Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMedford Place Sub AZNovember 28, 2005 AZ 05-042 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING December 1, 2005 APPLICANT Dyver Development, LLC ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from October 6, 2005 -- Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.63 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Medford Place Subdivision -- 3335 South Eagle Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Minutes See attached Memo No Comment Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. S -n CITY OF MERIDIAN Planning Department Memo To: Planning & Zoning Commission _ From: Craig Hood, Associate City Planner CC: Applicant, Anna Canning, Bill Nary, Project File Date: November 28, 2005 Re: Medford Place Subdivision (AZ -05-042, PP -05-043, CUP -05-044) Applications for 12-1-05 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting On October 6, 2005 the Commission voted to continue AZ -05-042, PP -05-043 and CUP -05-044, for Medford Place Subdivision to December 1, 2005. The basis for continuing Medford Place was to give the applicant time to complete and submit a revised annexation and zoning application. The subject applicant failed to submit a complete, revised annexation application in time to send out notices to property owners for the December 1, 2005, continued hearing. Therefore, staff has sent out notices to property owners within 300 feet of Medford Place notifying them of the next available hearing date, December 15, 2005. Staff requests that the Commission open and continue AZ -05-042, PP -05-043 and CUP -05-044 to December 15, 2005. 1 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 60 of 85 Borup: 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. And as earlier requested, we have gone well past our 9:00 o'clock traditional break and we will take a break at this point and reconvene -- let's make it 15 minutes. (Recess.) Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 05-042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.63 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Medford Place Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — 3335 South Eagle Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: PP 05-043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential building lots and 8 common area lots on 8.57 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Medford Place Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — 3335 South Eagle Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 05-044 Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for Medford Place Subdivision that includes reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage by Dyver Development, LLC — 3335 South Eagle Road: Zaremba: All right. We will reconvene our meeting this evening and let the record show that all Commissioners are again present and I will open the public hearings for AZ 05- 042, PP 05-043, and CUP 05-044, all relating to Medford Place Subdivision and we will begin as usual with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject applications are for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit for a planned development consisting of 29 build -able lots and eight common other lots on 8.57 acres. The site is located, as you can see, on the overhead on the southwest corner of Eagle and Victory. The adjacent properties are pretty much rural residential as you can see around. Across the -- across Eagle Road the city did recently approve a two -lot subdivision. The existing single-family house is going to stay and, then, they are proposing some assisted living. They are capable of self-preservation, a retirement community there on the south side of Falcon Drive. There is a future elementary school planned in this location. Messina Hills Subdivision -- this aerial is a little bit old. You can see the overlay of the actual lots in Messina. Some of those homes are there today. That was Maxfield Subdivision. I'm sorry, I forgot the name of that, but Maxfield Subdivision there. Pretty much everything else around it is still rural residential, zoned Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 61 of 65 RUT in Ada County. Just a couple of things on the proposed development. The applicant is proposing 22 single-family lots. All of those lots -- I guess I should note, first off, before I get too far looking at the plat, the original preliminary plat, the one that you had in your packet, did have a street that aligned with Falcon Drive. Subsequent to the transmittals going out, ACHD met with the applicant and at least one neighbor in this area, about their concerns about Falcon Drive and traffic in the area, specifically getting in and out of Falcon Drive. The entrance into this subdivision has subsequently been moved to the south property line or just near the south property line, so my comments in the staff report were based on this revised drawing changing that street location and some other minor changes that are also called out in the staff report, but I did just want to make you aware of that. So, the 22 single family home lots are, basically, on the west side of the main north -south road in the development all on this side and, then, when you get to the northwest corner of the development, the multi -family -- or multi- family units, seven of them along Eagle and -- six along Eagle, I guess, and one along Victory Road, four-plexes, so there is 28 multi -family units, for a total of 50 dwelling units on the eight plus acres. There were a couple of things that in the staff report were called out as needing clarification. I guess just to jump to the chase, the staff is recommending that the action by this board be a couple of things, I guess, or at your discretion based on the public hearings and how you feel about this development. Long story short, the applicant submitted a rezone application -- annexation application for a zone that does not allow multi -family dwelling units. So, the city cannot approve this development as submitted. So, the options you have are to either limit them through the planned development ordinance to a maximum of 20 percent of the site being used for multi -family or to have -- require the applicant to submit a new application, if you like this design, basically, for an R-15 zone for the eastern portion of this site and come back before you, because we do need to notice those neighbors that it is a higher zone that's being requested. Basically be the same development, but the zoning and city ordinance just does not allow it as proposed. So, with that -- and without getting into some of the other tot lot and private open space and dumpster locations, I guess I will leave staff comments at that, unless you want me to go into further descriptions on those. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, questions or further knowledge you need at this point? All right. Thank you. We will ask for the applicant to come forward, please. Amar: Thank you, Mr. Commissioners and Madam Commissioner. For the record, my name is Kevin Amar. Address 36 East Pine in Meridian. And I'm here tonight representing Medford Place Subdivision. It is a 29 -lot subdivision, 50 dwelling units. And when we first acquired this property we approached the city and were actually approached by some of the neighbors thinking that this area -- my pointer is a little weak tonight. But this area in here would be an ideal spot for some sort of commercial or light office and was informed that -- that the Comprehensive Plan is for medium density residential, up to eight dwelling units to the acre and the city would in no way support light office. So, we are proposing -- and have met with the neighbors on numerous occasions -- a residential zone, but maintaining this transition from Eagle and Victory, which, admittedly are busy, highly traveled areas, with a multi -family unit and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 62 of 85 transitioning into a single family detached unit in this area. In the neighborhood meeting -- we had a neighborhood meeting and, then, met with the neighbors on various occasions to discuss this project and have here tonight three of the neighbors who -- I'm going to speak for them and they can correct me if I'm wrong -- I believe are primarily concerned -- they were the ones that requested the relocation of the access from ACHD and we did comply and the primary concern, I believe, is the traffic, which we all understand is an issue. Overland Road -- or, I'm sorry, Victory and Eagle are slated to be improved. They will follow the Cloverdale and Victory intersection improvements and is on the ACHD five-year plan and is actually a funded project. So, it is in the process of being signalized and improving this road, as well as Victory, for a better -- now it's just a four way stop. It will be a signalized intersection. As I stated, we had a neighborhood meeting and we probably had a dozen neighbors there. But I believe after speaking with them and talking about our intent and the type of the building we were doing and the type for the four-plexes, which I do have a picture, that satisfied many of them and -- thank you very much. This is, actually, a picture for the four-plex, so when you look at it it looks more like a single-family dwelling. There is an entry point at this location and, then, from there there is a vestibule inside that you can enter into the actual units or go upstairs and enter into the other units. Our intent was to create more of a residential feel, rather than a commercial or a multi -family feel and is this what we are proposing to build out there. There may or may not be a door there, but it will be the same -- the same look. It will have porches on it, on the four-plexes, and the balance of the project, the single family homes will also be strongly encouraged to incorporate that same porch design, so it gives more of the -- the old town -- people sitting on their porches and enjoying the neighbors and the whole area. We have 5.8 dwelling units per acre. We have got 19 percent total open space, which is almost two acres. Twelve percent is actually usable open space. So, it exceeds the five percent. We have requested a PUD with this application and in the PUD one of staffs comments was with respect to this tot lot in this location and I'm referencing the colored map now. They were concerned that the tot lot was from the rest of the project. We are, actually, proposing two separate tot lots, one in this location and one in this location, to provide areas in both the north and the south. And, then, another comment was also this pathway that would connect to the future school site, which we are also proposing a pathway to connect the future school site. So, I believe all the concerns with respect to the staff report -- we are in agreement with the staff report. When we submitted the PUD, we submitted it as an R-8 PUD and did not realize that you were not allowed, in any event, to have multi -family or a four-plex unit. We have met with Craig and staff and came to the determination -- and I believe staff said it best -- that they would rather the application stay the same and submit for an R-15. In doing that, my proposal would be to -- with the development agreement still limit the density to the density we have here. We are not trying to increase the density within an R-15, we are just complying with the applicable rules for this project. I believe with that I would stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 63 of 85 Borup: Just a quick question on the rezone area. Unless I misunderstood, Craig, do they have the option of just zoning the property on the perimeter, the R-15, and leaving the other R-8? Was that your intention, then? Amar: That was our intent and I'm sorry I wasn't clear. Borup: Okay. Amar: So, the area that has the four-plexes would be the R-15, the balance would remain at R-8. Borup: Okay. Amar: But I know the neighbors will be concerned that somebody may come in and not do four-plexes and do something else. My intent would be to put that in the development agreement and limit it to the density of whatever it is, 5.83 units to the acre and we still have the same project. Borup: And with the same style of four-plex. Amar: Correct. And that can be referenced also. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members -- Zaremba: Yes, Mr. Hood. Hood: -- of the Commission, I just -- just a couple things. One, with the rezone application, just so the applicant knows, typically that rezone will go to the center line of the roadway, so if that's the way that the Commission is leaning, if you could just make that clear, that we need a new legal description with the -- the zone should go to the center line of the roadway. The second thing that I guess I -- just so this will make the next hearing that much quicker, this is the only elevation that you did submit and I was curious if this is the front elevation and, in fact, if the front is towards Eagle Road or if this is towards your internal and if, in fact, either way, what does the back look like, I guess, because one of them is going to be facing Eagle Road, so what our people -- the majority of the people that are driving by are going to be seeing -- is it this elevation or is there another elevation? Amar: This elevation, actually, will be seen by the interior streets. This property is unique in that the elevation of the property is significantly lower than the -- both Eagle and Victory. So, that from Eagle and Victory, especially up in this corner, although they are two story dwellings, I mean they won't appear to be two story, just because the -- right now the property is about eight to ten feet below the road. With the future road improvements it will be four to six feet below the road, which still means your building is only going to be seeing a portion of it and what we have proposed is to screen this access with trees and different things. So, our intent is that we don't want a lot of vision Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 64 of 85 to the four-plexes from Eagle. I can get elevations of the rear, but I really hope that we don't even see the rear of the elevations from this project. We will be fencing it with a six foot vinyl fence and, then, also putting those -- that landscaping and so, hopefully -- obviously, you're going to see them, but it will be less obtrusive than a two story dwelling on the road. Zaremba: Let me ask the mechanics. I, actually, would be interested in seeing an elevation of what are the -- the people on Eagle going to see and if that's the back, then, that isn't this, but it sounds like there is a mechanics of -- I guess I'm not talking about mechanics. A timeline. If you apply to actually make this portion of it the R-15 and we want to keep all of it together before it goes to the City Council, I would assume, we are at some point going to continue our current discussion and where do we think we are going to continue to, and at that time could you bring a rear vision -- or an Eagle side vision, is what I would ask for. So, the first question to you is can you do that by the time we hear it again? Amar: Yes, I can. Zaremba: And the question of staff is when is that likely to be? Hood: Tomorrow. Amar: Okay. Hood: No. No. Amar: If you can get it done my tomorrow, I will have the -- Zaremba: In the morning? I have an appointment in the afternoon. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, we anticipate if the applicant can get us that rezone application by the 15th -- or, actually, the 14th of this month, which is next Friday, the first of December would be that hearing. So, if we have a complete application -- which we anticipate -- a rezone application is pretty -- you have the application pretty much filled out already, so a new legal description would need to be prepared, but we anticipate December 1 st, if you can continue the other two items to the December 1st hearing and, then, let that rezone catch up, we can, again, hear these items or the continued items and any rezone application on the 1 st of December. Amar: And that's -- Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: That's acceptable? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 65 of 85 Amar: That's acceptable. The thought with bringing it forward still tonight was that notice has already gone out to the neighbors, so we might as well have our discussion tonight. Zaremba: Sure. Amar: One thing I did not mention was with respect to fencing. I mentioned it briefly on both Victory and Eagle. That will be a six-foot vinyl fence, a solid fence, and, then, adjacent to all the common areas will actually be a four -foot vinyl -- solid vinyl fence. I know that was a topic of discussion in the last hearing and I didn't want that to be a question in this hearing. Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, any other questions? All right. Thank you. Amar: Thank you. Zaremba: Also signed up is Bob Aldridge. Thank you. Aldridge: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Bob Aldridge, 3300 Falcon Drive. Let's see. I don't have a pointer. Zaremba: Here, you can use mine. Aldridge: I'm right there. And I'm probably the most affected neighbor in terms of partially the vision line, but especially the traffic. I have been living there for over 20 years now and our problem is right here. When I come out in the morning there is traffic stopped from here clear back down passed Tuscany. I get in when somebody lets me come into that solid line. That was our concern and that's why when initially the ACHD requested a hearing, which would have been held yesterday and, then, had a meeting with staff and with the developer and we felt that moving the road down here would alleviate a lot of that problem, because we were really concerned about people coming to this and trying to come across and merge into this traffic that right now is stopped and when the light comes in is going to be moving at a fair rate of speed and we think that will alleviate a lot by having that road. So, that was my major concern with the project and we wanted to make sure it was kept. We also want to urge the Commissioners to continue to look at the traffic problem on Eagle. Right now the intersection's going in -- and that's in the five year plan, but the only road improvements between Victory and Amity aren't scheduled until 2011 -- until 2017 and that's increased to a three lane road. So, we are considerably out and only to a three -lane road. You have got five heavy lanes of traffic coming from the north, funneling down -- you're approving a lot of projects on out south. The Kingsbridge, for example, is breaking ground right now just over across the road, It's been approved on its first phase. So, there is going to be a lot of traffic on Eagle and there has got to be an overall plan to affect that put in place. I think between ACHD and the city they are going to have to figure out what's going to happen with Eagle Road or we are simply going to go right back to having massive problems like we now have north of the freeway. And so that's, really, the second part Meridian Planning & zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 66 of 85 of coming before you is to request that you look at that as you go through other projects and as you interact with ACRD. We do like the design. I was one of the neighbors that thought it should be some sort of office, et cetera, that -- you know, for 15 years at least I thought that's where it was going to go, but we understand that both ACHD and the city simply don't want that to happen, they believe it should be residential. And so if it's going to be residential, we think this is a good design and a good use of the property. Be happy to answer any questions. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much. Let's see. That covers everybody that was signed up, although if somebody else would care to speak -- sir, come forward. Hartenstein: Thank you. My name is Mark Hartenstein. I had attempted to live at the southeast corner, which is 32 South Eagle Road, which is a piece of property my family has purchased about a year and a half ago. I currently live at 601 Beacon Street, just for the record. I plan to move to that corner location and operate a law practice and do a home office and live in the back. I found the location so noisy that I thought it would be impossible to live there. I bring that to your attention partly because we are trying to figure out what to do with the corners, since we don't think it's suitable for residential. And I know as you probably may or may not be aware, we will be coming back before the Commission sometime in the next few weeks -- I think on the 17th as part of this Eagle Road Alliance, thinking that the area should probably be offices and possibly some neighborhood or community retail and I would like to comment on Bob Aldridge's observation. There is an enormous amount of development going on south that's largely residential. It will contribute a lot of additional traffic coming toward that intersection and the intersection is already extremely busy, extremely backed up and I urge the Commission and any notes that can go back to ACHD to try to get higher -- move up the priority of moving that road from two or three lanes to five lines certainly as far back as Amity and certainly in as short of time frame as currently planned. And I think with that that's all my final comments. If you have any questions I would be glad to address them. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. Anybody else care to add anything? Yes. Come forward. Krasinski: Good evening. My name is Chantelle Krasinski and I live at 3475 East Falcon Drive. I'm the last house on Falcon Drive. And I just -- my only comment -- the previous speakers have echoed my ideas on traffic and I have spoken before the Commission before about that. The only thing I would like to add is if we are going to go with a zone of R-15 there, I would just be concerned as you continue to approve things on the south side of Victory, that that doesn't become the norm. I think R-15 is appropriate if -- I think that the four-plexes look nice that that right there on that busy intersection, that makes sense to buffer, you know, the residential, but I just wouldn't want that to become the standard as we move forward and go along south there of Victory. So, that would be my only comment. Thanks. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 67 of 85 Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Borup: I agree with that. Zaremba: Anybody else care to comment? Okay. Mr. Amar. Amar: Thank you. I will be very brief. I appreciated working with the neighbors. It's actually been -- at the ACHD meeting I think it was Mr. Aldridge said this is the easiest controversial meeting I have ever had. Something to that effect. It improved the project. Listening to the neighbors actually did help and we have moved the traffic away from their drive and I do appreciate their help and think we'd like to continue forward. I know we have got to make another application with the R-15 zoning, if that's your decision and that's what I have requested this evening. Zaremba: Any questions? Borup: A minor question. Since this is a CUP, you have shown us a picture of the four- plex, which is wonderful. We have been talking about trying to get something like that in the city for a long time. But I assume from what you said that the single-family homes are Craftsman style? Amar: Yeah. They will be Craftsman style. They will be encouraged to have porches - - not required, but certainly encouraged and the different architectural relief that that brings. Borup: All right. Thank you. Zaremba: I guess this isn't actually an issue for your application and maybe staff would want to weigh in on this, but I can agree with the consensus of the neighbors that along Eagle Road that may be more appropriate to be something other than residential. I don't have a problem with what you're proposing, but I agree that the bulk of the properties facing Eagle Road are probably going to need to be office or neighborhood commercial or something like that and I don't know whether staff has forecasting -- I know that's not what the Comprehensive Plan says at the moment, but as we grow we learn things that need to change in the Comprehensive Plan. Any opinion from staff? Hawkins -Clark: Chairman, I guess I'm somewhat -- I don't know, maybe the attorney said -- since there is a pending application to discuss that exact issue and this meeting wasn't noticed to discuss this area -- I mean I certainly can give you a summary of what that is, but I guess I'm -- Borup: Or we could wait until -- Hawkins-Clark: -- wondering if that's appropriate. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 68 of 85 Zaremba: So, perhaps I'm out of line to ask that question. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, you're not necessarily out of line, but it would be our advice that you hold off on that discussion until it's up for discussion on the 17th. Zaremba: And the point is made, anybody that's interested in that subject, it is coming up on Monday, the 17th, at 7:00 o'clock. So, I will hold off my questions on that and it didn't apply to this application anyhow, so -- Amar: Then I won't respond. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from anybody? All right. Thank you. Amar: Thank you. Rohm: My question really is if we are going to -- if the applicant's going to apply for a new preliminary plat with an R-15 -- or just a change -- Borup: Just change the zoning is what they need to change. Rohm: So, then, all three of these can just be continued? Zaremba: I think so. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: As a group. And to our first meeting in December; is that what we were suggesting? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's what I would recommend and if by chance we don't have the application, we can just continue it out for another two weeks or four weeks or whatever. Rohm: That will be it. Zaremba: That would be December 1st. Hood: But I did just want to make one note that the two applications -- we will need two new legal descriptions, one for what's remaining on R-8 -- proposed R-8 and one that's R-15. So, probably the new application -- it may just be easier to have a new annexation and zoning application with two separate zoning requests, rather than -- because the old one was for 8.57 acres of all R-8 and the new application would just be for 8.57 acres and four of it's R-8 and four of it's -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 69 of 85 Rohm: That's why I was asking if we -- we wouldn't continue something that's not going to continue. Hood: Correct. Rohm: Just close those out and, then, the package would be re -noticed and re -- issued new numbers for the December 1st meeting. Hood: But just for the annexation and zoning. The preliminary plat and the Conditional Use Permit can be continued to the 1 st and the other one you can -- I don't know -- what should we do with the other one? I'm not even -- Rohm: That's why I was asking the question. Zaremba: Mr. Baird, do you have a -- Newton-Huckabay: Deny it. Zaremba: We could ask the applicant to withdraw it. Baird: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think in order to give staff the maximum flexibility if we continue it, then, they can -- at an administrative level they can either withdraw it, amend it, supplement it -- does that make sense to you over there? I'm getting nods. So, basically, if our action is to continue it, they can make the appropriate changes and bring it back at that date certain. Zaremba: So, continue all three as is. Yeah. As it. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue AZ 05-042, PP 05-043, and CUP 05-044 to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of December 1st, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 05-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 60 single-family residential building lots and 4 common area lots on 23.9 acres in a R-4 zone for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 14 by October 3, 2005 AZ 05-042 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 6, 2005 APPLICANT Dyver Development, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 9.63 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Medford Place Subdivision - 3335 South Eagle Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See attached Staff Comments See attached Comments OTHER: Seemttached Affidavit of Postin Contacted: VJ Date: l Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF IDAHO ) COUNTY OF ADA ) RECEIVE SEP 2 6 2005 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK r err I, Mike Arnold Premier Sic ins,Inc 2100 E. Fairview Avenue Suite 7 855-0380 (name) (address) (phone) Meridian Idaho , being first duly sworn upon (city) (state) oath, depose and say: I personally posted the subject property with the hearing notice sign 10 days prior to the public hearing for the Medford Place Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat for 29 residential lots with common lots. Total of 50 units; Annexation and Zoning to R-8• and CUP for Planned Development on 8.57 acres. Dated this 24th. day of _ September , 2005 ( ignature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. RUTH ZAHORIK NOTARY PIJBL.IC N ary Public f r aho STATE OF IDAHO Residing at / My Commission Expires: Master\afd-posting ... .rf T;�'I�. ;yea,' 4,.a;$•. '�fi!� !-.. �., ii,d W.4 .+ - '1 , a(4r ... vim. _`" ... .rf T;�'I�. ;yea,' 4,.a;$•. '�fi!� !-.. �., ii,d W.4 .+ TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON :. IDAHO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN y.. To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by 1003 9D03 MAYOR the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission please submit your Tammy de Weerd comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: Se tember 29, 2005 Keith Bird Transmittal Date: September 14, 2005 t=ile No.: AZ 05-042 Christine Donnell Hearing Date: October 6, 2005 Charles M. Rountree Shaun Wardle Request: Public Hearing - Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.63 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Medford Place Subdivision CPI'Y DEPARTMENTS Fire 540 E. Franklin Road By Dyver Development, LLC 888-1234 / fax 895-0390 Location of Property or Project: 3335 South Eagle Road Parks &Recreation 11 W. Bower Street 888-3579 / fax 898-5501 Planning David Zaremba (no FP) Meridian School District No FP) 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 202 David Moe (no FP) Meridian Post Office(FP/PP only) 884-5533 / fax 888-6844 Wendy Newton-Huckabay (No FP) Ada County Highway District Michael Rohm (No FP) _ _ _Ada County Development Services Police Keith Borup (No FP) ipl District Health 1401 E. Watertower Lane Tammy de Weerd, Mayor NaOp�a Meridian Irrig. District 888-6678 / 846-7366 Charlie Rountree, C/C Settlors Irrig. District Public Works Christine Donnell, C/C Idaho Power Co. (FP,PP,CUP) 660 E. Watertower Lane Keith Bird, CIC Qwest TP/PP only) Suite 200 aun Wardle, C/C lrotermountain Gas (FP/PP only) 898-5500 / fax 898-9551—__,,Water Department V a Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PP only) Sewer Department �._ 7- Idalw Transportation Dept. (No FP) Building Sanitary Services(NovAR, VAC, FP) Ada County Ass. Land Records 660 E. Watertower Lane n De Suite 150 -Building Department P Meridian Development Corp. 887-2211 / fax 887-1297 Fire Department Historical Preservation Comm. Police Department - Wastewater City Attorney 3401 N. Ten Mile Road City Engineer 888-2191 / fax 884-0744 City Planner - Water Parks Department 2235 N.W. 8th Street 888-5242 / fax 884-1159 Your Concise Remarks: CrrY HALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888_4.433 CITY CLERIC — FAX 888-4218 CITY ATTORNEY / FIR — FAX 884-8723 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING — FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE — FAX 884-8119 Printed on recycled paper CW CENTRAL CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENToisTeicT Return to: HEALTH Environmental Health Division ❑ Boise DEPARTMENT ❑ Eagle Rezone # �`j 'r Q Z ❑ Garden City Conditional Use # GL 4S`r 6W Meridian ❑ Preliminary / Final / Short PKuna � Plat i�� D ff� ❑ Kun o� D ACZ ❑ Star ❑ 1. We have No Objections to this Proposal. ❑ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. ❑ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ❑ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ❑ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ❑ high seasonal ground water ❑ waste flow characteristics ❑ or bedrock from original grade ❑ other ❑ 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or surface waters. ❑ i. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. 08. After writte approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: central sewage ❑ community sewage system ❑ community water well ❑ interim sewage 0 -central water ❑ individual sewage '❑ individual water The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of nvironmental Quality: entral sewage acommunity sewage system Ll community water ❑ sewage dry lines /)RE—antral water /_ Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ❑ 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval, ❑ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ❑ 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ❑ food establishment ❑ swimming pools or spas ❑ beverage establishment ❑ grocery store A14. ❑ 15. Please see attached stormwater management recommendations ❑ child care center 15726.001EH0904 Review Sheet CENTRAL •0 DISTRICT P( CWHEALTH -_ DEPARTMENT MAIN OFFICE • 707 N. ARMSTRONG PL. • BOISE, ID 83704-0825 • (208) 375-5211 • FAX 327-8500 To prevent and treat disease and disability; to promote healthy lifestyles; and to protect and promote the health and quality of our environment. [and. 12 rev STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that storm water be pre-treated prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to ground water and surface water quality. The engineers and architects involved with the design of this project should obtain current best management practices for storm water disposal and design a storm water management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals that could be used for guidance are: State of Idaho Catalog of Stormwater Best Management Practices For Idaho Cities and Counties. Prepared by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, July 1997. Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidebook. Prepared by City of Boise Public Works Department, May 2000. Ada / Boise County Office 707 N. Armstrong PI. Boise, ID 83704 Enviro. Health: 327-7499 Family Planning: 327-7400 Immunizations: 327-7450 Senior Nutrition: 327-7460 WIC: 327-7488 FAX: 327-8500 Serving Valley, Elntore, Boise, and Ada Counties Elmore County Office 520 E. 8th St, North Mountain Home, ID 83647 Enviro. Health: 587-9225 Family Health: 587-4407 WIC: 587-4409 FAX: 587-3521 Valley County Office 703 N. 1st St. P.O. Box 1448 McCall, ID 83638 Ph. 634-7194 FAX: 634-2174 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT". QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 STAFF REPORT P & Z Commission Hearing Date: 10/6/2005 TO Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Craig Hood, Associate City Planner SUBJECT Medford Place Subdivision AZ -05-042 h erxy rr �� r. Annexation and Zoning of 8.57 acres from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) PP -05-043 Preliminary plat approval request for 29 residential lots and 8 common lots on 8.57 acres CUP -05-044 Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of 22 single family homes and 7 four-plex buildings with reductions requested to the minimum lot size, minimum street frontage and a use exception in the R-8 zone. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Dyver Development, LLC, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ), Preliminary Plat (PP), and Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development (CUP/PD) consisting of 29 building lots and 8 common/other lots on 8.57 acres. The site is located on the west side of Eagle Road, and on the south side of Victory Road. This site is currently rural residential with one single-family residential building and accessory buildings. The site has not been previously platted. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. The subject applications (AZ, PP, and CUP/PD) were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. By City Code, the applicant must either submit a rezone application to R-15 to allow for the number of multi-familv buildings]2rol2osed, OR remove some of the multi -family buildings from the development. In either case the Commission should defer final action on this project until the applicant and Commission has decided how best to proceed. Staff recommends thea licant submit a rezone a lication rather than redesign the site to comply with the R-8 standards as the mix of housing types, the integration of the housing types into one development, and the structures proRosed are gRpropriate for this area. Staff recommends that the Commission hold the public hearing on the subject develo ment and direct the 902licant on how to proceed to gain gR12roval. Staff further recommends that the subject applications AZ -05-042 PP -05-043 and CUP -05-044 be continued to allow thea licant to submit a rezone application and/or revise the submitted drawings. NOTE: Because staff's recommendation is for continuance staff has not included any conditions of approval.. However, analysis has been included with some desil-n features that should be incorporated into the revised drawings 3. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 3335 S. Eagle Rd. / SWC of Eagle & Victory/ 3N1 E29 b. Owner: Dyver Development, LLC Medford Place Subdivision AZ -05-042, PP -05-043, CUP -05-044 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 36 E. Pine Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 c. Applicant: Dyver Development, LLC 36 E. Pine Street Meridian, Idaho, 83642 d. Representative: Shawn Nickel, Land Consultants, Inc. e. Present Zoning: RUT (Ada County) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting concurrent approval for annexation and zoning of the subject 8.6 acres to R-8, preliminary plat approval of 29 buildable lots, and conditional use permit approval for a planned development that includes 22 single-family homes and 7 four-plexes (28 units). The applicant is requesting reductions to the minimum lot size, minimum street frontage and a use exception request for four-plexes, which are not allowed in the R-8 zone. A gross density of 5.83 dwelling units per acre is proposed. As amenities, the applicant is proposing usable open space of 1.02 acres (12%) and a tot lot area and a picnic area. Access to the development is proposed from one public street access to Eagle Road. NOTE: Due to concerns from neighbors in this area, the ACRD has allowed the applicant to shift the entrance into the site to the south. The applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat that proposes a public street access near the south property line. Two common lots have been removed and other modifications have been made. Staff s analysis below is based uipon the revised preliminary Plat prepared bL&ailey Engineering, Inc. dated 7-7- 05 resided on 9-22-05. 1. Date of preliminary plat (attached as Exhibit Al): 07/07/05 (Revised on 09/22/05) 2. Date of CUP site plan (attached as Exhibit A2): 07/07/05 3. Date of landscape plan (attached as Exhibit A3): 08/08/05 h. Applicant's Statement/Justification (see Applicant's Letter): The enclosed applications have been submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance. The development has also been designed to be in compliance with the intent of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. This development meets the purpose statement for a PD by providing a development that preserves scenic features, provides a more efficient pattern of residential uses, fosters innovative design concepts and provides for both common open space and amenities not found in traditional developments. 4. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation and zoning as determined by 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 determined 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 of the Meridian City Code Title 12 Chapter 6, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. Medford Place Subdivision AZ -05-042, PP -05-043, CUP -05-044 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 d. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 17, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. e. Newspaper notifications published on: September 19, 2005 and October 3, 2005 f. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: September 9, 2005 g. Applicant posted notice on site by: September 26, 2005 5. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): There is an existing house and outbuildings located on the northern part of this site. The southern part of the site is being used for agricultural purposes. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This area has historically been used for rural residential purposes. Over the past few years several developments south of Victory Road have been approved by the City. Tuscany Village, Messina Hills, Kingsbridge Subdivision, and Maxfield Subdivision have all been recently approved in this area. This area is rapidly transitioning from rural to urban. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Rural residential, zoned R-1 (Ada County) 2. East: Rural residential, zoned RUT (Ada County); Approved Maxfield Subdivision, zoned R-8 3. South: Rural residence on 5 -acres, zoned RUT (Ada County) 4. West: Rural residential, zoned RUT (Ada County); Messina Hills Subdivision, zoned R-4; Future elementary school, zoned R-4 d. History of Previous Actions: N/A e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works: Location of sewer: Sewer is located in Eagle approximately 320' from this development. Location of water: Water is readily available in Eagle road, adjacent to the site. Issues or concerns: Existing topography provides some grading challenges. 2. Vegetation: There are some existing trees on this site that should be protected or mitigated for. The rest of the vegetation on site is for agricultural purposes. 3. Flood plain: N/A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There is one irrigation ditch that bisects this property. The applicant is proposing to cover this ditch. 5. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any potential hazards on this site. 6. Proposed Zoning: R-8 (Medium Density) 7. Size of Property: 8.57 acres f. Subdivision Plat Information Medford Place Subdivision AZ -05-042, PP -05-043, CUP -05-044 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT, QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 L Residential Lots: 29 2. Non-residential Lots: N/A 3. Total Building Lots: 29 4. Common Lots: 6 5. Other Lots: N/A 6. Total Lots: 35 7. Open Lots: N/A 8. Gross Density: 5.83 units per acre (7.7 d.u./acre net) g. Landscaping 1. Width of street buffer(s): A 25 -foot wide street buffer is proposed along both Victory Road and Eagle Road. Victory Road is classified as a collector roadway and Eagle Road is classified as an arterial roadway. City Code requires a 20 -foot wide buffer along collector streets and a 25 -foot wide buffer along arterial streets (MCC 12- 13-10-4). Street buffers are not required on any of the internal, local streets. Staff is supportive of the street buffer widths proposed. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: A 20 -foot wide landscape buffer is required between multi -family uses and single-family residential zones/uses. No other land use buffers apply to the proposed development. A 20 -foot wide landscape buffer should be required along the south and west property line of Lot 8, Block 2. See Other landscaping standards below. 3. Percentage of site as open space: 1.85 acres/19.2% (including street buffers) and 1.02 acres/12% (excluding street buffers). 4. Other landscaping standards: The landscape buffers along Eagle Road and Victory Road should be constructed in accordance with MCC 12-13-10. The land use buffers should be constructed in accordance with MCC 12-13-12. Common open space lots should include at least one deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet (MCC 12-13- 16-5). h. Conditional Use Information 1. Non-residential square footage: N/A 2. Proposed building height: The R-8 zone allows a 35 -foot tall building. 3. Percentage of site devoted to building coverage: N/A 4. Percentage of site devoted to landscaping: 19.2% 5. Percentage of site devoted to other uses: MCC 11-8-1 prohibits apartment houses in the R-8 zone. With the subject CUP/PD the applicant has requested a use exception to allow multi -family dwellings in the R-8 zone. Approximately 3.4 of the 8.57 acres, close to 40% of the site, is proposed for multi -family dwellings (apartment houses). The Zoning Ordinance allows up to 20 percent of a site to be approved for uses not normally permitted in the area (MCC 12-6-3). Please see Analysis below for more information. 6. Number of Residential units: Fifty (50) i. Amenities: 12% useable open space, tot lot, picnic area. Medford Place Subdivision AZ -05-042, PP -05-043, CUP -05-044 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT_ QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 j. Off -Street Parking (Multi -Family): 1. Parking spaces required: 2 for each unit; 56 stalls 2. Parking spaces proposed: 70 stalls 3. Compact spaces proposed: 0 4. Off-site parking proposed: No k. Proposed and Required Residential Standards: R-8 Setbacks (in feet) Proposed Required Front Living Area 15 15 Side Accessed Garage 15 15 Front Accessed Garage 20 20 Street side 20 20 Side 5 5 Rear 15 15 Frontage 50 65 Lot Size 5,000 6,500 1. Proposed and Required Non -Residential: N/A in. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access: The applicant is proposing one public street access to Eagle Road; no access is proposed to Victory Road. To allow for Falcon Drive, across Eagle Road to function without conflict, the applicant is proposing to construct the main street into the site near the south property line. The applicant is proposing one stub street to the west and one stub street to the south. All streets are proposed 34 -feet wide (measured back of curb to back of curb) and have attached 5 -foot wide sidewalks. All streets will be public and will be constructed, along with curb, gutter and sidewalks, to the Ada Coutny Highway District's standards. Staff is supportive of the proposed street system. For a detailed report on the public streets and access points to public streets, please see the ACHD report and Exhibit B. 6. COMMENTS MEETING On September 16, 2005 Planning staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Medium Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Medium Density Residential areas are anticipated to contain between three and eight dwelling units per acre (net). The overall net density is 7.7 dwelling units per acre (5.83 gross d.u./acre). Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy): Medford Place Subdivision AZ -05-042, PP -05-043, CUP -05-044 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-SS33 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 property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal ,cervices 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. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff'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 (ACRD). 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 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) The applicant is proposing a residential development. The existing residential properties to the north, south, east and west and the planned elementary school site to the east are compatible with the proposed development. • 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 proposal includes both single-family and multi family housing types and smaller residential lots while still maintaining a density consistent with the requested R-8 zone (7.7 d.u./acre net). • Offer a diversity of housing types for a greater range of choice. Encourage quality housing Project for all economic levels in a variety of areas. (Chapter VII Goal V Objective A) The products for the site include detached single-family residences and multi family apartment houses (four plexes). Staff finds that two housing types is appropriate for a development of this size. Staff also notes that this appears to be a successful integration of Medford Place Subdivision AZ -05-042, PP -05-043, CUP -05-044 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 multi.family and single-family residences. • Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow. (Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6) The applicant is proposing to provide stub streets to the unplatted 5 -acre parcels to the west and south. City staff and ACHD are supportive of the connectivity plan for this area (see ACHD staff report and conditions for details). • Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect to local roads and collectors in adjacent developments. (Chapter VI, Goal 1I, Objective A, Action 13) See bullet above. • 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 interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities. (Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 8) Except for the multi - .family Lot 8, Block 2, the applicant has proposed a development in which the ,single family lots in the development are adjacent to other single-family lots. Staff recognizes that there are some existing low density residential land uses to the south and west and believes that a land use buffer should be provided between any multi family that is proposed adjacent to single-family. • Permit new residential, commercial, or industrial developments only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City. (Chapter IV Goal II, Objective A) All urban services can be made available to this site. • Require new residential development to provide permanent perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown debris from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties. (Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 9) The applicant is proposing a 5 -foot solid.fence along the west boundary. A 5 -foot open vision fence is proposed adjacent to common lots. If permanent fencing is not provided around the entire perimeter of the site, the applicant should be required to install temporary construction fencing to contain debris. • Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2) Except for Street 1, access to Eagle Road and Victory Road should be prohibited. Staff finds that the proposed R-8 zoning designation is generally harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the amount of property set aside for multi- family development far exceeds what the City can approve in the requested R-8 zone. The applicant should be required to either revise the plat and site plan to have a maximum of 20% of the site for multi family dwellings, OR submit a new annexation and zoning application to rezone the multi family area to R-15. Please see Analysis below. 8. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: Meridian City Code 11-2-1 lists single-family homes as Medford Place Subdivision AZ -05-042, PP -05-043, CUP -05-044 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 permitted uses in the R-8 zoning district. MCC 11-2-1 lists multi -family apartment houses as prohibited uses in the R-8 zoning district. However, MCC 12-6-3 allows, upon recommendation of the Commission, for the Council to authorize specific uses not normally permitted. There are several findings that the Commission and Council must make when granting a use exception within a Planned Development. Please see Exhibit D for the required findings for a use exception. 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 of large homes into two-family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the municipal water and sewer systems of the city is required. c. General Standards: As part of the PD, the applicant is requesting modifications to the standard lot size, and street frontage of the R-8 zone. The applicant is also requesting a use exception for multi -family dwellings in a single-family zoning district. Other than the percent of the site proposed for the use exception and the other requested dimensional lot modifications, the proposed development substantially complies with all of the general standards of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance. d. Specific Use/Application Standards: MCC 12-6-2.A.4 requires all residential planned developments to provide each dwelling unit with 100 square -feet of useable private open space, such as a patio or deck. Therefore, the gapplicant should clarify, at the 12ublic hearing how 12rivate useable o ens ace will be provided for each multi -family unit. 9. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation AZ/RZ Application: 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 a residential subdivision. However, the proposed R-8 zoning for the entire property does not correlate to the proposed multi -family land use concurrently proposed. Therefore staff recommends that the gpplicant either submit a new rezone application for the multi-farnily portion of this development to R-15 or reduce the size of the multi -family being proposed so that it is less than 20% of the land area as allowed with a PD). Staff refers the applicant to submit a rezone application, rather than redesign the site to comply with the R-8 standards as the mix of housing types, the integlation of the housing types into one development, and the structures proposed area ro riate for this area, Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of the required facts and findings. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped on June 16, 2005 by D. Terry Peugh, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. 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 Medford Place Subdivision AZ -05-042, PP -05-043, CUP -05-044 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 Section 5-7-517, when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 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. 2. PP Application: The proposed preliminary plat substantially complies with the Zoning Ordinance, Special Considerations: Ditches Laterals and Canals: There is an irrigation lateral that bisects this parcel. 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. Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is used, 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. Fencing: The applicant is proposing to construct a five-foot tall solid fence along the western and northern (not adjacent to Victory Road) property lines. A detailed fencing plan should be submitted upon application of the final plat (MCC 12-4- 10.F.3). If permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fencing, including adjacent to common lots and streets, should be installed in accordance with City Code. Existing Residences/Buildings: The site currently contains multiple buildings. Because the existing structures span across proposed lot lines, all buildings shall be removed or relocated, prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. Connectivity: The applicant is not proposing to construct any connections, vehicular or pedestrian, to the future elementary school site to the west. Staff believes that a micropath should be provided from Street 3 to the west property line, through the common Lot 12, Block 1. All micropaths shall be constructed at least 5 -feet wide, with 5 feet of landscaping on each side of the path (MCC 12-13-15-3). Land Use Buffers: MCC 12-13-12 requires landscape buffers between different land uses. Per MCC 12-13-12-4, a 20 -foot wide landscape buffer is required between single-family homes (Class I) and multi -family dwelling units (Class Il). Meridian City Code 12-13-12-2 requires the land use buffer to be provided by the higher intensity use and to be located on the building site of the higher intensity use, unless the adjacent and higher intensity use has not provided the buffer. The applicant should Medford Place Subdivision AZ -05-042, PP -05-043, CUP -05-044 PAGE 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 be required to graphically depict a 20 -foot wide landscape buffer on the plat along the south and west lines of Lot 8, Block 2. Said buffer shall contain materials in accordance with MCC 12-13-12-3 and not include impervious surfaces such as parking areas or driveways. CUP Application: The submitted Conditional Use Permit does not comply with the provisions established in the Zoning Ordinance. Special Considerations: Reguested Modifications: The applicant is requesting, through the Planned Development Ordinance, modifications to the standard requirements of Meridian City Code. The most significant and uncommon modification being requested has to do with the use exception request. The applicant is requesting to use approximately 40% (gross) of the site for multi -family dwelling units. Staff is supportive of a use exception for multi -family in this area, as the multi -family units are integrated well into the development. However, the City can only allow up to 20% of a site to be approved for uses not normally allowed (MCC 12-6-3.2). The applicant is also requesting to modify the minimum lot size and street frontage requirement. Twenty of the twenty-nine lots (69%) buildable lots are below the 6,500 square -foot minimum lot size of the R-8 zone. Twelve of the proposed lots (41 %) do not meet the minimum street frontage requirement of the R-8 zone. The applicant has submitted a sample elevation of how the apartment houses (four-plexes) will look. The multi -family buildings resemble a big house and all four'of the units have a shared entry into the building, with individual doors off of the common. entry (see submitted elevation). Each building will include some stucco, brick, or rock. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed CUP/PD application, as it generally conforms to Title 12, Meridian City Code. Amenities. The applicant is proposing to set aside 12 acres (1.02 acres) for open space (excluding street buffers). Only 5% open space is required for single-family developments by Code (MCC 12-13-16-2). Other amenities include a tot -lot and picnic area (see below). Staff recommends that the Commission determine whether or not the proposed amenities are appropriate to the size and uses of the proposed development. Tot Lot Location: On the original site plan and landscape plan, a tot lot area was shown near the center of the development. With the revisions, the common lot area has been removed and the applicant has not proposed a location for the tot lot area and. picnic areas originally planned. City staff has concerns with placing the tot lot close to Eagle Road and would prefer that the tot lot be closer to the multi -family units. Staff recommends that a tot lot be constructed on Lot 7, Block 2 and that a picnic area be constructed on Lot 10, Block 2. Elevations: The applicant has submitted one sample elevation for the apartment houses proposed. Staff is generally supportive of the multi -family building. Each apartment house shall substantially comply with the sample elevation provided and have an element of architectural relief such as stucco, brick or rock and include vinyl shutters. Medford Place Subdivision AZ -05-042, PP -05-043, CUP -05-044 PAGE 10 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 Dum ster Locations: The applicant has not indicated on the submitted landscape plan where the dumpsters for the four-plexes will be located. Large waste vehicles have blind spots when backing up is required. 98% of waste vehicle accidents occur when backing -up. Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) to discuss this matter prior to the City Council hearing. Private Useable O en Space: MCC 12-6-2.A.4 requires all residential planned developments to provide each dwelling unit with 100 square -feet of useable private open space, such as a patio or deck. In accordance with City Code, each multi -family dwelling unit should have 100 square -feet of useable private open space. The applicant should clarify at the public hearing, how this requirement will be met. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission hold the public hearing on the sub'ect development and direct thea licant on how au would refer them to roceed to gain your a roval. Staff recommends that the subiect gpj2lications AZ -05-042 PP -05-043 and CUP -05-044 be continued to allow thea licant to submit a rezone a lication and/or revise the submitted drawings based on staff's and the Commission's comments. Staff further recommends that you limit aLiy further t estimony to only those issue that you wish to discuss further. 10. PROPOSED MOTION Recommend Continuance I move to continue File Numbers AZ -05-042, PP -05-043, and CUP -05-044 as presented in staff report for the hearing date of October 6, 2005, to (insert date here) and in addition to staff's comments, direct the applicant to make the following changes: (insert comments here) Recommend Denial I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Numbers AZ -05-042 and CUP-05-044for the following reasons. (You must state specific reasons for denial of the CUP. They should address how the applicant might re -do the application to gain your recommendation for approval.) Deny I move to deny PP -05-043 for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial. They should address how the applicant might re -do the application to gain your approval.) 11. EXHMITS A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 7-7-05, Revised 9-22-05) 2. CUP Site Plan (dated: 7-7-05) 3. Landscape Plan (dated: 8-8-05) B. Conditions of Approval 1. FUTURE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department Medford Place Subdivision AZ -05-042, PP -05-043, CUP -05-044 PAGE 11 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District C. Legal Description D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance Medford Place Subdivision AZ -05-042, PP -05-043, CUP -05-044 PAGE 12 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 7-7-05, Revised 9-22-05) CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS'? CALL (208) 884-5533 2. CUP Site Plan (dated: 7-7-05) �i� d11 iii +�i CITY OF .MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 3. Landscape Plan (dated: 8-8-05) � .fin, f ._ - :I -�-.� .•. ��y •-C �4'--r.- �'; � .... _ ••�rv. r . •, } /�� • F -icy __ _ . _ r •I J:r""` I _ r. � cif :r -- - I •.�"��' —.I - _ ��-___ _:. ---., — --y71 ��p ..� r j r•' fyt• a i li'.IF,Iu'.I A , �1 QIW. w; :FI I�....I_04 ,' PofI � .fin, f ._ - :I -�-.� .•. ��y •-C �4'--r.- �'; � .... _ ••�rv. r . •, } /�� • F -icy __ _ . _ r •I J:r""` I _ r. � cif :r -- - I •.�"��' —.I - _ ��-___ _:. ---., — --y71 ��p ..� r j r•' fyt• a i A ; J - :FI � .fin, f ._ - :I -�-.� .•. ��y •-C �4'--r.- �'; � .... _ ••�rv. r . •, } /�� • F -icy __ _ . _ r •I J:r""` I _ r. � cif :r -- - I •.�"��' —.I - _ ��-___ _:. ---., — --y71 ��p ..� r j r•' fyt• a CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT, QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 f .4 J_ V Iii' f -T J_ V Iii' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department Forthcoming. 2. Public Works Department 2.1 Sanitary sewer for this development is being proposed via extensions of a main located in South Eagle Road. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of mains to and through this proposed development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. Cover over sanitary sewer mains shall be no less than three -feet from finish grade to the top of the pipe. If cover is less than three -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. 2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains adjacent to the site in South Eagle Road. The applicant shall be responsible to install mains to and through this proposed development, coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department. 2.3 The applicant has not indicated who will own and operate the pressure irrigation system in this proposed development. If it is to be maintained as a private system, plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the construction plan review. A "draft copy" of the operations and maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "final draft" being required prior to final plat signature on the last phase of this project. If it is to be owned and maintained by an Irrigation District then evidence of a license agreement shall be submitted prior to scheduling of a pre -construction meeting. 2.4 The preliminary plat indicates a ditch bisecting this property; the applicant shall pipe this ditch and provide written approval of the design by the end users of the ditch. Written approval shall be submitted prior to plan approval. 2.5 Remove any existing structures prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.6 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 2.7 Due to existing topography, applicant shall submit a Master Grading and Drainage plan as part of the development plans. The Master Grading and Drainage plan shall design the lots to drain in a way that minimizes the effect of runoff to existing neighbors and the newly platted lots. The plan shall include at a minimum the following: a. Finish grade elevation at each lot corner. b. Drainage flow patterns on all lots. c. If structural fill is to be placed on any lot, material specifications and compaction requirements shall be detailed. 2.8 The applicant has not indicated how the storm drainage from the proposed parking lots associated with the four-plexes will be disposed. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal shall be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into a surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing shall be installed, drainage lots constructed, road base shall be approved by the Ada County Highway District, and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 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. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. 2.13 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in MCC 12-2-4. 2.14 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. 2.15 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.16 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.17 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.18 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.19 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. 2.20 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4- 13. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, plans shall be reviewed and approved by the meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 2.21 Two -hundred -fifty and One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. 2.22 Applicant's engineer shall be required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying that all street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the highest established normal groundwater elevation. 3. Fire Department 3.1 One and two family dwellings will require a fire -flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 500' apart. International Fire Code Appendix C 3.2 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.3 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. C. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec. d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant location. e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. g. Fite hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. h. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. i. Fire sprinklers required for four-plexes. 3.4 All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.5 For all Fire Lanes, paint the curb red and provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". 3.6 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.7 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. 3.8 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 3.9 The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level. 3.10 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 3.11 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes 3.12 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). For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 in). 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). 3.13 All R-2 occupancies with 3 or more units or with 3 floors shall be required to be fire sprinklered. 4. Police Department 4.1 Prior to release of building permits, the applicant shall submit a parking plan for all off-street parking in the multi -family development to the Planning Department. All parking spaces shall be assigned to a specific dwelling unit or for guest use. The parking space identification shall use a different numbering system than the dwelling units. 4.2 The facades of the multi -family buildings shall include windows that look onto the parking areas and/or other public areas. 4.3 The proposed multi -family development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not exceed three feet in height. 5. Parks Department 5.1 Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance (MCC 12-13-13-6) will be followed. 5.2 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. 6. Sanitary Service Company 6.1 Waste enclosure locations: There is a concern that the enclosures are not located to minimize service vehicle backing -up requirements. Large waste vehicles have blind spots when backing up is required. 98% of waste vehicle accidents occur when backing -up. Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) to discuss this matter prior to the next public hearing. 7. Ada County Highway District Site Specific Conditions of Approval 7.1 Dedicate right-of-way on Eagle Road to total 48 -feet from the centerline of the roadway. The applicant shall be reimbursed for 23 -feet of right-of-way with impact fee and corridor preservation funds. The right-of-way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be completed and signed by the applicant prior to scheduling the final plat for signature by the ACRD CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 Commission. 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. 7.2 Provide a road trust for sidewalk on Eagle Road in the amount of $6,300 (approximately 300 - feet) associated with the intersection project. 7.3 South of the project boundaries on Eagle Road, construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk, with the back of walk located a minimum of 41 -feet from centerline. Coordinate the location of the sidewalk with the ACHD plans for the intersection. 7.4 Provide a road trust for sidewalk on Victory Road in the amount of $5,240 for the Victory Road frontage that is included in the intersection signalization/widening project. 7.5 Construct a public street to access the site near the south property line, as proposed in the revised submittal. 7.6 Construct the internal public streets as 34 to 36 -foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk within 50 -feet of right-of-way. Provide written approval from the Meridian Fire Department for any roadway less than 36 -feet in width. 7.7 Construct a stub street to the property to the south, as proposed. A sign shall be installed at the terminus of the stub street stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 7.8 Construct a stub street to the property to the west, as proposed in either scenario. A sign shall be installed at the terminus of the stub street stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 7.9 Provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet for all public street turnarounds. 7.10 All landscape islands/medians within the public right-of-way dedicated by this plat shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this shall be required on the final plat. 7.11 Traffic islands shall be constructed with a minimum area of 100 -square feet and designed to safely channel traffic. The roadway around the traffic island shall maintain a minimum of a 21 - foot street section. The design shall be reviewed and approved by ACHD's Development staff. 7.12 Direct lot or parcel access to Eagle Road and Victory Road is prohibited and shall be noted on the final plat. 7.13 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions of Approval 7.14 Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 7.15 Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or right-of-way. 7.16 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.17 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. 7.18 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. 7.19 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. 7.20 The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7.21 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. 7.22 Payment of applicable road impact fees will be required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Impact Fee Ordinance. 7.23 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 7.24 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. 7.25 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 C. Legal Description IDAHO 14!0Ea3ctiv„c.=rt SURVEY �ter,di„,,,,Ida'ta f?3Gfi� GROUP Phone (209) 846-$57t - Fax (208) 894-53��9 Prolert No. 0.. -151 forte 10. 2005 Victory - Eaale RUT to R-8 A parct] of land locate.J in the NT: 114 of the NE 1:4 of Section 29, T.3N., Rt I E.., B -W Acta County, Idaho, :MOre Particularly described se follows: REGINNIN.C: at the comer comtrlott to Stetions 20, 21, 29, and the said Section 24 , Thcncc along the East [ilia ol'said Section 29 South CIU"77'44" JVL-st, qigy,ik Ic.et Thenc t, departinh said line North 89037'02” West, 070,98 li:et to a poant ott t1la F -95t line, of Mrssirla Hill% Suhclivt&iou No, "S "roC iti record0tl in 1300k 87 of Plrtts M Page 9829, Ada County records, Thence along said Linc North (0028'30" PA,3t, 300.37 Thonce departing said line South 99'37'26" East, 340.+.)l feet; Thence North 00°27'44" East, 660.50 feet to a point on the North line of saki Sc'ation 29; Thence South 139"36'45" Bast, 330.00 Leel to the Point of 13eg�nning. C'oataitung 9.63 acres, mote or less Prepared BY: pit Idaho Sur P.C. � r u � 4431 4rAlr of tnv� �+ D. Terry Peugh, PLS Arofessio"a( Land Surveyors C-1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 C-2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL, (208) 884-5533 D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance 1. Annexation and Zoning Findings: The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment: The following is the list of standards found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff. A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; See Comprehensive Plans and Policies as listed in staff report item #7 above. Staff recommends that the applicant submit an annexation and zoning application to zone approximately 40% of the site to R-15 (Medium High Density). 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 detached single-family uses are allowed within the requested zoning district of R- 8. However, the requested multi -family structures (apartment houses) are prohibited in the requested R-8 zone. The applicant is requesting to modify some of the dimensional standards of the R-8 zone and has submitted a conditional use permit. 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 in this area have recently been approved for development similar to the proposed subdivision. This segment of Eagle Road (Victory Road to Amity Road) is included in the ACHD's Capital Improvements Plan. This segment of Eagle Road is anticipated to be improved to 3 traffic lanes with vertical curb, gutter and a 5 -foot detached concrete sidewalk within a total of 70 feet of right-of-way in the year 2011-2015. The intersection of Eagle Road & Victory Road is included in the ACHD's Five Year Work Program. The intersection is anticipated to be reconstructed and widened to 5 lanes on all legs, including curb, gutter, sidewalks and bike lanes. This project is programmed to take place with the Eagle Road/Victory Road to Ridenbaugh Canal (north of Victory Road) in the year 2007. Staff finds that the area is changing and this site is eligible for annexation and zoning. 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; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 Staff finds that the proposed density meets the anticipated range for a medium density urban Project. However, the requested zone does not correspond to the proposed use of multi -family. Staff finds that some of the existing parcels in the area have already been approved for development with similar densities and allowances; alternate products and designs are encouraged. Staff also finds that the proposed zoning and uses can be designed and constructed in a manner that will be harmonious with, and appropriate in appearance with, the existing and intended character of the surrounding area. Staff does not find that the proposed uses will adversely change the essential character of area. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on staff s analysis, public testimony received and any comments submitted from any other agencies or departments regarding whether this property should be developed 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. The Commission and Council should rely on any public testimony (oral and written) when determining whether or not the proposed 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; The applicant will be responsible for the extension of all utilities 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. ACHD has submitted a staff report with site specific and standard conditions as attached in Exhibit B7. On September 16, 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 irrigation 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. D-2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 I. Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; Staff finds that the proposed annexation and the development of a residential subdivision on this site will not involve uses that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding 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 access into the site from Eagle Road. ACHD is supportive of the proposed entry street and all internal streets. If is designed and constructed as approved by the ACRD and the City, staff does not believe that the subdivision will create interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets. K. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance; and 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 finds 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)? An R-8 zoning amendment for this property will provide diversity in lot size from the existing subdivisions in the vicinity. Having split zoning on this property, with the single-family homes zoned R-8 and the multi -family dwellings zoned R-15 would provide even more diversity. 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. Subdivisions of medium density have already been approved for development in this area and this is a logical expansion of the City limits. In accordance with the findings listed above, staff finds that annexation and zoning of this prODerty would be in the best interest of the City. 2. Preliminary Plat: D-3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT, QUESTIONS? CALL, (208) 884.5533 Sections 12-3-3 7.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance of a proposed subdivision, the Commission and Council shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the following: A. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan; Please see Annexation and Zoning Findings Item A above. B. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development; Please see Annexation and Zoning Findings Items G and H above. 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, the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. D. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Please see Exhibit B for comments and conditions from other agencies and departments. E. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the Commission's attention. Staff is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or 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 determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. CUP Findings: The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use in terms of the following and may approve a conditional use permit if they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (11-17-3). A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping and other features as may be required by this ordinance; As part of the Planned Development (PD) the applicant is requesting relief from the standard street frontage and lot sizes requirements of the R-8 zone. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested use and all other required ordinance features. Although the site is large enough to accommodate all of the features required by ordinance, the applicant has asked for a zone that does not allow multi -family dwellings. Staff recommends that the applicant submit a new annexation and zoning application to zone the multi-famuily portion of this development to R-15. 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; D-4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT, QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 Staff finds that the proposed residential subdivision is generally harmonious with and in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, which designates the land to be "Medium Density Residential" (provided the Commission and Council grant the requested planned development). Please see Annexation and Zoning Findings A. C. That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area; Please see Annexation and Zoning Findings E. D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity; Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely upon public testimony, staff's analysis, and other agency comments when determining 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 and Zoning Findings G and H, the Other Agency/Department Comments and Conditions in Exhibit B, 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 and Zoning Findings H. G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; Please see Annexation and Zoning Findings I. H. That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; Please see Annexation and Zoning Findings J. The Commission and Council should review any comments received from the ACHD and/or ITD regarding this project when determining this finding. I. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Please see Annexation and Zoning Findings K. D-5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS? CALL (208) 884-5533 4. Planned Development Findings: Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Council may authorize specific uses not normally Permitted by the use regulations of the zone in which the development is located. In granting such authorization, the Commission and Council shall make the following findings: A. The uses permitted by the exception are strongly related to the principal use of the development, and have the purpose of providing services or facilities useful or complementary to the primary use. Staff finds that the multi -family structures are strongly related to, and complement, the single- family dwellings. With the construction of a land use buffer between the multi -family lots and any single-family lot, staff finds that the multi -family uses will not be intrusive on the single- family residences. B. No more than twenty percent (20%) of the total area of the project shall be devoted to the uses permitted by the exception. The percentage of use exception allowed will be determined by the commission and council based upon the size of the project and intensity of the use exceptions. The applicant is proposing to set aside approximately 40% of the total area of the project for be devoted to non-residential zoning. Staff finds that the percentage of the use exception proposed is appropriate in this location. Staff finds that if the area proposed for multi -family uses is zoned to R-15, no use exception would be needed. C. The development will be phased so that construction of the excepted use or uses will be justified by construction of all or a proportionate amount of the principal or primary use or uses. The applicant has indicated a phasing plan for this development. At full build out, staff finds that the construction of the multi -family residential buildings will be in good proportion to the amount of single-family residential being constructed in the area. D. The uses permitted by the exception are integrated into the overall project by: 1. Being located in proximity to and within convenient walking distance of the primary uses. Staff finds that the proposed sidewalk system and a micropath to the school site will allow residents to walk throughout the development and to adjacent developments. 2. Utilizing one or more of the main vehicular accesses to the primary use site as the main access to the exception site or interconnection through a system of private roadways and/or pathways. Both the multi -family and the single-family share the proposed roadway system. 3. Providing pedestrian and bicycle pathway connections with the primary use site. See Findings "D1" above. 4. Orienting buildings on the exception site to facilitate vehicular and/or pedestrian access from the primary use site. Staff finds that the orientation of the multi -family buildings should be towards the internal streets. Staff recommends that the! applicant, at the public hearing, state how they plan to orient the multi- family buildings on the lots. 5. Continuing architecture, landscaping, and building bulk concepts from the primary use into the use of the exception site so they are consistent and harmonious throughout the development. Staff recommends that the construction of the multi -family and the single-family homes be D-6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. QUESTIONS'? CALL (208) 884-5533 consistent in construction materials and architectural features. Staff recommends that the applicant, at the public hearing. state how the,.vnlqn to integrate the look of the multi -family buildings with the single-family buildings s ecific features on the buildincry. E. The use(s) permitted by the exception are neighborhood- or community -serving in size and character and not regional, and are not detrimental to adjacent neighborhoods in location and character. Staff finds that the size and character of the multi -family proposed is appropriate to serve the community and should not be detrimental to adjacent neighborhoods. D-7