests. Thank you for your j MAY 17 '05 15:33 208 93R Rgdl D r,: ra- 6 May, 2005 William G. Berg Jr., City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Ave Meridian, ID 83642 ~ " "v r �9'AY 16 2005 City of Meridian City Clerk Office r • 1111 '111 I'i 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 RE: PP 05-017, CUP 05-022 & AZ 05-015/Crossfield Subdivision Dear Will: Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 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. sircerely, gi'110nsc;�'�� Asst. Water Superintendent Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District BH/dbg C: A. Damberger File - Office/Shop APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 12 May 2005 ECErV,' MAY 16 2005 City of Meridian City Clerk Office C � 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. Sin -0- �? � 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 19, 2005 ITEM # PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME I:F-,l'i141:214 i CUP 05-022 Crossfield Subdivision FOR I AGAINSTI NEUTRAL CUP 05-022 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 19, 2005 APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO. 19 REQUEST Public Hearing: CUP for Planned Development for single-family residential units with a request to allow for reduced setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced house sizes & block lengths in excess of 1,000 feet 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: COMMENTS 0 . 0'oAo� No Comment OTHER: See letter from Christopher Broer Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meefings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. MAY 16 2`005 Submission for Public Hearing on the proposed Crossfield subdivision f lAy Of I&H �diall Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, May 19, 2005 -'I ty Clerk 01TIce 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: I _ Waterbury Park, our R-4 subdivision, was completed prior to the now 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 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'/o+ 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 afternoon, the tide of high density traffic will reverse, as the vehicle trips will corse 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 staff may recommend such commercial development even though it would further increase the vehicular traffic of this proposed development. 4. This proposal has been called a "planned development", but a planned development is supposed to be primarily self-contained, This proposal provides only one entrance from their property, for over 240 homes, in this case to 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 MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Shaun Wardle ("Y�- William L. M. Nary r� Charles M. Rountree 114s Keith Bird f CITY OF qtr errl�r IDAHO A � ATREnsuasVn Y SINCE 1903 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 466-9272 • FAX 466-4405 PARKS & RECREATION (208) 888-3579 • Fax 898-5501 PUBLIC WORKS (208) 898-5500 - Fax 887-1297 BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 - Fax 887-1297 PLANNING & ZONING (208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854 TRANSMITTALS TO AGEk#POR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITi?I'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.: CUP 05-022 Request: Public Hearing: PD for single-family residential units with a request to allow for reduced setbacks, lot size, frontages, house sizes &I block lengths in excess of 1,000' in proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision By: Packard Estates Development, LLC Location of Property or Project: 2820 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 Weend, 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/PP/cuP only) Qwest (FP/PP only) Intermountain Gas (FP/PPonly) Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PP only) Idaho Transportation Department (No FP) Ada County Land Records Meridian Development CorporgW__ Historical Preservation Western Heritage Foul 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