HomeMy WebLinkAboutHollybrook Subdivision AZ
AZ 05-026
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
September 1, 2005
APPLICANT Hollybrook, LLC ITEM NO. 9
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from August 4, 2005- Annexation and Zoning of
15.32 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision - 3265 N. Curt Drive & 540
East Ustick Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
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:
SAN IT ARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~ o..%().c,~J"j ~ 0 'N\ t(V\ LV'\ t-5
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SmLERS'IRRIGAT/ON:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
------------,-,,--------------------,,-,,--,--,,-,
......;f~it,,-
~
"---------.0-0-"""__"---
---0""-"""""""""""
Committed to
John S. Franden, President
Sherry R. Huber, 1st Vice President
David Bivens, 2nd Vice President
Carol A. McKee, Commissioner
Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner
August 22, 2005
Anna Canning, Director
Meridian Planning & Zoning
660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202
Meridian, ID 83642
-"'I--,
_l"ltl(""" -- , ,,- .
'" ~" ('1 t;.,- ,
-"-,,..ý ;.1"1 1\/"""""'-
.,.,,' , ¡¡ -,
-- ...4 - "f, 'v -
AlJD 2 ? - ~J1V~-'iicr
" if;, -',
"-", " ..1
Lltvr, :---
¡-;it-y: ,-;{.1 Akù;J,._"
, --",;'!r/,,: 6j~'"--(:
, 0(;,;:
RE: Hollybrook Subdivision Traffic Calming
Dear Anna,
On July 6, 2005, the ACHD Commission reviewed and approved Hollybrook Subdivision, located on
Ustick Road near Curt Drive. As a condition of approval, the Commission required traffic calming
devices on Washakie Street near the connection to the Heritage Commons Subdivision and the Sundance
Subdivision. The Commission also required traffic calming devices on AlTowwood Way, the proposed
north-south roadway that intersects Ustick Road. These traffic devices were required due to the straight
nature and the length of these roadways. The applicant was required to submit the design of the traffic
calming mitigation to District staff for final approval.
The applicant had originally proposed the installation of islands in AITowwood Way. The Meridian Fire
Department requires 20-feet of pavement on both sides of the islands. Unless there is sufficient room to
meander the roadway and force a change in the travel direction of the vehicle, the installation of islands
does not calm the roadway. Due to the naITOW nature of this parcel, the roadway cannot shift
sufficiently around the islands to force vehicles to slow down.
The applicant has submitted another proposal that involves the design and installation of a chicane. This
method of traffic calming nalTOWS the roadway to 2a-feet of pavement and forces drivers to slow down
to maneuver the curves. This design has been preliminary approved by the Meridian Fire Department,
and with some slight design modifications, has been approved by ACHD Traffic Services staff. This
design will eliminate the straightness ofthe roadway and should reduce vehicular speed. The roadway
should have adequate street lighting near the chicane. Parking will be prohibited on the 20-foot street
section, but north and south of the chicane, parking will be allowed on both sides of the proposed 34-
foot roadway-
Another option that has been explored, but not approved by ACHD is the construction of AITowwood
Way as a non-through street. This option was not approved by the ACHD Commission, and would
severely limit connectivity in this area. Further, in consideration of a new roadway connection to Ustick
Road, the ACHD Commission considered the possible future need of for a signal at the existing
An-owwood Way/Ustick Road intersection. lfthe north-south connection were eliminated, signal
warrants would not be met in the future and the likelihood of a signal would diminish. The same
reasoning applies to the Curt Drive connection. If no connection is made from Curt Drive to the
Ada County Highway District. 3775 Adams Street. Garden City, ID . 83714 . PH 208 387 6100 . FX 345-7650 . www.achd.ada.id.us
proposed subdivision, then the Curt Drive residents would never have the benefit of a signal if one were
installed.
The proposed north-south roadway will be located at the east property line of the site and will provide
right-of-way frontage to the parcels to the east that culTently access Curt Drive" When those properties
redevelop, access can be taken from the proposed AITowwood Way.
Please share this information with the Planning & Zoning Commission, as well as the City Council so
that they are aware of the work that has been done regarding the proposed Arrowwood Way traffic
calming.
Sincerely,
Christy Richardson
(via e-mail)
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4, 2005
Page 12 of 57
by development in that area. And that's been -- I don't remember how long that's been,
but that's been my understanding all along, but it probably wasn't anticipated that there
would be no credit for the impact fees, so --
Zaremba: Yeah. They consistently have used the phrase developer driven in response
to this portion of Pine, so I think that's why it's not on their plan.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. That answers my question.
Zaremba: Let me get -- well -- or maybe a motion is in order, but a consensus of
Commissioners. Does September 15th sound unreasonable?
Borup: 15 the agenda okay on --
Zaremba: I don't have an agenda for that, 50 I assume it's pretty open.
Borup: What an assumption.
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Rohm: Move to close the --
Zaremba: Well, it's open, but we just want to continue them to September 15th, if that's
agreeable.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we continue public hearings AZ 05-013, PP 05-015, and CUP 05-
020, to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of
September 15th, 2005. End of motion.
Zaremba: 15 there a second?
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor please say aye. Any opposed?
That motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 1 0:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: AZ 05-026 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 15.32 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for
Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and
540 East Ustick Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 13 of 57
Item 11:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: PP 05-025 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 56 building lots and 6 common lots on 15.32
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook,
LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road:
Item 12:
Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: CUP 05-033 Request for
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family
detached units and single-family attached units with a request for
reductions in lot sizes, minimum street frontage and zero lot line side yard
setback for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North
Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road:
Zaremba: Okay. Now, I would like to reopen the continued public hearings for AZ 05-
026, PP 05-025, and CUP 05.033, all relating to Hollybrook Subdivision, 3265 North
Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road, and even though these have been continued a
couple times, this will be the first time that we will discuss any substance and we will
begin with the staff report, please.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, we always know when we
are in trouble when I'm supposed to give substance, so I will do my best this time. This
is an in-fill development. As you will notice, it's an unusual shaped property, to say the
least. And it is surrounded on the west, the north, and, then, the northeast by
development. You have got Heritage Commons and you have got Sundance and, then,
you have on the eastern side Weaver Acres, is the larger one acre subdivision that was
done through Ada county and is still in -- actually in Ada county's jurisdiction. They are
not annexed. This is a request for 55 building lots and 11 common lots on 15.32 acres.
You can see the existing house patterns. I have some blowups of this, so -- it's very
difficult to see, I recognize that. There are basically kind of three patterns to the
development. You have kind of mid size lots here that blend from Heritage Commons to
Sundance and, then, you have some -- given the very narrow width of this area, you
have a roadway, and, then, you have some quite small lots and, then, down here you
have got some larger lots that somewhat integrate into the one acre parcels to the north
and some larger lots in this area, including lots for the existing home. You can't see it
very well on this one -- okay. I tried to blowup some of the street connections. There is a
street connection down to Ustick and here you will see there is a little island right here,
so the right of way bows out. There is a traffic calming item there -- island there and,
then, there is two pinches -- see if I can find them. Here is one pinch and there is the
other pinch right there. So, you can see it right there. So, what will happen in that area,
the area that would normally be available for parking gets kind of pinched off, so that the
road narrows. So, you will come in first, you will go around a curve, there will be an
island, you will go along the street length, there will be a little pinch and it will widen it
back out again, another pinch and, then, as you come up to here another island. I'm
concentrating on these, because this was the big item of -- this is why it's been
continued many times is the discussion of how to make this road so that it wasn't a
straight shot and a high speed corridor. Then, as you come around the corner, there is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 14 of 57
another island right here and another island here. So, as you come out of Heritage there
is an island and, then, you have got a little bulb or something like that and, then, you
have got another island here, you have to go around, make another corner around
another island. So, they have gone to great lengths to integrate traffic calming into the
road design. Just as -- this was the original design. As you can see, it was really a
straight shot. This did mean flipping the road. So, whereas before the road was against
the Sundance properties and smaller lots were to the rear of the one acre properties,
now there is the road immediately adjacent to the east property line. Staff is in favor of
this for a couple of reasons -- actually, I think we probably proposed it. One was that it
gave them the ability to curve this road a little bit and to meander it and also it facilitated
redevelopment of these properties. As you will see, most of the houses are built toward
the front of the properties and although -- we like to accommodate future developments
in all the proposals that come through and we thought this gave the ability to -- for these
folks to divide off a portion of the back property of their lots in the future and they would
have direct access. So, we are not requiring it, of course, but as those folks wanted to
maybe have less property to take care of, that would be an option that's available to
them. And that right of way runs right against their property line. So, there would be no
road construction necessary to subdivide those properties. These are some examples
of the housing that's proposed and these will fit on the smaller lots. Okay. All right. The
overall gross density of the project is 3.59 units per acre, which is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and -- consistent with the median density residential designation
on the Comprehensive Plan. They have proposed six percent open space at this time
on the current landscape plan. Now, that landscape plan is based on the former layout.
There is a requirement for a new landscape plan. We would be looking for the same
amount of open space on that. They have requested -- they have requested a number
of reductions to our current standards, In particular, the frontage requirement would go
from 65 feet down to 55 feet and the lot size would go down from 6,500 to four hundred
-- I'm sorry, 4,428 square feet. As part of their amenities, in exchange for those reduced
standards, they have proposed pathway connections to the multi-use pathway in
Sundance Place Subdivision and, then, seating areas along all pathways. Here is -- and
I will have the applicant point out some of those, because I lost a lot -- one of these lots
is a pathway connection lot from Quenzer. I think there was some question about the --
the amount of roadway that's being dedicated to ACHD. ACHD's condition number one
states that there is 40 feet of right of way dedication, versus the standard 48 that you
would see on this" Our understanding is that the applicant has agreed to put the
sidewalk in part of the landscaped lots, so, therefore, they are not requiring the extra
eight feet of dedication. And I think I'll end staff's presentation there and ask if there is
any specific questions you have.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, we don't have the landscape plan at the time, is that what
you stated, Anna?
Canning: The landscape plan that you have is the one that I -- it's the old one, it's -- you
should have one that -- like this in your packet, so you can see where -- where they
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 15 of 57
have moved the road, there is going to be some change in these landscape areas here
and I believe this one is still there, this is that connection. And, then, the buffers down
here would still be there. Just to kind of follow that up a little bit, are you anticipating the
same landscaping, just going to be somewhat moved over to the other side of the street
and, then, basically, then, we are in a conflict with the other owners to subdivide their
property if there is landscaping between their property and the street; right?
Canning: We are not anticipating a landscape buffer -- as the right of way goes
immediately to there, so there is only two feet between the edge of right of way and the
sidewalk.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Canning: So, as I said, the current plan has six percent. If the applicant has thought
about the new landscape plan, they probably should share that with you, because I'm
not confident that they could meet six percent with their current plan.
Zaremba: Back on your subject of right of way dedication, just a question on the staff
report, Exhibit 0 -- I don't see a page number, but it's number one annexation -- well, it
must be the first page of Exhibit 0, annexation findings, paragraph 0, the bottom, based
on ACHD long range 20-30 proposal, Ustick Road is anticipated to be a three lane
roadway at this point; is that correct? I thought everything I had seen said five lanes.
And, actually, it's a little scary if it's three. It would justify five lane right now.
Borup: I thought I had read somewhere where it -- yeah. It was five and, then, one of the
last -- one of their last reports went back to three and I never did understand why.
Zaremba: Have to watch them every minute.
Borup: Well, I don't know. I just remember reading that and I was -- I couldn't remember
who I was talking to and said, well, why is it saying three, I thought it was five
previously. But you would know more -- you should know more about that.
Zaremba: All of Ustick Road through Meridian is going to be five lanes.
Borup: That's what it was several years ago.
Zaremba: Yeah. It would worry me if it's three lane.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I can't imagine it not being five, especially if there is an
interstate or the highway --
Canning: Five lanes would appear to be correct.
Zaremba: Okay. So, the 40 feet of dedication on this side is still okay for five lane,
though, right? If they are doing the sidewalk on this application.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 16 of 57
Canning: That's my understanding.
Zaremba: Okay.
Canning: And that's what the ACHD report does say, dedicate 40 feet.
Zaremba: All right. Then, I had, actually, a comment that -- just a couple of typos. Under
conditions of approval, this is Exhibit B, on 1.1.3 prior to the city engineer's signature of
a final plat -- and I would take out the word containing a final plat all structures not
contained on a designated lot shall be removed. So, the word containing is kind in there
twice. Then, under 1.1.4 it says: The following should be included in a revised
landscape plan prior to final plat. The next five items, items 1.1.5 through 1.1.9, are,
actually, the sub bullets for that sentence. If that makes sense. And, then, on the next
page, item 1.1.14, maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility -- it says
Bellingham, but it should be of the Hollybrook Park homeowners association. Those are
just minor typos. Okay. Commissioners, any other questions or comments?
Borup: I just remembered where I read the three lane. It was in this report a month ago.
Zaremba: Okay. Well, I just want to make sure that we are not signaling to ACHD that
we have any comfort with a three lane road.
Borup: Yeah. I was surprised at that at the time.
Zaremba: It should be five lane. And through Steve Siddoway and the Meridian
Transportation Task Force, I think we will take a look at that and make sure it is five
lane. Okay. We are ready, then, for the applicant, I believe.
Nickel: Good evening, Mr, Chairman and Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd
Street in Eagle, here tonight representing the developer of the Hollybrook Subdivision. I
want to thank staff for their report and presentation. They are correct, this is a strange
shaped piece of property to try to coordinate with three existing subdivisions and stub
streets and try to come up with a development pattern that kind of meets every --
everyone's needs and wants. Our main reason that, obviously, for the several delays to
get to this point was working with the highway district on the connection to Ustick Road
and when we started out that process, it was mainly at the request of the folks within the
Weaver Subdivision off of Curt Lane, because if we did not get that connection out to
Ustick Road, our traffic was going to be forced to go to Curt Lane, which was a
substandard -- it was public -- a public road, but it was a substandard public road. We
tried to work with the neighbors and, ultimately, they got the highway district to reason
that this was a proper connection, it does line up with the street across Ustick Road.
And, then, after going through that process, some more -- some more comments came
up through staff and everything and we ended up redesigning some more of the
subdivision to help the connections to Sundance and to Heritage and that's why we had
some of those islands come into play. We also have agreed to do a detached sidewalk
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 17 of 57
along this main road connecting Heritage with Sundance. Heritage does have detached
sidewalks and Sundance does not, so we will transition at this point -- I think this is it.
Up there in the northwest corner of the subdivision. With regards to the development
itself, this is a planned unit development. We are asking for an R-8 zone, but this is
consistent with how Heritage Commons and Sundance was developed and approved by
the city, with a compatible density. But the main focus is the smaller patio home lots in
the center of the subdivision. And trying to make those fit with that -- with that roadway
and I think we have done a good job. We did lose a couple lots by redesigning this. I
think we have definitely choked this down a number of places and provided islands that
should help slow down traffic going north and south. To answer staff's question, we do
have the six percent open space in the new design and she has that as a condition of
approval that we resubmit that revised landscape plan and we will do that. To address
the ACHD question or to confirm that, Ustick Road is proposed as a five lane -- future
five lane roadway and we are dedicating that 40 feet and they are receptive of that. So,
that's all I have right now. I'll wait in rebuttal and probably address some of the
neighbors questions and concerns and I'll stand for any questions you have right now.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? You mentioned that you have
talked to some of the neighbors. Did you actually hold a neighborhood meeting?
Nickel: Yes, we did.
Zaremba: Okay. Hold it down.
Nickel: Yeah. We did. We had a neighborhood meeting in this building right here and I --
it was a long time ago, maybe some of them forgot, but I don't think Commissioner
Rohm would forgive me if I didn't have a neighborhood meeting on my development.
So, we did. And, then, additionally, I met with some of the neighbors off of Curt when we
were going in front of ACHD, so we have had a couple of chances to meet with some of
the neighbors, so --
Zaremba: Thank you. Any other questions?
Moe: Not right now.
Zaremba: All right. thank you. We will go through our list of people signed up. One thing
I failed to mention when I was talking about procedure. If there is a spokesman for a
group of you -- and an example of that would be the president of a homeowners
association, we do allow that person ten minutes, under the assumption that the rest of
the people are giving their time to that person. So, if you have somebody who is a
spokesman, we allow ten minutes for that. Let me ask first is there anybody who is a
spokesman for the group. Sir, if you would come forward. Start with your name and
address, please.
Putnam: My name is Hal Putnam. I live at 3452 Curt Drive. Commissioner Zaremba,
appreciate the opportunity to be here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4, 2005
Page 180f57
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Oh.
Moe: I guess I -- one thing I would like to know is who is he representing in the
audience, so that we can --
Zaremba: For those that are here, would you raise your hand for just a moment, please.
Quite a few. Okay. Even if you have signed up, I will call your name and if you will just
say that Mr. Putnam has spoke for you, we will appreciate that.
Putnam: I have been chosen to be the primary --
Zaremba: You have been chosen and we appreciate that.
Putnam: Chosen to speak for the residents of Weaver Acres, which is -- bring up the
slide -- one back. Weaver Acres area. This is a subdivision that has been in existence
since the mid '70s. Most of the people that live in this subdivision have been there on an
average of 20 to 30 years and they are all one acre lots. We have some real concerns
with this development and I'm going to go through some of them and hope that I can
touch on all of them. We presented our argument with ACHD approximately three
weeks ago, four weeks ago, in regards to the traffic concerns with the original
development where it was going to connect at Washaki and come down to just before
Ustick and cut to Curt Drive and there was maybe a misleading intentional-unintentional
count that was given to -- a trip count that was given to Ada County Highway District
that totally underrepresented the total count that would be using this road. When we
made our presentation to Ada County Highway District, they agreed with us. They did
agree that the -- there would be a substantial amount of traffic on that road that would
run from Washaki out to Ustick Road. We estimate at best or at minimum there will be
1,500 -- 14 to 15 hundred trips per day. With that understanding, Ada County Highway
District requested that -- that the road have sidewalks on both sides, have some
calmers, that it did connect directly to Ustick. I thought somebody said something to me.
That it did have some calmers. It was our understanding that those calmers would be in
the form of islands and not where the curvature took place, which was in the original
plan that was presented to ACHD. Not the original plan, but the revised plan, those
curves at the end of Hollybrook Road were already there. The speed calmers have
been placed within those curves. They will not, in our opinion, slow the traffic down on a
stretch of road -- straight stretch of road that's going to be approximately 900 feet long,
with the amount of traffic we feel that that will be a hazard, not only to those people who
are living along that road, but anybody that travels and kids that may play in the area.
There is one major -- two major bus stops right on Ustick Road very close to these
areas. And you look at this development and look where Washaki comes in both from
Sundance and Heritage, where that connection is going to make, you will have all the
homes within the new development that will utilize that road, plus -- and one of the
neighbors -- or one of our neighbors from Sundance and Heritage will also confirm that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4. 2005
Page 19 of 57
they will use that road. So, you're looking at all the homes that kind of surround that new
development. When you look at the number of turns they have to make out -- make to
get out to Locust Grove or out to Meridian Road, they are going to take that straight shot
to Ustick and some of our neighbors from those other subdivisions will confirm that
that's what they plan on doing if this development goes through like that. We don't feel
that the pinchers -- or this week was the first time we have seen that speed calming
issue in the form of pinchers, but that's really not going to slow the traffic, that's just
going to make it harder for somebody to park on the street right there. Kind of gather my
notes here. When the sundance Subdivision went in and the Heritage Subdivision went
in and were zoned at R-8, there was sufficient buffer between the R-1 zoning that our
subdivision has and those subdivisions, because it was blank or bare land. We oppose
this development being zoned as R-8. We feel that it is in contradiction to the
Comprehensive Plan and to the current codes and even the staff has recommended
that these lots be smaller than are required. We don't feel that that provides enough
buffer between an existing well-established R-1 zone area to go straight to an R-8
zoning. At a minimum we would request that that be zoned as R-4. That will alleviate
some of the traffic and will create a buffer and proper transition between urban areas or
zoning and development. I guess, in conclusion, we'd just like to say that we do -- in
Weaver Acres we do oppose this development being zoned as R-8 for the reasons that
I just mentioned. It is being requested by the developer that they even get to sidestep
some of the required dimensions to allow them to put those homes -- very small lots
along the back of those acres. There is nobody that lives on those acres at this point
that has made any indication that they plan on developing or selling a portion of that
land in the future for future development. We have been there a long time, we like those
acres, and, as I indicated, most of the average resident has lived there 20 to 30 years,
as I'm sure some of them will testify to. We do realize that we can't stop development.
We do request that it be done in a smooth transition and kind of going along with what
the lady said from EI Gato that because we are long time residents this has been a little
tough for us to handle sometimes. We are coping, but we aren't ready for transitional
small homes to be built right up against our one acre lots. So, with that I will stand for
any questions.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Mr. Putnam, you did not indicate on this speed control
what were you -- do you have an alternative idea?
Putnam: It's our belief that it was Ada County Highway -- the ACHD's desire that those
islands be placed along those -- that road -- that straight stretch of road, not at the end.
When the presentation was made they were talking about approximately 800 to 1,000
feet of road that was a straight shot and we are still dealing with 900 feet that's a
straight shot and pinchers are going to do nothing more than prohibit parking cars there.
It's not going to slow traffic down. It's still a straight shot. Those islands that you're
looking at on that development are at the end of the road.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 20 of 57
Putnam: It's not going to slow traffic down once they hit that straight shot and that was
the concern that ACHD had. We have not gotten back together as a group of neighbors
to determine whether we want to re-address this with ACHD and find out exactly what
the minutes were said, because our understanding, particularly Committee Member
Bivens, he didn't want speed bumps and speed calmers that wouldn't slow the traffic
down in that stretch. So, we feel that maybe his staff has misrepresented -- or the staff
misrepresented what they were trying to get at in slowing that traffic down. Because
there will be a lot of traffic there.
Newton-Huckabay: No, I don't disagree, But I can see that moving the land -- the
islands on the ends -- maybe an island in the middle, jog off or something. They call that
a traffic bump out?
Zaremba: Either a bulb out or --
Newton-Huckabay: Bulb out?
Zaremba: Yeah.
Putnam: And that's what we thought their intent was, was that it would -- and, in fact,
they actually indicated a minimum of two in that stretch of road. That was our
understanding. Not at the end of those roads. Because the curves are going to slow
traffic down.
Zaremba: The curves should be -- serve as a calming effect.
Putnam: You don't see bump outs or islands to slow the traffic down where the curves
are at. And this was the plan -- or I should say the plan minus the islands was the one
that was presented to ACHD, minus the islands and the pinchers.
Newton-Huckabay: On the west side -- or this --
Putnam: With the road on the east land -- on the east side. Yes. That's what they were
looking at. They were looking at the curve coming in on Washaki, the curve coming in
off of Ustick, with the road running up the west side -- or, excuse me, the east side, and
it being a straight shot with no islands or pinchers. So, we have two major concerns.
Again, to bring my -- come to a conclusion here. We have a real concern with the traffic
and we have a real concern with the proper zoning, creating a gradual transition from R-
1 to R-8 -. from R-1 to R-4 to R-8. As you can see on -- just to the east of us, we still
have RUT. Those are five acre lots and to the east of that are four lots. So, I'll stand for
any other questions.
Zaremba: Thank you very much.
Putnam: Thank you, Commissioner, Members of the Commission.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 21 of 57
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question of staff real quick?
Zaremba: This is a good time.
Newton-Huckabay: Do we have a picture of this kind of overlay with the development
around it? The lot? We don't always -- occasionally we have had that. This proposed --
Canning: Oh, how this fits in there? No, we don't.
Newton-Huckabay: Could you go back to the one you were just on? I can if Craig does
it. Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. What approximately -- just because this leaves me the ability
to look at this and guess -- would you say these size lots or these are here? Are those
about --
Canning: Well, the current proposal has one, two, three -- the same number of lots there
and those are between seven and ten thousand square feet. So, I'm guessing that those
up here are around 8,000 square feet.
Newton-Huckabay: Eight thousand square feet. Okay.
Borup: Probably closer to seven.
Newton-Huckabay: Seven.
Canning: Trying to catch the eye of the developer, but he's sitting in his easy chair. In
Quenzer Commons those lots are around 8,000 square feet? Yeah. We got an
affirmative nod. And, then, the ones on here you can see that they are in depth --
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Canning: -- but they look to be about the same on average. These might be closer to
nine or ten thousand. About 60 by 120 is our guess.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. When I mentioned spokesman, I thought I saw some
people, in addition to Mr. Putnam, light up. Are there spokesmen for the other
subdivisions around? I will call every name on the list, but if there is somebody that's
being a spokesman for a different group -- if you'd identify yourself and, then, we will
ask who you are speaking for.
Kosloski: Be glad to. My name is Joseph Kosloski and I live on 480 East Moskey in
Sundance Subdivision and I guess I represent my Sundance --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4, 2005
Page 22 of 57
Zaremba: Could we see a show of hands of people for whom he is speaking? Thank
you. Okay.
Kosloski: I'd like to, first of all, just put my vote in favor of the things that Mr. Putnam has
already shared, in that we do feel the same -- the same as he does. My biggest concern
-- and our biggest concern -- most of us in the Sundance Subdivision have young
children where it's kind of a -- more of a starter community and what's going to happen
here is -- and, really, our concerns aren't with the wider sections of land, you know,
those are adequate and there is going to be adequate streets for the development on
the south and on the north. But the concern, really, is with that narrow stretch of land
right there. I live kind of in the north -- well, my backyard will be the second lot from the
north of there.
Moe: You have a pointer there.
Kosloski: Oh, I do. Okay. If I can figure out how to make it work. This is where I live
right here and I can tell you that all the people that I live around on this side of the street
and, really, all the way to here are going to be using this street. The way it is right now, I
come out here to Ustick Road and take Eagle to get into Boise to go to work and I see
the same cars, I see the same cars coming home. I guarantee that I'm going to use that
straight stretch of road and I consider myself a good driver and I know I'm going to
speed on that straightaway and I guarantee that most people are. And so my -- really,
my concern is that -- and that's what was presented. I went to the Ada county meeting
as well and the safety issues were the biggest concern that was discussed. The islands
were discussed and, like Mr. Putnam, it was my understanding, at least from sitting
there and participating, that those islands were going to be for the straight stretch of
road and not in the middle of the curve, because, like you said, the curve is already
somewhat of a traffic calming measure in itself. So, I believe that by adding those
islands in the straight stretch you're going to make a safer road. Another thing that --
going along with safety is the amount of kids. It's not just drivers like me that are going
to use this straight stretch to get out to the highway, but it's going to be our kids and it's
going to be kids on bikes and it's going to be kids walking and they -- well, the amenities
that they mention was this -- they will hook it up here, so not only do we have my kids
and these guys' kids and all these kids, but he's opened the way for the kids right here
to have a straight access down to this road and I really think that because there is going
to be so much foot traffic that's going to take this, not to mention the 1 ,400 cars or so
that we added up, you just got to make this a safe road. And it's a -- roughly a quarter
mile straight. I just think that the islands would be a good -- a good start. Another thing
would be to really just enforce the development regulations that are already on the
books and what that will do is kind of force the developer to make that what it really is
going to be and that's access into a subdivision. Then you could have plenty of road for
a nice wide road. You have room for sidewalks on both sides, landscaping on both
sides, I just think that would be -- that would be the kind of safety measure that most
people would be happy with and that road would end up being suitable for the county
use that it's really going to become and that's the way that we -- that's what we have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 23 of 57
discussed. Look at my notes here. I'd just like to see that -- you know, the safety issues
be brought forth. Because what's going to happen is if they are not addressed now,
you're going to have a problem in the future where you're going to have houses with
about 15 feet of driveway backing onto a narrow road that's already going to have a lot
of traffic on it and it's just going to be a mess. And that, in itself, is going push down
those property values there. You're going to have people moving out, because it's such
a pain to get out of their house and, then, you know, no body's going to buy those places
after that. But that's our concerns there and I'd sit for any questions that anybody has.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: So, Mr. Kosloski -- I tried to spell it here, but I --
Kosloski: That will throw you off.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I think that's probably what I did. So, are you -- you're
suggesting, then, that you think they should lose all those lots on that road?
Kosloski: I think that just -- you enforce the development regulations that are on the
book and that's what they will have to do, because, then -- I don't know if you have
looked at other main entrances into subdivisions, I know particularly the one coming into
Sundance right there on Ustick -- right here. And there is another one coming into
Sundance off of Meridian Road and you're dealing with a very wide road. I don't know
how wide it is, but there is an island in the middle on both sides. There is a lot of
landscape and it's a nice entryway into a subdivision that has a lot of traffic. And this
right here is really going to serve the same function. It's going to be the main access for
-- like we discussed. All the people that already live here, as well as everybody that's
going to come in off of Washaki. You got the people in Heritage Commons here that
don't want to make a million turns to get out to Locust Grove. You have got the people
in Sundance that feel the same way. And not to mention, like I say, the kids. It's just
going to be a -- it's going to be a busy street and I think we should be wise now and plan
for it accordingly. You know, one thing that -- I understand the way that, you know,
development works and we have to try to accommodate the best use for the land, but,
you know, variances are set up, really, to kind of bring some common sense into
development and the right to enforce the regulations if they are not. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Let me ask if we have any other spokesmen? Okay. I don't see
anybody moving, so let me call the list and if you have not been spoken for, please,
come forward. If you have and agree with what's been said, I'd appreciate if you would
just make that comment. Dana Colstad.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4. 2005
Page 24 of 57
Colstad: Dana Colstad, 3540 North Curt Drive, and I agree with what Hal Putnam has
stated.
Zaremba: Thank you. Dennis Bingaman.
Bingaman: Dennis Bingaman. 3387 North Curt Drive and I agree with what Hal Putnam
has said.
Zaremba: Thank you. Dana Bingaman.
Newton-Huckabay: Do they all need to come up or can they agree from the audience?
D.Bingaman: Dana Bingaman and I agree also with what the gentlemen have said. I'm
on 3387 North Curt. And I have a couple things to add, though. Or a couple concerns.
With the road that's going into North Curt Drive, I would oppose that road going into that
neighborhood. I live within Weaver Acres and I have children -- we haven't been there
20 years, but I have been there for over ten years, so I'm one of the newer people in the
neighborhood. But our children are in there and we don't have good lighting in there, we
are not a -- we are not like the newer subdivision with the street lights within that
neighborhood and if people don't make the right turn when they come in and they are in
our neighborhood in the evening or even during the daytime, I have children running
around -- it's a great neighborhood, we really love our neighborhood, we love the
privacy of it, and we love that it's a safe place. And I think that would take away the
safety of it with a road entering into our subdivision. One other thing, just kind of thinking
outside the box here for a minute. With a lot of the concerns with that road, that straight
road going there, one suggestion I'm thinking is could you make a common area in the
middle of that road, so that the road doesn't go all the way through. You have a road
that goes up through it without housing and houses up above, but a common area that
stops any traffic that goes all the way through. Just a crazy thought. Maybe like a cul-
de-sac, kind of. I believe there is some common areas within that plan, isn't there? I'm
saying a common area that wouldn't make a road go all the way through there. It would
stop that.
Borup: Well, it wouldn't need to be a common area, it would just be a cul-de-sac with
houses there. The houses there would stop the road from going through.
D.Bingaman: That would be good, too. But I totally disagree with the road coming into
my subdivision. I don't see the purpose of that. If someone could explain the purpose of
that, I would really appreciate it, the need for that road.
Zaremba: We will ask the applicant. I'm sure it's a hold over from when they did not
think they would have a direct connection to Ustick, so that's a good question to ask.
D.Bingaman: So, with the direct road, does that road need to be there?
Zaremba: We will ask that question of the applicant.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4, 2005
Page 25 of 57
D.Bingaman: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Mary Westby. You're welcome to just raise your hand at your seat
and say that you have been spoken for. You don't necessarily have to come all the way
up.
Westby: I should have thought of that. Mary Westby, 3373 Curt and I agree with Hal
Putnam and with what Dana also said.
Zaremba Great. Thank you. Okay. Venicia Morrison. Okay. She is agreeing with the
previous spokesman. Joann Sizmick? Is that right? It's -- I know it starts with an S. I'm
not sure what follows it. It apparently ends with a K. Okay. She is in agreement with
what's been said. Thank you. You actually -- if you're just responding by raising your
hand, you don't actually need to give your address and everything. If you do have
something to add, then, I do ask that you come up to the microphone. But just -- just
kind of wave at me if you don't need to add anything. Christy Bollingberg.
Bollingberg: Christy Bollingberg, 3602 North Weston Way. I'm in the Sundance
Subdivision. And I guess the only thing that I wanted to add or disagree with is that if
there was a neighborhood meeting that took place, I did not receive notification and I
don't believe anybody in our subdivision did receive notification. And I also did not
receive the second notification that this meeting had been scheduled for this evening. ,
would have not known about it, if my neighbors had not informed me of it, and I just
wanted to reiterate that I am concerned about the addition of the traffic that will be
added by opening up the road into our subdivision.
Zaremba: Thank you. And, then, you will all have to forgive me, I believe it's Alisa -- is it
Neilgard? Something similar to that? When we get to the end, if I have failed to call your
name and you think you signed up, I will ask you again.
Neberhitch: Is it Allison Neberhitch?
Zaremba: It could very well be. Allison Neberhitch.
Moe: You were close.
Zaremba: Do you have anything to add?
Neberhitch: No.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. She's agreeing with what's been said. Kathie Sherna.
Shayna. Okay. She agrees with what's been said. Letha Quinn. Agreeing with what's
been said. Okay. I've got to catch up here for a minute. Joe -- first name is Joe and the
last name starts with an L. Probably -- okay. He's supporting what's been said. Okay. It
could be Ed -- I can't read the last -- the rest of it. It looks like a short name, three or four
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 26 of 57
letters. Does that apply to anybody? Okay. I'm not identifying who that is. Mary Jane
Amey. She's agreeing with what's been said. Okay. Richard -- it could be Whitesell or
Woodside. Weedenhaf. Richard Weedenhaf. If you would come to the microphone if
you have anything to add, please.
Weedenhaf: Richard Weedenhaf. I live at 3479 North Curt. And I agree with both
gentlemen. My concerns are that back section with the density of the housing and how
important it is to keep perspective on how wide that street should be and I have
measured back there and it seems to me from their fence to my fence there is 125 feet.
You would be pushing that. And for a wide enough road and the footage for the
housing, I'm not sure how that can be done. And for safety sake and for the future of the
Ustick widening, I think it would be better to tone down the density of the housing back
there and do some landscaping, make it a nice area and for the kids and everything.
And as far as that Curt Drive cut in right there, all these kids go down to the bus in the
morning and that coming out, I know darn well that people don't look both ways half the
time, they look to the left, and they just turn and those kids are coming, you know, back
home or something, we are really concerned about that and --
Zaremba: Thank you.
Weedenhaf: That pretty well covers it. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Flo Whittaker. She's agreeing with what's been said. Okay.
Tony Peyer.- or it might be Perk. Okay. Agreeing with what's been said. And Jody Perk.
Agreeing with what's been said. Michael B. Morrison.
Morrison: Michael B. Morrison, 3405 North Curt Drive. The last time I stood before this
board it was in regards to AZ 05-012 and four, which happen to be here tonight also. At
that time you told the developer to go back and redo it, because of the interface
between existing neighborhoods and developments. That's all we are asking for now.
Mr. Zaremba -- I'm sorry with your last name.
Zaremba: Zaremba.
Morrison: Mr. Zaremba has made a comment, one of the goals of Planning and Zoning
and one of your jobs was to have the least amount of impact on existing neighborhoods.
I do appreciate that comment, because it does apply tonight. Okay. If the developer had
made these changes willingly and stuff, it wouldn't have been such of an issue. In
talking with us nothing much happened. Ada County Highway told them to go back and
make these changes. It wasn't willingly. They tried to push it through without it. I had
also attended those meetings. Okay. If the developer had come in and taken that
narrow strip and made a play area and stuff for the kids, safety wouldn't be an issue,
housing wouldn't be an issue. The request for small lot sizes wouldn't be an issue,
because they would have play areas, much safer for kids, okay? One of the
Commission's comments and stuff at the previous ordinances that they were trying to
get through, was not to create further issues. Okay. With the straight stretch down there,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 27 of 57
everyone said they are going to use them, okay? I see no reason to make the lot sizes
smaller. I have multiple rental properties, okay? One of the things !Iook for is safety and
lot size. Why would I want to buy a small house on a busy street, they are going to turn
into rentals, property value will go down, I think that is one of the main concerns of the
people on -- in Sundance and stuff is the transients coming in and out. The property
values go down. Why would you want to buy a house and your property values go
down. Okay? I don't think the developer has done a good job. Most of the information
that we get has been less than stand up as far as I'm concerned. Every time we come to
one of these meetings something is said and it's like that's not what we were told, that's
not what we understood. Okay. I think that pretty much covers it. Do you have any
question?
Zaremba: Any questions? Thank you very much.
Morrison: Thank you for your time.
Zaremba: Jan Brockdale? Brockett. That could very well be it. Yes. Thank you.
Brockett: My name is Jan Brockett and I live at 3425 Curt Drive and I'm one of the lots
that backs up to that road. I'm the one, two, three -- third long narrow lot there. It backs
right up to that narrow strip. Okay. I have lived there for 30 years. It's been open and
farmland and I'm not against development, I'm not against our neighbor selling that
piece of property and getting their retirement from it. I'm not. But there are too many --
there is too much trying to be crammed into that one little strip. I have lived in that little --
I have lived in this area, I know how big that strip is. With all those homes bordering that
long narrow strip, it's going to be nothing but a mess. How are those people going to get
out of their driveways? They are going to back out. And where are they going to back
out to? Right in the middle of that street. So, there is traffic and, if I'm wrong, I think
there was 15 or 16 homes backing out into that street. It's just not going to work. There
is too much being put into such a small space. That's alii have.
Zaremba: Thank you. Kelly Beeman.
Beeman: Kelly Beeman. I live at 3724 North Legacy Woods Avenue and -- go back. It's
right -- that lot right there. Our concern -- and I don't speak for a group. Our concern is
the entrance to this subdivision from Washaki. And we have got a further concern,
which is a long-term issue, I will guarantee you my wife and I will -- rather than turning
left on Washaki and going out onto Locust -- North Locust Grove, will turn right on
Washaki, go straight down through this, and onto Ustick Road. Again, I don't know
exactly what the size of that small strip is, but it certainly appears to be questionable. I
have never been aware of a neighborhood meeting. And the only reason I came tonight
was a great big red and white sign put at the end of the road right now, which is blocked
right here, and it appears to have been put by Ada County Highway District. And so
that's the only reason I came tonight. A longer term concern in our subdivision is right
now most of the people up here -- is this Sundance? Is that the name of the
subdivision? Okay. Many many residents of Sundance come through Heritage
.."-
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 28 of 57
Commons, turn right on North Locust Grove, and, then, turn left into that. And, then, it
even gets worse. As you go north into Copper Canyon -- Copper Basin, I think as time
goes on that North Locust Grove -- or our street, Heritage Commons, North Heritage
Commons, is going to become very very busy and this only further complicates it,
because of the Washaki connection within -- people from the other subdivisions, rather
than going out, will simply turn left, go through that Washaki -- onto Washaki and
straight down to Ustick. So, for that reason I oppose this proposal. Do you have any
questions?
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Thank you very much. Okay. That is pretty much all
the names that have signed up. The only one I'm missing, if you signed up and the first
initial of your first name is an E and I didn't call you, you are the name I'm missing. Is
that you, sir? If you have something to add, please, come to the--
Spirk: Yes, I do. And I think it's really -- well, excuse me. Let me, first of all, introduce
myself. I'm Paul Spirk. I live at 3544 Curt Drive.
Zaremba: Would you say your name again, please?
Spirk: Paul Spirk. S-p-i-r-k.
Zaremba: Not the one I'm looking for, but you're welcome to speak.
Spirk: Okay. I -- one of the things I wanted to mention has to do with our restrictive
covenants in Curt Drive and Weaver Acres and the restrictive covenants are on the
records for 40 years. Well, that's 11 years more before they can make any changes and
that affects Weaver Acres, because the fact that they are cutting a road into that
subdivision. So, we need to check on that to see what the restrictive covenants apply to
Weaver Acres in reference to a road cutting into Curt Drive. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. One thing we need to clarify, cities do not enforce restrictive
covenants or CC&Rs, that's a legal issue among the property owners to enforce against
each other and the cities don't take a part of that.
Spirk: Yeah, but you need to be aware of it.
Zaremba: We try to be aware of them, but we are not responsible for them. I'd like to
find the person whose first initial is E that hasn't come up. Okay. Let me go on. And the
meeting is open to those who did not sign up as well. And we will now go through some
of those. You do need to identify yourself, please.
Glass: My name is Julie Glass. I live at 3306 North Weston in Sundance. I apologize I
was late, so I didn't sign up. My concern is not only just the road going through, but
those are small small homes. They are asking to reduce the space of the size of the lots
by over 2,000 square feet and they are going to have small driveways and you're going
to have a lot of rentals for sure. Those people are going to park on the street and that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 29 of 57
street's already narrower than it's supposed to be. So, if they do what they propose,
you're going to have all kinds of hazards, people parking there, the kids driving there,
too many cars going down the road, as small as it is, the whole thing is just going to end
up being a big mess. Thanks.
Zaremba: Thank you. Let me ask -- before I ask for more speakers, let me ask staff --
that narrow section across this middle throat, which is drawing a lot of attention, if I'm
interpreting the preliminary plat correctly, the lot depths are 80 to 81 feet and, then, the
street section is like 36 feet, so we are --
Borup: Forty, I believe.
Zaremba: Forty. So, that whole section is only like 120 feet -- somebody said he paced
it at 125, but it looks like it's a skimpy 125.
Canning: One hundred twenty-one, it would appear.
Zaremba: Something like that. I just wanted to confirm that, because it's been part of the
discussion.
Canning: They have 33 foot back of curb to back of curb and a 40 foot right of way, so
it's 40 plus the 81.
Zaremba: Okay. All right. Again, people who didn't sign up, if you have something to
add. sir. Come folWard.
Martin: Shawn Martin, 3620 North Weston Way. If you could go back to the preliminary
plat. My concern -- my general concern is streets that are this long, 1,400 foot,
approximately, in length, that connect directly to Ustick Road, normally are residential
collectors with no front-on housing. For instance, you know, the Sundance is on the one
side and Heritage Commons, even Arrow Way on the south side of Ustick has the same
principle with no front-on housing. They have attempted to do what the Ada County
Highway District has told them to do. However, as the gentleman said, you know, you
really don't need the traffic islands on the curves themselves. The intention was more
for along on that straight piece of land or somewhere along there. You can't really get a
good close up of the islands from there, but the first island as you come in it really
almost forces you into the curve, more so than on that lower right-hand. There is really
no tangency between the end of the island and where the road goes. Really, the only
thing it's going to cause some possible accidents is forcing people into the curve as they
go around there. One of the concerns of the Sundance residents from the beginning
was putting the road next to them. They did put it to the other side. However, as you see
at the end of it they have put it back to the Sundance side for the last couple of people
along Weston, which one of them would still have a road behind them. The other
problems I see are the island on Washaki, the first one coming from Heritage
Commons, you can see the -- people just drive around the island. And the ACHD report
had one traffic calmer for the Heritage Commons side, one for Sundance side is how it
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 30 of 57
was written. The second one, as you see -- I don't know how that does anything for the
Sundance people. It helps, you know, people who are in Heritage Commons will come
down, they will turn left, they'll go by three islands, and people turning from Sundance,
they have no island to go around, except for one that's come down just right at the very
end of Arrowwood Way. You can't really see it on here either, but the road does wind
back to Washaki at the very tip. The roadway doesn't have any -- basically, it's coming
in at an angle, which will also create some problems trying to get in and out of there as
far seeing really need of about a 30 foot tangency according to ACHD regulations at the
intersection. That's really alii have.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Thank you. Anybody else care to speak? All right.
Thank you. We will ask the applicant to come back up and respond to issues that have
been raised, please.
Nickel: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. Appreciate the neighbors' comments.
ACHD, we did --
Canning: Shawn, hold on for a second
Zaremba: Getting too much feedback from the microphone.
Nickel: Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you. We were told by ACHD to provide two to three
calming devices along that stretch -- north-south stretch. We did work with their staff
and came up with those two chokers, in addition to those islands. Islands were, actually,
optional, they gave the opportunity -- the choice whether we wanted to put those in or
not and we chose to put them in just more -- thinking that it was going to be more of a
traffic calming. Obviously, the final design will have to go through ACHD for approval
and if they determine that those islands on the north and south are not safe or don't
meet their policy, we will not be able to build them. But they focused on those two
chokers, which will have landscaping as they choke in. They will have two trees. And so
that was the traffic calming that they approved. We did take that back per their request.
My engineer worked with their staff and that's what they came up with. So, the highway
district has made that decision on that -- on that roadway. And just to clarify, because I
think it's kind of being misunderstood, that is a full 33 foot road section, which is the
same street section that's in most of the subdivisions surrounding this property. The
thing that's been reduced is the right of way. It will still have sidewalk on both sides of
that road and it will be a 33 foot wide paved surface. So, we are not reducing the travel
way, we have reduced the right of way within that -- within that strip. Now, the lots
themselves are going to 80 foot in depth, but we are not asking for any reduction in
setbacks through the PD. So, we are still going to have a 15 foot rear, five foot side, and
a 15 foot front yard setback, so --
Borup: Fifteen to the house, 20 to the garage.
Nickel: That is correct.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 31 of 57
Borup: So, you have a 20 foot driveway.
Nickel: Fifteen to the living area and 20 to the garage. So, you will not have cars
blocking the sidewalk. ACHO determined that was not to be built -- or necessary as a
collector street. They did insist that that be connected north to south, otherwise, we
would have proposed a cul.de-sac with lots and we wouldn't have connected it through.
Same goes for the Curt access. That's a requirement of ACHO. They want
interconnectivity -- they want interconnectivity to subdivisions. If the folks would like to
go back, I will go back with them and we can try to get that removed. But ACHO is
requiring those connections. So, I tried to help the neighbors go through and get the
access onto Ustick to try to calm some of the traffic on Curt. Apparently I -- apparently
my -- it wasn't appreciated, so that's fine. As far as the speed -- you know, some people
saying they are going to speed down that road, well, that road's going to need to be
connected regardless if those houses are there or not. Again, ACHO is going to require
that connection north and south. Regarding the neighborhood meeting, again, I did have
a neighborhood meeting. I had 21 people show up to this room. I got the list from the
city, so it's the same list that goes out to all the neighbors for this meeting. So, I just
want to confirm that. And, again, the request for reduction in lot sizes is consistent with
what has been approved in the subdivisions -- the three subdivisions that surround it --
that are surrounding this site, which I will also ask for an R-8 with a PO and those did
have the ability -- I know that Heritage Commons did reduce some of their lots within
their -- within their development through that PO process. So, we are not asking for
something that's out of the ordinary. We are providing six percent open space. We do
have a pathway connection into Heritage Commons. I think the real issue is that middle
area and, again, we are reducing the -- we are asking for a 50 foot wide width and the
reduction in the depth to 80 feet and that's still plenty of room to put a full size house
and meet the setbacks. So, that's alii have. I'll stand for any questions,
Zaremba: Commissioners, questions?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I do have some.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: And I don't know if you could answer this or staff, but I want to explore the idea
of a cul-de-sac on that narrow strip. You said you did talk to ACHD? And is there is
maximum length in their requirements on a road that terminates with a cul-de-sac?
Nickel: Oh, it would be probably a city requirement. A fire department requirement, more
than anything else.
Borup: Okay.
Nickel: I'll let Anna address that.
Borup: Two hundred and fifty feet is within --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 32 of 57
Canning: I believe our standard is no cul-de-sac can be longer than 450 feet.
Borup: Okay. That would be well within -- like you say, they did pursue that with ACHD
on having a cul-de-sac or --
Nickel: No, we did not address that. But they did say they wanted the interconnectivity.
Borup: Well, I know they always want interconnectivity and I certainly agree with you
there. You know, we are only talking about 56 lots at this point here total.
Nickel: Correct.
Borup: It looks to me like there is enough access with the other roads coming from the
north and the south that a cul-de-sac could be feasible.
Nickel: Again, I would have no problem going back to ACHD and requesting that. We
were told initially they want interconnectivity. So, that would be up to them to make that
determination.
Newton-Huckabay: That's what our report says, that ACHD is -- wants the Curt Drive
connectivity in the report and, then, the connectivity to Ustick, so -- but I have to agree
with you.
Borup: Well, that would seem to certainly answer the majority of the concerns for the
neighbors. You may lose a lot or two, I don't know, but, you know, it would have to be
worked out in the design, but --
Nickel: I'm not as worried about that as much as I am the highway district.
Borup: Your cul-de-sacs go down and probably have two lots backing against each at
the ends and those would be a hundred or more apart.
Nickel: Right. It does sound like that would -~ that would satisfy a lot of the
neighborhoods' concerns if that street didn't go through. I don't know what we want to
propose, because we have already gone through ACHD and they have already made
their decision. I hate to table it again and have to bring everybody back. You know, we
can -- I don't know what you want to propose here.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba?
Zaremba: Can I ask for a second for a view that shows as much of this whole square
mile as possible in orienting where this is in there? What I'm trying to -- okay. That
shows Locust Grove to Meridian. The center point of that mile is about where the word
Ustick Road is. Okay. This to the left of that. That's what I wanted to see. Thank you.
Okay. Commissioners?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 33 of 57
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission?
Zaremba: Yes.
Canning: If -- if the applicant were to take it back to ACHD -- I believe this came up, but
the original proposal they didn't want the connection to Ustick, so if the applicant comes
back with a proposal for a cul-de-sac, the likelihood of them approving the connection to
Ustick is pretty small. And I think we have heard a lot of testimony about how they didn't
want traffic coming that way. I just -- I guess I just wanted the Commission to be aware
of that and some of the public, that if those do go to cul-de-sacs, then, some of that will
be coming out onto Curt Drive, more than likely.
Zaremba: ACHD is going to want some trades here and there.
Canning: Right.
Zaremba: If they lose the access to Ustick.
Canning: That's our --
Zaremba: The traffic count would go down considerably if it's cul-de-sacs.
Canning: Right.
Nickel: And there was talk -- Commissioners, there was talk that that would -- that would
be a good location for a future traffic light if the two -- no. The one where we are --
Zaremba: You're speaking to east --
Nickel: No one has promised there is going to be a traffic light there, but they -- there is
a quarter mile section from Locust Grove -- or from Meridian and I guess that's -- but
that's future consideration.
Newton-Huckabay: It would stand to reason for me that down the road that this access
here, Curt Drive, go away and, then, everybody would access here, if there is a light.
Nickel: That's correct.
Newton-Huckabya: And that -- so, you wouldn't have access onto Ustick Road from Curt
Drive anymore.
Nickel: That was the discussion at some point with someone, I recall.
Rohm: I guess my question, Shawn, would be do you have any kind of traffic calming
alternatives that you would be willing to step forward with that would address the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 34 of 57
concerns that we have heard from all the other people in the audience? Do you have
any ideas that might be acceptable to your developers?
Nickel: I don't. Anything -- I think anything short of not connecting this north and south,
which would be a major deterrent.
Newton-Huckabay: Can I -- Mr. Chair? May I make a suggestion?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton.Huckabay: My suggestion -- other than I have to tend to agree with
Commissioner Borup that a cul-de-sac -- but, then, again, you do lose what some day is
going to be, you know, a good flow through here. What about putting the islands down
this road, doing some bump outs -- bulb out -- whatever the technical highway term is
for that and maybe you would probably have to lose a couple lots in here, but I think you
would -- that would calm traffic -- I know these -- this is similar to what's over in Cedar
Springs -- is it Cedar Springs that's got the -- at the entrance. Yeah. And you, basically,
have to stop, you know, to get around them, but -- I mean they do slow you way down
there, but maybe some more island type things down the middle.
Nickel: Commissioners, I initially thought the highway district -- that that's what they
were referring to when we did go back, was to do islands and was, actually, surprised
when they decided to go with the choker. So, I guess we could go back and relook at
the possibility of putting the island in the middle that would, you know, act more of a
roundabout, I guess. I mean we don't have room for a real roundabout there, but --
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Nickel: But I think to answer your question, I think that's the only -- probably the only
thing we could do. And I still don't know if that's going to satisfy the neighbors, having
that island -- it probably would be better than what we have proposed or what the
highway district has approved, but --
Zaremba: Just pure logic to me would seem that it would make more sense to have the
islands where the pinchers are and not have the pinchers and probably not have islands
in the curves. That almost strikes me as potentially dangerous. I'm surprised at ACHD
for --
Nickel: Mr. Chairman, I guess for the sake of my developer, I guess we need to know
where you're leaning. If you believe that you cannot approve or recommend approval of
this, because of the -- that specific and you would like to make some recommendations
to us, either as a condition or you would like us to bring it back and show, I think that's
probably the proper way to do it. If your intent is to have us put an island or two in there,
I guess that's what we need to -- where we need to head on this. And, then, we can go
back and take a look at that and see if that's possible and if that will even do any good.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 35 of 57
Zaremba: Well, I think we are all understanding the struggle is this narrow strip of land
and what does any developer do with 120 -- or 121 feet. The northern section and the
southern section are pretty typical, but the struggle is this connecting strip in here.
Nickel: And just one further thing, if you do decide to table this for two weeks or
whatever to come back and show you that, maybe in your motion you could also put
that in that time I can go back and address the issue of the cul-de-sacs with the highway
district. Our appeal period is up and so we can't go back and -- to the commissioners,
but we can at least talk to staff and see if they would be supportive of cutting that off. I
already know the answer, but we can do that within that time frame, if that's what you'd
like.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Personally, I would like to see a little common area, like right here and right here,
and just bump the road out and so it's got a little bulge in it, so that you don't have that
straight stretch through that whole area and I don't know that you would lose lots
specifically, but you --
Borup: Sure, you would.
Rohm: And you probably would.
Moe: I guess what I would anticipate is you would lose a few lots and at that point, then,
you are actually enlarging a few others, you know, to make some difference. I think
some of these lots are fairly small. Maybe we could get a little bit of participation both
ways, we get the islands in there and we lose a few lots and make the others a little
larger and try and take care of a couple concerns here.
Nickel: So, if I'm understanding you, more of a -- kind of a snake --
Rohm: Exactly. Because as long as you don't have that straight stretch the entire length,
you're not going to be able to have that speed -- as much of a speed concern.
Nickel: What thing I would again -- and staff would need to examine this, but you would
lose the ability for the frontage on those. Just something to point out for future --
Rohm: It depends on how you position the -- as you see the lot lines running east and
west, you could have a bump out where half of it is on one lot and half of it is on the
other, so you still have a -- where the roadway actually is on the property line for a
portion of each of those lots.
Zaremba: If I'm interpreting the suggestion, there would be three sections where it pretty
well stays where it is and two sections where it's maybe 20 feet away from the property
line, so that there is --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 36 of 57
Rohm: Exactly.
Zaremba: We are not talking about moving the whole road, we are talking about making
two -- somebody called them snakes.
Nickel: And this -- obviously, this line right here is permanent, that's where it's going to
have to stay and, then, at that point I guess it could come up here a little more before it
bends over. I don't know. My engineer will have to play with it and see if he can make it
work.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, Mr. Nickel, at this point it's awkward, it's a bad situation, but
that would be the direction I would lean, is I wouldn't -- I would not vote in favor of this
development as it stands today. And my only problem is with that long neck there.
Although, I do feel cutting out Curt would have been a good idea, but I think that
something like a snake or a traffic bulb out is a better --
Nickel: As opposed to have big island in the middle?
Rohm: Right.
Nickel: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: You know, either one of those would -- you know, you're talking
about 400 feet -- was it 900 feet, approximately? A thousand? So, at the 500 foot mark,
about?
Moe: Eight fifty-two.
Newton-Huckabay: Eight fifty-two? So, 426.
Nickel: Yeah. I don't know if we have the ability to -- even to bulb that out in the middle
and do a one way going around -- one way going the other way or not. I guess you need
to make a decision as to, you know, how you want us to proceed and let us go back --
either let us go back or --
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: A couple questions. Are you familiar with any of the ACHD studies on which is
most effective on traffic calming? And I know the chokers work from the reports I have
read. I don't know if a circle -- you know, a large bulb out, if it works better than the
chokers, or they are about the same. Staff didn't mention anything on what's most
effective.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 37 of 57
Nickel: I wasn't at the last meeting. They are the ones that made that recommendation
for the chokers and it was their commission's instructions to slow down the traffic.
Borup: Right. I know they do that. I mean I read the reports where they do that.
Nickel: Yeah.
Borup: I don't know which one -- which one works better than the other. There might be
somebody in the audience that does.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe,
Moe: I think the applicant's engineer is raising his hand. He may have some comment to
this discussion, Can we have him come up?
Zaremba: Well, let's ask a question. Would you, please, identify yourself.
Erickson: My name is Ross Erickson. I'm the developer's engineer. I'm at 1854 East
Lanark in Meridian. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I can speak towards
kind of how those chokers came about. I met with ACHD development services and
traffic and we looked at different alternatives as far as putting islands in there and the
challenge is getting an efficient shift. In order to calm traffic with an island, you have to
shift, you know, at least probably ten, eleven, twelve feet with each lane to get an
effective measure and they felt that the chokers would be more effective in this
application than trying to put islands in. The challenge is each time you try to swerve
that road out and get -- you know, meet your radius and your tangent design
requirements, you end up eating up -- you probably couldn't even fit two in there
meeting the requirements with the length that we have, as far as trying to get the
geometry for the roadway. So, their staff, actually, suggested that we put those in and
landscape them with some trees. They said they have been effective in other
developments and we ran with it, we thought that it was a good fit for this project, since
it is such a unique strip along there. There is just not a lot of options in what we can do.
Like Shawn mentioned and ACHD traffic staff felt that, you know, leaving those islands
at the ends would help a little bit, although it wasn't required. We left them in there. We
thought it did offer a little bit more of a circuitous route for the cars, you know, at each
end. I think if you look at the tangent length there between the south end of the top
curve and the north end of the south curve, it's about 870 feet and in that length we do
have two chokers, so if you break that down to, you know, 200 and some feet between
the chokers, so it doesn't really give an opportunity for, you know, vehicles to speed
excessively, although I'm sure people will, as they do down every street. But I think
ACHD staff recognized the conditions and kind of the hindrances of this strip and what
we can do with it and what we can't do with it and they felt that using the chokers would
be the best application for this. They actually preferred the chokers over the island.
"'-~-
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 38 of 57
Rohm: Possibly an additional choker right in the middle, then?
Erickson: You know, that's something we can look at. You know, if -- the chokers are
easy to adapt on this other development. It's an in-fill project, we are dealing with a
narrow strip, and you try to get a significant curvature in a road, it really limits what you
can do and presents hardship for what you can do for lot layouts, common lots, and
even just the roadway geometry in meeting some of the standards. If we needed to, we
could add, you know, another choker -- we could add two more chokers in there if that --
you know, if the Commission thought that that would enhance the traffic calming on that
strip. The chokers that we show now, like I say, they are common lots, they will be
landscaped and irrigated, so they are not going to be eye sores, they will look nice
and --
Rohm: I think the -- to encapsulate the concerns of the public has been that this stretch
is too long without any calming -- traffic calming device and if you can put additional
chokers in -- if, in fact, chokers work as well as islands, then -- and Ada County
Highway District knows this probably better than we, but if you can put additional
chokers in that will do that traffic calming that will help alleviate some of the concerns of
the public.
Erickson: I think it will. The reason why we went with two is that's what came from the
discussion with ACHD staff. They thought that two would be necessary on this tangent
length of road. So, that's why we ended up with two. And end up with, you know, 200
and some odd feet between them. If needed to add another and reduce that spacing,
we could certainly do that and provide even tangent sections between the chokers
along that stretch. And I don't know if you guys would feel more comfortable with one or
two or --
Newton-Huckabay: How wide is the choker, each one?
Erickson: There is a 20 foot clear between the faces of the curb, so you have got two
ten foot lanes at the choker locations. That's the fire department requirement for a
minimum width.
Newton-Huckabay: So, the choker is -- each one of them is like six feet wide? If you
reduce it from 33 --
Erickson: Thirty-three, twenty -- yeah. Six and a half feet.
Newton-Huckabay: Six and a half feet wide.
Zaremba: Review with me a little bit of the discussion that this --- and it was mentioned
by someone from the audience, whether you call this road a collector or not, it really
functions as a collector for not only the northern portion of this development, but the
surrounding developments, and the issue raised is the 17 or 19, I think it is, properties
that will have to back into this street and the point was made that on something we
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4, 2005
Page 39 of 57
really call a collector we don't allow driveways onto it and this, to me, seems to qualify
as a collector, even though it's not being called that. Review with me some of the
discussion that ACHD had with you about that.
Erickson: They, actually, just told me what the classification was and as far as their
collector classification, they recognize that there are homes fronting this road and they
didn't take it lightly either, you know, that they did suggest that traffic calming would be
necessary to try to keep trips or cars traveling down the street, the speeds down as
much as they could, and that's why you don't see a lot of collector-type streets with
traffic calming like this on roads. That's the purpose of the calming is to really make an
effort to get the speeds down of the cars coming through there and I think it's an
effective design. I think with the limitations that we have and the sizes and things and
the amount of traffic calming that we are -- that we can provide and, you know, if it
would make the public more comfortable, we could put a couple additional chokers in.
Rohm: I'm not sure that additional chokes is as appropriate as where they are located
and if you were to move one of the chokers north to about here and bring this other
choker down to about here, then, you're splitting the whole --
Erickson: That's where we have them.
Rohm: Oh, there is a choker right there? I was thinking it was right there. With possibly
an additional choker right here.
Erickson: I think if we were to add an additional choker, we would probably want to push
it north and south and distribute the tangents evenly. I think that's the point that you're
trying to make.
Rohm: The point is you don't want to give a long stretch that the traffic can speed up.
Erickson: Right. Right.
Borup: Can you discuss any conversation you had with ACHD on the double cul-de-
sac? Was that even discussed with them or they said they wanted a through street and
it was dropped?
Erickson: Yeah. Commissioner Borup, from the word go with our predevelopment
meeting it was a through street requirement. So, that's kind of what we based -- I think
this is about the sixth rendition of this project and this is what we have ended up with
after a lot of meetings and a lot of planning and --
Borup: So, it sounds like it really wasn't discussed to try to be pushed, then?
Erickson: It wasn't pushed.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 40 of 57
Newton-Huckabay: I think I would still like to see something in the center, some kind of
a knuckle of some sort. I mean I hate to do one --
Zaremba: I'm sorry, I'm not hearing you.
Newton-Huckabay: Some kind of an island in the middle of the -- that dissects that --
that 850 feet and, then, move the pinchers off north and south. I mean you could put
one -~
Zaremba: Are you suggesting one island in the middle and the pinchers shift a little bit?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Zaremba: Is that what you are --
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Or -- yeah. And take out -- you know, lose three -- take three
lots out and make -- you know, and, then, you get some bigger lots, because--
Zaremba: They'd still be 80 feet deep, but some of them would be 90 wide, instead of
55 wide or --
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Zaremba: Seventy-five wide, something like that.
Newton~Huckabay: Right. And I think the -- that would be the most likely to flow with the
north and south development and --
Rohm: Can you accommodate an island and still be able to split three lots into two and
be able to meet your radius that you're talking from a -- the curvature of the road?
Erickson: Commissioner Rohm, I think it's going to be more than -- you know, each of
those lots -- I believe they show up as 50 or 55 feet wide.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah.
Erickson: They are probably going to talk about four or five lots in order give a
significant shift in the road. But that's why we steered away from islands in this narrow
stretch and the reason why is to have an effective island you need to have a major shift
in the road for traffic to actually have to look, turn, and turn around the island, or go
through a long curve. And that's why ACHD staff, they suggested not to do islands, they
suggested to do these chokers instead.
Borup: Can you do the same radius as you do -- as they do on the roundabouts?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 41 of 57
Erickson: I guess you could. Roundabout radiuses are significantly larger than an
island.
Borup: Are they?
Erickson: Yeah.
Borup: They didn't seem much more than through an intersection. A little bit more, but
not that much more it didn't seem like.
Erickson: Yeah. It would be tough to fit the roundabout in that --
Borup: Okay. I thought maybe the roundabout radius might be smaller.
Erickson: No. Huh-uh.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, my original comment --
Borup: I don't mean a roundabout, I mean just the radius on a bulb out.
Newton-Huckabay: As it's designed today, I, myself, will be -- not vote to recommend
approval to the City Council. So, irregardless of whether an island is a good idea
according to ACHD -- you know, I don't like the way it looks, I think the homeowners
have good points. I'm not so against the idea of putting a parkway through there and --
you know, because like Chairman Zaremba said, it acts like a collector street, whether
you want it to be a collector street or not, you know, it's going to be a collector street of
some sort and so I think that it's going to warrant maybe a little bit of extraordinary effort
to make it, you know, a slow collector street and my -- without some change like that or
recommended change like that, I will -- I will not vote to approve it to City Council.
Erickson: To make sure I understand what you're saying, Commissioner Huckabay,
you'd like to see an island in the center of that stretch.
Newton-Huckabay: That would be my -- and, then, move the two pinchers down, would
be I think -- you're the engineer, I'm the Planning and Zoning Commissioner, but
something like that. And, yes, you may have to lose some lots, but it's going to increase
the lot size, it's going to increase the lot value, so I mean at the end of the day I think it
could all work. That's what I'm saying. And end of comment.
Zaremba: And along that same line, just to consider this, if -- the way I'm reading it,
there are 18 building lots --
Erickson: There are 14.
Borup: -- the one at the north end is pretty sizable, but--
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4, 2005
Page 42 of 57
Newton-Huckabay: Those are common lots one, one in each --
Erickson: There are 14 along that--
Zaremba: Okay. So, we have -- that makes sense. It says common lot right next to
them. Sorry about that. So, 16 building lots?
Erickson: I believe there is 14.
Zaremba: Fourteen. And I agree that that -- even with the pinchers, that long stretch
and cars backing out there, it's terribly uncomfortable not to have some variation in it
somewhere and I think along the lines of what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, is
about the center of it to either -- the difficulty with an island, it doesn't do anything for the
northbound lanes. Put an island in, the northbound lanes stay where they are.
Borup: That's if the straightaway --
Zaremba: -- so the lane shift. So, I -- my feeling is there needs to be a 20 foot shift in the
road right in the middle and widen a few of the building lots and maybe end up instead
of having 16 of them, there is 13 of them, but they are wider and that one spot the road
actually shifts and I realize you can't shift the road in two feet, it's going to take the
space of maybe three of these lots, but if they are making -- if we are making them
wider, it still leaves people backing out into the street, but if you calm it considerably, to
me -- and my instinct is we would not be doing the right thing for Meridian to approve it
as is, unfortunately. And our suggestions again -- well, let me get a consensus. If most
of us are comfortable with the north end and the south end, ACHD has said the cross-
road at the south end has to connect and I think that will, eventually, be an advantage to
the people outside of this subdivision as well, but our main concern is this difficult
stretch through the middle that's 121 feet wide. I see heads nodding, so we are all
focusing on the same area, otherwise, the other parts of it can be pretty typical.
Rohm: And I guess along those lines, if, in fact, you put the -- if you put a swerve in the
road in the middle of that section, it almost eliminates the need for the chokers and you
can't -- over 300 feet, you're not going to get those higher speeds, so maybe that's kind
of the compromise going the other direction is that you put the -- change the road's
location and lose some lots and the chokers, I personally -- I think the chokers are a
traffic hazard myself. And so to change the location of the road might be a better
answer from everybody's perspective.
Zaremba: And just off the top of your head, if -- what did we say, the whole length of this
was 850 feet, something like --
Erickson: Yeah. A little more, but -- 70, 80 feet --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4, 2005
Page 43 of 57
Zaremba: If we said the roadway had to shift, you wouldn't want it to shift, so that the
southbound lane ended up being where the northbound lane is. If you're going to shift it
at all, you need to shift it at least 25 feet.
Erickson: You actually look at the lane shift. It depends, you know, if we put an island in
or if we don't, if we actually add some curvature to the road. I think it sounds like the
goal here is traffic calming and with that the curvature of the road would accomplish
that.
Zaremba: So, that -- if the center of that curvature was at 420 feet up, how long does it
take you to get from the property line as drawn into that curvature?
Erickson: You're talking about lineal footage?
Zaremba: Tell me the curve from when you begin the curve to when you get to the
maximum --
Erickson: Shift?
Zaremba: -- displacement. Shift. Shift in the curb, how long does that need to be?
Erickson: It's really a function of how you shift. If we shift like say 11 feet or 12 feet or
until we do half the roadway, we do 16 and a half feet, we can look at -- I can talk to
ACHD staff and see what kind of a shift they will allow us to do and see if there is
something we can work out with them with their staff to get the shift as compressed as
we can, but yet still be effective to have a curve in the road.
Zaremba: I guess what I'm getting at is some kind of a -- if we are going to bother to
make a suggestion at all, are we going to have a 300 foot right of way and, then, 200
foot involved in this shift and, then, another 300 feet, is that--
Erickson: I'm just going to say it's going to take a couple hundred feet to do it. Probably
200 feet or 300 feet.
Zaremba: That works for me. That would mean there would be a couple lots there that
may end up not being buildable, but --
Erickson: Probably about six.
Zaremba: Nice landscaping would be a good addition. Is this the kind of -- would we like
to see something like that? Is that what we are talking about or are we even close to --
Canning: Chairman Zaremba?
Zaremba: Okay. Mrs. Canning.
-,-
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 4. 2005
Page 44 of 57
Canning: I'm sorry. You seem to be going a direction that worries me a little bit, in that I
think although -- I think Commissioner Borup pointed out that chokers are probably
more effective than a landscape island here. Part of that reason is that once you put a
landscape island in, you've got to get 20 feet for the fire department on either side. So,
you actually have a wider travel way that allows you to go faster. It seems
counter-intuitive, but, actually, putting the landscape islands in allows more room for
people to go -- the more room you give them, the faster they will go. If you suggest
changes that effectively eliminate the ability to have lots on this area, which I know the
neighbors are in favor, but those houses actually will decrease speeds. So, if you
effectively remove all the lots here by making them unbuildable, then, people will drive
faster along here, because there is no houses to worry about. There is driveways. It
would seem to me that the Commission could maybe just leave a little more flexibility in
their directions to the applicant to maybe work up a couple more schemes and bring
them back to you for further consideration, rather than trying to design it tonight,
because I think that once pencil is put to paper that we will find that some of these don't
work very good and there may be some other options. And that's alii was hoping I could
communicate.
Zaremba: Thank you for that, that is --
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I have the same feeling on the island. I think a peninsula or, you know, a large
bulb out on one side, otherwise, you have just opened up more traffic area. I do have
another -- and this may be a little -- a little irregular and I don't know how much weight it
will carry with ACHD, but I would be interested in maybe just a quick show of hands
from the audience if they would prefer a cul-de-sac and not have a through street, or
this large island or bulb out calming device. Just one or other. There are two choices.
Zaremba: I would be willing to ask that and let me phrase it this way: If that long stretch
was to be opposing cul-de-sacs, then, we assume the direct access to Ustick goes
away and they are going to use Curt as the entrance to the southern cul-de-sac.
Borup: It sounds like that's what ACHD is saying.
Zaremba: And with that is there a show of hands that anybody feels that's what they'd
like to see? I see not a single hand raised and see some --
Borup: The question was the double cul.de-sac, there is nobody in favor of that?
Zaremba: I'm sorry, we can't have discussion from the audience.
Newton-Huckabay: ACHD's statement is that access to Ustick would go to Curt if there
was no straight through. So, that is the only option.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 45 of 57
Borup: I think we need to have both subdivisions vote separately.
Zaremba: So, we don't have support for the cul-de-sacs given the change.
Borup: So what's this vote on? I just didn't hear what your vote was -- what are you
asking for?
Zaremba: What I asked is assuming that the access to Ustick would go away and Curt
would be used, was there support for the two cul-de-sacs and I saw heads shaking no
and no hands raised. A couple of hands.
Borup: Four for the cul-de-sac.
Zaremba: Well, then, my suggestion would be -- it sounds like the consensus of the
Commission is that we ask for maybe two or three optional treatments for this or
reasons why ACHD won't accept them or -- and do we want to ask for further -- another
neighborhood meeting before it comes back to us?
Borup: To do what?
Zaremba: To discuss the treatment of the narrow section.
Newton-Huckabay: I think the neighborhood meeting -- the second neighborhood
meeting was pretty effective in the EI Gato situation and this isn't -- as Mr. Morrison
pointed out, that -- you know, I mean I expected when I saw EI Gato on the docket
tonight that here we go again and, obviously, that neighborhood meeting was very
effective and I don't think it's a bad idea in this situation either. It might save us two
hours next time.
Zaremba: Let me suggest that the chair would entertain a motion to continue these
hearings and request that in the meantime the applicant hold another neighborhood
meeting -- first, provide some alternate suggestions is for the one strip that's in
contention, hold a neighborhood meeting about those suggestions, before it comes
back to us. I see some heads nodding. Is that a consensus?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. For me.
Zaremba: The question would be for us where would we want to put that and, then, for
the applicant could they make some alternate drawings and have a neighborhood
meeting before the time that we suggest. Anybody want to propose a date?
Rohm: Well, before we propose a date--
Zaremba: Or do we want to --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 46 of 57
Rohm: Well, I think that's the direction we need to go, but I also think that none of this is
of any value if we don't get concurrence from Ada County Highway District. So, if the
developer and the community meeting come to one conclusion and Ada County
Highway District doesn't buy off on it, you haven't moved forward, so--
Zaremba: Well, I think we can signal the ACHD that our Planning and Zoning
Commission is not buying this configuration. There needs to be something else.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: So, that message can be --
Rohm: Yeah. I think the developer needs to get alternatives from ACHD that are
acceptable within that venue prior to having the community meeting, so that the
alternatives can be discussed. That would --
Zaremba: Be possible.
Rohm: Yeah. Would be possible.
Zaremba: That makes sense.
Rohm: So, with that being said, we should probably move it out--
Zaremba: Could we ask Mr. Nickel if he could suggest a time frame?
Nickel: When is your next --
Zaremba: We are suggesting that you provide a couple drawings, consult with ACHD
again and, then, hold a neighborhood meeting before the continuation date. How long
do you think some of that would take? And we are only talking about the strip in the
middle. The north and south portions are --
Nickel: Now, Mr. Chairman, when you say meet with ACHD, what are you expecting to
get from them? I mean we can't go back to their Commission, so it would be staff's -- I
guess staff -- a letter from staff, is that what you're indicating?
Zaremba: We would need their input on your alternates to this.
Nickel: Okay. We can do that in a relatively--
Zaremba: And I --
Nickel: We could do that pretty quickly.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 47 of 57
Zaremba: I realize they have -- as you say, there is a time for appealing what their
commission does.
Nickel: Right.
Zaremba: But I think the point is this Commission would recommend denial of it as is
and that's a point you need to make to them. That this section needs to be reconfigured
somehow.
Nickel: And I guess I need to restate myself. I know we can reconfigure it with staff and
get them to accept it. The only thing I am concerned with is if we were to do the two cul-
de-sac concept, because of their policy that requires --
Zaremba: Yeah. I didn't see support for the two cul-de-sacs.
Nickel: Okay. But -- I know we can get to staff -~ ACHD staff and come up with an
alternative within that time fame, so --
Zaremba: And I think it's a consensus that you may end up losing not very many, but a
few of the 16 lots. I don't have a problem with making them wider, you know, to --
Moe: Quite frankly, a little additional square footage is going to help it out as well. It's
going to get it a little closer to, you know, your basic requirements.
Rohm: What date?
Nickel: Two weeks we can have this resolved.
Moe: The 18th is a little full. I think the 1 st of September would be the earliest we would
want to see that.
Zaremba: I'm trying to think of the stack of things I have -- that would be work. Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: They are all this big.
Zaremba: Is the 1 st of September workable? Thank you.
Nickel: Mr. Chairman, Commission, with that time frame I'm hopeful that we can have it
resolved and when we come back it will be a quick meeting. In your motion, though, if
there is anything else in addition to that that you want to discuss, please, let us know
now, so if there is anything else we need to look at, we can have that addressed.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I guess the other thing I would question -- because I did hear some
of the folks in the audience did not get notification of the meeting, so I kind of want to
make sure that all in attendance are given the opportunity to be at this neighborhood
meeting, so I guess that means we need to put a piece of paper out and so we get all
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 48 of 57
addresses or whatever. I want to make sure that they get that opportunity to be at this
neighborhood meeting.
- Nickel: Mr. Chairman, I believe I could -- if I could get a copy of the sign-up sheet from
the clerk, we can use that as part of our mailing list, in addition to the 300 foot radius
that we already have.
Moe: Right.
Zaremba: Well -- and we encourage homeowners to include their neighbors. If you get a
notice, check and see if your neighbor did. There is a legal requirement to notify people
within 300 feet. If you live beyond that, then, you need to have heard from your
neighbors or, you know, tell the president of your homeowners association and hope
they will get the word out to it, so --
Borup: Or read the sign.
Zaremba: Uh?
Borup: That's another reason why there is signage out.
Zaremba: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: But that wouldn't be for the neighborhood meeting, though.
Borup: No.
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just have one more comment. Mr. Nickel just -- if this is
all we are going to discuss when we come back, to, please, make sure -- was there
something, Mr. Nickel, that you are concerned that we didn't address that we are going
to need to get to at the next meeting?
Zaremba: Yeah. I do want to make sure we have covered all the issues that -- so we
aren't raising new issues at the next meeting.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. And the only other one I can think of was the R-8 zoning,
which with the adjustments we have suggested, I am not overly concerned about it
myself, but I would --
Moe: I guess I would say I'm not too concerned with that either. And, not only that, we,
basically, are in an R-8 zone within that area in the Comp Plan, so I think the
combination of losing a few lots and we are going to gain some footage in others, I think
that's going to take care of that problem itself.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August4,2005
Page 49 of 57
Newton-Huckabay: I agree.
Moe: So, having said that, Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we -- what do I move? I move that we continue the hearings on AZ 05-
026, PP 05-025, and CUP 05-033, to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
and Zoning Commission of September 1 st, 2005.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Thank you all very much. Traditionally, we take a break about 9:00 o'clock.
We will do so now and reconvene in about ten minutes.
(Recess. )
Item 13:
Public Hearing: MCU 05-001 Request for a Minor Modification of a
Conditional Use Permit to allow model homes to be constructed with zero
lot frontages for Paramount Subdivision No.9 by Paramount
Development, Inc. - south of Chinden Boulevard between North Meridian
Road & North Linder Road:
Zaremba: We will reconvene this meeting and let the record show that all
Commissioners are again present and we are ready to move onto Item 13. I will open
the Public Hearing for MCU 05-001 and point out to the Commissioners that this will be
a final action of the Commission, this is not a recommendation to the City Council, we
will be the final action, unless there is an appeal to the City Council. And the motion will
reflect that it's not a recommendation. And we will begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject site is
cross-hatched within that red circle there and it's located on the east side of Fox Run
Way, which is one of the main streets coming from the development from Chinden. This
is about 1,700 feet south of Chinden Boulevard. The present zoning district is R-8 and
the Comprehensive Plan designation is medium density residential. This site is currently
vacant. The applicant has requested a modification to the previously approved
Conditional Use Permit to construct nine model homes and a parking lot on a proposed
temporary private street. The applicant is proposing to fence around the model homes
and construct a gate on the private street. Now, the parking lot will not be fenced or
gated off, so the fence is on the perimeter, except for the parking lot. The private street
is proposed to be replatted once the use of the structures for model homes is no longer
AZ 05-026
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
August 4, 2005
APPLICANT Hollybrook, LLC ITEM NO. 1 0
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005- Annexation and Zoning of 15.32
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision - 3265 N. Curt Drive & 540 East
Ustick Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
See previous item packet / minutes
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
See attached Staff Comments
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
.;$ f9
Q..~ ~
~ê
~~
~
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: ~A..ø--- ~
Emailed:
Date: <¿It (O§""" Phone: 9'3<6-3S¡:/2J-t.fr"J
Staff Initials: ~
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
STAFF REPORT
P & Z Commission and City Council
Hearing Dates: July 1, 2005, continued
to August 4, 2005
Planning & Zoning Commission
Joe Guenther, Associate City Planner
Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator
l'~
olfe~;dl~"~\
'" - Ii ),\ut! j!/
v: , -"
'~f);~7':"_'f"l'~c:'!!',_!'!~:~~~~'~-<-:'
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Hollybrook Subdivision
. PP-05-025
RECEIVED
JUL 23 2005
55 Single family residential lots and on 15.32 acres
. AZ-05-026
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Annexation of 15.32 acres with proposed R-8 zoning
. CUP-05-033
A Planned Development for reduced lot sizes and frontage requirements in
an R-8 zone
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Hollybrook, LLC-Bond Campbell, has applied for Annexation and Zoning
(AZ) and Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of Fifty-five (55) Building Lots and Eleven (11)
Common/Other Lots on 15.32 acres. The site is located on the north side of Us tick Road
approximately one-quarter of a mile east of Meridian Road. This site is currently
agricultural with farm buildings and one single family residential building. The site has
not been previously platted.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. The subject applications (AZ
CUP, and PP) were submitted concurrently to the Planning & Zoning Department for review.
Staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the requested
annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications below. Staff is recommending approval
of the proposal dated July 14, 2005 for Hollybrook Subdivision submitted as AZ-05-026, CUP-
05-033, and PP-05-025 with the conditions of approval as outlined in this report.
3. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location:
540 E. Ustick / Ustick and Curt
SE ~ of SW ~ 4NIE3l
b. Owner:
Bond Campbell
HOLL YBROOK SUBDIVISION
CUP-05-033/ PP-O5-025/ AZ-O5-026
PAGEl
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
Hollybrook LLC
1150 E. Ustick
Meridian, Idaho 83642
c. Applicant:
Bond Campbell
Hollybrook LLC
1150 E. Ustick
Meridian, Idaho, 83642
d. Representative:
e. Present Zoning:
Shawn Nickel, SLN Planning, Inc.
COUNTY RUT
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential
g. Description of Applicant's Request:
1. Date of preliminary plat (attached as Exhibit AI):
2. Date of CUP site plan (attached as Exhibit A2):
3. Date oflandscape plan (attached as Exhibit A3):
July 14, 2005 Sheet PP-I, ECl
July 14, 2005 Sheet PD-I, ECI.
April 15, 2005 Sheet L-I, ECl
h. Applicant's Statement/Justification:
Shawn L. Nickel, Land Consultants has submitted a statement of purpose with the application,
dated April 15, 2005 and revised May 24,2005. The applicant has also made amendments to
the site plan due to ACHD concerns and has addressed the north/south connection in response
to City of Meridian staff, ACHD staff, and neighbors concerns with the submittals dated July
14,2005.
4. PROCESS FACTS
a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation as determined City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 16, a
public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
b. The subject application will in fact constitute a preliminary plat as detennined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 12 Chapter 3, a public
hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
c. The subject application will in fact constitute a planned development as determined by
City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions ofthe Meridian City Code Title 12 Chapter 6, a
public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
d. Newspaper notifications published on: July 4, 2005, June 20, 2005
e. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: June 10, 2005
f. Applicant posted notice on site by: July 24, 2005
5. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): RUT Ada County-Agricultural
b. Description of Character of SulTounding Area:
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
1. North: Sundance Place Subdivision R-8 with a Planned Development
HOLL YBROOK SUBDIVISION
CUP-O5-033/ PP-O5-025/AZ-O5-026
PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
2. East:
Quenzer Commons, Heritage Commons Subdivision R-8 with a Planned
Development. Under development.
Weaver Acres Subdivision- R-l Ada County.
Bedford Place Subdivision- R-8
3. South:
4. West: Sundance Place Subdivision R-8 with a Planned Development
d. History of Previous Actions: N/A
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities
L Public Works
Location of sewer:
Location of water:
From Sundance Place Subdivision, Washakie Street 8"
From Ustick Road, 12" main connection.
Issues or concerns:
2. Vegetation: Existing vegetation should be brought into compliance with
maintenance standards ofNMID. Applicant shall contact City Arborist for tree
mitigation.
3. Flood plain: NA
4. CanalslDitches Irrigation: Tiling and relocation of existing agricultural irrigation
ditches will need coordination with Settlers Irrigation District.
5. Hazards: None Identified
6. Proposed Zoning: R.8 - with Planned Development for Lots 2-18 Block 4
7. Size of Property: 15.32 acres
8. Description of Use:
f. Subdivision Plat Infonnation
1. Residential Lots:
Single-Family Residential
55
2. Non-residential Lots:
3. Total Building Lots:
4. Common Lots: 11
5. Other Lots: 8 of the common lots are for traffic control and direction
6. Total Lots: 66
7. Open Lots: N/A
0
55
8. Residential Area: 15
9. Gross Density: 3.59 units per acre
g. Landscaping
L Width of street buffer(s):
25' on Ustick Road Lot 1 Block 2
10' on Curt Drive Lot 1 Block 2
10' on east side of Arrowwood Way Loti Block 2
5' on west side of Arrowwood Way, ROW
HOLL YBROOK SUBDIVISION
CUP-O5-033/ PP-O5-025/AZ-05-026
PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
2. Width ofbuffer(s) between land uses: 0' with 6' solidfencing
3. Percentage of site as open space (PP and PD applications):
6% 39, 766 square feet.
4. Other landscaping standards: All common lots to be included with PD amenities
shall comply with the landscape plan dated April 15, 2005, with considerations for design amendments
dated July 14, 2005.
h. Conditional Use Infonnation
1. Non-residential square footage: square feet
2. Proposed building height: Less than 35' of R-8 standard
3. Percentage of site devoted to building coverage: 15.32 acres
4. Percentage of site devoted to landscaping: 1.27 acres
5. Number of Residential units: 55
i. Planned Development - Lots 2-18 of Block 4 of Hollybrook Subdivision
j. Amenities - Lot 1 Block 3, Lot 18 Block 4, Lot 2 Block 4, Lot Block 11 will have additional
Landscaping, Pathway connections to multi-use pathway in Sundance Place Subdivision, and seating
areas along all pathways.
1. Proposed and Required Residential Standards
Multi~use Pathway Connection with seating areas
R-8 standards apply to all lots except Lots 2-17 of Block 4 of Holly brook Subdivision as
shown below:
Setbacks Proposed Required
Front Living Area of 15 20
Front Accessed Garage 20 15
Side 5 5
Rear 15 15
Frontage 55 65
Lot Size 4,428+ 6500
k. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.):
All roadways have been designed according to ACHD standards and will be public streets.
All common areas used for traffic control shall be landscaped and maintained by the
Hollybrook Homeowners Association.
For a detailed report on the public streets and access points to public streets, the attached staff
report from the Ada County Highway District (Exhibit C).
6. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING
On June 17,2005 staff held an agency comments meeting. Further meetings were held with the
Meridian Fire Department on July 22,2005 to address the redesign of the Preliminary Plat dated July 14,
2005. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval from the
meeting attached as Exhibit B.
HOLL YBROOK SUBDIVISION
CUP-05-033/ PP-05-025/AZ-05-026
PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
ill 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. Staff fmds that the requested
zoning designation, R-8, is hannonious with and in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive
Plan and Future Land Use Map, which designates the land to be "Medium Density Residential"
and "Low Density Residential". The 3.59 dwelling units per acre proposed with the preliminary
plat are consistent with previous Commission and Council actions and generally confonn to the
goals, objectives, and action items contained in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. ill addition,
in the applicant's cover letter (dated April 15, 2005, revised May 24, 2004) lists several
Comprehensive Plan policies, all of which support the annexation and proposed residential use of
the property.
ill Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, 'Low density' is defined as areas including single-
family homes at densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. The applicant is requesting that
all the subject site be zoned R-8 (Medium Density Residential). The R-8 district allows for a
maximum of eight (8) dwelling units per acre (MCC 11- 7 -2.C), however the design more closely
resembles an R-4 development. The applicant's requested design provides for larger lots
consistent with a lower density transitional area. The comprehensive plan also states on Page 104,
Objective D~ Plan for appropriate uses within rural areas: "Require new urban density
subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing low density residential land uses to provide
landscaped screening or transitional densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer
the inteiface between urban level densities and rural residential densities." Weaver Acres
Subdivision is located immediately east, north, and south of the property with seven lots of
approximately one acre parcels and is classified as low density residential. Lots 2-5 of Block 1
and all of Block 1 have a calculated residential density of 2.45 dwelling units to the acre which is
consistent with the allowance within the Low Density Residential Designation.
Staff finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this
application (staff analysis is in italics below policy):
Chapter VI c.2 P71 - Multiuse pathways: Pathways that encourage use by bicyclists and
pedestrians can decrease road congestion and add to the community's quality of life. The
proposed off-street and multiuse pathway systems are depicted in Figures VI-3 and VI-4. New
and existing developments should ensure that the guidelines laid out in this plan are adopted.
Although a designated Multiuse pathway is not located on this site the applicant has propose a
connection through to the pathway system in Sundance Place via Lot 17Block 11.
Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services (Chapter
VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1)
When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the
subject properties. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands
proposed to be annexed in the following manner:
. Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the
developer's expense.
The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire
District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian
City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the
Meridian Rural Fire Department. Fire and Emergency Medical Services will be
.
HOLL YBROOK SUBDIVISION
CUP-05-033/ PP-05-025/ AZ-05-026
PAGE 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
.
provided by Meridian City Fire Station #3. The subject lands lie within 1.5 miles
of the recently opened Meridian City Fire Station #3 and lie within the Meridian
Fire Department's five-minute response zone.
The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Shertlf's
Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police
Department (MPD).
The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained
by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change.
The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This
service will not change.
The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This
service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no
revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation.
.
.
.
Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department,
the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian
Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Department, Meridian Utility
Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company.
.
Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent
parcels (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1)
All of the properties adjacent to the subject site are designated for medium or low density
residential uses on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The applicant has made
the best attempt to mix low and medium density lots with the appropriate single family
residential products for the site.
.
Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, and high-density single family,
multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of
providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities (Chapter VII, Goal IV,
Objective C, Action 10)
.
The subject property is mostly designated Medium-Density Residential on the Future Land
Use Map which identifies this area as an appropriate area for medium-density residential
development. This proposal meets the Comprehensive Plan definition of medium-density,
with a gross density of 3.59 dwelling units per acre.
Develop policies and incentives to encourage infill and contiguous development. (Chapter V
Goal I Objective A Action 8)
The subject property has a unique design due to limited property width at the north/south
connection and is surrounded by existing and proposed developments which would classifY
for infill development. The proposed design meets the criteria for an R-8 development and
the applicant has been diligent in meeting the agency requirements and providing a quality
product near a mix of residential uses.
Support infill of random vacant lots in substantially developed, single-family areas at
densities similar to surrounding development. Increased densities on random vacant lots
should be considered if: Development of uses other than single-family structures are
compatible with surrounding development as it complies with the current comprehensive
plan. (Chapter VII Goal V Objective A Action 10)
.
HOLL YBROOK SUBDIVISION
CUP-05-033/ PP-05-025/ AZ-05-026
PAGE 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTlONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
.
The proposed density, size of lots and unique roadway design will allow for an increase in
density for the proposal with smaller lots under a Planned Development where the majority
of the lots are not requiring special considerations within the ordinance and comprehensive
plan, see also findings above.
Apply design and performance standards to infilling development in order to reduce adverse
impacts upon existing adjacent development. (Chapter VII Goal V Objective A Action 11)
Staff does not foresee negative impact on surrounding development outside of the
construction phase. The site has an existing residence which will be incorporated and the
size, number, and quality of the houses is similar in nature to the sUlTounding developments
that the proposal should be indistinguishable upon build out as an attractive neighborhood
within a neighborhood.
Staff finds that the proposed R-8 zoning designation is harmonious with and in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan.
8. ZONING ORDINANCE
a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: Meridian City Code 11-2-1 lists Planned Development
modifications as conditional use in the R-8 zoning district. Single Family Residential uses
are permitted in the R-8 zoning district
b. Purpose Statement of Zone: R-8 Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the R-
8 district is to permit the establishment of single- and two-family dwellings at a density not
exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such
development has or is likely to occur in accord with the comprehensive plan of the city and is
also designed to permit the conversion oflarge homes into two.family dwellings in well-
established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the municipal water and
sewer systems is required.
c. General Standards: According to MCC 11-17-1, the City should impose any condition(s)
deemed necessary to insure compatibility of the development (CUP) with other uses in the
vicinity and such additional safeguards as are necessary to uphold the intent of the
ordinance. Please see Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B.
9. ANALYSIS
a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation
As noted above, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject site into fifty
five single family residential lots. Each lot contains a minimum 4,400 square-feet.
The fifty five proposed building lots range in size ITom 4,432 square-feet up to
18,081 square-feet. There are three distinct areas on the site with a variety of
housing types. The southern most area is designated Low Density Residential
while the western edge and northern area is Medium Density Residential. The
southern area has the largest lots, contains the existing residence, and meets the
overall gross density at 2.45 dwelling units per acre. The northern area is
consistent with medium density residential in an R-8 zoning designation with lots
ranging from approximately 7,000 square feet to over 10,500 square feet. The last
HOLL YBROOK SUBDIViSiON
CUP-O5-033/ PP-O5-025/ AZ-O5.026
PAGE 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
area is the western boundary along the continuation ofN. Arrowwood Way. The
site creates a constriction and a unique constriction at this area. The lots are
requested to have reduced frontage and reduced lot sizes. These lots will be
single family detached products with the elevations submitted with the packet.
All housing types are proposed as single-family residential.
The applicant has requested all of the property be zoned R-8 (Medium Density
Residential). The applicant has indicated a gross density of the proposed
subdivision at 3.59 gross dwelling units per acre. This presented density is in
accord with the proposed R-8 zoning district. This is allowable for the R-8
district with the Low Density area directly corresponding to the Comprehensive
Plan which calculates at 2.45 gross dwelling units per acre. Please see
Annexation & Zoning Analysis below. The applicant is requesting modifications
to the dimensional standards of the requested R-8 zone (i.e. - building
setbacks, lot size, frontage, etc.) for Lots 2-17 of Block 4. These lots have
requested the following planned development standards:
Setbacks Proposed Required
Front Living Area of 15 20
Front Accessed Garage 20 15
Side 5 5
Rear 15 15
Frontage 55 65
Lot Size 4,428+ 6500
1.1.1
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the
Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the
Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed single
family residential products. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and
findings.
1. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped on 3/23/05 by
Clinton Hansen, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate
boWldary of the City of Meridian.
2. Any future subdivision, uses and construction on this property shall comply with the City
of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time.
3. A Development Agreement (DA) will be required as part of an annexation of this
property. Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a DA shall be entered into between
the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) (at the time of annexation ordinance
adoption), and the developer. The aDDlicant shall contact the Citv Attorney. Bill Nary. at
888-4433 to initiate this Drocess. The DA shall incorporate the following:
HOLL YBROOK SUBDIVISION
CUP-05-033/ PP-05-025/ AZ-05-026
PAGE 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
.
That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water
service extension. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project
will have to be removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517,
when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-
domestic pUlþoses such as landscape irrigation.
That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance
with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. All future uses
shall 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.
.
PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS: The preliminary plat provides a good mix of
residential products with a wide range of mid sized lots. The site complies with both the
medium and low density calculation with a mix of housing sizes. The applicant has
proposed a unique design for a non-standard lot configuration on a property which by
shape would be difficult to develop.
Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general
compliance of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that
this is a good location for the proposed single family residential products. Please see
Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings.
1. Public Streets and Access:
Connectivitv (Ustick Road to Washakie Street): The stub streets from Sundance Place
Subdivision and Quenzer Commons Subdivision, Washakie Street shall connect to
through with the common street sections and completing the midsection connection of
Meridian Road and Locust Grove Road. The subdivision is constrained by previous
development in the area and is bound by ACHD policies of interconnectivity. No direct
lot access to Ustick Road is approved with this subdivision.
Connectivitv (Curt Drive): There are no services available in Curt Drive and concerns
have been raised about the increase in traffic from Curt Drive as a cut across street
connection within the subdivision. ACHD has detennined a connection from Curt Drive
to Arrowwood Way is appropriate and half of curt drive will be improved with this
project.
2. Landscapilllz: Staff is generally supportive of the proposed landscaping design with the
following considerations: Ustick Road landscaping shall be designed according to MCC
12-13 Landscaping and maintained by the home owners association. All common lots
which will provide traffic calming shall contain landscaping according to MCC 12-13.
See Site Specific Condition #7 below.
3. Open Space: MCC l2w13-l6 requires five percent of open space to be set aside for
subdivisions of at least five acres in size. The applicant is proposing to set aside 39,766-
sq ft of the site for open space. Most of this open space is at the ends of Arrowwood Way
and provide traffic calming and glare prevention. Lot 17 provides a connection from the
development and makes opens space accessible to all lots of the subdivision and through
to the multiuse pathway. (MCC 12-13-16-3). See Site Specific Condition #5 below.
Tree Mitigation: There are several large trees on this site that the applicant is proposing
to remove or relocate. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall
HOLL YBROOK SUBDIVISION
CUP-OS-033/ PP.OS-02S/ AZ-OS-026
PAGE 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches
of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as
replacement trees for those trees that are removed (MCC 12-13-13-3). The applicant
should coordinate a tree protection/mitigation plan with Elroy Huff at the Meridian Park
Department. See Site Specific Condition #7 below.
4. Ditches. Laterals. and Canals: Per MCC 12-4-13, all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals,
exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to
the area being subdivided shall be tiled. Staff is unaware of the official status of the
drainage ditch; it appears to be maintained by Settlers Irrigation and is considered an
offsite natural feature. See Site Specific Condition #8 below
5. Pressure IrrÜ!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 utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface
or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system
shall be required. If a single~point connection is utilized, the developer will be
responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on
the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should
be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with
MCC 12-13-8 and MCC 9-1-28. See Site Specific Condition #9 below.
6. Fencing: The applicant is proposing to construct a six-foot tall solid fence around the
perimeter of the site. Staff is supportive of the proposed fencing. A detailed fencing plan
should be submitted upon application of the final plat (MCC 12-4-l0.F.3). Ifpennanent
fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be
installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. 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.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in
the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with
the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this is a good location for allowing a unique
design for single family residential products. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of
facts and findings.
1. Reduced Standards: As stated earlier, the applicant is requesting modifications from
standard ordinance requirements for street frontage, lot size and setbacks.
Lot Size: The applicant has requested reduced lot sizes; the submitted preliminary plat
has Lots 2-18 of Block 4 below the 6,500 square-foot minimum size. Therefore, a
modification to the standard R-8 lot size of 6,500 square-feet is applicable. The proposed
lot sizes range from 4,428 square-feet to 18,081 square-feet.
Lot Frontage: The minimum requested street frontage is 55-feet. There are 14 lots that are
at 55-feet of frontage (65-feet is the minimum for the R-8 zone). Staff is supportive of
reducing the frontage for these lots as it provides a practical use to these lots where the
property depth is minimal.
Setbacks: The applicant's submittal July 14,2005 requests that this development have a
front setback of 15'. The front setback would need additional definition as to be 15' to
HOLL YBROOK SUBDIVISION
CUP-05-033/ PP-05-025/ AZ-05-026
PAGE 10
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
living space only and a minimum front setback of 20' to a garage entry way. Rear and
interior setbacks will be R-8 standards. Staff recommends approval of the setbacks as
requested.
2. Amenities: MCC l2-6-2.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: The proposed open space makes up 6% of the site, 5% minimum is required and
it takes 10% to count open space as an amenity. Landscaped open space means land
exclusive of street rights-of-way and street buffers, except for right-of-way specifically
dedicated for landscaping within a subdivision. No drainage lots, required street buffers,
or canal buffers have been included in this calculation. The applicant is counting the
additional landscaping along the open space lots, a multi-use pathway connection into
Sundance Place Subdivision, and seating areas as amenities. Staff supports these
amenities as listed and believes they are adequate for the size of the property.
3. Elevations: The applicant has submitted two front elevation drawings for the proposed
dwelling units included with the PD. 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 Hollybrook Subdivision should substantially
comply with the elevations submitted by the applicant. Construction materials used on
the structures should be approved by the City of Meridian Building Department and in
accordance with the most recent Uniform Building Code. See Site Specific Condition #4
below.
b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval ofCUP-05-033/ PP-05-025/AZ-05-
026 for Hollybrook Subdivision as presented in the staff report dated August 4, 2005
based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit D and subject to the conditions of
approval as listed in Exhibit B as attached to this report. Staff has prepared findings
consistent with this recommendation.
10. PROPOSED MOTIONS
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation for Approval
I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Numbers CuP-05~033/ PP-05-
025/ AZ-05-026 for Hollybrook Subdivision as presented in the staff report dated August 4, 2005 with the
Site Plan and Preliminary Plat dated July 14, 2005 with the following modifications to the conditions of
approval listed in Exhibit B: (add any proposed modifications)
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation for Denial
I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Numbers CuP-05-033/ PP-05-025/AZ-
05-026 for Hollybrook Subdivision and direct staff to prepare findings for denial as defined in the public
hearing of August 4,2005.
11. EXHmITS
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat - Dated July 14, 2005 shown as Sheet PP-l, prepared by ECI
(Erickson Civil Incorporated)
2. CuP Site Plan- Dated July 14, 2005 shown as Sheet PP-l, prepared by ECI
3. Landscape Plan- Dated April 15, 2005 shown as Sheet L-l prepared by ECI
B. Conditions of Approval
HOLL YBROOK SUBDIVISION
CUP-05-033/ PP-05-025/ AZ~05-026
PAGE 11
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
1. Planning Department
2. Public Works Department
3. Fire Department
4. Parks Department
5. Ada County Highway District
C. Legal Description
D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance
HOLL YBROOK SUBDIVISION
CUP-05-033/ PP-05-025/ AZ-05-026
PAGE 12
Á. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat (dated: July 14, 2005)
I-...
¡
IRI.-.~
I ,--'---'
d 'c
" ~.::- -- =:
t Iß I ¡
n ¡"ì '. . t
~ii .ì\1 ii¡ ;U
'~J "11' r u
i; JJ " . I f
i§ n~ l
1-1
\:;;
.,""""'-
. ¡i, ÆÎ
~ ,- - Iii
J I,
I I-
¡;;;;;.:':; ¡
"
'I
'~I.~:
;~-~ ,¡i
IT
Øi
¡;~
-----I
---r,
§" ""- -- L...>L.. .....,-~
- ~"'" Þ'
L/ 1- I~ -- ~
~~ ,5 l -- ~c ,I ,"I
~~ 1 ~,--, ,I ¡ !i!~ I!'-~'
.I~ I' - '~21
H t ,I: ;§~ --,
" ! ' I ¡ f ii' ¡,
;§',P¡' - e~II" I¡~I
. 1- ;2 I ,I r
~ -, - -, --~ ~ --......,
_-=1.......
;1 ~i-I
;~ì : ~II; . ~;
h 'J'!- ;
P ~~ ø 'l ¡
¡ ¡
...t.i
of>
,. --..-
, E
III mìWI i¡
'¡! lUIU I ~
0
. .
. . ¡-
i
'¡ ,
!i
~~
:"'.,-~----~--"------------"--,." """ "- '"'.'---.-.'-"" 1í
, , I ¡ -- -- ~ ' I ~ : ~!ii!~ !~~~, m!¡IH~ ¡ t:d II C IIi IIHW in ~
Ii I,I¡III. i j ¡ I ¡! ¡ !:~¡¡~ij! '¡ ~ !*¡ i!iiìi i!!æl~¡ ¡:¡~~ ~ ~~i! W
~ I; S ¡ ¡ ~ ¡;"i.~J~{'~ ~ .~. .:~; :~~:I! I I!!~I¡;. ~ i i'~ 1!2! £ ~!~'. ~ ~
!.~-"--.--- ¡ ----...",,-----------------. :".~I< i 1 I' i".. I,,"" IIlijl, q I d I' ~¡, )
I f ft ~ '1m ;1'1; ~ !~ií: li¡~ : iH;:;xl~' I I~ t~;~ h~¡~!; li¡ ~f~ i '" i~ ii~ II 'm I,
:1 "!i';.~11 '5il¡I;J~.iill ~~;í"!!; ~ ëì~I!~f~ti!i:¡~ ~!~Ii¡¡¡ ¡I~¡i! !..I 7¡
I ¡ ¡ I~~~ I"P i" ~ I I f I~! ) í u¡ :~;f g!!, I ~11!i~ I I :,1 II:;; 'I
¡ : I ", -," . eb ¡;:~ ¡e,h .:.1.. ~. 4_¡
. "'----"'_."'--""",---"'_.._"-" ' ! ~:!~ I' f~ . ;. . 1- --
HoIlybrook Subdivision
Meridian. Idaho
Hollybrook Subdivision
Drawings
EXHIBIT A
en
ê
~
0
z
)0
~
JJ
...
a
z
0
"T1
..."
J:;IJ
mm
(¡Jr- ,
~:E¡: ¡
--z I
~..~ i
3:0-( ,
m""
1!!J!ç
Qm..¡
)o(¡Jo
,z:¡:"
~ ~~5
~ )0 ~ ¡::
()"-(
O",UI
C:m:n '
z()O ¡
~...o
- oJ<
52'"
~~ffi
0:,2
oS
H!
20
"'2
J:
11
....
(JJ
0
c::
...
.J:
~
¡¡¡
m
m
)0
'"
.'"
o-.c .-
-, ,-,-0 .,-
- """- "-
"..,E.O-- .
_,__83M2
- - - - - ---- -------
-,... -- ,,'-,-
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
2. CUP Site Plan (dated: Jnly 14,2005)
11
if I:I~, III
,Ii it II il l.~ l' '
Jar ¡ d ! --- j 10 '
--=-c,:~~-"I--j-E:~',,~ /,1-------<:- .
-¡;-'1
I
II ~! .11
11'1 ~i
2Ji ,
~II.~ Ii JI
!~: I
, I
, ,
"';J
11"1 ml'ULn~~ ~
f' If S""[IU-'¡§ iii
~h " l!: mnZ~r,~ ~
)i ~r! .s~"&~'ír. ~
~" j~' ¡u> ;,I,~
, ~~~ "'llf.r z
rl~ .~;nC : ':;:
..""" ~¡j ;i! ; . E
"-'-1 e~' so
~;I ." ~
~t~
~tf
t~¡-
""--I
~"
Ilk.-I
¡u I '1'1
~U ..J'~II¡ ir
¡¡~ I II I
~ ua.. '
5 "- -"-I
,
'---',;
, . Œ-,
--Ii!
'Ir' Jill'
I '
I I',
'__"'~.J
Ii
'-+-I~ ii j""--~
~ ~ :1 -....-..,
~i§ln__,
!i iì ~~ i.
j~ !HI. ,¡:
, 1& I.,
§ ,-I
- -I- ,-""",
~
ii!IIrijr~i~ I ~ :
11!,il¡ìii U II ! i I i~ I
't I ¡ ¡ ¡Irnm !I¡ fjf
t ¡ I "f I~,~ I h: I h i I~ f
¡ i ¡ I ! ~ I
,-----J.__.' ; ,
m~-- §
2m i
:g':, .
;'I;~~~¡i~
l~'¡c' ~,
;;¡¡n~ :
. i . ,
~h ~
t"
Hollybrook Subdivision
Drawings
EXHIBIT A
1'.. ---,
1'10
1ft
-" "
I Ii
¡" ,:
en
::¡
~
-I
m
0
Z
»
"(I
°
:¡¡
-I
Õ
Z
°
."
-I-c
:!:I)
mm
C ooc:
o:f~
ëñ¡~
m :¡¡
s:°-(
m'"
;!1:i!~
2m"",
)owo
':<::f."
'" »... :!
§ ~:;;:~
nOr-
0"'<
ccn~
zf!io
-'-10
'<õ"
õzen
5:~æ
0:';9
0::0;
~!!>
zo
(/)z
:!
'C
...
(/)
o
C
-I
;¡:
~
Z
GJ
m
~: =ji~ F~~~ 'Uiii i !~¡¡¡iii ; .~~¡ i~~ Ui¡ ~i JJ~ä¡ ~ i i ~ ¡ I~
~'-~,'~--õ-"-f"~': h~~~lá¡~"Ji.~nlq, ,.q,.¡
HI~i !';:~ ~~;¡~'i ¡ Bi-J"; ;"~f }i 'h;:1 f§ : ~ : -- .; I
.a'-'L'-.Ic I I("'~' .~, """ .
í ,. "~;e el~d: l .,¡, Ii ì! ~.U i~,.j hJ~,; liE i
~ II! p); ';;Æ ~ h,~t~, i ¡;~ ~!~I 5' ~;¡!:" f ! I
oj ¡'I! d~~: !.~~n ì '!Ii'~:: ¡ '~J ~d~! Ij~! ,~"
, 'I, ',C;! he!,!; I, tll i - Î' ¡'",,~ ~¡¡I' ~ ~
, 1<1-' a..,:,- ""i'o' ';'J"¡" ~ .~':;i!¡ .~4¡ , ~
I . ~ it.., .oJ 's' al~ ~ / .~ . >! "'" .
'1°.'---': "'hf"";b f"'it'., .,
. ,'to', '~'!i --t "'- i , .~, .
, ., .-';;' -,,~ ~. ".1;., ¡ ~I "", f
¡- ~'¡ ~~;; i~!~~! - -!;" f o' I~~ {
. ~-"-;' r,. ,
Hollybrnok Subdivision
Meridian, Idaho
Jlílm¡Un ~
~i~ltU if ¡ "
0 .. I
"..-. . ì
. 'I
, ,
!~
.~
-
" \\
""-,'
'~-"':;: -ID-'
'~ ~C:-
m
).
w
~
§l€~ <9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
3. Landscape: Plan (dated April 15, 2005)
- --,-,-"""""""'"",, '," "" "" "" ".",,- "" "
!Í'
~ ¡' --- I" (
!II_"~I;.. ¡I i!
---~ ""'-, -';'" IIU I'
I ' " n ,I
~~.~(; '..-,nil
tf '1! ---j." , . -----,,-- II
I~~ III i: I I
i~ ill if ;
tP . (
J
í
¡-
I
.
~
P i
--.
ii
IP .
5 un
I a -t
4:Z ,
~1"
i
r-'
)0
z
:l
(I
)0
d
"~I ¡;" !
II! M ..
~fI Î~ 1!Iit ,
:d i~
.~=~=") ~-~!
.._~J;~ _d
",-,,(t"-:~-~ ,j!.. ~]~¡¡ ~ ;
I )Ç-"
i Ii
I .
{I
a
3';
~
Z
,/"-
a
~
~
(\
't:
!IIO
Hollybrook Subdivision
Meridian. Idaho
Hollybrook :SubdivIsion
Drawings
EXHIBIT A
""""".~",~"","",',",""" ",",' "
""'
'"
,
i!
II
,.
if
~~ tt Cò (
¡ niii~f~'li:!' II'n, ,- 111m I II III' ~
~p fit f I II i~f j~~h I ~ I ¡I i
fifWJIi'~JI §tilG, :j;~¡i ~! I! ~
ffiÌl!Jfd,'Ji ¡'ii~' :~ijjl !' ,[r
¡if ~i a ¡ Itil! !
,f, Ii "".,: .:J:~ .. I~
¡¡jiiiiiHiij mm mm ~¡ ;A
mm mm !! I
;;'~~j~i!;f;~ IU'~I'~!i~¡iIJU~)o 1~§~"~1~
íH!:~:i~hí II:;; ~ i !;I~;, Èi m ~f i Ii! ~
5,1 j no ! 5!!J~~' i ~ 1 ~~ If: : I)
JPhq 'ìllb¡I:""~ ~ i¡~ mi, ~
i n p 1 fib'f; m i ¡ i :::!: ~
- q , p ,¡J¡il; I )0'" - ~
~ j ~ ! d lim't ~~ p~ If! ., m rJ
Lilq ~f,'Jlb, "~.!: ~~~ m~
ì ' , â I ~i i!" """)0 ~ - r ' ~
~ i H J j¡t~ii ...~.:j ~ ! m
i II I J 3":'.1
.
eel
1::",-:, ,'" ;::' ",;c ¡"':":-~':,::"'-'
e>.-- 0
_LLC
:';;'~- ~
- ""'838<1
---- ,,--
B. Conditions of Approval
I Planning Department
All amended lot locations of the approved Preliminary Plat dated July 14, 2005shall be
landscaped as per MCCI2-13. A landscape plan shall be submitted prior to final plat showing the
landscaping in relation to these changes.
Other than the changes listed above, the approved landscape plan is not to be altered without prior
written approval of the Planning & Zoning Department.
All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stonn
water detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to MCC 12-13-14
and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface
materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under MCC 12-13-14. Where
the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed such plan,
the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as proposed by
staff. If the stonn water detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space
and still meet the standards of MCC 12-13-14, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This
may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the
developer to comply with ACHD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the
time of final construction.
1.1.11 All road drainage shall be contained on site in the drainage lots or in roadside swales as depicted.
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.1.7
1.1.8
1.1.9
1.1.10
SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
The preliminary plat labeled as PP-1 prepared by Erickson Civil Incorporated, dated July 14,
2005, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments/conditions of the
accompanying Annexation/Zoning (AZ-05-026) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP-05-033) and
Development Agreement shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP-05-025).
Place a note on the face of the final plat stating that all future front garage setbacks shall be 20-
feet as measured from the property line or the back of sidewalk, whichever is more restrictive.
Prior to the City Engineer's signature of a final plat containing all structures not contained on a
designated lot shall be removed.
The submitted landscape plan prepared by Erickson Civil Incorporated., dated April 15, 2005 is
not approved as submitted. The following should be included in a revised landscape plan prior to
[mal plat:
Depict and construct a lO-foot wide gravel shoulder on Ustick Road abutting the site, with the
remaining portion of the right-of-way being landscaped with lawn or other vegetative
groundcover.
All micropaths within the proposed subdivision ( Lot 17 Block 11) 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 common lots being used for traffic calming purposes shall be landscaped in accordance to
MCC 12-13
1.1.12 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or
lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per MCC 12-4-13, unless
otherwise approved by Settlers lITigation District. Plans will need to be approved by the
appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written
Hollybrook Subdivision
Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
1.1.13
1.1.14
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.
A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the [mal plat. If penuanent fencing
is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the
perimeter prior to issuance of building pennits. All fences shall taper down to 3-feet maximum
within 20 feet of all right-of-way. All fencing shall be installed in accordance with MCC 12-4-10.
Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Bellingham Park
Homeowners' Association.
1.1.15 Other than the public street access approved by ACHD, direct lot access to Ustick Road and Curt
Drive are prohibited. A note shall be placed on the final plat restricting access to Ustick Road and
Curt Drive.
1.1.16
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
The applicant shall contact the street naming committee to detennine the names for the unnamed
cul-de-sacs and the connection of Curt Drive and North Arrowwood Way contained in the revised
preliminary plat dated July 14,2005.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision
pursuant to MCC 12-13-10-8.
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 [mal plat application.
Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing
additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed.
Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to
be mitigated.
Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or tenus of the approved
annexation/conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
1.2.5 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC 12-2-4.
1.3 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1.2.4
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
1.3.5
The Planned Development site plan labeled as PD-I, prepared by Erickson Civil Incorporated,
dated July 14, 2005, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments/conditions of
the accompanying Annexation/Zoning (AZ-05-026) and Conditional Use Pennit (CUP-05-033)
and Development Agreement shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP.05-
025)
The project shall confonn to the R-8 dimensional standards, except as follows for Lots 2-17 of
Block 4:
Minimum frontage: 55-feet
Minimum lot dimensions: 4,428 sq ft.
The front setbacks for living spaces shall be fifteen feet for all lots contained in Hollybrook
Subdivision with a minimum of twenty feet to garages from the back of sidewalk.
Hollybrook Subdivision
Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
1.3.6
1.3.7
1.3.8
1.3.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
Construction within Hollybrook Subdivision shall substantially comply with the 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 Unifonn Building
Code.
All construction within Hollybrook Subdivision shall be single family detached homes and built
within the limitations outlined within this report.
All amenities proposed for Hollybrook Subdivision shall substantially comply with the designs
proposed on the site plan labeled PD-1, dated July 14, 2005.
All traffic control structures shall be designed and landscaped in accordance with Meridian City
Code. These structures shall be maintained by the Hollybrook Homeowners Association. There
shall be no on street parking within fifty feet of any traffic control structure, the applicant shall
appropriately mark and sign these areas.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Sanitary sewer service to this site is master planned to drain to the White Trunk, and is being
proposed via an extension of mains located in Sundance Subdivision. The applicant will be
responsible to construct sewer mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision
designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall
execute City of Meridian standard fonns of easements, for any mains that are required to provide
service. Cover over sanitary sewer mains shall be no less than 3-feet from finish grade to the top of
the pipe. If cover is less than 3-feet from the sub-grade to the top of pipe, alternate pipe materials
shall be used per the Meridian Public Works Department's Standard Specifications.
Water service to this site is being proposed via an extension of water mains located in Sundance
and Quenzer Subdivisions and Ustick Road. This proposed development is situated directly north
of Us tick Road. Ustick Road is a booodary line between two zones of differing pressures. The
applicant shall be responsible to install a PRY vault, location to be coordinated with City of
Meridian Public Works. The applicant shall construct water mains to and through this proposed
development. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard fonns of easements, for any mains
that are required to provide service. Coordinate main size and routing with Public Works.
The applicant has not indicated who will own and operate the pressurized irrigation system within
this development. Underground year-roood 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-roood source of water. If the pressurized irrigation system within this
development is to remain a private homeowners' association system, complete plans and
specifications shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan
review process. A draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual shall be submitted
prior to plan approval. The applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water
for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the
culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is 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.
2.4
All existing domestic wells and/or septic systems appurtenant to the existing structures 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.
Hollybrook Subdivision
Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
2.5
The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of sewer and water assessments, as well as the
actual physical connection to the municipal services for the existing home on Lot 5, Block 1.
2.6
2.7
All grading of the site shall be perfonned in confonnance with MCC 11-12-3H.
2.8
A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping,
pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat.
Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed,
drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final
Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building pennits.
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.
2.10 Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
2.9
2.11 Two-hundred-fifty and one-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at
locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at
subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fIre hydrants. Final design
locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power
Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and pennit from the Public Works
Department prior commencing installations.
2.12 Submit any up-dated groundwater/soils monitoring data, as collected and analyzed by a soils
scientist, to the Public Works Department for review.
2.13 The applicant shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post OffIce.
2.14 Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
2.15 Applicant's engineer will be required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying that all
street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the highest established
nonnal groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of crawl spaces is one-
foot above this elevation.
2.16 The applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as detennined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat
per Resolution 02-374.
2.17 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.
2.18 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Pennitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
2.19 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Pennitting that
may be required by the Anny Corps of Engineers.
2.20 All grading ofthe site shall be perfonned in confonnance with MCC lI-12-3H.
Hollybrook Subdivision
Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT B
3.2
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
3.3.6
3.3.7
3.3.8
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
2.21 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.
3
3.1
MERIDIAN FIRE D EP AR TMENT
One and two family dwellings will require a file-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for
duration of2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 500'
apart. International Fire Code Appendix C
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.
Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 12" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec.
Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant
location.
Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers when spacing permits.
Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade.
Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5.
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 tW1l around.
All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius.
All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside and
shall have a clear driving surface which is 20' wide.
Operational fire hydrants, temporary or pennanent street signs and access roads with an all weather
surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site.
The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards cross section requirements and
shall have a clear driving surface, available at all times, which is 20' wide. Streets with less than a
29' street width shall have no parking. Streets with less than 33' shall have parking only on one
side. These measurements shall be based on the face of curb dimension.
The proposed 55-lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total
estimated population of 165 residents at build out.
3.10 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) 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).
3.9
Hollybrook Subdivision
Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT B
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
5
5.1
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
5.1.5
5.1.6
5.1.7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
3.10.1
3.10.2
For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m).
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).
3.11 Emergency response routes and fire lanes shall not be allowed to have speed bumps.
PARKS DEPARTMENT
Standard for Mitigation oftrees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape
Ordinance (MCC 12-13-13-6) will be followed.
Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in
the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance (MCC 12-13-13) will be followed.
The open ditch along Ustick Road shall be tiled and maintained in accordance with the City of
Meridian Landscape Ordinance.
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ACHD Site Specific Conditions of Approval
Dedicate 40-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Us tick Road abutting the parcel by means
of recordation of the final plat. The right-of-way purchase and sale agreement 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 pennit (or other required pennits), 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 if the owner submits a letter of application to
the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with the ACHD Ordinance
in effect at that time (currently Ordinance #200), if funds are available.
Construct a 5-foot concrete sidewalk on Ustick Road abutting the entire site. Construct the
sidewalk a minimum of 4 I-feet from the centerline of Us tick Road and provide the District with
an easement for the sidewalk.
Construct Curt Drive as one-half of a 36~foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and
sidewalk, as proposed.
Extend Washakie Street from the west property line approximately 395-feet south of the north
property line, as proposed.
Extend Washakie Street from the east property line approximately 130-feet north of the south
property line, as proposed.
Construct the internal streets as 33-foot street sections with rolled curb, gutter and 5-foot attached
concrete sidewalks on both sides ofthe roadway within 50-feet of right-of-way with the exception
of Washakie Street, as proposed. Submit a letter from the Meridian Fire Department that approves
the reduced street section.
Construct Washakie Street as a 33-foot street section with rolled curb, gutter and a 4 or 5-foot
detached concrete sidewalks on both sides of the roadway within 50-feet of right-of-way. Submit
a letter from the Meridian Fire Department that approves the reduced street section.
Hollybrook Subdivision
Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT B
5.1.13
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
5.2.6
5.2.7
5.2.8
5.2.9
5.2.10
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
5.1.8
Construct West AITowwood Way to intersect Ustick Road at the west property line to
DIRECTLY align with a roadway that is located on the south side of Us tick Road.
Construct one knuckle without a center island within the subdivision, as proposed.
Construct two cul-de-sac turnarounds without center islands within the subdivision, as proposed.
Construct the turnarounds to provide a minimum turning radius of 45~feet.
Modify the site plan to include traffic calming devices on Washakie Street and AITowwood Way
and submit the design to District staff for final approval.
Other than the access point that has specifically been approved with this application, direct lot
access to Ustick Road is prohibited. A note stating the access restriction to Ustick Road will be
required on the final plat.
Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
ACHD Standard Conditions of Approval
5.1.9
5.1.10
5.1.11
5.1.12
Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be
borne by the developer.
Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the
construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file
number) for details.
Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing
by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for
details.
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 ofIdaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building pennit
(or other required pennits), which incorporates any required design changes.
Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance
with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Impact Fee Ordinance.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The
applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The
applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days
prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic
Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during
any phase of construction.
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 confmnation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
Hollybrook Subdivision
Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
5.2.11
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 utÙess
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.
Hollybrook Subdivision
Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT B
C. Legal Description
'""""'"""'---""",, """""""
"""""'"
Boundal)' Descriotion
Hoflybrook Ll.C
A parcel located in the SW Y. of Section 31, Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a brass cap monument markíng the southwest comer of said SW Y. of
Section 31 (Section Comer), from which 5/8 inch diameter iron pin marking the
southeast comer of said SW Y. of Section 31 (X Comer) bears N 89"58'55" E a
distance of 2406.48 feet;
Thence N 89"58'55" E along the southerly boundary of said SW Y. a distance of
1630.09 feet to a 518 inch diameter iron pin and the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence leaving said southerly boUndary N 0"24'59" E along the easterly boundaries of
Sundance Subdivision No.4, as shown in Book 89 of Plats on Pages 10,226 and
10,227, records of Ada County, Idaho, and Sundance Subdivision No.2 as shown in
Book 86 of Plats on Pages 9,772 and 9,773, records of Ada County, Idaho, a distance
of 1919.30 feet to a 5/8 inch diameter iron pin marking the northeast comer of said
Sundance Subdivision No.2;
Thence along the southerly boundary of Sundance Place Subdivision No.3 as shown in
Book 91 of Plats on Pages 10,640 and 10,641, records of Ada County, Idaho, the
following described courses;
Thence N 89"59'47" E a distance of 320.60 feet to a 518 inch diameter iron pin;
Thence 5 33"47'07" E a distance of 280.75 feet to a 518 inch diameter iron pin;
Thence 5 80"10'04" E a distance of 298.83 feet to a 518 inch diameter iron pin on
the westerly boundary of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No.4 as shown in
Book 88 of Plats on Pages 10,105 thru 10,107, records of Ada County, Idaho;
Thence S 0"'6'52" W along said westerly boundary a distance of 307.74 feet to a 5/8
inch diameter iron pin on the northerly boundary of Weaver Acres No" 2 as shown in
Book 38 of Plats on Pages 3,203 and 3,204, records of Ada County, Idaho;
Thence S 89°49'28" W along said northerly boundary of Weaver Acres No.2 and the
northerly boundary of Weaver Acres No.1 as shown in Book 28 of Plats on Pages
1,745 and ',746, records of Ada County, Idaho, a distance of 653.56 feet to a 5/8 inch
diameter iron pin marking the northwest comer of said Weaver Acres No. ';
Thence S 0"'9'4'" W along the westerly boundary of said Weaver Acres No- , a
distance of 708.20 feet to a 5/8 inch diameter iron pin;
Hollybrook Subdivision
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
---------"--"'_.""'-~.--"'~"'-- "
'.'""",'_.~'-~"---~- -- -.
~-=-~='_"""'-'~"-""',"",,-'"'-""W,""""'C:"--'-"- ,,-- -'."'-.--'¡¡'¡
Thence leaving said westerly boundary S 0.13'57" Wa distance of 144.20 feet to a
point;
Thence N 89'58'43" E a distance of 328.02 feet to a 5/8 inch diameter iron pin on the
westerly right-of-way of Curt Drive;
Thence S 0'18'51" W along said westerly right-of-way a distance of 432.76 feet to a 5/8
inch diameter iron pin on the northerly right-of-way of Ustick Road;
Thence S 89.S8'S5" W along said northerly right-of-way a distance of 328.04 feet to a
5/8 inch diameter Iron pin;
Thence leaving said northerly right-of-way S 0"18'S9" W a distance of 40.00 feet to a
5/8 inch diameter iron pin on the southerly boundary of the SW 14 of said Section 31;
Thence S 89'S8'55" W along said southerly boundary a distance of 122.79 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING.
This parcel contains 1S.32 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use.
Clinton W. Hansen, PLS
Land Solutions, PC
March 22, 200S
Hollybrook Subdivision
EXHIBIT C
~S:
E5<ž
tPg'
::Jg
r¡:>;"
U1
g-
o..
<'
¡;;'
g'
\
!
I
I
I
I
I
¡
,
I
!
i
I
J6" Jl
I~
CIVIF 1Iisr:
IIIJOO2t!2J J
E, WÞ.SH1\KIf STI!m
POHrOl'
orG<N""",
16)(1,0;' USTiCK ROAD
-----
"", >Ii' 5 89'58'55' It
~
I
~
~
"
~
'"
"I~
i ~
.
~
j
¡"
.,
~
~
~
iiI
N
~
;;
.
i
~
!Ii:~: ow i
" a a
~ Ji ~ E. WASHAKIEmær
",'<> --
"'b &:
'" ::
, 2<tV"
I 5,,32 '\c~ES
!!!:!£
S 89'49'28" II'
!J!,;6J'
65J. 55 '
~
~
't
1
\
",,^'Æ-OACIIB
...",
!Ii:
~
~
~
~
~
'"
,
'"
Y\
1:
1::;
""
."
'"
1;
VI
::; LÞ<FtATIED
N 89"58'Q' £
J28,()2'
J
'I' t:
~ ~ a
... .'"
~ ~
'"
25'~""'lIIICEAS£.;;JL' r r
J28,04 , JI
j¿!~s 89'5855" II' J!iI'" X\?.::"- 1/< COlI
- '502' . ~'N¡;
N, AItROWWOOo W~Y
Hall YBROOK SUBDIVISION
LOCATED IN THE SW '/4 OF
SECTION 3 I, T4N, RIE, 8M,
MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
2005
0 150 300 600
lr-..I I
La~DlutjOl1S
~Land Surveying .md Consulting
23 I E. 51H ST.. STE. A
MERfDjAN, 10 8364 2
¡zœ 28f1.2010 1a>c(208) 28&2557
"""""',!andsoIUtIons.btz
0
>-3
-<
0
."
~
tT1
~
!2
~
"C
t""
~
Z
C'J
>
Z
tJ
N
~
Z
C'J
tJ
tT1
"C
>
;>:J
>-3
~
tT1
Z
>-3
[IJ
~
."
:I ~
"C
0
~
,0
c:
tT1
{I)
::i
0
z
[IJ
,""
r¡
>
t""
t""
Ñ
0
~
00
00
f'
VI
VI
'"
'"
D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance
1. ANNEXATION FINDINGS:
According to Ordinance 11-15 -11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both the
P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed zoning amendment in tenus 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;
See Comprehensive Plans and Policies as listed in the Hollybrook Subdivision staff report item
#7 above. Staff supports the zoning and finds the proposal in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
B.
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future;
Staff does not anticipate that the applicant intends to rezone the subject property in the future.
C.
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the fashion that
would be allowed under the new zoning -for example, a residential area turning into a
commercial area by means of conditional use permits;
Staff finds that single-family residential uses are allowed within the requested zoning district of
R-8. Medium Density Residential pennits the establishment of residential uses and is designed to
protect the integrity of residential development by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible
nonresidential uses. The accompanying plat demonstrates the land will be developed with lot
sizes, housing types and other dimensional requirements that confonu to the proposed zoning
designation.
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 recent residential developments to the north and west have been approved for
development similar to the proposed subdivision, with single-family residences. Development in
the area has limited the main trunk: sewer locations. CUITently sewer is available in E. Washakie
Street via Sundance Place Subdivision.
Based on the ACHD Long Range 2030 proposal, Ustick Road is anticipated to eventually be a
three lane roadway abutting this site. However, Ustick Road between Meridian Road an Locust
Grove Road is not cuaently included within ACHD's Five Year Work Program or in the
cuaently adopted 20-year Capital Improvements Plan for roadway improvements. The applicant
shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval for the site.
Hollybrook Subdivision
EXHIBIT D
CITY OF MERIDiAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
Local Streets Washakie Street and Curt Drive are ACHD rights-of-way and provide stub
connection to the property ACHD and the City of Meridian will require the proposed
development connect these roadways as proposed.
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;
Staff fmds that the requested zoning and proposed density is within the anticipated range for a
medium density urban project. Based on the Comprehensive Plan, staff believes that the existing
parcels in the area (south and north and west) have already developed with similar densities and
allowances for alternate products and designs are encouraged. Staff also finds that the proposed
zoning/uses can be designed and constructed in a manner that will be hannonious with, and
appropriate in appearance with, the existing and intended character of the sUITounding area.
The proposal meets the standards of MCC 12-13.16 Residential Subdivision Open Space which
states that "common space shall equal or exceed five percent of the gross land area of the
subdivision. This requirement shall apply to all single family residential subdivisions of five
acres or more." The common lots provide 39,766 sq/ft of open space which is approximately 6%
of the site.
The existing character of the area will not change as this is one of the final infill developments in
the vicinity. Staff does not find that the proposed zoning or uses will adversely change the
essential character of area. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on staffs
analysis, public testimony received and any comments submitted from any other agencies or
departments regarding whether this property should be annexed as proposed.
F.
Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring
uses;
Staff does not anticipate that the proposed residential uses will be hazardous as long as the
conditions outlined in this report are complied with and construction traffic and house
construction is conducted in a manner consistent with City Code.
Access to Ustick Road shall be taken through the extension of An-owwood Way as designed.
The proposed design creates a roadways section along the western properties in Weaver Acres
Subdivision. Staff has recommend the layout as proposed as all the lots within Weaver Acres are
on ISTS which have a life expectancy of approximately 30 years. These lots were platted in the
1970' s and staff has anticipated the need for future connections and annexations of Weaver Acres
Subdivision. The road layout should be the most cost effective solution and encourage
redevelopment of these properties.
The Commission and Council should rely on any public testimony (oral and written) when
detennining whether or not the proposed zoning and subsequent uses will be disturbing or
hazardous to the existing or future neighboring uses.
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;
Hollybrook Subdivision
EXHIBIT D
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
The applicant will be responsible for the extension of all sewer and water mains necessary to
serve this proposed development. Sizing and routing shall be coordinated with the Public Works
Department.
The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay park and highway impact
fees.
On June 17, 2005, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with representatives of
key service providers to this property. Based on the joint agency/department meeting and other
comments received from agencies/departments, staff finds that the public services listed above
can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. The Commission and Council
should reference any written and/or verbal testimony submitted by any public service provider,
regarding their ability to adequately service this project.
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, local street
infrastructure, utilities and inigation services to serve the project. The primary public costs to
serve the future residents will be fire, police and school facilities and services. Staff finds there
will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed zoning and
subsequent development will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare.
I.
Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production oftraffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
Staff finds that the proposed armexation and the development of single-family homes on this site
will not involve uses that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of
the sUlTounding area.
Staff recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision;
however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general
welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed annexation and subsequent uses will
create excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.
J.
Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to
create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets;
The applicant is proposing to construct one public street extension into the site from Sundance
Place Subdivision and continue the extension to Quenzer Commons Subdivision which will
connect Meridian Road with Locust Grove Road for further roadway cormections. ACHD is
supportive of the proposed stub street extensions as previously approved. The landscaping should
be designed in a manner to slow traffic flow to Ustick Road and reduce any traffic to Curt Drive
(the oruy connection for Weaver Acres Subdivision) If is designed and constructed as approved
by the ACHD and the City, staff does not believe that the subdivision will create interference
with traffic on the sUlTounding public streets. However, city staff would propose a design to
allow parking on at least one side of the street and approved by ACHD even if the design is
amended to reduce lots.
Hollybrook Subdivision
EXHIBIT D
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
K.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major
importance; and
There are some mature trees on this property. Any existing trees larger than 4" caliper that are
removed should be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance. Staff fmds that the proposed
development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural feature(s) of major
importance if developed under these conditions.
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)?
The R-8 zoning amendment will provide lots that are similar in nature to existing subdivisions in
the near vicinity. Staff finds that all essential services are available or will be provided by the
developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds.
The applicant is proposing to develop the land in general compliance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Staff does not recommend lot sizes that would be invasive to the
properties to the east of the subject property but the lot sizes should be transitional in nature and
allow additional residential densities and product opportunities for the general vicinity.
Subdivisions of medium density have already been approved for development to the north and
west and this is a logical expansion of the City limits for an infill project. In accordance with the
findings listed above, staff finds that annexation and zonine: of this property would be in the best
interest of the City.
2. PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS
Sections 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;
Staff finds that the proposed application is in substantial compliance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports the proposed layout as a practical solution to address the
constraints of infill development which has design criteria dictated by previous developments.
Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "A".
B.
The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
Staff finds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. (See
finding "G" under Annexation and Zoning Analysis for more detail.)
c.
The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program;
Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost,
staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds.
Hollybrook Subdivision
EXHIBIT D
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
D.
The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service
providers (i.e.~ police, fire, ACHD, etc.) to detenuine this finding. (See finding "G" under
Annexation and Zoning Analysis above, 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.
The proposed design creates a unique situation for properties in Weaver Acres Subdivision to the
east of the property. The nonual subdivision design would not allow creation of double fronted
lots (Arrowwood Way and Curt Dr). However the proposed design will allow existing lots to
have access to public services and provide a path of annexation for future development. Until
such a time as annexation would occur these lots require fencing along their rear yards as
proposed by the applicant.
Staff is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the
development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Councilor Commission's attention.
ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and
Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to detennine whether or not the
proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is
unaware.
3. CONDITIONAL USE FINDINGS
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed conditional use in tenus of the following and may approve a conditional use pennit if
they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (11-17-3):
Á.
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 and standard setbacks, as required by Meridian
City Code. See Special Consideration #1 below for detailed analysis.
Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested use and all
other required features. Although the site is large enough to accommodate all of the features
required by ordinance, the applicant has asked, through the Planned Development, to modify
specific development standards for Lots 2-17 of Block 4. The narrow nature of the north south
connection of the property creates a unique situation which would not have been able to be
addressed through nonual R-8 standards. Staff recommends that the considerations are approved
as requested. See Special Consideration #1 below for detailed analysis.
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;
Staff finds that the proposed single-family residential subdivision, with a gross density of 3.59
dwelling units per acre, is generally hannonious with and in accordance with the 2002
Hollybrook Subdivision
EXHIBIT D
H.
I.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533
Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, which designates the site to be "Medium Density
Residential" and "Low Density Residential" (provided the Commission and Council grant the
requested planned development). Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "A" above.
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" above.
D.
That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not
adversely affect other property in the vicinity;
Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely upon public testimony, staffs analysis,
and other agency comments when detennining if the proposed uses will 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;
Please see Annexation & Zoning Analysis "G" and "H" above, the "Other AgencylDepartment
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" above.
G.
That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare
by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
Please see Annexation and Zoning Analysis "1" above.
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 "]" above. The Commission and Council should
review any comments received from the ACHD provide for this project when detennining this
finding.
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" above.
Hollybrook Subdivision
EXHIBIT D
AGAINST NEUTRAL
r ./
/
J
CITY OF MERIDIAN RF:."J. VEl)
PUBLIC HEARING - 2005
SIGN-UP SHEET ~S~~~:: (3!~~i~ô~§_~~~'
DATE
September 1 , 2005
ITEM #
9
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 05-026
PROJECT NAME
Hollybrook Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE PRINT)
AL- 7~~
F \ 0 ,.,,)L<2. \>,j.Ù +-\-0... K \
FOR
v
~
f}CHSJ
v
~
v
vi
V
v
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN..UP SHEET
July 21,2005
DATE
ITEM #
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 05-026
9
PROJECT NAME
Hollybrook Subdivision
FOR
-
AGAINST NEUTRAL
Ì'
¡c
;<:
X
><
AZ 05-026
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Hollybrook, LLC
July 21, 2005
ITEM NO.
9
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from July 7,2005- Annexation and Zoning of 15.32
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision - 3265 N. Curt Drive & 540 East
Ustick Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
See previous item packet / minutes
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
~ '\~,
~d'X" Cb \ Ä \
:x?
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:
See attached comments
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS'IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted S\îm ¡J^ \J\(kJ-
Emailed:
Date:~
Staff Initials:
Phone: C@38/2 ' l( ^"--
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 69 of 110
Zaremba: We have three in favor, one opposed, and one absent. The motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Item 17:
Public Hearing: AZ 05~O26 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15.32
acres from RUT to R~8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook,
LLC ~ 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road:
Item 18:
Public Hearing: PP 05~O25 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 56
building lots and 6 common lots on 15.32 acres in a proposed R~8 zone
for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive
and 540 East Ustick Road:
Item 19:
Public Hearing: CUP 05~O33 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for single~family detached units and single~family
attached units with a request for reductions in lot sizes, minimum street
frontage and zero lot line side yard setback for Hollybrook Subdivision
by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road:
Zaremba: Thank you very much. Okay. I will open the Public Hearing now for AZ 05-
026, PP 05-025, and CUP 05-033, all relating to Hollybrook Subdivision and entertain a
motion to continue all three to our regular meeting of July 21 st, '05.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Yeah. I move that we -- move that we continue public hearings for AZ 05~026, PP
hearing 05-025, and CUP hearing 05-033, to our regularly scheduled meeting of July
the 21 st. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: And in anticipation that we will finish our agenda tonight, I would suggest
about a six minute -- six to eight minute break. We will reconvene in a few minutes.
(Recess. )
~~-.
.,¿tIff ~ -~""'7 ~ ~ ~
~
t3ø~utt;, ~
John S. Franden, President
Sherry R. Huber, 1st Vice President
David Bivens, 2nd Vice President
Carol A. McKee, Commissioner
Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner
July 6, 2005
RECEIVED
JUL 1 2 2005
To:
Hollybrook LLC
1150 East Ustick Road
Meridian Idaho 83642
City of Meridian
City Clerk office
Subject:
Hollybrok Subdivision
56-Lot Residential Subdivision
3265 North Curt Drive
On July 6, 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 208-387-6177.
Andrea N. Tuning
Planner III
Right-of-way & Development Services, Planning Division
CC:
Project file, Construction Services, Utilities
City of Meridian
Erickson Civil
5293 North Shubert Avenue
Meridian Idaho 83642
SLN Planning
52 North 2nd Street
Eagle Idaho 83616
Ada County Highway District. 3775 Adams Street. Garden City, ID . 83714 . PH 208-387-6100 . FX 345-7650. www.achd.ada.id.us
.J ~ Right-of-Way & Development Services
.;f -i~ .....i'~ Planning Review Division
~"-
(h,~ ut -;(Ø ~
This application required Commission action due to the fact that the neighbors expressed concerns with this
development. This item was scheduled on the regular agenda on Wednesday July 6, 2005 at 12:00 noon.
Tech Review for this item was held with the applicant on Friday June 10, 2005. Please refer to the
attachment for request for reconsideration guidelines. Staff contact: Andrea N. Tuning, 208-387-6177-
phone, 208-387-6393-fax, atuninq@achd,ada.id.us
File Numbers:
Hollybrook Subdivision
Site address:
3265 North Curt Drive
Owner! Applicant:
Hollybrook LLC
1150 East Ustick Road
Meridian Idaho 83642
Representative:
Erickson Civil
5293 North Shuebert Avenue
Meridian Idaho 83642
Application Information:
The applicant has submitted an application to the City of Meridian requesting annexation, rezone, conditional
use and preliminary plat approval to construct a 56-lot single-family residential subdivision on 15.32-acres.
The site is currently zoned RUT and is proposed to be rezoned to R-8. The site is located on the north side
of Ustick Road between Locust Grove Road and Meridian Road.
Acreage: 15.32-acres
Current Zoning: RUT
Proposed Zoning: R-8
Buildable Lots: 56-lots
Common Lots: 6-lots
Vicinity Map
I
r--l
I-.J
I
1
2
A.
Findings of Fact
1.
Trip Generation: This development is estimated to generate 540 additional vehicle trips per day (20
existing) based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual.
2.
Impact Fees: There will be an impact fee that is assessed and due prior to issuance of a building
permit. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that
time.
3.
Traffic Impact Study: A traffic impact study was not required with this application.
4.
Site Information: The site currently has two existing single-family residential dwellings.
5.
Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area:
a. North: Sundance Subdivision
b. South: Bedford Place Subdivision
c. East: Weaver Acres Subdivision
d. West: Sundance Subdivision
6.
Impacted Roadways
Ustick Road:
Frontage: 730-feet
Functional Street Classification: Minor Arterial
Traffic count: West of Locust Grove Road 11,065 on 7-14-04
Level of Service: Better than C
Speed limit: 40 MPH
An acceptable Level of SetVice for this segment of roadway is Level of Service D based on
COMPASS Planning Thresholds
Washakie Road:
Frontage:
Functional Street Classification:
Traffic count:
Speed limit:
50-foot
Local
Not Available
20 MPH
7.
Roadway Improvements Adjacent To and Near the Site
Ustick Road is improved with 2-traffic lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. There is
sidewalk that is located to the south, east and west of this site.
Curt Drive is improved with 32-feet of pavement with no curb. gutter or sidewalk abutting the site.
8.
Existing Right-ot-Way
Ustick Road has a total of 73 to 88-feet of right-of-way (25 to 40-feet from centerline).
Curt Drive has a total of 50-feet of right-of-way (25-feet from centerline).
9.
Existing Access to the Site
The site has an existing 12-foot wide driveway that intersects Ustick Road approximately 90-feet east
of the west property line. This driveway serves the existing single-family dwelling on Ustick Road.
The site has an existing 12-foot wide driveway that intersects Curt Drive approximately 90-feet north
of Ustick Road. This driveway serves the existing single-family dwelling on Curt Drive.
10.
Site History
The District has not previously reviewed a development application on this site.
2.
3.
4.
3
11.
Capital Improvements Plan/Five Year Work Program
This segment of Ustick Road is not included in the Five Year Work Program but is included in the
District's Capital Improvements Plan. Ustick Road is identified as project # 84 and is anticipated to
reconstruct Ustick Road to provide 5-traffic lanes with vertical curb, gutter and a detached 5-foot
concrete sidewalk within 96-feet of right-of-way in the year 2015.
B.
Findings for Consideration
1.
Right-at-Way - Ustick Road
District policy requires 96-feet of right-of-way on arterial roadways (Figure 72-F1 B). This right-of-way
allows for the construction of a 5-lane roadway with curb, gutter, 5-foot concrete detached sidewalks
and bike lanes.
.
Ustick Road is anticipated to be reconstructed to a five lane roadway in the future. Typically
the District requires development abutting an arterial roadway to dedicate 48-feet of right-of-
way from the centerline of Ustick Road. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 40-feet of
right-of-way and is proposing to construct the sidewalk within an easement located 41-feet
from centerline. Although this is not standard practice, the District is supportive of the
applicant's proposal due to the fact that all of the roadway improvements will be placed within
the right-of-way and a sidewalk will be constructed in its ideal location.
Sidewalk - Ustick Road
District policy requires 5-foot wide (minimum) concrete sidewalk on all collector streets (7204.6.5).
. The applicant should construct a 5-foot concrete sidewalk on Ustick Road abutting the site.
Construct the sidewalk a minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of Ustick Road.
Improvements on Curt Drive
District policy 72-F1A, 7202.3.2 and 7202.3.5, requires that residential collectors be constructed as
36-foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks with no front-on housing.
The access restrictions for these street segments should be stated on the final plat. Unless otherwise
noted, parking should be prohibited on these street segments. Coordinate the signage Program with
District staff.
. The applicant is proposing to construct Curt Drive as one-half of a 36-foot street section with
vertical curb, gutter and sidewalk. This street section meets District policy and should be
approved with this application.
Roadway Offsets
District policy 7204.11.6, requires local roadways to align or offset a minimum of 300-feet from an
arterial roadway (measured centerline to centerline).
. The applicant is proposing to construct West Arrowwood Way to intersect Ustick Road at the
west property line. This roadway is proposed to align with a roadway that is located on the
south side of Ustick Road. This street location meets District policy and was approved by the
Commission on Wednesday July 6, 2005.
District policy 7204.11.6, requires local roadways to align or offset a minimum of 125-feet from
another local roadway (measured centerline to centerline).
. All of the internal streets meet or exceed District policy and should be approved with this
application,
7.
4
5.
Stub Streets
District policy 7205.5 states that stub streets will be required to provide intra-neighborhood circulation
or to provide access to adjoining properties. Stub streets will conform with the requirements
described in Section 7204,5, 7204.6 and 7204.7, except a temporary cul-de-sac will not be required if
the stub street has a length no greater than 150-feet. A sign shall be installed at the terminus of the
stub street stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". In addition, a stub
street must meet the following conditions:
. The applicant is proposing to extend Washakie Street from the west property line
approximately 395-feet south of the north property line. This stub street was originally
approved and constructed as a part of Sundance Subdivision. This stub street was
anticipated to extend with the development of this site. Staff is supportive of the extension of
this stub street.
. The applicant is proposing to extend Washakie Street from the east property line
approximately 130-feet north of the south property line. This stub street was originally
approved and constructed as a part of Quenzer Commons Subdivision. This stub street was
anticipated to extend with the development of this site. Staff is supportive of the extension of
this stub street.
6.
Internal Street Improvements
33-Foot Street Section within 50-Feet of Right-of Way
District policy 72-F1 A, allows local residential public roads with a 33-foot street section with parking
on both sides of the roadway, if the amount of vehicle trips per day on the street does not exceed
1,000 and the appropriate fire department reviews and approves the street section. The proposed
density of development that will utilize the internal local residential streets is anticipated to generate
less than 1,000 vehicle trips per day.
. The applicant is proposing to construct the internal streets as 33-foot street sections with
rolled curb, gutter and 5-foot attached concrete sidewalks on both sides of the roadway within
50-feet of right-of-way with the exception of Washakie Street. Washakie Street is proposed to
have a detached concrete sidewalk to match what was constructed with Heritage Commons
Subdivision. These street sections meet District policy and should be approved with this
application. To receive final approval for this street section, the applicant should submit a
letter from the Meridian Fire Department that approves the reduced street section.
33-Foot Street Section within 40-Feet of Right-of Way - Modification of Policy
. The applicant originally proposed to construct West Arrowwood Way as a 33-foot street
section with rolled curb, gutter and sidewalk on the east side of the roadway and vertical curb
and gutter on the west side of the roadway within a total of 40-feet of right-of-way. The
Commission required the applicant to construct Arrowwood Way as a 33-foot street section
with rolled curb, gutter and a 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk on both sides of the roadway.
The applicant should submit a letter from the Meridian Fire Department that approves the
reduced street section.
Knuckles
District policy District policy 7202.7 and 7207.5 and the local Fire District standards require an island
within a knuckle to be constructed with the island being a minimum of 4-feet wide with a minimum
area of 1 DO-square feet and designed to safely channel traffic. The roadway around the traffic island
should maintain a minimum of a 29-foot street section. The design should be reviewed and approved
by ACHD's Development staff.
. The applicant is proposing to construct one knuckle without a center island within the
subdivision. Staff is supportive of the location of the proposed knuckle.
3.
4.
5.
6.
s
8.
Cul-de-Sac Turnarounds
District policy 7205.2.1 requires turnarounds to be constructed to provide a minimum turning radius of
4S-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 1 OO-square foot area.
. The applicant is proposing to construct two cul-de-sac turnarounds without center islands
within the subdivision. The applicant should construct the turnarounds to provide a minimum
turning radius of 45-fee1.
9.
Traffic Calming
On Wednesday July 6, 200S, the Commission approved this development application with the
addition of traffic calming devices on Washakie Street near the connection to the Heritage Commons
Subdivision and the Sundance Subdivision. The Commission also required traffic calming devices on
Arrowwood Way.
10.
These traffic devices were required due to the straight nature and the length of these roadways. The
applicant should modify the site plan to include traffic calming devices and submit the design to
District staff for final approval.
Other Access
Ustick Road is classified as a minor arterial roadway. Other than the access point that has
specifically been approved with this application, direct lot access to Ustick Road is prohibited. A note
stating the access restriction to Ustick Road will be required on the final plat.
c.
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.
Dedicate 40-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Ustick Road abutting the parcel by means of
recordation of the final plat. The right-of-way purchase and sale agreement 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 if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to
breaking ground, in accordance with the ACHD Ordinance in effect at that time (currently Ordinance
#200), if funds are available.
2.
Construct a 5-foot concrete sidewalk on Ustick Road abutting the entire site. Construct the sidewalk
a minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of Ustick Road and provide the District with an easement for
the sidewalk.
Construct Curt Drive as one-half of a 36-foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and sidewalk, as
proposed.
Extend Washakie Street from the west property line approximately 39S-feet south of the north
property line, as proposed.
Extend Washakie Street from the east property line approximately 130-feet north of the south
property line, as proposed.
Construct the internal streets as 33-foot street sections with rolled curb, gutter and 5-foot attached
concrete sidewalks on both sides of the roadway within 50-feet of right-at-way with the exception of
Washakie Street, as proposed. Submit a letter from the Meridian Fire Department that approves the
reduced street section.
6.
7.
8.
9.
6
7.
Construct Washakie Street as a 33~foot street section with rolled curb, gutter and a 4 or 5~foot
detached concrete sidewalks on both sides of the roadway within 50-feet of right~of-way. Submit a
letter from the Meridian Fire Department that approves the reduced street section.
8.
Construct West Arrowwood Way to intersect Ustick Road at the west property line to DIRECTLY align
with a roadway that is located on the south side of Ustick Road.
9.
Construct one knuckle without a center island within the subdivision, as proposed.
10.
Construct two cul-de~sac turnarounds without center islands within the subdivision, as proposed.
Construct the turnarounds to provide a minimum turning radius of 45-feet.
11.
Modify the site plan to include traffic calming devices on Washakie Street and Arrowwood Way and
submit the design to District staff for final approval.
12.
Other than the access point that has specifically been approved with this application, direct lot access
to Ustick Road is prohibited. A note stating the access restriction to Ustick Road will be required on
the final plat.
13.
Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
D.
Standard Conditions of Approval
1.
Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
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.
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.
Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements
of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with
Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Impact Fee Ordinance.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of~way. The
applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant
shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800~342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking
ground within ACHD right~of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387~6190 in
the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction.
1.
2.
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.
ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an
undue burden on the existing vehicular transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the
proposed development.
Attachments
1.
2.
3.
7
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Request for Reconsideration Guidelines
...--.-,."",, ,-- -..".,....---- .".",.
-."."........--..-."" "....---...""..---..-....., ",.. ,. --.
"""---.-...-
~
8
-.1l1li"",,-
-""""-..........
T'
,
~
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HOll YBROOK SUBDIVISION
SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST,
BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
2005
~
¿", -.-
, ¡-o..o,..o- ~ J
LEGEND I -_an.... ;p.o
....... --... ---- I ,..~:=~ I
""""'" --
--
-.... ---- I
'"'-
""""1nØ
"""".....
"""".......
- -.... 0 umOK-
!IIDIIII"""
-...- 4
""""111m
.
VlC4N1TY MAl'
N-T-9
~,,1-
~i~,1
~
USTlCKRQAD
HAlFCW1ÐTH WlCENI~
N-T-S
~
j i
fE'" :"'--'
"'-......... ... --. .....
--_"""'0-
-""""-~
fO'_""
-...-
~J>
~
ST~ÐAAII5O' lOCAl8TRE£T SECnDN
(CURB, GUTTER & 81CEWAlK PD!>T1DN
N-T-9
M( DJFIED 33/.40 MINOR lOCAl
SmEET SECTION WI S'DEWAlKDNWEST",œ
N-T-9
ST~C""D 33I!!D MINOR lOCAl
STREET SECTlCN
N-T-9
NOTES
, , """"""'" - "" «:<IUm)
1 ......, -- u'"' - .... ....... -. ,- Y "'--
~ RTDOIIII""" -.,-,-
~ ......_""""'""
~ """-.'UO""
8 '------""'"""'"'"""-
"-I.LOn. ......". -"""""'-_WA"""'",
~""':!r~~n,¡:,~-
--
", _TD"""""",,----
-""""""(SD:œwrACTwo.-
a 1IWFIC w... '" - ........... -.. ""
R--a_.........- ""011:--.....
.... ICUJH "'" ..... ..., <- ........ ., AT .... -.. '"
0"'.:<:- '" - AND -,... -..
a "'- rÞ."'" -- ... -
.....- -- - ...... ........... --
PlllUCrntŒI!I.""""""""
,. .......,..... AS '"""-
""",. '0
...... ,~
- ... ¡o..._-
" "'-"-IF__~
'" ........-------
._""""""-""'"
.-. .......... - .. .........". ..
"'---.I--lOO,_."....,.
-- ~""---..a.....",,-
-----....moo
..--...........,...""-
.. -'-""PIIIUC_.....--.
-_IF____,.,."..."""""
"-""""""-"""Y.-~,-
"""""""",""."""""""""""".",
"'- R ---.... "" ." IF ....... "-
fiR "to.....", ......"'" -.- ,,""'-
'0 ""0 b """"b. ""..""'. ""'.". "" "
.. " AND "" I?, .. . .... .....'" .... "'., .... ..
.... AND ""1MCI .. ... .......... --
'8 """'" LOT ... b <- .... LOT ", .. . .... .........
,-"" 10"'", """'" _YO""", ""....
- '" .....- ..., .""""""" '" ...........
""'""'" ,-
I?" """"'-.......r.............."TIO"-""'"
.. ro~
LOT SUMMARY
"""'--""""
10"",,- "'-""" 0"
-"'"""""",,,,""
""""" !Dr .... - ... """
i =':;~';'":n""" ¡"'O¡
_LOt..,.."" "'"'""'""
........ , - UIf ....". . 111T tNIII""
.......,-""........,.....",""
........ .... 0 0-0 (P>MOC ......-..~
OEVElOPER f
OWNER O~ Re=RC
"""-_lLC
...., """"""'-
"...."""""'"-
-"""""-,
OJ!!
:1 II
~1 wi
~i]~1
c
0
:~ 0
.~ ~
:8'§
::1-
en c"
.J1t. ,~
~:g
.c C1)
~:::¡¡:
Õ
:I:
Coo", 3/2!.0
O..""B~ r
C-ocIl~ r
FIo: þ~",
lANe ÞlANNER
""""""'..T.....,II«:.
...."""""""
..~".,.......
"""""""""
EN<I'NEER
"""'-""
~Ir«:
,.....--..-
.........."""'-
--
PROFESSIONAl
lANe SURVEYOR
woo_.....
"""""'-""""'II«:.
"'E,,""".,,"".'
_lO-
r...........
S~~~~~~~R ""OF-
PRESSURe IRRIGATION --
SERV~CE PROV10ER OEmER-s-<IOTIa<
PUBLIC ROADWAY8
-1XUfTY_y".."
9
Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action
1.
Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action: A Commissioner, a member of ACHD staff
or any other person objecting to any final action taken by the Commission may request
reconsideration of that action, provided the request is not for a reconsideration of an action previously
requested to be reconsidered, an action whose provisions have been partly and materially carried
out, or an action that has created a contractual relationship with third parties.
a. Only a Commission member who voted with the pJevailing 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.
.._n_..___----.
e. At the meeting where the original m~tter 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.
Development Process Checklist
II
II
t8JSubmit a development application to a City or to the County
t8JThe City or the County will transmit the development application to ACHD
t8JThe ACHD Planning Review Division will receive the development application to review
t8JThe Planning Review Division will do Q.Og of the following:
DSend a "No Review" letter to the applicant stating that there are no site specific requirements at this time.
DSend a "Comply With" letter to the applicant stating that if the development is within a platted subdivision or part of
a previous development application and that the site specific requirements from the previous development also appl:
to this development application.
DWrite a Staff Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating thE
proposal for its conformance to District Policy.
t8JWrite a Commission Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and
evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Policy.
t8JThe Planning Review Division will hold a Technical Review meeting for all Staff and Commission Level reports.
DFor ALL development applications, including those receiving a "No Review" or "Comply With" letter:
. The applicant should submit two (2) sets of engineered plans directly to ACHD for review by the Development Revie..,
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, includint
but not limited to, driveway approaches, street improvements and utility cuts.
DPay Impact Fees prior to issuance of building permit. Impact fees cannot be paid prior to plan review approval.
DID YOU REMEMBER:
Construction (Zone)
0 Driveway or Property Approach(s)
. Submit a "Driveway Approach Request" form to Ada County Highway District (ACHO) Construction (for approval by
Development Services & Traffic Services). There is a one week tumaround for this approval.
0 Working in the ACHD Rlght.of-Way
. Four business days prior to starting work have a bonded contractor submit a "Temporary Highway Use Permit Application" to
ACHD Construction - Permits along with:
a) Traffic Control Plan
b) An Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan Designer, if trench is >50' or you are
placing >600 sf of concrete or asphalt.
Construction (Subdivisions)
0 Sediment & Erosion Submittal
. At least one week prior to setting up a Pre-Con an Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan
Designer, must be turned into ACHD Construction - Subdivision to be reviewed and approved by the ACHD Drainage
Division.
0 Idaho Power Company
. Vie Steelman at Idaho Power must have his IPca approved set of subdivision utility plans prior to Pre-Con being scheduled.
0 Final Approval from Development Services
. ACHD Construction - Subdivision must have received approval from Development Services prior to scheduling a Pre-Con.
10
;:
;t~11
c{{;~di:Jl ~ J', TRANSMITTAlS TO AG ENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON
IDAHO tDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
j)
"Jo insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by
19P3 the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission please submit your
comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall
MAYOR
Tm~1my de Weerd
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
Christine Donnell
Charles M. Rountree
Shaun Wardle
CITY DEPARTMENTS
Fire
540 E. Franklin Road
888-1234 / fax 895-0390
Parks & Recreation
11 W. Bower Street
888-3579 / fax 898-5501
Planning
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 202
884-5533 / fax 888-6844
Police
1401 E. Water tower Lane
888-6678 / 846-7366
Public Works
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 200
898-5500 / fax 898-9551
- Building
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 150
887-2211 / fax 887-1297
- Wastewater
3401 N. Ten Mile Road
888-2191 / fax 884-0744
- Water
2235 N.W 8th Street
888-5242/ fax 884-1159
Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: June 30, 2005
Transmittal Date: June 1,2005 File No.: AZ 05..026
Hearing Date: July 7, 2005
Request: Public Hearing - Annexation & Zoning of 15.32 acres from
RUT to R..8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision
By: Hollybrook, LLC
Location of Property or Project:
Road
3265 North Curt Drive & 540 East Ustick
- David Zaremba (no FP) \1',-', -. ~ Meridian School District (No FP)
David Moe (no FP) ,h.J ¡, !' , "Meridian Post Office(FP/Pp only)
=Wendy Newton~Huckab~~J1\J9JPnl" MER~DJ~ty Highway District
- M;~hael Rohm (No FP) u _:- ,-.,- ...~.Y Development Services
Keith Borup (No FP) -", ',¿ ."~_J~-"cMtM district Health
-Tammy de Weerd, Mayor -Nampa Meridian Irrig. District
- Charlie Rountree, CIC - Settlers Irrig. District
- Christine Donnell, CIC -,daho Power Co. (FP,PP,CUP)
- Keith Bird, CIC - Owest (FP/PP only)
- Shaun Wardle, CIC -Intermountain Gas (FP/PP only)
- Water Department - Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PP only)
~Sewer Department == Idaho Transportation Dept. (No FP)
Sanitary ServiceS(Ng VAR, VAG, FP) Ada County Ass. Land Records
- Building Department - Meridian Development Corp.
= Fire Department - Historical Preservation Comm.
Police Department
- City Attorney
- City Engineer
~ City Planner
= Parks Department
Your Concise Remarks:
CITY HALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433
CITY CLERK - FAX 888-4218 CITY ATTORNEY / HR - FAX 884-8723 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING - FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE - FAX 884-8119
Printed On recycled paper
7 - 7--0~
HIt)
~ & ~ 'l~ 'Dueua
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208"463-0092
21 June 21, 2005
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
William G. Berg Jr., City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 -EasUdaho Ave.--
Meridian, ID 83642
RE:
PP 05-025 & AZ 05-026/Hollybrook Subdivision
~RECEIVED
JUN 2 '? 2005
Dear Will:
City OfMeridiarl
(;ity Clerk Office
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above referenced application
for Preliminary Plat approval nor on the application for Annexation and Zoning for
Hollybrook Subdivision.
Sincerely,
i3 ~ J!-~
Bill Henson
Asst. Water Superintendent
N amp a & Meridian Irrigation District
BH/dbg
C: A. Damberger
File - Office/Shop
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS" 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
From: Shawn Nickel [shawn@landconsultants.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 9:43 AM
'Anna Canning'; guenthej@meridiancity.org; greent@meridiancity.org; bergw@meridiancity.org;
johnsonj@meridiancity.org
Cc: ross@ericksoncivil.com; bond@bondcampbell.com
Subject: Hollybrook Sub Postponement
To:
1". ~
Ii 11 ' ,
,
[-{-05
S1tvVL :ttn, ¡g4¡9
Jessica Johnson
Greetings All.
We have worked out the details with ACHD on the connection of the Hollybrook Subdivision to Ustick Road. The
result is a minor revision to the plat that will require us to lose a couple of lots. Therefore, a new public noticing for
the last revision that showed an increase in the lot count is not necessary. So, because of this, we are asking for
tonight's public hearing for Hollybrook Subdivision, scheduled before the Planning and Zoning Commission, be
postponed to the July 21 st hearing. We will have a revised preliminary plat to the Clerk and Staff early next week.
Thank you all for your cooperation. Please call me with any questions at 794-3013. Shawn
RECEIVED
JUL 0 7 2005
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
7/7/2005
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE
July 7, 2005
ITEM #
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 05-026
PROJECT NAME
RECEIVED
JUL 0 i' 2005
City of Me"1~~3n
City Clerk OthH
17
Hollybrook Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE PRINT)
[lA/Die- / 0 æJ5
FOR
{lifr
AGAINST NEUTRAL
~
~-
V
J
~
v-
~'
v
V
---./
~
L.--
-/".
v
CITY OF MERIDIAN
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the
Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian,
Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 7, 2005, for the purpose of reviewing and
considering the application AZ 05~026 of Hollybrook, LLC for Annexation and Zoning of
15.32 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision;
Furthermore, the applicant requests the application PP 05~025 for Preliminary Plat
approval of 56 building lots and 6 common lots on 15.32 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Hollybrook Subdivision; and application CUP 05-033 for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for single-family detached units and single-family attached units with a
request for reductions in lot sizes, minimum street frontage and zero lot line side yard setback
for Hollybrook Subdivision located 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road.
A more particular description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at"
Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, and is available for inspection during regular
business hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
A copy of the application is available to review upon request. Any and all interested
persons shall be heard at said public hearing, and the public is welcome and invited to submit
testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Written materials
should be submitted to the City Clerk no later than seven (7) days prior to the above hearing
date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to the hearing. All materials
presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring
accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City
Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 72 hours prior to the public meeting.
The Ada County Highway District may also conduct public meetings regarding this
application. If you have questions about the traffic that this development may generate or the
impact of that traffic on streets in the area, please contact the Ada County ÃJighway, .i~~~""
387-6170. ., ',.' .~Qf,~~~~.!
DATED 181 of June, 2005" ".",." tl~\~ '~\
4P--.: I: ,#' ""() ~
. ~
. - 'I;
WILLIAM G. BERG, ., TY LE KSBAL ; ~:
PU BLI S H 20~ of June and 4 ~ of July, 2005 . ~~~ . "'..~I
~-=:= "J
~ø
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
July 7,2005
AZ 05-026
APPLICANT Hollybrook, LLC ITEM NO. 17
REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 15.32 acres from RUT to R-8 zone
for Hollybrook Subdivision - 3265 N. Curt Drive & 540 East Ustick Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
See memo for deferral
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
No Comment
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
No Comment
SETTLERS'IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
~\)\ t~ ¡vj~
~l.ti
J~ Î' I~cb
l1íù
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See letters from concerned citizens
Contacted: ~AvÔJ'-- /.1 iLJ?¿Q Date: "'7 ~ / O~ Phone: 73 8 - 38/ ;r }f"Y"v.
Emailed: Staff Initials: f.-Je..
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Pagelofl
Jessica Johnson
From: Joe Guenther [guenthej@meridiancity.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05,200510:29 AM
To: 'Jessica Johnson'; 'Tara Green'; 'Machelle Hilr
Subject: FW: Hollybrook Sub Postponement
From: Shawn Nickel [mailto:shawn@landconsultants.net]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 12:08 PM
To: 'Anna Canning'
Cc: guenthej@meridiancity.org; ross@ericksonclvil.com; bond@bondcampbelLcom
Subject: Hollybrook Sub Postponement
Anna, as representative for Bond Campbell, please accept our request to postpone the public hearing for
Hollybrook Subdivision, scheduled for the July 7, 2005 agenda. As you are aware, we are working with our
neighbors and redesigning the southern portion of the plat based upon their input. The second issue Is working
with ACHD on alignment issues with Ustick Road, an issue that will probably be resolved by next Wednesday.
And finally, these revisions have allotted us two additional residential lots, so are-noticing ofthe hearing would be
in order. All ofthese outstanding issues have made it necessary for a delay. Therefore, please reschedule us for
the next hearing date (July 21 ?), as these issues will most Ukely be resolved by then.
Sincerely,
Shawn L. Nickel
7/5/2005
L----- --n
-'
Date: July I, 2005
l~F'i(""E . . "',-.
-- , /.,.Jj -.JIV11,,~IJ
JUL 0 5 2005
TO:
City of Meridian Planning & Zoning
From: Homeowners on Curt Drive, Ada County
:}ity Cfr\1-¡:,"-1: -
C:¡i:.'~r CI(~';_-{ '-Ô1U~¡~~:"
RE: Hollybrook Subdivision.
We, the undersigned, all being residents of Weaver Acres Subdivision and presently
living on Curt Drive which is the neighborhood most directly affected by the above
planned subdivision would like to hereby request that the concerns brought up in the
body of this memo be addressed by Meridian Planning and Zoning Department prior to
any approval being granted to this subdivision.
The developer has requested a conditional use penn it for the Hollybrook subdivision. The
conditional use permit would allow Hollybrook Subdivision to be zoned RS. The
Hollybrook development would adjoin directly to the west of Weaver Acres and directly
to the east ofthe Sundance subdivision. Weaver Acres is an established subdivision
zoned RI with 1 dwelling per acre and Sundance subdivision, also an established
subdivision is zoned RS.
The homeowners of Weaver Acres feel the issuance of a permit allowing a zoned R8
development to adjoin and butt up against an established RI development is inconsistent
with current Meridian adopted zoning practices for development in Meridian and impact
area. If approved, this variance, in addition to being inconsistent with CUlTent Meridian
adopted zoning practices, would also be in direct contradiction to the intent of the
adopted Meridian Comprehensive Plan of2002.
The homeowners of Weaver Acres are in agreement with the intent of the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and with the current adopted Meridian PZ zoning practices. We feel
that the development resulting with the approval of this permit would not allow for
sufficient transition and buffering between and an RI zoned development and an RS
zoned development.
Therefore, the homeowners of Weaver Acres respectfully request that the proposed conditional
use permit for R8 zoning of Holly brook development be denied. At a minimum, to remain
consistent with CUlTent zoning practices and to maintain the integrity and intent of the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan, the Meridian PZ should require that the Hollybrook development be zoned
as R4. As stipulated above, this would allow for the gradual progression and transition from
density level to density levels.
We have additional issues with the access that the developer is requesting from ACHD
and have addressed our concerns to ACHD; a copy of the petition to ACHD is attached
for your review as well.
Signature page attached,
,>/-
P&Z
Signature list of Homeowners on Curt Drive in support of letter to
Meridian Planning & Zoning dated 7/1/05 regarding HollyBrook Subdivision
Name
Address
Amy 3479 Curt
Ed Bennett 3401 Curt
Cynthia Betz 3502 Curt
Eldon Betz 3502 Curt
Dennis Bingaman 3387 Curt
Dana Bingaman 3387 Curt
Lyle Briscoe 3538 Curt
..Anita Briscoe 3538 Curt
Brockett 3425 Curt
Brockett 3425 Curt
Devinaspe 3466 Curt
Carol Evans 3465 Curt
Phil Garvin 3390 Curt
Renee Garvin 3390 Curt
....
Matt Gerosin 3280 Curt Drive
..
Mimi Gerosin 3280 Curt Drive
Ri~ Harkins 3370 N. Curt
Laura Harkins 3370 N. Curt
Gary Hoffpauir 3504 Curt
Steven Kolstad 3540 Curt
Dana Kolstad 3540 Curt
Walt McCurdy 3400 Curt
Bonnie McCurdy 3400 Curt
Mike Morrison 3405 N. Curt
'I¡.
Benicia Morrison 3405 N. Curt
Tom Murri 3575 Curt
Nancy Murri 3575 Curt
Irene Ogle 3545 Curt
Hal Putnam 3450 Curt
Kathy Putnam 3450 Curt
Ron Roberts 3525 Curt
Page 1
.-- -. OJ
../---
P&Z
Linda Roberts 3525 Curt
Lynne Skinner 3503 N. Curt
Paul Spirk 3534 Curt
Joanne Spirk 3534 Curt
Mary Westby 3373 Curt
Mike Westby 3373 Curt
Rick White 3317 Curt Drive
J8nie White 3317 Curt Drive
\., ~2'1L Wiedenheft 3479 Curt
"j,{~r
(')I(ei dk I f\ 'le,-V ~'?o3 ¡.) C IJ/f :P r-
Page 2
""-.
-.'
Date: June 30, 2005
TO:
Ada County Highway District
From: Homeowners on Curt Drive, Ada County
Petition to Ada County Highway District regarding Hollybrook Subdivision.
We, the undersigned, all being residents of Ada County. Presently living on Curt Drive
which is the street directly affected by the above planned subdivision would like to
hereby request that the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) review their
recommendation that the only access to the subdivision be via Curt Drive.
It is our understanding that:
1. ACHD would allow access to Ustick via Arrowwood if the developer constructs
Arrowwood Way as a standard residential collector. We would like this optiou
to be given further consideration. (Section C, Item 7)
2. Trip generation figures (540) only take into consideration the houses added by the
development and does not include the present homes on Curt Drive (23 Homes)
or the traffic generated by homes that will be given access to Curt Drive via the
opening of Washakie Road. We believe this access will be used by up to 40
additional homes. Per Mr. Shaun Nickel, Land Consultants, LLC, standard
allowance is 10 trips per household. Based upon this figure we believe that would
bring the trip generation up to 1170 per day (540 + 630 (63 homes x 10
trips/Day». This brings the trip generation on Curt Drive from 230 to 1170 an
increase of over 500%. (Section A, Item 1)
3. As Curt Drive (Weaver Acres Subdivision) has existed for over 30 years we are
well aware of traffic patterns and have concerns that traffic accessing Hollybrook
Subdivision through Curt Drive will overflow down and around Curt Drive
bringing additional road noise and traffic flow fTom individuals looking for
Hollybrook. Additionally, as traffic increases on Ustick Road as it approaches the
intersection with Meridian Road and its 4-Way stop, drivers will seek shortcuts to
their destination and Curt Drive will bear its share of that additional load.
4. Presently, Meridian School District bus routes stop at Curt Drive and Ustick to
pick up primary and secondary students. We are concerned that the additional
traffic will create a safety hazard for our children.
5. The developer has requested a modification of policy (Item 6) to eliminate a
sidewalk on the west side of Arrowwood Way. We have concerns that this will
effectively eliminate any landscaping on the west side of the street, which will
-"
have no aesthetic value or appeal and trap debris and trash against the fence.
(Section B, Item 6)
6. How will Stop signs be placed to route incoming and outgoing traffic??
7. In our review of this application Section B, Item 6, it appears that the developer is
asking to provide a less than standard entrance to his subdivision, therefore the
solution for the developer is to direct traffic to Curt Drive eliminating his need to
meet the standard. We have expressed our concerns regarding this in Item 5
above but feel we must reiterate that this does not meet ACHD policy or standard
and do not support this change.
Summary: The Homeowners living on Curt Drive are adamant that Curt Drive not be
the only means of accessing Hollybrook Subdivision. The developer has a
responsibility to his development as well as to his future neighbors to provide a safe
as well as aesthetic entrance which will not diminish property values of the future
development or existing neighborhoods. We do not feel that the present application
(draft) presents the best means of accessing the new development and would like to
encourage the developer to revisit the possibility of accessing Ustick via Arrowwood
Way as a standard residential collector.
All homeowners on Curt Drive have signed this request that ACHD may know and
understand our concerns.
CC: , City of Meridian .."PlaJW4,g,AZoDÏng
Signature page attached.
,-'
Sheet2
Signature list of Homeowners on Curt Dñve in support of petition to
ACHD dated 6/30105 regarding HollyBrook Subdivision
Name
Address
Amy 3479 Curt
Bennett 3401 Curt
Cynthia Betz 3502 Curt
Eldon Betz 3502 Curt
Dennis Bingaman 3387 Curt
Dana Bingaman 3387 Curt
Briscoe 3538 Curt
Briscoe 3538 Curt
Brockett 3425 Curt
Brockett 3425 Curt
Rob Devinaspe 3466 Curt
",,) Carol Evans 3465 Curt
Phil Garvin 3390 Curt
Renee Garvin 3390 Curt
Matt Gerosin 3280 Curt Drive
Mimi Gerosin 3280 Curt Drive
Rid( Harkins 3370 N. Curt
Laura Harkins 3370 N. Curt
, Gary Hoffpauir 3504 Curt
Steven Kolstad 3540 Curt
Dana Kolstad 3540 Curt
Walt McCurdy 3400 Curt
Bonnie McCurdy 3400 Curt
Mike Morñson 3405 N. Curt
Benicia Morrison 3405 N. Curt
Tom Murri 3575 Curt
Nancy Murri 3575 Curt
Irene Ogle 3545 Curt
Hal Putnam 3450 Curt
Kathy Putnam 3450 Curt
Ron Roberts 3525 Curt
Page 1
.....- ;-' -<;
Sheet2
Unda Roberts 3525 Curt
Lynne Skinner 3503 N. Curt
Paul Spirk 3534 Curt
Joanne Spirk 3534 Curt
Mary Westby 3373 Curt
Mike Westby 3373 Curt
Rick White 3317 Curt Drive
Jemie White 3317 Curt Drive
~ Wiedenheft 3479 Curt
Cò..evr S~\V'-~r ~96s~. ~t,{t
Page 2
June 26, 2005
R,"ECEIVED
.JUN 3 0 2005
c:.~itv Of Men"a.
n.tU , , Jan
'~1 "Y Clerk Office
Meridian City Planning & Zoning Commission
33 East Idaho Street
Meridian, ID 83642
Ada County Highway District Commissioners
3775 Adams Street
Garden City, ID 83714
Dear Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commissioners & ACHD Commissioners:
We are writing in opposition of the proposed Hollybrook Subdivision located near the
intersection of Curt Drive and Ustick Road and surrounded by the Sundance
Subdivision, Heritage Commons Subdivision and residents on Curt Drive. While we are
in favor of developing the land behind our property, we are against the Hollybrook
Subdivision as proposed for the following reasons:
1. The proposed plat only shows a five-foot landscape buffer between the back of
the curb of the Hollybrook Subdivision's entrance street and the Sundance
Subdivision boundary along Weston Way. This is less than the ten feet
recommended buffer for local roads by Meridian City Code 12-13-10-4. The
landscape buffer should actually be 20 feet which is the recommended buffer for
collector roadways since that is how the proposed entrance road will function
since it is a 1400 foot straight street connecting directly to Ustick Road. Please
notice that the residents of the proposed Hollybrook Subdivision have a 10-foot
landscape buffer along their local streets. The existing residents in Sundance
Subdivision should be given the same consideration. Also recent research by
ACHD's Maintenance & Operations Department has shown that a five-foot
landscape strip is inadequate and that trees planted in a five-foot landscape strip
cause considerable damage to the curb, gutter and sidewalk.
2. Because the developer is trying to fit a street, patio home and an inadequate
roadway buffer into a narrow 120-foot strip of land, the proposed entrance street
is only 33 feet wide in a 40-foot right-of-way with sidewalk only along the east
side of the street. This is not in compliance with the Ada County Highway
District's 35-foot local street section in a 50-foot right-of-way with sidewalks on
both sides of the street or Meridian City Code 12-5-2 that also requires sidewalk
along both sides of the street. Even with the 33 foot reduced street section and
no sidewalk on the west side of the entrance street, the applicant is still asking
for a reduction in the standard lot size and only a 15-foot front yard setback. A
15-foot front yard setback will likely mean that any cars parked in the driveway
will encroach on the sidewalk and force the pedestrians into this reduced street
section. And with no sidewalk on the west side of the street, pedestrians will be
forced to walk in the street on the west side as well. Therefore, we end up with a
reduced street section with cars parked on both sides of the street, pedestrians
forced to walk into the street and not enough clear distance for emergency
vehicles.
3. The proposed Hollybrook Subdivision's entrance street and Washakie Street,
which will connect the Sundance Subdivision to the Heritage Commons
Subdivision, are both too long and too straight for local roads. The Hollybrook
Subdivision's proposed entrance street would be over a % mile long while
Washakie Street will be over a 1/3 mile in length when it is connected from
Heritage Commons to Sundance. Neither are in compliance with Meridian City
Code 12-4-5 that limits local streets to 1000 feet in length. Furthermore, Section
5104.2.7 of ACHD's policy manual states that any local street with a traffic
volume greater than the 50 in the peak hour traversing a 700-foot long tangent
section may trigger development funded traffic calming measures.
4. The traffic report in the development application talks about the concerns of
traffic on Curt Drive without a direct connection to Ustick Road, yet makes no
mention of the impact to the Meridian City residents of the Sundance Subdivision
with having a % mile long street five foot from their backyards and fences.
I would like to make the following recommendations to the City of Meridian and Ada
County Highway District before the preliminary plat for the Hollybrook Subdivision is
approved:
1. The developer should meet with the City of Meridian, the Ada County Highway
District and the neighboring residents to determine what other options exist with
the narrow 120 foot strip of land or even if this piece of land is able to be
developed. The surrounding residents should not have to live with the first
inadequate design that is presented. Perhaps that land could be converted into a
common lot, drainage pond or a neighborhood park. Another option that should
be presented to the residents would be to switch the street to the Curt Drive side
and the homes to the Sundance side that would allow for future redevelopment
or lot splits by the residents of Curt Drive.
2. The landscaped buffer between the Hollybrook Subdivision's entrance street
right-of-way and the Sundance Subdivision boundary should be increased to
meet the appropriate requirements.
3. The entrance street's horizontal alignment should be shifted to the east so
sidewalk can be installed on both sides of the street.
4. The length and alignment of both Washakie Street and the entrance street need
to be reexamined. Both streets are too long and too straight for local streets.
This will do nothing but increase vehicular speeds. However if both of the
roadways are approved as proposed, development funded traffic calming
measures should be required or road trusted for.
5. The 33-foot street section for the entrance street should be reexamined. Current
ACHD policy requires a 35-foot street section with parking on both sides,
however a 29-foot street section with parking on the east side only should also
be considered. The 29-foot section with parking on one side only actually gives
more clearance for emergency vehicles (21 feet) than the 33-foot section with
parking on both sides (17 feet). The 29-foot section street section would also
give another 4 feet of buffer between the entrance street and the Sundance
Subdivision as well as help slow down the vehicular traffic.
6. Vertical curb should be installed on the west side of the Hollybrook Subdivision's
entrance street to help protect the fences along the Sundance Subdivision.
We are also enclosing a petition with the signatures of each of the affected residents of
the Sundance Subdivision who are against the Hollybrook Subdivision as it is currently
proposed and would like to see other options presented before it is approved.
Thank you for your valuable time. Please take our comments into consideration when
reviewing the proposed preliminary plat for the Hollybrook Subdivision.
Sincerely,
/fi;~~
~~
Shawn and Denise Martin
3620 N. Weston Way
Meridian, ID 83642
~'
Petition to Protest the Hollybrook Subdivision as Proposed
Petition sumrrlary and
background~""
.' Adîõh petitioned
Hollybrook Subdivision Preliminary Plat
We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to act now to deny the Hollybrook Subdivisipn a straight
V4 mile connection to Ustick Road and to increase the five foot landscape buffer behind the Sundance Subdivision to
acceptable standards.
Printed Narij'E!
n - n
- - n
- - ---
Signatúrè'-
Addr~~~'
~,'Comment
'0"-1
i W
'------
\l ~,,5 \OM
v\.-~~c ~~lOlù to
¡WvCÖÌ\
.35
7-S-1~ i\ 'N'!í-r-o... W
ð~lf() N. IV e5 Jf9n W/íl
/'
4.Z2-N ' We j 1wJ ()J.t
tLocße,
\1\ "'~1-... ~()\\c."
[)~ten
He.n F !c;w (1d €5 6-J.4-[JS
~ ti((ll¡J (C¡()zS /;; ~~1
I\{;
(
~_J~
..? > ;7., /\/ tI' ð"fJ/ 11 r/ é.
5J YZ- ;ii, f"L/e
/1
1'1'
.r'? -
. I.".
.5. v-l~!; b{Cts,,7
l e- +hø.. QlA ~ (\
I
d
'<- '
It ,
b It
-
"
-
"
IA
1u
0 1/)1'
II
b - JI./-()C
II
II
~..~
~-
'::> ~
. ,.
/, &.
cr
, L--,....-7
) ~ ~
v. s. I:'
S V' 5
w
C\
OJ
~
G'"
;."'"
'-'
~
'-'
~
f
E
~
-'-
\~ ;,"
L- ~ ~ ",:,4'""""
e, ~ ,,-"s~;;:
'" ~ ~ ~I
; ;E -- ;,:,~',:
<'Z':
'^ ç}', """,,"
'>- '::-"3'"
-t"<t:. -:;:.. """="" '¡"('D"" ,
v" ""t-'"' .....) ",' ',I,!'
, ~ F
~" I~ r-
0,\-
~ ~
~
VJ
a..
<:)
~
~
,
t
l.
r
;>
}:.
~
'1
I:U) ,
~ 't,
I,jj1:
~
c::-..
11\
~
w
~
ö
~
~
~
~
~
~)
t
~
r
("
~
I"~
"' '