HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportNIAYOR
Robert D. Come
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Ron Anderson
Keith Bird
Tammy deWeerd
Cherie McCandless
MEMORANDUM:
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live
,11 Zmd"
IYb� Is, 2cf,i
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218
-U 11-Uuvv Unr.vK 1 MEN I'
(208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297
PLANNING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533 • FAX 888-6854
March 12, 2001
To: Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer
Brad Hawkins -Clark, Planner
�g*
Re: BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION
- Request for Annexation and Zoning of 371.42 Acres from RUT to R-4 and C-
G by Primeland Development Co., LLP (File AZ-01-003)
- Preliminary Plat of 175.91 Acres with 336 Buildable Lots and 58 Other Lots
by Primeland Development Co., LLP (File PP-01-005)
- Conditional Use Permit for a P.U.D. for 692 SFR Lots, 59 Townhouse Lots,
17 Office Lots and 10 Commercial Lots on 370.55 Acres by Primeland
Development Co., LLP (File CUP-01-006)
We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the
applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted
by motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATIONS SUMMARY
There are three separate applications covered in this report, each addressed separately after the
summary. These applications comprise the second portion of a larger, mixed -use project being
developed by Primeland Development in this area. The Applicant is proposing to annex the 371
acres in two (2) different phases — the first phase (167 acres) encompasses the preliminary plat
ground, including five (5) commercial lots at the northeast corner of Ten Mile and McMillan.
The Applicant proposes the second phase annexation (204.42 acres) to coincide with the
submittal of a future preliminary plat application. To Staff s knowledge, this is the first such
"phased annexation" request the City has reviewed. The Preliminary Plat application proposes to
create 259 single-family residential lots, 59 townhouse lots, 8 office lots, 10 commercial lots, and
58 common/landscape lots. If approved, Phases 1 and 2 of the plat application would replace a
portion of the already approved Bridgetower Subdivision Preliminary Plat. There are three (3)
new residential collectors proposed in the plat. The CUP/PUD application includes all of the
Preliminary Plat land plus the balance of the Applicant's land holdings to the east. The
CUP/PUD is required because of reduced lot frontages, a mix of uses and other proposed
exceptions to the R-4 zone standards. The CUP/PUD is requesting conceptual approval only on
the entire project.
AZ-01-M, CUP-01-006,PP-01-005
BridSooµ=Crossng. AZ. PP. CUP. doc
Planning & Zoning Commi—on/Mayor & City Council
March 12, 2001
Page 2
LOCATION
The subject parcels are located in Sections 35 and 26, Township 4N, Range 1 W, between Ustick
Road and McMillan Roads and between Ten Mile and Linder Roads. The proposed 16.2 acre
commercial complex in Section 26 is located at the NE corner of McMillan and Ten Mile.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
The majority of the parcels are located in an area designated as Single -Family Residential in the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed commercial areas at the NE and SE corners of Ten Mile and
McMillan are designated as Commercial/Mixed Use.
The surrounding uses follow:
North — Agricultural, zoned RUT (Ada Co.). The three out -parcels owned by Anderson,
Rupp and Kelso east of the proposed townhouse development, zoned RUT, have rural
residential and other agricultural outbuildings.
South — A 75-acre parcel (owned by Leonard Huskey) is south of the proposed office
uses along Ten Mile Road. Tumble Creek Subdivision, zoned R4, is south of Ustick
Road. Five Mile Creek and the recently approved Bridgetower and Primeland
Subdivisions are south and west of Phase 1.
East — Agricultural ground and single-family homes, zoned RUT (Ada Co.)
West — Agricultural ground and single-family homes. Mr. Bews also owns the 80-acre
parcel at the SW corner of McMillan and Ten Mile, which is shown on the future
development map.
CURRENT OWNERS OF RECORD
There are three (3) separate property owners of the 11 subject parcels. E.L. Bews is the owner of
eight (8) parcels, Brad and Chandos Hoaglun are the owners of the 0.4-acre parcel in the middle,
and Young Lands, Ltd. (represented by Harry D. Young),
along the eastern half of the CUP/PUD. Each owner has submitted notarized consent for the
applications.
ANNEXATION & ZONING GENERAL COMMENTS
1. The legal descriptions submitted with the application meet the requirements of the City of
Meridian and State Tax Commission and place the parcels contiguous to existing city limits.
2. The requested zones of R-4 and C-G are compatible with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map designation of Single-family Residential, Commercial and Mixed/Planned Use
Development.
3. All of the subject property is within the Urban Service Planning
McMillan Road has been designated as a high priority Area. The area south of
g p y growth area by the City.
4. Depending upon the final negotiations with the Applicant regarding the easements for the
White Drain Trunk, essential City services will be available to all subject parcels except the
16+/- acre commercial parcel at the NE corner of McMillan and Ten Mile Road. Discussions
11-003, CUP-01-006, PP-01-M
1n'8--C--8.AZ.PP.CUP,doc
Planning & Zoning Commi*�sfon/Mayor & City Council
March 12, 2001
Page 3
are underway with the Meridian School District regarding a potential school site in the
northeast corner of the project.
5- The Applicant is proposing a two-phase annexation process (see Item #5.a., pg. 1 of the
Annexation application). The only reason given for the phasing request is the "massive size
of the project." Staff was told verbally that, since the project will be built over a 7-10 year
period, the Applicant wishes to avoid paying the increased City of Meridian taxes on the
eastern acreage that will not be developed for several years.
While the plat boundaries are only a portion of the total acreage, the Applicant is seeking
approval of the CUP/PUD application on the full 371.42 acres of annexation. However, the
City cannot approve a CUP/PUD on land outside of its jurisdiction. Therefore, the Applicant
is proposing to enter into a Development Agreement with the City so the CUP/PUD can be
applied on the full annexation acreage. Once the subject Preliminary Plat phases are built -
out, the Applicant would submit a second preliminary plat to cover the 204.42 acres within
the Phase 2 annexation area and the City would finalize the annexation simultaneous to the
second preliminary plat.
Below are three (3) different options for the Commission and Council to consider in
reviewing this phased annexation proposal:
A. Annex all parcels as proposed (two phases) with Development Agreement that
outlines the terms of the future annexation: Under this scenario, the City, Mr. Bews
and Young Lands Ltd. would enter into a Development Agreement (D.A.) on the full
371.42 acres, but we would only adopt an annexation ordinance on the 167-acre legal
description. An application and fees were submitted for the full 371.42 acre annexation,
but the City would hold -off on actual adoption of the 204.42-acre ordinance (Phase 2)
until a Preliminary Plat application is submitted. Ord. 11-16-4.A. allows the terms of a
Development Agreement (D.A.) to take effect on a property even before an annexation
ordinance is adopted, as long as the property owner agrees. Ord. 11-16-4.A. also states
that a D.A. is binding on a property owner, each subsequent owner, and each other person
acquiring an interest in the property. The D.A. is binding even if it is not recorded
(unless, of course, the property is sold to a person who has no knowledge of the
agreement.)
So, according to Staffs interpretation, the City could enter into a legally binding D.A. on
the 204.42 acres (even before it's formally annexed), requiring Mr. Bews to develop it
according to the CUP/PUD concept plan. Since Mr. Bews does not have title to Young's
92-acre parcel, Young Lands, Ltd. would be required to submit a notarized agreement
regarding the D.A. that would ensure the City can annex their property in the future.
Talking Points (Pros & Cons)
a) If all parcels were not annexed, parcels on the east side of Linder and north side
McMillan would not be contiguous to city limits, thus not eligible to request annexation•
AZ-01-M, CUP-01-006, PP-01-005
Bnd900 We,C—g. AZ. PP. CUP. dm
Planning & Zoning Commimleon/Mayor & City Council
March 12, 2001
Page 4
This would potentially "buy" the City more time to complete the Comprehensive Plan for
this area before receiving subsequent annexation requests.
b) The D.A. would potentially give the City greater control over how and when the full
land holding develops.
c) The Meridian School District would be at the mercy of the Applicant to annex the 12-
acre elementary school site along McMillan Road prior to building the school.
d) It is unclear to Staff how the City would administratively handle the "pending" 204.42
acre annexation. The City Clerk and City Attorney would need to provide some input on
this. Can the City draft two annexation ordinances but only pass the Phase 1 (167 acres)
ordinance now and hold the second ordinance until the Phase 2 plat is submitted? How
long would such a "draft" ordinance be valid?
e) The Ada County Assessor told Staff that the tax levy rate on the subject parcels in Ada
County is $0.013 on the land value. The tax levy rate once annexed is $0.0149 on the
land value — a comparably small difference. The agricultural exemption provides the
greatest tax relief and the exemption could still be in place even if the land is annexed as
long as the land is actively used for agriculture. Is the difference between the City of
Meridian tax levy and Ada County tax levy substantial enough to warrant the potential
administrative difficulties the City may face through a two -phased annexation process?
fl The necessary White Drain Sewer Trunk easements beyond the annexation boundaries
would be listed as a condition in the D.A.
B. Annex all of the parcels now under a single ordinance: Under this scenario, the City
would formally annex the entire 371.42 acres, ignoring the phasing request altogether.
The entire project in the CUP/PUD application would be within the city limits and
developed after a Preliminary Plat application is submitted at a later date. The timing of
development construction would not change - it would simply eliminate the need to pass
an annexation ordinance at the time of the second preliminary plat. This is the least
desirable option for the Applicant.
Talking Points (Pros & Cons)
a) This option would create contiguity with the parcels east of Linder and north of
McMillan, allowing these property owners to request annexation as soon as the
subject property is annexed.
b) This option would eliminate the potential confusion of how to administer a "pending"
annexation ordinance. It is, in many ways, a "cleaner" approach in that it is the way
the City has processed all annexations to date.
c) The proposed elementary school site along McMillan Road would be able to develop
in the city limits at any time rather than being dependent upon the Applicant's timing.
d) The necessary White Drain Sewer Trunk easements would all be within the city limits
(and still a condition in the D.A.).
e) Annexation would place significant additional acreage contiguous to the city.
C. Annex only Phase 1 (167 acres) and require Applicant to modify the CUP/PUD
boundaries to match the Preliminary Plat boundaries: Under this scenario, the City
would essentially divide the entire project into two separate approval processes. An
AZ-0I-M, CUP-01-006, PP-01-0oS
Brid8d0V1erCrOS4ng.AZ.PP. CUP. doc
Planning & Zoning Commi"fon/Mayor & City Council
March 12, 2001
Page 5
annexation, preliminary plat and CUP/PUD application would be submitted for each
phase at different times. The Applicant would need to modify the current CUP/PUD
application to exclude the eastern half of the project and match the PUD boundaries to
the preliminary plat and Phase 1 annexation boundaries.
Talking Points (Pros & Cons)
a) If all parcels were not annexed, parcels on the east side of Linder and north side of
McMillan would not be contiguous to city limits, thus not eligible to request
annexation. This would potentially "buy" the City more time to complete the
Comprehensive Plan for this area before receiving subsequent annexation requests.
b) This option would also eliminate the potential confusion of how to administer a
"pending" annexation ordinance. It is, in many ways, a "cleaner" approach in that it is
the way the City has processed all annexations to date.
c) The Meridian School District would be at the mercy of the Applicant to annex the 12-
acre elementary school site along McMillan Road prior to building the school.
d) The City would have to make the necessary White Drain Sewer Trunk easements an
off -site condition of the D.A., essentially conditioning annexation on Mr. Bews
granting a sewer easement on property outside the city limits. This is a legal question
for the City Attorney to address.
e) The CUP/PUD application could potentially be modified and/or changed between the
time of Phase 1 approval and Phase 2 submittal, essentially dividing the entire project
into two separate projects with two different sets of approvals. The Applicant would
need to meet the minimum 10% open space requirement under each individual
application, increasing their required open space acreage. To assuage the Applicant,
the D.A. could indicate that the future CUP/PUD open space and non -conforming use
percentages would be calculated on the entire planned development, not each one
separately.
ANNEXATION SITE SPECIFIC REQUIRMENTS
1- Applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Agreement with the City as a
condition of annexation. (See recommended D.A. conditions above, depending on which
option is approved.)
2. Meridian City Ordinance 12-6 sets forth the requirements for Planned Developments. An
conditions attached to a Final Development Plan for Planned Development projects run with
the land and shall not lapse or be waived as the result of any subsequent change in tenancy or
ownership.
3. The parcel at the NE corner of Ten Mile and McMillan Roads is to be served by a portion of
the North Slough Trunk Line and is NOT serviceable by the White Drain. The legal
description boundaries for the proposed C-G zone must be revised to omit this proposed
parcel north of McMillan until such time as it can be serviced.
4. The Applicant is proposing that seven (7) lots in the preliminary 1 at and Phase I
applications be approved as office lots (Lots 25, 26 and 29 of Block 4 and Lots 22, 23 annexation,25
AZ-0I-003, CUP-01-006, PP-0I-ooS
86dg&o*,,C103sn& AZPP. CUP. dm
Planning & Zoning Commrmfon/Mayor & City Council
March 12, 2001
Page 6
and 26 Block 23). However, the current Comprehensive Plan does not support office zoning
in these areas. The Comprehensive Plan does support the proposed C-G zoned lots. The
Applicant is proposing the office lots be allowed as non -conforming uses in the R-4 zone
under a new proposed PUD ordinance. Until either the PUD ordinance or Comprehensive
Plan is formally amended, these seven (7) office lots cannot be approved for office use. The
office lots may be annexed with an R-4 zone but shall be restricted from obtaining any
building permits until the lots are formally rezoned to the L-O zone or the PUD ordinance is
amended. Staff does support the concept of incorporating other uses besides residential as
part of this development.
5. A condition of the D.A. shall be that the Applicant submit a Preliminary Plat application for
Phase 2 (204.42 acres) of the project no later than June 2002 (or earlier if the Meridian
School District requires) in order to accommodate the new elementary school construction by
2003. The school must be developed within the City limits to receive city services and the
school must be constructed on a legal lot within an approved subdivision plat. (The school lot
is currently shown in Phase 15 of the project and is not a part of the Phase 1 annexation.)
6. A condition of the D.A. shall be that development and use of each commercial -designated lot
in this subdivision (Lots 23, 31, 32, 34 and 36, Block 23 and Lots 1-5, Block 31) will occur
only through the Conditional Use Permit process.
7. A detached sidewalk with a minimum 5-foot-wide planter strip between the curb and
sidewalk shall be required along the Ten Mile Road, McMillan Road and Linder Road
frontages.
ANNEXATION & ZONING STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
1. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing
or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13.
Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users
association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works
Department.
2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their 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.
3. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to direct illumination on any nearby
residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Sections 11-13-4.C. and 12-5-2.M.
4. Two -hundred -fifty- and 100-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at
locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at
subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants.
AZ-0I-009, CUP-0I-006, PP-0I-005
BridgdowpCrossng AZ.PP.CUP.dce
Planning & Zoning Commissfon/Mayor & City Council
March 12, 2001
Page 7
5. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and
shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas.
All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on -site.
6. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the City of Meridian Ordinance 11-
13 for use of property.
7. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-14 of the City of
Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. No temporary signage, flags, banners or
flashing signs will be permitted.
8. Provide five -foot -wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 12-5-2.K.
9. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Annexation Recommendation
Staff supports the annexation and zoning application in concept except for the 16+/- acre parcel
at the NE corner of McMillan and Ten Mile. As outlined under the "Comments" section above,
we feel there are both pros and cons to the City under each of the three options presented. If the
Commission and Council recommend approval, we request that the above conditions be
incorporated into your motion. Until action is taken on the accompanying PUD Amendment
application, Staff recommends the P&Z Commission continue this application and not take any
final action.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUIREMENTS
General
1. If approved, this Preliminary Plat application for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision
(specifically Phases 1 and 2 on Sheet 3 of 3, dated 1/11/01, Blocks 1, 6, 7 and 8) shall
supercede Phase 2 of the already approved Bridgetower Subdivision, approved by City
Council in October 2000. The Applicant (same for both subdivisions) is proposing to modify
the Bridgetower Subdivision preliminary plat with this Bridgetower Crossing preliminary
plat.
2. Obtain a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and
street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform
Public Works
1. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department
2. Sanitary sewer service to this site shall be via construction of a portion of the White Trunk
and North Slough Trunk Lines. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer mains to
and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and
routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the
AZ-01-M, CUP-01-006, PP-01-00s
BndBa°—C"Sng AZ.PP.CUP.d.
Planning & Zoning Commihfon/Mayor & City Council
March 12, 2001
Page 8
sewer lines on the south and west sides of the centerline.
3. Water service to this site is being proposed from extensions of existing mains. Applicant will
be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development. It is
the City's desire to obtain a site for a new domestic well in the vicinity of the projects
northwest corner. This well site (120'xl20') would need to be located near the White Drain,
somewhere within the commercial lots. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and
routing with the Public Works Department. Water service to this development is contingent
upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. Flow and pressure
from the existing mains should be monitored with the Meridian Water Department.
4. The developer shall be responsible for the payment of sewer and water assessment fees, as
well as the actual physical connection of the existing homes located within the boundaries of
this subdivision.
5. Underground pressurized irrigation must be provided to all landscape areas on site. Due to
the landscape area, primary water supply connection to the City's mains will not be allowed.
Applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary
source. Applicant has not indicated whether the pressurized irrigation system within this
development is to be owned and maintained by an association or an Irrigation District. If the
system is being proposed as a private system, plans and specifications for the irrigation
system shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan
review process. A draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual must be
submitted prior to plan approval.
6. The soils investigation report submitted with the application indicates that groundwater was
encountered within the project site. Design engineer to provide a statement of compliance,
prior to the approval of development plans, that certifies that the centerline finish grade of the
streets, public or private, is at least three feet above the established normal ground water
elevation. This is an effort to ensure that the building footings are at least one foot above the
high groundwater.
7. Please submit any updated soils/groundwater monitoring data collected since the initial
investigation date.
8. Please show all proposed permanent and temporary sanitary sewer construction easements on
the preliminary plat map for the areas of future development.
9. Lots 8-19, Block 7, and Lots 16-19, Block 3, are impacted by irrigation easements. Provide a
copy of the executed encroachment agreement with Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District,
indicating how the land underlying these easements may be used, prior to signature on the
final plat. If encroachment of the Creason Lateral is not granted, the easement area will need
to be removed from the building lots.
AZ-01-M, CUP-0t-006, PP-0I-0OS
Brid8--erCM=&AZ.PP.CUPA c
Planning & Zoning CommiN36n/Mayor & City Council
March 12, 2001
Page 9
10. The preliminary plat indicates an 8" sanitary sewer main exiting the southeast corner of
Block 7. Could Block 7 sewer through the vehicular access Lot 54? If not, a 20-foot wide
common area lot will need to be created and centered on the sewer main.
Streets/Pathways
1. There is currently no stub street provided to the 9.16 acre enclave (consisting of 3 separate
parcels with frontage on McMillan Road) that is not a part of this subdivision. Quintale
Avenue must be stubbed to the southern boundary of either the Anderson or Kelso property
to provide for future connectivity when these parcels re -develop in the future.
2. N. Towerbridge Way is the only ingress/egress access proposed to serve the 55 homes in
Bridgetower Subdivision (Phase 1) and the 77 homes in Phases 1 and 2 of Bridgetower
Crossing (132 homes total). The Applicant must work with the Meridian Fire Department to determine whether a temporary emergency access point is necessary until such time as a
secondary principal access is provided.
3. The Applicant told Staff verbally that the W. Belltower Drive collector at Ten Mile Road,
currently shown in Phase 3 of the plat, is likely to be constructed within 12-15 months to
provide a second ingress/egress point for the subdivision. The White Drain Trunk is proposed
to be laid within the Belltower Drive right-of-way. The Applicant should coordinate the
construction of Belltower Drive with the Public Works Department's plans for the White
Drain Trunk construction. The timing and responsibility for construction of the White Drain
east through Bridgetower Crossing should be clearly outlined in the D.A.
4. City Ordinance 12-4-12 states, "Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within
new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an
alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from he automobiles) can be
provided throughout the City urban service planning area." Since no front -on housing is
permitted along Towerbridge, Belltower and Coppercloud (as Collectors), Staff recommends
Applicant coordinate with ACHD to provide bike lanes within the 50-foot right-of-way of
both collectors. The bike lanes will also provide increased safety and accessibility for
children traveling to school should a future elementary school be constructed east of the
subdivision.
5. There are several micropath common lots proposed
iminary plat d C
plans. As a condition of the plat, Applicant shall e equired oon the r clonstruct op n -vision Lf /PIED
or four -foot -high solid fencing (max.) along both sides of ang
place a deed restriction on the residential lots adjacent to hesehmicrop the to prohibit heveloper e
construction of any fencing on the residential lot higher than four feet on the sides adjacent to
the pedestrian walkway lot. Applicant may also consider placing a deed restriction on the
townhome lots adjacent to the vehicular driveway shown as Lot 54, Block 23.
AZ-0I-009, cup-01-006, PP-o, _M
B,id9e0wer CnMng.AZ. PP. CUP. doc
Planning & Zoning Commis-,v6n/Mayor & City Council
March 12, 2001
Page 10
Landscaping/Fencing
1. A permanent, six-foot high, solid fence shall be constructed along the following
boundaries of the subject plat:
• Full east boundary of the townhouse block (Block 23)
• North boundary of Lot 13, Block 20
• South boundary of Block 14 (adjacent to the Huskey property)
• West boundary of Block 10 (adjacent to the Huskey property)
• East boundary of Lot 3, Block 1
Said fencing shall be constructed prior to applying for building permits in each phase.
Submit detailed fencing plans for review and approval with submittal of the Final Plat. A
letter of credit or cash will be required for all fencing prior to signature on the Final Plat.
No fencing is permitted within the required landscape buffers.
2. A detailed landscape plan for the common areas, pathways, and types of construction
shall be submitted for review and approval with the submittal of each Final Plat
application. The landscape plan must include sizes and species of trees, shrubs,
berming/swale details, and all proposed ground cover/treatment. A letter of credit or cash
surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized
irrigation, etc., prior to signature on the Final Plat.
3. The Landscape Plan (Sheet LD.1) does not show any details for Lot 20, Block 23 (the
open lot between the commercial and office lots fronting on Ten Mile Road). The
Applicant should clarify the general intent of this lot. For example, will the pathway
extend through this lot to connect with the Ten Mile sidewalk? Will it be accessible to
employees of the office and commercial buildings?
4. Staff strongly supports the Master Pedestrian Pathway System shown in Figure 2 on
Sheet LD.1. We do recommend one addition. The micropath shown as Lot 15, Block 14
between the office complex and N. Montelino Way does not connect to any path. Staff
recommends a pathway be added within the 30-foot wide landscape area (Lot 22) that
meanders north and connects with the pathway along the south side of Belltower Drive.
5. The Site Landscape Development Plan (Sheet LD.1) shows a total of eight (8) storm
water drainage basin ponds along the relocated White Drain riparian strip through the
center of the project. Figure #3 is an elevation of the pond design. Staff strongly supports
the "riparian zone plantings" being native species and the general concept of this stream.
We do have some concern about the water flow through this feature and the potential for
stagnant water, mosquito infestations, moss build-up, etc. Of particular concern is the
third pond to the east (starting from Ten Mile Road), on the north side of W. Belltower
Drive. The White Drain inlet is in the middle of the pond and the outlet is at the west end,
creating a "dead" zone at the east end of the pond. All stormwater ponds must be
designed to reduce any potential stagnation, including provision of an irrigation pump to
ensure adequate water flow and speed throughout the entire network. A mosquito
abatement plan should be in place and homeowner's informed appropriately.
AZ-01-M, CUP-01.006, PP-01.M
"'dB—C--&AZ.PP.CUP.d.
Planning & Zoning Commisw6n/Mayor & City Council
March 12, 2001
Page 11
6• Applicant shall submit detailed grading plans of the stormwater ponds for review and
approval by the Public Works Department with each Final Plat application.
7• Staff recommends the stormwater pond slopes be designed with a minimum of 4:1 slope
along the banks for public safety.
Per the Landscape Ordinance (12-12-13), a minimum of one (1) deciduous shade tree per
8,000 sq. I must be planted upon all common open space lots. It appears all common
lots meet or exceed this ordinance except the 6.99 acre park (Lot 3, Block 1). This
common lot requires a minimum of 38 trees to be planted. Applicant shall accoun
application. t for
this ordinance in the detailed landscape plan to be submitted with the Final Plat
Blocks & Easements
1. The Coleman Lateral easement (Sheet 2 of 3) is shown to bisect and/or encroach upon
several office and residential lots in Block 14 and Block 10. While not called -out on the
plat, it appears this lateral will be piped. Prior to the City Council hearing on the subject
Preliminary Plat, the Applicant must submit a copy of a letter from the appropriate
irrigation district stating there are no foreseeable problems with this encroachment into
the irrigation easement. Prior to signature on the Final Plat, submit a copy of an
encroachment agreement granting the final approval of said building encroachments.
2. No irrigation easements are shown for the Settlers Canal along the south side of
McMillan Road. Applicant shall determine this easement width and modify the plat to
reflect this easement prior to the City Council hearing on the Preliminary Plat. It appears
the adjacent lots are of sufficient depth to accommodate any increased canal easement. If
the easement does encroach into the lots, the Applicant must submit a copy of a letter
from the appropriate irrigation district stating there are no foreseeable problems with this
encroachment into the irrigation easement. Prior to signature on the Final Plat, submit a
copy of an encroachment agreement granting the final approval of said building
encroachments.
3. The Creason Lateral easement slightly encroaches into Lots 23-42, Block 1 (Phases 1 and
2). The Applicant must submit a copy of a letter from the appropriate irrigation district
stating there are no foreseeable problems with this encroachment into the irrigation
easement. Prior to signature on the Final Plat, submit a copy of an encroachment
agreement granting the final approval of said building encroachments.
4• Applicant shall comply with Ordinance 12-4-6.D.2. regarding platting a perpetual six-
foot -wide maintenance/drainage easement on the zero -lot -line townhome lots in Block
23.
5• A note shall be added to the face of plat designating the two, 25-foot vehicular driveways
Y
AZ-01-=, CUP-0,-006, PP-01-0M
BridgetowerGo 8-AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commi&.,on/Mayor & City Council
March 12, 2001
Page 12
that serve the commercial and office lots in Block 23 as a perpetual cross access
easement shared between Lots 25, 26, 28 and 29, Block 14 and shared between Lots 22,
23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34 and 36, Block 23.
6. Lots 22, 23, 25 and 26, Block 23 and Lots 25 and 26, Block 14 (the proposed office lots)
all have lot lines proposed that bisect rows of parking. Note that all required parking for
office lots must be provided on the legal lot of the building. These lot lines may need to
be modified to accommodate the required parking. Applicant to modify these lot sizes
accordingly to minimize any future need for Lot Line Adjustments, re -subdivision, etc.
7. The 100-year floodplain encroaches into the rear 20 feet of Lots 15-19, Block 1. The
Applicant should ensure the future property owners are aware that no structures can be
erected in this area.
Other Site Specific Requirements
1. Prior to the City Council hearing, Applicant shall revise the Legend on all Preliminary
Plat sheets to correctly reflect the contour lines as dashed lines, not solid, as shown in the
Legend.
2. Prior to the City Council hearing, Applicant shall revise Sheet 1 of the plat to rename
"Letup Canal" as "Settlers Canal." This is not the Lemp Canal.
3. Add the "Right to Farm" note to the plat (in relation to the Huskey property SW of the
subdivision).
4. Please reply in writing to these comments by 4:OOpm on Wednesday, 3-14-01.
Preliminary Plat Recommendation
Staff feels the majority of the outstanding issues listed above can be reasonably resolved and/or
fulfilled by the Applicant. We do have concerns about the phasing numbers with regard to
construction of the White Drain Sewer Trunk line and construction of the elementary school. We
also have concerns about the impact of the Settlers and Coleman Lateral easements. Until we can
review a detailed ACHD report on this project and review a revised plat that addresses the above
concerns, we recommend the P&Z Commission not make a final recommendation on this
application at this time. Until action is taken on the accompanying Zoning Ordinance
Amendment application, Staff recommends the P&Z Commission continues this application and
not take any final action regarding planned developments.
CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENTS
1 As part of a conditional use permit, the City of Meridian may impose additional
restrictions/conditions.
2. Variances/exceptions to the straight R-4 zoning standards that would be required if this
PUD is approved would include the following:
AZ-01-M, CUP-01-0* PP-01-005
8ri'8---C-9.AZ.PP.CM6,
Planning & Zoning Commis�mdn/Mayor & City Council
March 12, 2001
Page 13
Minimum frontage
R-4 Standard
80 feet
_Proposed
48 feet (townhome)
Minimum lot size
8,000 s.f.
69 feet (S.F.R.)
Maximum block length
1,000 feet
5,500 s.f. (townhome)
Maximum cul-de-sac length
Minimum building setbacks:
450 feet
1,500+ feet
Various (see #3)
- Interior side
- Front (non -front entry garage)
5 ft. per story
20 feet
0 lot line (townhome)
Tiling of White Drain
15 feet (S.F.R.)
(no Variance submitted)
N/A
Leave Open
These reductions are within the scope of allowable changes under the PUD ordinance and
reasonable. The majority of the S.F.R. lots in the PUD exceed the minimum R-4 lot
standards. While not specified in the application, the White Drain would need to be tiled
according to Ordinance 12-4-13. The Applicant is proposing to leave the drain open and
utilize as an amenity, which Staff supports.
3. Prior to the public hearing, the Applicant shall provide a list of all proposed cul-de-sac
lengths within the PUD that exceed the maximum 450 feet. The MFD should comment
on whether these lengths provide any potential emergency safety concerns.
4. As submitted, the City Council cannot approve this CUP/PUD application until the
pending Zoning Ordinance Amendment (submitted by Becky Bowcutt), or an
ordinance allowing non -conforming uses within a planned development, is approved.
5. Commercial Lots: No building elevations were submitted for the proposed commercial
buildings on Lots 28, 31, 32, 34 and 36, Block 23. As stated in the Annexation
Requirements above, we recommend all of these lots be processed only under CUP
applications.
6. Applicant should note that, as depicted on the CUP Site Plan, Commercial Lots 36 and 28
do not reflect the minimum number of required parking stalls to operate at 100% retail
occupancy. Also, several of the office and commercial lots are below the required
number of ADA stalls, have parking rows split between different lots and have drive
aisles below the minimum 25-foot width. These issues can be resolved at the time of CUP
or Certificate of Zoning Compliance.
7. Office Lots: Sample photos/elevations of the office buildings were submitted with the
application. The Applicant has stated on the face of the PUD Site Plan that a detailed
CUP application will be required for the development of each lot. However, since
parking, trash enclosures, landscaping and elevations were all submitted for the office
lots, Staff does not feel the office lots would require CUP applications for each lot. recommend that the office lots be allowed to be processed under a Certificate of ZoninWge
AZ-0I-M, CUP-01-006, PP-01-M
BndB-w_C"M-9.AZ.PP. CUP. doc
Planning & Zoning Commis�,6n/Mayor & City Council •.-
March 12, 2001
Page 14
Compliance process only, subject to Ordinance 12-6-6.17, which allows minor changes up
to 10% flexibility.
8. Townhouse Lots: Sample photos/elevations of the townhomes were submitted with the
application. The Applicant has stated on the face of the PUD Site Plan that a detailed
CUP application will be required for the development of these townhome lots. However,
since a Final Plat application will need to be submitted for this phase (shown as Phase #7)
and detailed landscaping and fencing plans will be required at that time, Staff does not
feel these lots would require a CUP application. Any tri-plex units would, however,
require a CUP application.
9. Pathways: The Comprehensive Plan, policy 4.1, pg. 56, of the Transportation Chapter,
designates Five Mile Creek as a multiple use pathway. Any pathway along Five Mile
Creek will require Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and NMID approval. Since BOR owns
the Five Mile right-of-way in fee simple and the future pathway location will be off -site
from this subdivision (i.e., there is no easement involved), staff requests that the
Applicant address this pathway issue during the public hearing_ process. Applicant is to
coordinate all public pathway improvements with the Meridian Parks & Recreation
Department. The Applicant shall also address if the developer intends to dedicate any
pathways within Bridgetower Crossing to the City of Meridian in the future and/or which
will be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Since the pathway
adjacent to the White Drain stubs to both Ten Mile Road and the eastern boundary of the
subdivision, Staff recommends this segment of the pathway be considered a public
pathway and part of the City's master pathway plan. The Applicant should also address
this issue before the Commission and with the Parks & Recreation Department.
10. The traffic study prepared by Washington Group states the three (3) Residential
Collectors proposed are adequate and no new Collector up to McMillan Road is
necessary. Staff concurs with this recommendation. However, we do not agree that some
public street connection to McMillan Road is not necessary at all. During the Pre -
Application meeting on this project, Staff recommended that the local road shown in
Phase 14, Block 20, be extended to connect with McMillan. At build -out, this subdivision
will have a full mile of frontage along McMillan Road (except for the 310 feet of
frontage the enclave parcels have that are not a part of Bridgetower Crossing). If
constructed as proposed in the CUP/PUD concept plan, there would be no vehicular
access into or out of the subdivision from McMillan Road except for N. Desertbreeze
Avenue, the cul-de-sac that serves the 59 townhouse lots. Future development on the
north side of McMillan Road, both commercial and residential, will certainly provide a
destination point for some Bridgetower Crossing residents. As designed, all trips with a
destination to the north side of McMillan will be forced to use either Ten Mile or Linder
Roads, adding unnecessary traffic to these 4-way intersections. All parent, school activity
or other trips to the elementary school site from the west and north will be forced to
access the school (as proposed in the CUP/PUD concept plan) through the subdivision.
AZ-01-M, CUP-01-006, PP-01-M
Brid9 tow+erCrossng.AZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning CommiSm6n/Mayor & City Council
March 12, 2001
Page 15
Staff recommends a standard local street 50 feet right—of—way) connection to McMillan
Road be added adiacent to or near the western boundary of the school site. It would not
be designed to a Collector standard and could incorporate bends or other traffic calming
devices to minimize any potential cut -through traffic. Staff cannot support the CUP/PUD
concept without some vehicular connection made to McMillan Road. At a minimum, a
ped/bike connection to McMillan must be added. [NOTE: This issue pertains only to the
CUP/PUD application since it is outside the boundaries of the proposed Preliminary Plat.
If the Commission/Council agree, only the CUP/PUD Site Plan would need to be
amended — not the Preliminary Plat.]
11. No subdivision sign details or renderings were submitted. Detailed signage plans will be
subject to design review and separate permits.
12. Note that special attention will need to be paid on the Landscape Plan to ensure the 40' x
40' clear vision triangles are preserved at the intersections of all roadways. The
preliminary plan currently shows some trees within these areas.
13. Ordinance 12-6-7.13 requires that all planned developments provide underground utilities
throughout the entire project site.
14. Please provide elevations of the proposed clubhouse for review and approval.
15. Staff recommends the Applicant contact the Meridian Historical Society regarding
placement of historic signage of the cemetery and graves on Lot 48, Block 26 and/or
other historic educational information.
Conditional Use Permit Recommendation
Except for the access to McMillan Road, Staff feels the majority of the outstanding issues listed
above can be reasonably resolved and/or fulfilled by the Applicant. Until we can review a
detailed ACHD report on this project and review a revised plat that addresses the above
concerns, we recommend the P&Z Commission not make a final recommendation on this
application at this time. Until action is taken on the accompanying Zoning Ordinance
Amendment application, Staff recommends the P&Z Commission contiue this application and
not take any final action. n
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
The 1993 Comprehensive Plan contains a variety of goals and policies that are relevant to this
application. Staff has selected the following sections that most directly apply to the proposed
project:
Economic Development Chu ter
Policies 3.1U, 3.2U
AZ-01-003,CUP-01-0%,PP-01-0OS
8"Beo—C—g AZ.PP.CUP.&c
i
Planning & Zoning Commi;,,,n/Mayor & City Council
March 12, 2001
Page 16
Land Use Cha ter
Policies 2.1U, 2.2U, 2.3U, 6.3.c
Natural Resources and Hazardous Areas Chapter
Policies l.IU, 2.1U, 2.5U, 3.1U, 4.1U
Transportation Chapter
Policies 1.6U, 19U
Open Space Parks & Recreation
Policies 3.1, 5.3
Housing Chanter
Policies 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 1.12, 1.13U, 1.18
Community Design Chanter
Policies 1.8, 5.2U
az-0 00, CUP-01-0%, PP-01-M
IIndW--C-9.AZ.PP.ctP.a«