HomeMy WebLinkAboutSutherland Farm AZ 02-004June 17, 2002 AZ 02-004
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 20, 2002
APPLICANT Sutherland Farm, Inc. ~J
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 16, 2002 - Request for annexation and zoning of
127.74 acres from RUT to G-G, L-O and R-4 zones for proposed Sutherland Farm ~- east of South
Eagle Rood and north of East Victory Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
SANITARY SERVICE:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
See Previous Item Packets
See Memorandum of Understanding with Suthedand Farms & Sassers
Dote: Phone:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
Sen~ By: MePiaian
To: City Clerk
06/17/0~ 14:69
888 6854; Jun-17-02
At: 8884218
~208 323 9336 J-U-B ENG. BOZS£
3:27PU;
Page 1/2
~001/002
MEMORANDUM
r~
DAT~
MRI~IDIAN PLANNING AND ZONJ NO COM~0S$ION
On IV'my 21, 2002, rel')~,,..,~ri,rcs o£J-U-B P..NG1NBBI~S ~ the developer of Sud~ds~i
$~bdivision met with Mz. =ut Mrs, G~te S~e~ ss directed by the Pl~ning and Zoning Commia~ion
~t ~e public heating on Msy 16, 9-002. The ps'es explm~d mums~ly a¢c~tabl¢ designs for the
in~crfitc¢ between the S~sse~ pt'otae~y mci r. he Sure, land Farm developmeot. The Sssse~. wet~
~ho~ * ~edesign of the ~oUthcm end o~ the Hoject utilizing ~ single loaded r~ad end thc
e'S~leincd the difficulties o~ the zede~ign ~,d hi~ pgfc. tcn~c for otigiml de.*ign.
With ~gaxd to height ~e~trlctlou e~ound thc halenco of thc bouudary, we sugl~t d~tz the
;ommiseion in~ude ~ condition of ~Pprovel lh-alti~
s-nd Lot 19, Block 15 to p~e~.ve the ~
JUN l? ~2 15:18 888 6854 PAGE.O1
888 6854; JUn-17-02 3:28PM; Page 2/2
MEMO]~S~DUlV[ OF UNDERSTANDING
Ttd~ Memorandum of Unde~tanding tn her&y entered tnto betwce~ tl~ cteve3oper of
' Sut~land Farm Subdivisi°n, ~rth-,lsnd Farm lac. (DeveloF:r), and .Mr, C~le Sau~r
(Pr~3r Owns), the owner of real property adjoining gutberland Farm Subdivision at a
common boundary beginning aZ Victoz3, Road and extending no~ approximately 730 feet to a
po~t, thence extending east approximnt~y 300 feet to a point.
Th~ parties agree that it isin tlmir mutual interest to aSx~ to a design treztment for U'zcir
co .a~non tm-ndary prio~ to comtmcdon of the development. To that end, both parties hctcby
agra., e tint ~ following elemgnts constilute a mataally acceptable d~ign for the common
b~.ndary between Suthcrland Farm Sulxlivbion and the Sasser properly:
~o ^ re~ction to single story homes on [.a~ 12, 13, & ~4; Block 9 (to ~ aor~ of thc
S~s~er 13~pct~) and Lots 5 & 6; Block 9 (to the we~t of r.~ SMsex p~ope~ty);
An eight foot cedar fence a/ong the entire length of ~ western and northern propcrt7
boundaries;
Bot~ parries agree :o extensive hndncaping on r.~,~r respective sides of the property liue
consisting of & de-ma mJxttc~ of ~vergreen and deciduous ~ees, Tbe developer intends
to install a staggered, doable row of fa~tcz and slower growing tz~s, to be
professionally dcs~ned. Thc partes will confln-e to work: together to develop a
mutually ~c~ptable hndsc~pe plan for thc property line;
· An increased rear setback of~ feet (30') for Lot~ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8; Block 9.
Bc~th parties further agr~ that no additional measures are warranted to enmzz~ compadbUity
an~] that the preceding design elements should bc iuckuied within the Conditions of Appzoval
imposed upon ~e development by the City of Mezklian,
.;
Sil~ned t]~s
3~95 Oizcln~ Lane 3516 E. Vic'wry Road
Meridian, ]]3 83642 Meridian, ID 83642
888 68S4 PAGE.02
May 13, 2002 AZ 02-004
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 16, 2002
APPLICANT Sutherland Farm, Inc. ~TEM NO. 5
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 4, 2002 -- Requesf for annexation and zoning of
127.74 acres from RUT to G-G, bO and R-4 zones for proposed Sutherland Farm -- east of South
Eagle Road and north of East Victory Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
SANITARY SERVICE:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
See Previous Item Packet
Date: Phone:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
0~-
0 0
.!
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE
16-May-02
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 02-004
PROJECT NAME
Sutherland Farm
NAME
HAY ! b 2002
CI'[-f 01~' ~IERIDIAN
FOR
AGAINST
X
M~YOR
Robert D. Cot'de
CITY COUNCIL MF_2vtBERS
Tin, my deWeerd
Keith Bird
Cherie McCandless
William L. M. Nary
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, ID,MtO 83642
(208) 888-4433. F,~X. (208) 887-4813
CiLy Clerk Office Fax (208) 8884218
DEP2LRTMENT
(208) 884-5533. F,~X 888-6854
MEMORANDUM:
May 15, 2002
To.'
From:
RECEIVED
Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
David McKinnon, Planner II ~.
Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech
Sutherland Farm CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICE
Annexation and Zoning of 127.64 Acres from RUT and R-I (Ada County) to
R-4 (Low Density Residential) and C-G (General Retail and Service
Commercial District), by Sutherland Farm, Inc (File No. AZ-02-O04).
Preliminary Plat Approval of 308 Building Lots and 30 "Other" Lots on
127.64 Acres on Land Requested to be Rezoned to R-4 and C-G, by
Sutherland Farm, Inc (File No. PP-02-O04).
A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to Allow a 20% Land
Use Exception (Office/High Density Uses in a Proposed R-4 Zone), Reduced
Lot Sizes, Reduced Frontage Requirements, Reduced Setbacks, Reduced
Home Sizes and to Exceed Block Length Requirements, by Sutherland Farm,
Inc (File No. CUP 02-005)
We have reviewed the aforementioned applications and now offer the following comments,
as conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly
modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATION SUMMARY
(This report is to replace the oriRinal "draft" report that was used at the last public
hearinR. All new language has been underlined.)
The Applicant, Sutherland Farm Inc., has requested the annexation and zoning 127.64 acres of
land adjacent to the east side of Eagle Road, and the north side of Victory Road. Approximately
eleven (11) acres of the subject property is located on the north side of the Ridenbaugh Canal.
The land is presently zoned RUT and R-1. The Applicant has requested that upon annexation, all
of the property south of the Ridenhaugh Canal be zoned R-4, and that all property to the north of
the canal be zoned C-G.
AZ-02-O0~, pp-02404, CUP02-O05 Sutherland Farms AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 15, 2002
Page 2
The Applicant's preliminary plat approval request is for 308 building lots (260 single-family
detached lots, 32 single-family attached lots (alley-loaded), 11 office/multiple family lots, and 5
commercial lots) and 30 other lots. The "other" lots include a four-acre park/pond area, a thirty-
foot wide pathway adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal, alleys, an irrigation lot, tot lots, and
required landscaping. The five (5) commercial lots will be located north of the Ridenbaugh
Canal.
The Applicant has also requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development in order to allow reduced development standards including reduced setbacks,
reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced dwelling sizes, and to allow the Applicant's request
to exceed block length requirements. The following is a side-by-side comparison of the City's
minimum requirements and the reduced requirements that have been proposed by the applicant:
Setbacks-
City Reouirements (R-4)
Front: 20'
Rear: 15'
Side: 5'/per story
Street side: 20'
Pro~sed Setbacks (Townhomes)
Front: 10'
Rear: 5'
Side: 0'
Street side: 0'
Lot Size-
City Requirements
R-4 zone: 8,000 sq.ft.
Per Dwelling Unit
Pmoosed Lot Sizes
3,829-5,711 sq. ft. (Townhouses)
6,500 sq.ft. (Detached Single-family)
Lot Frontage-City Requirements
80'minimum
Proposed' Frontage
42' minimum (townhouse)
(Additional note: 105 ont of 292 residential lots do not meet the minimum R-4 standards)
Additionally, as part of the planned development request, the applicant has requested a twenty
percent (20%) land use exception to permit .office/multi-family housing and attached single-
family housing in the R-4 zone.
The planned development's amenities include two (2) tot lots, a four (4) acre park/pond area, a
pathway and an additional open space/drainage lot.
The property north of the Ridenbaugh Canal (requested C-G zoning) is not a part of the Planned
Development request.
LOCATION
The property is located approximately ½ a mile south of Overland Road on the east side of S.
Eagle Road. The property extends easterly along the Ridenbaugh Canal for approximately 3,600
feet. The southern boundary of the property provides access to Victory Road, approximately
1,000 feet east of the intersection of Eagle and Victory Roads.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
AZ-O2-O04, PP-02.004, CUPO2-O05
Sutherland Fannn AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 15, 2002
Page 3
North: Silverstone and Silverstone H, zoned C-C and C-G.
South: Rural residential properties, zoned RUT and R-1 (Ada County).
East: Muir Woods Subdivision, zoned R-4 (Ada County).
West: Thousand Springs Subdivision, zoned R-4.
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS
According to Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both
the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances
of each proposed zoning amendment in 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;
Staff finds that the requested zoning designations, R-4 to south of the Ridenbaugh
Canal and C-G to the north of the Ridenbaugh Canal, is harmonious with and in
accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Generalized Land Use
Map, which designates the land to be "Mixed Residential" and "Single Family
Residential".
Although, the Schedule of Use Control (MCC11-8-1) states that only detached
single-family dwellings are permitted within the R-4 zone, the Planned
Development Ordinance allows a mixture of different housing types,
(townhouses, duplexes and detached single-family dwellings) within a single
planned development, regardless of the underlying zone, so long as the overall
density of the underlying zone is not exceeded (MCC12-6-4 A).
Accordingly, the overall density of the residential portion of the planned
development is approximately three dwelling units per acre (292units + 97acres =
3.01 units/acre).
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 approval of the annexation and zoning of Silverstone II on
the north side of the Ridenbaugh Canal would dictate that the adjacent property to
the east should be similarly zoned and developed (as proposed). The Ridenbaugh
Canal provides a natural buffer/separation between land uses.
AZ-02-004, PP -024104, CUP024105 Suthertand Farms AZ PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 15, 2002
Page 4
Muir Woods Subdivision to the east has provided a stub-street at the Sutherland
Farm western property line in expectation of similar development.
Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to
be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended
character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the
essential character of the same area;
Staff finds that general vicinity provides a mix of commercial uses and standard
to estate sized residential lots. The intended character of the vicinity, as noted on
the Generalized Land Use Map, is for mixed housing projects, detached single-
family lots and mixed uses north of the Ridenbaugh Canal. Staff finds that the
proposed 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.
De
Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses;
The Commission and Council should rely on public testimony to determine
whether or not the proposed use will be disturbing or hazardous to the
neighboring uses.
Staff does not anticipate that the proposed uses will be hazardous or disturbing to
future or existing neighbors.
ge
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;
Staff finds that the subject property will be served adequately by all essential
public facilities and services, with the exception of water service. Computer
modeling indicates that existing available fa'e flows and pressures will not be
adequate to serve the Commercial/office/multi-family area of the subdivision at
present. The City of Meridian will be bringing a new supply well on line in the
Silverstone project within the next six to eight months, and with the development
of the Silverstone project, a new main will extend under the Ridenbaugh Canal.
According to the computer model, once these two items are complete fu'e flows
and pressures will be adequate to serve the higher demands of the above
mentioned areas.
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;
AZ-02-004. PP -02004, CUP02-005 Sutherland Fmms AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 15, 2002
Page 5
J.
Staff finds that there will not be additional requirements at public cost and that the
annexation and zoning will not be detrimental to the community's economic
welfare.
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 uses will create additional traffic on both Eagle and
Victory Roads; however, staff does not believe that the increase in traffic will be
excessive. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed development will generate
traffic, noise, smoke, odors or other nuisances that would be detrimental to the
general welfare of the surrounding area.
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;
Staff finds that the proposed vehicular approach on Eagle Road aligns with the
existing entry into Thousand Springs Subdivision, and should not appreciably
interfere with traffic on the surrounding streets. The other major access (Victory)
and stub-streets provided for within the plat do not appear to be designed in a
manner that would create interference with traffic on surrounding streets.
The Applicant has provided a number of stub-streets to other properties for
interconnectivity in the future.
Staff does not agree with the Ada County Highway District Commission's
recommendation requiring connection to existing stub streets (Hollandale to the
east and Knapp to the south) with the placement of temporary bollards in the
middle of the street until a northern connection to Overland Road is completed.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance; and
Staff finds that no natural or scenic features of major importance will be lost or
damaged by approval of this annexation request. The overall design of the subject
property includes a pathway adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal.
Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of
Meridian. (Ord. 592, 11-17-1992)"
Staff finds that the annexation of this property would be in the best interest of the
City by providing a variety of housing types, the addition of employment
AZ-02-O(}4, PP ~.02-~04, CUI~2-O0~ Sutherland Farms AZ~ PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 15, 2002
Page 6
opportunities and the creation of additional recreation facilities (pathways and a
subdivision park).
ANNEXATION AND ZONING COMMENTS
1. The legal description submitted with the application appears to meet the requirements of the
City of Meridian and State Tax Commission and places the parcel contiguous to existing city
limits.
2. The requested zoning orR-4 and C-G is compatible with the City Comprehensive Plan and
the Meridian Zoning Ordinances
3. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. Essential City services are
available to the subject property.
4. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be
used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
5. A development agreement will be required as part of this annexation request.
PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS AND REQUIREMENTS
Sections 12-3-3 J.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance ora proposed
subdivision, the Commission/Council shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the
following:
a. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive DeVelopment Plan;
As noted above, staff finds that the subdivision appears to be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
b. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
Staff finds that public services are available to accommodate thc proposed subdivision~
c. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement
program;
Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement
funds.
d. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development;
AZ-02-004, P1'-02-(}04, CUP02-00~ Suth,~'dand Farms AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 15, 2002
Page 7
Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing
supporting services.
e. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the
Commission's attention.
Staff finds that there should not be any other health, safety or environmental problems
associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's
attention.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The preliminary plat has a number of blocks (9, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19) that exceed the 1,000 foot
maximum block length (MCC 12-4-5). However, because this plat is part of a planned
development the Applicant has requested that they be allowed to exceed this section of Code
without the need for a variance.
After reviewing the preliminary plat in light of the requested block lengths, staff would feel
comfortable allowing the 1,000+ foot long block lengths if the following modifications are
included on a revised plat:
· The addition of a micro-path, in accordance with the Landscape Ordinance, that runs
between Lots 4, 5 and Lotsl6 and 17 of Block 18.
· The addition of a micro-path, in accordance with the Landscape Ordinance, that
separates Lots 9 and 10 of Block 19. The micro-path shall continue though Lot 1 of
Block 19.
Planning and Zoning staff have additional concerns with the construction of homes that
effectively surround the proposed park (Lot 54, Block 1) and office buildings that surround the
large open space/drainage lot located adjacent to the pathway in the northwest area of the project
(Lot 12, Block 1). Surrounding the open space with buildings decreases the visual appeal of the
open space, reduces the accessibility of the open space to those homeowners that do not live
adjacent to the open space, and may create a safety risk, as the police department will not be able
to view the open space from the public right-of-way.
Staff recommends that the Commission and the City Council consider reducing or eliminating
the seven (7) homes located on the southeast comer of Lot 54, Block 1. The reduction or
elimination of the houses would create larger, open and usable park for the entire subdivision
Staff further recommends that the Commission and Council consider increasing the visibility of
Lot 12, Block 1, by providing additional open space along the east side of Lot 11, Block 1, or by
the requiring Lot 11 to become part of Lot 12 (thus increasing the visibility and amount of open
space provided).
AZ-02-004, pP =02-004, CUF02-005 Suth~land Farms AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 15, 2002
Page 8
Staff recommends the full connection of the existing stub streets (Hollandale Street and Knapp
Street) without bollards. The City is not required to adopt the ACHD Commission's
recommendation.
SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS (preliminary plat)
o
o
Sanitary sewer and water service to this site shall be via new main extensions fi:om the
existing mains adjacent to the property.. Computer modeling indicates that existing
available fire flows and pressures will not be adequate to serve the
Commercial/office/multi-family area of the subdivision at present. The City of Meridian
will be bringing a new supply well on line in the Silverstone project within the next six to
eight months, and with the development of the Silverstone project, a new main will
extend under the Ridenbaugh Canal. According to the computer model, once these two
items are complete fire flows and pressures will be adequate to serve the higher demands
of the above mentioned areas.
The submitted landscape plan includes conifers located in the required street buffer along
Eagle Road. This is in violation of the Landscape Ordinance; however, staff supports the
inclusion of the pine trees at this location because conifers have been permitted as part of
the Silverstone Corporate Center landscaping, immediately adjacent to the Sutherland
Farms project on Eagle Road.
Fencing details shall be submitted with the Final Plat application. Fencing adjacent to
pathways or the Private Park shall not be over three feet in height if constructed of a solid
material, and shall not be more than 4 feet in height if it is non-sight obscuring.
Performance specifications for the common area pressurized irrigation system shall be
submitted with the Final Plat application.
The addition of a micro-path, in accordance with the Landscape Ordinance, that runs
between Lots 4, 5 and Lotsl6 and 17 of Block 18.
The addition of a micro-path, in accordance with the Landscape Ordinance, that separates
Lots 9 and 10 of Block 19. The micro-path shall continue though Lot 1 of Block 19.
There shall be a minimum separation often (10) feet between unattached buildings.
Add a note to the face of the plat requiring all single family detached houses to provide a
minimum of 1,400 square feet of living space, excluding the garage.
The required landscaping and irrigation system on Victory Road shall be installed prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building on any lot created by the
subdivision. Landscaping and fencing must be bonded for prior to applying for building
permits.
AZ-02-O04, pp-.02-004, CUP02-O05 Suthedand Farms AZ. PP.CUPfPD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 15, 2002
Page 9
10.
The Applicant shall coordinate pathway construction requirements along the Ridenbaugh
Canal with the City's Parks Director, Tom Kuntz
11.
The applicant shall coordinate ACHD concerning the requirements and construction of
the Bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal
12.
The phasing schedule shall apply to the residential portions of the subdivision only. If the
applicant/developer determines that the office/multi-family or C-G zoned property can or
should be developed in an order that is not consistent with the phasing schedule, they
may request final plat approval of said phases in a non-sequential manner without
revising the preliminary plat. All development, however must be contiguous to a
previously approved phase.
GENERAL COMMENTS f~reliminarv ~lat)
Please submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's final approval letter
for the subdivision name, and the lot and block numbering. Make any corrections
necessary to conform.
2. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing,
landscaping, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the
final plat.
One-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations
designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at
subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants.
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, excluding the Ridenhaugh Canal. The ditches to be piped
should be shown on the site plans. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confmnation of said
approval submitted to the Public Works Department.
Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Sections 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells
may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
7. Slopes within drainage lots are not to exceed a ratio of 3:1.
FINDINGS FOR USE EXCEPTIONS WITHIN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
MCC 12-6-3 "Use Exceptions" require the Commission and Council to make the following
findings in order to authorize specific uses that are not normally permitted by the use regulations
AZ-024304, PP --02-1104, CUP02-005 Smhedand Farms AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 15, 2002
Page 10
of the zone in which the development is located (no more than 20% of the gross area of the gross
project):
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 office/multiple-family housing uses are strongly related to the primary use
of the development (R-4). The office uses will provide services (medical, dental, optical
etc...) that will be complementary to the residents of the subdivision, and it will provide
employment opportunities as well.
Staff finds that multiple-family housing adjacent to the higher density townhouses is
appropriate within the overall development of this subdivision. The mixing of residential
uses and commercial uses will encourage the office development to be constructed in a
manner that will be pedestrian fi:iendly. High-density housing will provide an immediate
consumer base for the office development.
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.
Staff finds that the townhonse and the office/multiple-family housing uses are approximately
15.5% of the total area of land included in the planned development.
(32 townhouses * 4,271 sq. ft. average + 43,560) + (11 office lots * 59,155sq. ft. average
43560) -- 18.08 acres of land devoted to excepted uses.
18.08 acres of excepted uses + 116.6 gross area of planned development (in acres) * 100 =
15.5% of the planned development will be devoted to excepted uses.
Staff finds that the size and intensity of the excepted uses is appropriate for this location and
size of development.
me
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 townhouse use is projected as part of the first phase of the development and that the
office/multiple-family housing will be the final two phases. Staff finds that upon completion
of the townhouses and detached single-family dwellings, the residents of the subdivision will
desire services that can be provided by later phases of this development.
4. The uses permitted by the exception are integrated into the overall project by:
AZ-02404, PP -02-004, CUP02-0(Y3 Sutherland Famm AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 15, 2002
Page 11
Being located in proximity to and within convenient walking distance of the
primary uses.
Staff finds that the office/multiple-family/townhouse uses will be within convenient
walking distance of the park and open space provided within the residential
development.
Utilizing one or more of the main vehicular accesses to the primary use site as
the main access to the exception site or intereonnection through a system of
private roadways and/or pathways.
Staff finds that the site design incorporates interconnectivity though shared
vehicular access points. The applicant has provided a pathway system that would
connect the excepted uses with the R-4 residential uses.
Co
Providing pedestrian and bicycle pathway connections with the primary use
site.
Staff finds that the applicant has provided pathway connections with the
commercial use.
de
Orienting buildings on the exception site to facilitate vehicular and/or
pedestrian access from the primary use site.
Staff finds that the excepted uses are located in a manner that will facilitate
vehicular access t~om the residential uses.
e. 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 finds that the landscaping is consistent throughout the development.
Architectural and building bulk concepts will be hard to maintain, as this is
primarily a residential neighborhood with a variety of lot sizes, housing options and
lot dimensions. The Commission and Council should determine what, if any,
architectural/design concepts (residential and/or commercial) should be
incorporated into all buildings within this development.
?
The use(s) permitted bythe 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 office use is not regional in size or character.
STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USES
AZ-02-004, PP-02004, CUINI2-005 Sutherland Farms AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 15, 2002
Page 12
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 fred evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (11-17-3):
Ao
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;
Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested use
and all other required features.
Be
That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance;
The current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the property as "Mixed
Residential and Single-Family Residential". The proposed mix of residential, commercial
and office uses are harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
The project meets the requirements and objectives of the Planned Development
Ordinance.
Ce
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;
Stafffinds the design concept to be compatible with the intended character of the area.
The Generalized Land Use Map indicates that this area is intended for mixed residential
and single-family dwellings. The existing neighborhood to the southeast of this project is
currently large estate sized housing ranging in size fi.om 2-5+ acres and the existing
neighborhood to the east is consists of approximately ¼ to ½+ acre lots. All lots that area
adjacent to the east and southeast either meet or exceed the lot dimensions required by
the R-4 zone.
De
That the proposed use, if it complies with ali conditions of the approval imposed,
will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity;
Staff does not anticipate that the proposed project will have an adverse impact on the
surrounding property; however, the Commission and Council should consider any
testimony given at the public hearings before making this finding.
te
That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, street, police, and fire protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of
proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services;
AZ-02-004, pp -02-004, CLIP02-005 Suthedand Famm AZ PP.C UP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 15, 2002
Page 13
Staff finds that the proposed development can be adequately served by the essential
public facilities and services listed above.
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;
Stafffinds that the proposed use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community, nor would it create the need for any new facilities or services to be paid for
by the public.
Ge
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;
Staff finds that no excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors will result t~om
the proposed use.
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;
Staff finds that the proposed use will not create significant interference with any traffic
on the surrounding public streets. The Council and Commission should refer to the
ACHD report for additional information concerning this finding.
That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
Staffdoes not find that any natural or scenic feature will be lost, damaged or destroyed
by issuance of this conditional use. The Ridenhaugh Canal is to remain open and
improved with a pathway.
SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS (Conditional Use Permit)
Applicant shall meet all of the requirements of the preliminary plat as a condition of the
Conditional Use Permit.
All office or multiple-family homing uses proposed within the development shall be
required to apply for a conditional use permit for a planned development prior to
construction.
No more than 101 building permits shall be issued within Sutherland Farm Subdivision
until a secondary emergency vehicle access to Eagle Road is completed.
AZ-02-004, pP-02-004, CUP02-005 Sutheriand Farms AZ PP,CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 15, 2002
Page 14
E. Easy Jet Drive shall be fully improved (including curbs, gutter, sidewalks,
landscaping, and irrigation prior) prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any
building constructed within Phase five (5) of the subdivision. Additionally, all required
improvements adjacent to Eagle Road shall be complete prior to occupancy of any
building within Phase Five (5) of the subdivision.
All site improvements (landscaping and irrigation) for the four-acre park/pond area, and
the pathway (Lot 75) connecting the park/pond area to Eagle Road shall be complete
prior to the issuance of the 101't occupancy permit within Sutherland Farm Subdivision.
The applicant shall be required to maintain the pond in a manner that will prevent the
water fi.om becoming stagnant or public nuisance (a mosquito breeding ground).
The remaining sections of the pathway (east of the 4-acre park/pond area) shall be
developed in accordance with the phasing schedule for the subdivision.
All development shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair
Housing Act.
No building permits shall be issued within the development until a final plat has been
recorded for this subdivision.
COMPREIIENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
The subject property is located in an area designated as Mixed Residential in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan. 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.
Goals Section
Goal 4: To provide housing opportunities for all economic groups within the community.
Goal 8: To establish compatible and effeient use of land through the use of innovative and
functional site design.
Goal 3: To encourage the kind of economic growth and development which supplies
employment and economic self-suffeiency for existing and future residents, reduces the
present reliance on Boise and strengthens the City's ability to finance and implement
public improvements, services, and its open space character.
Goal 8: To establish compatible and efficient use of land through the use of innovative and
functional site design.
Goal 9: To encourage a balance of land use patterns to insure that revenues pay for services.
Economic Development
1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmosphere that
encourages...commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian.
1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new commercial or industrial developments
should be harmonized with the natural environment and respect the unique needs and
features of each area.
1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
AZ-02-004, pp-02.004, CUP02-00~ Suth~'land Farms AZ. PP. CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 15, 2002
Page 15
3.1U - Approve quality homing projects that meet the needs of all economic levels.
3.2U - Encourage efforts to develop and maintain quality neighborhoods and housing...
4.3U
5.9
5.12
5.13
5.14
Land Use
1.10U Promote the design of attractive roadway entryway areas into Meridian which will clearly
identify the community.
2.1U - Support a variety of residential categories for the purpose of providing the City with a
range of affordable housing opportunities.
2.4U - Encourage sidewalks and paved streets for all existing neighborhoods...
3.7 Industrial uses which require the storage or the production of explosive or hazardous
materials should not be located near residential areas, and should conform to disposal,
spill and storage measures as outlined by the U.S. EPA.
Encourage new commercial development in under-utilized existing commercial areas.
The integrity and identity of any adjoining residential neighborhood should be preserved
through the use of buffering techniques, including screen plantings, open space and other
landscaping techniques.
Strip development within this mixed-use area is not in compliance with the goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Clustering of uses and controlled access points along arterials and collector streets will be
required.
Because these areas are near 1-84 and Franklin Roads, high-quality visual appearance is
essential. All development proposals in this area will be subject to development review
guidelines and conditional use permitting procedures.
Natural
2.1U
3.1U
3.2U
Resource & Hazardous Areas
Development along major drainage ways will be restricted to ensure that development
does not cause additional ground or surface water contamination.
Manage and prevent unsuitable uses along drainageways and protect the flood plain of
creeks and drains.
Protect the potential beauty and recreational trail opportunities of all Meridian
waterways.
Community Design
1.3 Open space areas within all development should be encouraged.
1.4 Major entrances to the City should be enhanced and emphasized. Unattractive land uses
along these entrances should be screened fi.om view.
2.1U Require businesses and government to install and maintain landscaping.
2.3U Encourage the beautification of streets, parking lots...etc.
6.2U - Pedestrian access connectors will be required in all new development to link subdivisions
together to promote neighborhood identity.
6.11U - Promote well-planned and well-designed affordable housing in all Meridian
neighborhoods.
Transvortation Charter
1.19U - Encourage proper design
tranquility.
of res~ential
neighborhoods to
ensure their safety and
AZ-02-004, Pp -02-004, CUP02-O05 Su~erland Farms AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
May 15, 2002
Page 16
1.14 - Design and performance standards should be applied to infilling development in order to
reduce adverse impacts upon existing adjacent development.
1.18 - As Planned Development methods and standards are implemented by the City of
Meridian, variations pertaining to planned development - maximum density,
dimensional standards, and other requirements - shall not exceed 25% of the existing
requirements, and shall be recommended when one or more of the Planned Development
design and developmental objectives are met.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the concept of developing this area with a medium-low density residential and
office uses, as proposed by the applicant.
Staff does not agree with ACHI)'s final Development Application Report site-specific comments
15 and 16 (pg 13&14) regarding the extension of existing stub streets into Sutherland Farms, but
then blocking offthe streets with bollards until an access to Overland Road is constructed. Stub-
streets are intended to encourage interconnectivity~ not prevent it until an undeterminable date.
Staffreeommends that if the Commission decides to make a motion to approve this subdivision
it should include the elimination of the ACHD site-specific comments 15 and 16, and to allow
the connection of the existing stub-streets (the City has the ability to override an ACHD
requirement).
The Applicant has addressed the issue of providing more visible open space at the last meeting
by submitting a new plan that relocating the seven houses that surrounded the park on the south
east corner of the park.
A number of new issues were raised at the last meeting that remain unresolved, and should be
dealt with prior to making a recommendation for approval. The following is a list of those issues:
· The placement of fill dirt on the southern side of Sutherland Farm's property, that has
raised the elevation on the property.
· The possible shifting of the roadway adjacent to the Sasser's property (the Victory
road access).
· Possible berming and fencing plans adjacent to Los Altos Subdivision.
The Applicant's representative, Darren Fluke, stated at the last meeting that he would address the
aforementioned issues at this meeting,
Staffrecommends approval of the project.
AZ-02-004, pP ~02-004, CUP02-O05 Suthedsad Fa~nns AZ. PP.CUP/PD
~o: C~ty Clerk 8884218
Prdiminazy Plat -
Sutherland Farms
MCUP02-005/MAZ02 -0004
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
Plannin8 and Development Division
Development Application Report
Eagle Road and Victory Road
RECEIVE
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY p,I
308-1ot mixed use subdM~ion
This apl~ication has been refen~ to ACHD by the City of Meridian for review and comment. The
applicanl~ ~s requesting annexation, rezone, conditional use and p~iimina~ plat approval for a 308-1ot
commer~'al/offlce/residential subdivision on 127.64--acres. The 127.64-acre site is located on the east
side of Eagle Road approximately ~.~ ora mile south of Overland Road. This development is estimated
to generate 12,414 additio~ti vehicle trips per day (20-existing) basad on the h~titute of Transportntion
Engineers Trip Generntion Manual.
Roads impacted by this development: Ea~Je Road
Victory Road
Knapp Drive
Hollandale Street
Muir Ridge Driv~
East Copper Point Way
ACHD Commis~/on Date - May 8, 2002 - 6:30 p.m.
Fatt~ and Findings:
A. General Infommtion
Owner - Suthedand Farms, 1nc.
~plicaat - Sutherhnd Farms, Inc.
Representative - JUB Engin~ Inc. - Gary Lee
RUT - Exisan zenin8
R-4, L-O and C-G- Proposed zonin~
127,64 - Acres
308 - Proposed buildin~ lots
292 - residential lots
! ] - o~ce lots
5 - commercial lots
13 - Proposed common lots
· ~
West Ada - hnpact Foe Servic~ Area
Meridian - impact Fee Assessment District
Suther 'land Fanns.cnuu
Page 1
MAY 15 '02 12:39 888 6854 PAGE. O1
Suthelland Farms
Eagle Road and V~or~ Road
308-1ot mixed use subdt~lon
MAY 1~
~02 12:39
MAY
I I
~2
~a~le
Minor arterial with bike lane
Traffic cou~ on Eagle Road south ofl-S4 was 24,183 on $-?-01,
"C' south ofl-~4 and "1~' north of L84 -Existing ~ of Sffvice
"C" south ofi-84 and "F' north of L84 -Existing plus project build-out Level of Service
9.{)0 -feet offrontaBe
50 .feet existing fight-of, way (25-feet from centerline)
96 -£eet requir~ tight-of-way (48 -feet ii, om cenierline)
Eagle Road is improved with 2-trai~ic lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site.
~ctory Road
Minor arterial with bike lane designation
Traffic count east of Eagle Road was 4,692 on 2-2-00.
"C" -Existing Level of Service
"C" -Exi~ng ldus project build-out Level of'Service
G0 -feet of frontage
58-feet existing right, of. way (25-feet from centerline)
96-fe~t required fight-of-way (48-fe~-'t ~rom centerli~)
Victory Road is improved with 2-traffic lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site.
l~p Driw
Traffic cou~ ws.s not available
30 -feet offl'ontage
30 -feet existing fight-of-way
Knapp Ddve is improved with 2-traffic lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site.
I~°llandalc S~et
Traffic count was not available
~0 -feet of frontage
SO-feet existing fight-of-way (25-feet eom centerline)
.No additional right-of-way required
Hollandale Street is improved with 2,Ira/lie lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the
Site.
Muir Ridge Drive
Local street
Stlthetlnnd
Page 3
MAY 15 '02 12:39 ~n~ ~a =~c= ~
Do
T~affic coum was not av~lable
50-feet e~ng right-of-way (2$-foe~ from cen~)
Muir Ridge Drive is improved with 2-traf~c lanes with curb, gutter and concrete sidewalk
abutting the she.
E~st Copper Point Way
COmmercial / Industrial ~treet that was approved with the Silverstone Corporate Center H
Ti'afdc count was not available
50 -feet of f~ontage
50-feet existing ri~ht-of-way (2S-feet ~om centerline)
No additional right-of-way required
~ Copper Point Way was approved as a commercial / industrial roadway that was approved
x~ith the Silverstone Corporate Center. It will be constructed ns a standard commercial /
hidustrial roadway with a 40-foot s~eet section with curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk.
D .~elopme~t patterns in the sumunding area are commercial ..rt residential. To th~ north of the
sit~ is tl~ Silverston~ Corporate Center and a vacant parcel. To the south of thc site is singlg
faint]' ' y residential. To the west of the site is Thousand Springs Subdivision. To the east of the
sit~ is Muir Woods Subdivision and Ranchos Los Altos Subdivision. Based on development
patterns in tl~ ama and thn resulting tra~c generation, staff' anticipates that tl~ tranaportation
sy~m will be adequate to accommodate additional traffic generated by this proposed
development at accepted levels of service.
SeVeral improvements are scheduled to occur within the next five years. The following
imProvements are progra~,,ed in the District's Vwe Year Work Program.
Overland Road, Eagle Road to Cloverdale Road will be reconstructed as a 5-lane
urban section.
Intersection at Victory Road and F_~e Road will be reconstructed with leR turn
lan~ and will become ~gnnli~,~l in the year 2005.
Intersection at Victory Road and Cloverdale Road will be rebuilt and will become
signalized in the year 2005.
Ob March 11, 2002, the District ~lanning and Developmentt staff'inspected this site and evaluated
thb transportation system in the vicinity. On March April 26, 2002, the staffmet as th~ District's
Technical Review Committee and reviewed the impacts of this proposed development on the
District's transportation s~tem. The results of that analysis constitute the following Facts and
Findings and recommended Site Specific Requirements.
The applicant hired EartTech Engineering to perform a tra~c analysis of this site. The analysis
has identified the following conclusions, and this information has been verified by District staff.'
Proposed Devdopment.mld land me:'"""
C¥['Y ¢)i/M~,:R ~.'.'.'.,'/, .-,'
Suthetland l~arms.cnun
Page 4
MAY 15 '02 12:40 ~@~ ~a ~ ~a
MAY
· Suthetland Farms Subdivision is a proposed devclopmen! contairl~ing 258 single-family
homes, 32 residential townhouses and 540,000 square feet of officeJretaii space all on a 127-
:' acre site located on ~e southeast quadrant of the inte. xaection of Eagle Road and Overland
Road. As ~hown ia the ptelimina~ site plan, the developmeat proposes three full-access
i e~trances on Eagle Road, and one full access e~rance on Vktory Road. A stub street on
!. the east of the development will allow intercormectivity with the Muir Woods Subdivision.
~ site is currently zoned as R-I and RUT and is going to be rezoned
?
The Surrounding Are~:
m~
15 '02
The study will include the intersections of Easie Road and Overland Road, F. agle Road and
the 1-84 Eastbouad OlfRamp, Eagle Road (SH 55) and the 1-84 Westbound Oil ILamp,
Eagle Road and Victory Road, Overland Road and CloVerdale Road, and Cloverdale Road
and Muir Woods Subdivision enuance.
ACHD and lTD ~re pla-nj-E improvements to the road system in the agoa. ACHD is
~ on construction of Locu~t Grove Road betweea Franklin Road and Overland Road,
including an overpa~ over 1-84 (2006), and they are planning on widening Overland Road
between Eagle Road. and Linder Road (2005 & 2007). The intersection of Cloverdale Rd.
and Overlamt Rd. is going to be widened to five lanes (2003). lTD is plannia8 to install a
signal at the Jnterse~on of Eagle Road and the eastbound 1-84 off ramp (2004, wflh the
poa~bility to be move ahead of that schedule). In addition the tntersection of Eagle &
Overland is being widened tn 2005 and a,~ign~ is programmed for inst~,;lation in 20nS..al
Eagle & F'ictory, as well as the addition of left turn tanes,
Based on the new traffic information, it is apparent that Eagle Road north of the interstate is
already over plannln~ threshold for LOS E. It is obvious that some improvements will be
required whether the subject project is consm~ed or not. The Eagle and Frankiia Roads
Corridor Study identif~ four'alternate improvement scenarios, which would improve the
LOS on Eagle Road. ACHD does have plans to improve Franklin Road and the intersection
of Franklin Road and Eagle Road in 2004. Eagle Road is a State Highway; therefore impact
fees cannot he used to make improvements to thi, road. It appears that the solution to this
area is to amend the State Tramportation Improvement Plan a.d include capacity
e~ancement to Eagle Road.
/'The intersection of Eagle ~ and Overland Road k o~r~e~tly operaliag at LOS F tbr both
!J AM and PM peak hour tra~c. It wilioperateataLOSFunder~traflic
~/ conditions with or without the site. With the improvements proposed the intersection will
function at a LOS F uader the AM and LOS D under the PM build out tra~c. These
~,improvements will decrease the vehicle delay by 53 seconds per vehicle.
The inter~ction of Overland Road and Cloverdale Road will operate at LOS C under AM
and PM background traffic. With the addition of the site tra~c the AM tra~c will continue
to operate at a LOS C ~d the PM tra~c w~l operate at LOS D. This assumes tha~ the
inte~ae~on is reco~mucted as pl~mned in the Five Year Work Prosx~m.
1'2:40
Thc intersection of Eagle Road and Victory Road will operate at LOS C under the AM and
LOS C under the PM..' background traffic. The intersection will operate at LOS D under the
AM and LOS D undar the PM build out traffic.
The intersection of Cloverdale Road and the entrance to Muir Woods Subdivision at West
Muir Ridge Drive will operate at a LOS C under AM and PM background traffic. With the
addition o£ the AM site traffic the iniersection will continue to operate at a LOS C and the
PM operations will be a LOS D. The LOS operations wilt improve when the south entrance
along Cloverdale Rd. to thc Muir Woods subdivision is connected. In addition, some traffic
from Muir Woods Subdivision will travel through the proposed site, therefore reducing the
traffic to the Cloverda~e entrance.
The supplemernal comments indicate that Overland Road west of Eagle Road will operate at
a LOS C after the addition of the site tra~c at build-out. The same LOS is anticipated to
Overland Road east ofF, age Road for the same time frame. The analysis includes the
proposed improvements for Overland Road.
The same supplemental comments indicate that Eagle goad south o£Overland Road will
operate at a LOS C after the addition of the she traffic at build-out. A LOS F is projected
for the se~on of Eagle Road north ell-g4. As previously stated, this roadway is under the
jurisdiction lTD.
The on-site roadways will operate above LOS C with a two lane with parking confisuration.
The north onsignsli~n:l eniraace gong Eagle Koad will operate at a LOS C and LOS F under
the AM and PM build-out traffic. The PM peak hour traiT~ wan'ams a signal under warrant
#11 Peak Hour analysis (1998 MUTCD). With a signal the vehicle dehy increases by 6
seconds. At this time a signal installation is not justified with the proposed traffic volumes.
The potent'iai for strip~g the exi~ng acceas may need to be ~valuated for this intersectwn
to see if the LOS ~ M low, red from LOS 1~.
The middle u~.~gnsll-ed entrance along Eagle Road will operate at a LOS C for both AM
and PM build out traffc.
The south-unsigmlized entrance along Eagle Road will operate at a LOS D under AM and
LOS C under PM build-out t'taffie. The PM peak hour traffic wnn'ants a signal under
warrant #11 peak hour analysis (1998 MUTCD). With a signal the vehicle delay increases
by 6 seconds. At this time a signal installation is not justified with the proposed traffic
volumes.
System: ·
Eagle Road, south of Overland Road is under the jurisdiotiOn'of the Ada County Highway
Distriot. It is class/f~ ~s a minor arterial. TI~ road consists of two 12-foot lanes and a
narrow shoulder. It is posted ~t $0 mph.
SUth~la~d Fatm~.cmm
Eagle Road north of I-g4 is de~igna~ed as 8H55 under the jurisdiction of lTD. It is
classified as a major arterial. The road consists of five 12-foot lanes and 8-foot shoulders.
It is posted at 50 mph.
Overland Road is under the jurisdiction ofthe ACHD. It is classified as a minor arterial.
The road consists of two 12=foot lanes and a narrow shoulder, with mm lanes at major
intersections. It is posted at 45 mph.
Cloverdale Road is under the jurisdiction of the ACHD. It is classified as a minor ~rterial.
The rom censis~s of two 12-foot lenes and a narrow shoulder, with mm lanes ~ major
intersections. It is posted ~t 45 mph.
V'~ory Road is under the jurisdiction of the ACHD. h is classified ns a minor arterial. The
road consists of two 12-foot lanes and a narrow shoulder, with mm lanes at major
intersections. It is posted at 45 mph.
1-84 is classified as an Interstme I-raghway. At this location, it consists of six lanes. The
interstate connects with Eagle Road with a modified diamond interchange. The int~e
~ from a traditional diamond interchange on the eastbound on-ramp, which is a loop
ramp,
The site is served by three approaches on Eagle Road and one approach on Victory Road
and one access through the Muir Woods subdivision. The developer has proposed to widen
Eagle Road to 5-lanes to just south of the south entrance~ All access to the site will be
unsignntb'ed stop controlled. All approaches will have a one in/one out full access
confisuration, except the south entrance along Eagle Road. This approach will have a left
mm bay included. Capacity analysis was compkied For all of the site acc~s intersections.
The north approach on Eagle Road (E Copp~ Point Way) was analy~ed to operate at a
LOS F under th~s conflgurattot~ The ada~t~ons of an ad~t~onal lane may ~e~d. ta. be
evaluated to see Or tl~ LOS can be ~_'~
Signal warrants were completed for all of thc access intersections and only the north
entrance and south enu'ance along Eagle Road warrant a signal. The PM build-out traffic
for both intersections met the criteria for the Peak Hour Analysis Warrant # 11 (1995
MUTCD). Howevzr the installation of glpmls at ~ i~ons increases the averase
vehicle dehy by 6 socends per vehicle. At this time a signal installation is not justi§ed with
the proposed traffic volumes,
Afignment censicl~'sfions ~ to be addre~ to the west along Eagle Road with Thousand
Springs Subdivision, Spacing of the approaches is in compliance with the requirements of
thc ACHD Development Policy Manual.
Fo
Ho
The applicant should be required to construct a 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk on Eagle
Road located 2-feet within the new right-of-way. Coordinate the location and elevation of the
sidewalk with District staff. If the sidewalk meanders outside of the right-of-way, provide an
easemem for the sick, walk.
The~ applicant should be required to ~nstmct a 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk on
Vicio~y Road located 2-feet within the new right-of-way. Coordinate the location and elevation
of tile sidewalk with Distrib't st'a~. If the sidewldk meallders ouiside of the ~ht-of-way, provide
an easement for the sidewalk
The traffic study did not address if the criteria had been met for either left or right turn auxiliary
lan~s for this developmem, The volumes at the Eagle Road access points indicate that the criteria
is reel for at least the left-mm lanes. The applicam was asked to have their Traffic Fnsi,,e~r
rev/ew to reevaluate whether the cdtega bad been met for the auxiliary Lanes. The issue of timing
was also discuss~ to evaluate when these warrants are triggered to see if the improvements can
be tied to the phasing. According to the District's review of peak hour trips, the applicant should
be ~equired io construct a center tllrn lane mi Eagle Road for the East Easy ~let Drive, the
PrOPosed shared drivewwand ~ Copper Point Way iatersec6ons. The turn lane should be
constructed to provide a ininimum of 100-fe~ ofstm'age with ,shadow tapers for both the
approach and departure directions. Coordinate the deaign of the turn lane with District staff.
OniMay 8, 2002, the Commission cleKa-,:ncd that the applicant should construct OR road trust
for~e cost ofthe center mm L~e on Eagle Road.
Th~ applicant is proposing to construct a shared-driveway on Eagle Road for Lot 3, Block 2 and
Lei 4, Block 2. This proposed shared-driveway is located on Ea~le Road approximately 300-feet
south of the north property line. This proposed driveway meets District policy and should be
aplXoved with this appllcatioa.
Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel bcing
tracked onto the roadway, la accordance with District policy, the applicant should be required to
pa~e the driveway on Eaglz Road that serws Lot 3, Block 2 ~ Lot 4, Block 2 its full width of
30 lo 35-feet and at least 30-feet in~o the site beyond the edge of pavem__e~_ of Eagle Road and
inslall pavement tapers with 15-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge.
Th~ applicant is proposing to consuuct two mslrl ~S tO the subdivision. The proposed
main entrance location meet om'eat Disuict policy and should be approved with this application.
Eait Easy Jet Drive is proposed to be located on Eagle Road approximately 8$CLfeet south of the
no{th property line and is proposed to ~ with Easy Jet Drive. East Easy Set Drive should be
deigned with 21-foot street sections on either side of a center median. The median should be
constructed a minim-m of 4-faet wide (nlaxi~,m 12-fe~t wide) to total a minimum ofa lO0-
~q ..~are foot area. Th~ ~lic. ant will be reqafl'~l to dt~iicate $4-f~'~ of risht-of-w~y plu~ th~
additional width of the n~i~n
P~g~ 8
MAY 15 '0~ 12:~2 888 6854 PAGE.08
SoUth Bay Star Way is proimsed to be located on V~ctory Road approxim~y 800-feet east of
EaSe Road. South Bay S'tar Way should be designed with 21-foot street sections on either side
of a center median. The median should be cons~ a minimum of 4-feet wide (maximum 12-
fee~ wide) io total a minimum ora 100-square foot are~ The applican~ will be required to
dedicate $4-feet of rig~t-of'-wa¥ plus the additional width ofth,e median.
The applicant is proposing to construct Easy let Drive west of South Nephfite Way as a
commercial / industrial roadway. The roadway is proposed to be constructed as a 40-foot street
section with curb, Sutter, 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk within ~4-feet of right-of-way.
Ea~ Jet Drive between South Nephrite Way ami South Proud Way should be designated as a
res~ collector street with no front-on housins, because the anticipated tr-~e volumes
exceed 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The access restrictions for these street segments should be
sta~ed on the final plat. District policy requires that these street segments be constructed as 36-
fo~ street sections with crab, ~rmr and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks. Unless otherwise
no ~.~d, parkin8 should be proin~oited on these street sel~mcuts. Coordinate the signase plan ~
District sta~.
Th~. applicant is proposing to consuuct a commercial / industrial roadway that intersec~ East
CoPPer Poim Way approxln~dy l$0-feet e~st of South Cobblestone Way. District policy
req~t~es local / commercial roadways to align or offset a miriimum of ]25-feet. The commercial /
indhstrisi roadway that is proposed to intersect with East Copper Point Way me~s District policy
and should be approved with this appl/cafiou. The roadway should be constructed ~ a 40-foot
~tr~ section with curb, ~tter, S-foot wide ceocr~¢ sid~k within 51-feet of right-of-way.
U~ess otherwise approved, the applicant ~ould be required to construct all public roads within
theisubdivision ~ 36-foot street sections ~ curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks
within 50-feet ofrisht-of~way.
Thi applicant is proposi~ to mead Hoil~mia~ Strut, an ~isti~ stub street, iato the site ~ the
ea~ property line, that is a pm oftl~ Muir Woods Subdivision. St,~ffsupports the connect/ou of
thii street. On May $, 2002, the Co~n mad a f~rma] action requiring the applicant to
co~tmct Hollandale Street as a stub stre~'t. The stub street should be constructed wi~h
temporary bollards until almblic ~ connection to Overland Road is olymined. A sisn should be
plar,~ on the boli~ds fl~ stat~ "this road will bevomo an opea connectiou when a public road
to Overland Road is
;02 12:42
Sutherland Farms. cram
Page 9
So
The., applicant is proposinS to extend Kaapp Drive, an existi~ stub street, into the site at the
so~h property line, Staff supports the connection of this street. On May 8, :2002, the
Coinmission mad a formal;action r~quiri~ the applicant to construct Knapp Lane as a stub street.
Th~ stub street should be construoted with temporary bollards until a public road connection to
Overland Road is obtained. A sign should be placed on the bollards that states, 'khis road will
bec~ome an open connection when a public road to Overland Road is constructed."
Th~ applicant is propos'ms to construct five stub streets. Two of the proposed stub street stub to
theisouth property line ooe stub str~-t is proposed to stub to the west prope~ [i~e and two stub
streets are proposed to stub to the north property line.
o The first stub street, South Pond Way, is proposed to stub to the south property line
o The second stub street, South Muesmh Way, is proposed to stub to the south property
line appwximately 500-feet east of Eagle Road.
o The third stub ~ East Publisher Street, is proposed to stub to the west property line
appwximately 730-feet north of Victory Road.
The fourth stub street, Noah Knapp Avenue is proposed to stub to the noah property
line approximately l,O00-feet of the east property line. This stub street is proposed to
cross the Ridenbaugh CanaL
o The fifth stub street, East Copper Point Way is proposed to remain as a stub at the
north prop~, ty line approximately 1,250-feet west of the east property line.
Di~ trict staffsuppons ',ire location of the proposed stub streets. District policy requires temporary
t~'mrounds at the end ofstub streets that serve more than one lot, or are greater than 150-feet in
leniF&. The applicant should not be required to provide a paved tempora~] turnaround st the end
of East Publisher Street or South Proud Way but sho,_dd be required to provide a paved
tempor~ turnaround at the end of South Mureyah Way. The applicant should provide thc paved
temporary utmaround at the south end of the stub street with a tempora~ easement provided to
the~ District. The applicant should be required to install a sign at the terminus of the roadway
stating thai, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign
plan.' for the stub street, and the design of the turnaround with District staff.
NOrth Knapp Avenue is proposed to cross the Ridenbau~h Canal at the north property line. The
applicant should submit prelimm~ drawings for the cost of constructing the bridge. The
applicant should then road trust for onq-llqli'~a~ ,tl~t~:c0st ofthe plans, material and labor to
construct the bridge. North Knapp Av~tde'{~'anticil~a{~ti:to carry traffic volumes in excess of
1,000 v~hi¢le uips per day whe~ Knapp iL ,,!,-~g_. ?.~ to the anticipated volumes of North
Krupp Avenue, d~ applicam should be d~ ttii$ koig!way as a residential collector street
wiih no front-on housing. The acces!~0,,n~, ~,,~:~.",~ street segments should be stated on
thg final plat. District policy requires ,~hilttT~iis'~ street se~ncnts be'Constructed as 36*foot street
Smh~,~lnng lP~-m&cmm
Pa~e 10
MAY 15 '02 12:42 888 6854
sections with curb, 8utter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks. Unless otherwise noted, parking
sh .c~ld be prohibited on these street sesments. Coordinate the siimsge plan with District staff.
T. ThC applicant is proposin~ to consmict an alley located on South Nephrite Wa}' north of East
Rotfe Street. District policy 7204.10 requires the minirm,m fight-of-way width for all new
res'~ential alleys to be 16-feet. Dedication of clear title to the right-of-way, improvement of the
alloy, and acceptance of the improvement by the District as meeting its construction standards are
r .eq~r~ ' ed for all alleys contained in a proposed development. The alley shall be improved by
pa .'y~ the full width and length of the risht-of-way.
U. Co~tmct ACHD approved mmarounds at the end ofEut Sheriar Court, East Monet Court,
EaSt Spur Court, South Halo Place, East Hiilis Court, East Lesnl Place and the unnamed cul-de-
saclroadway that extends south fi'om East Copper Point Way. Submit a design ofthe turnaround
for ~ew and approval by Distr~ staff..
V. Th~ residential tumarounds should be constructed to provide a minimum tUmin8 radius of 4fi-feet
and the commercial turnamunds should be constmcied to provide a minimum tumin~ radius of
55-~-eet. The applicant should dso be required to provide a mlnim-m of a 29-foot street section
on ~ither side of any proposed center islands within the tumarounds. The medians ahould be
co.acted a minimum of 4-feet wide to total a n~nimnm ofa 100-squar~ foot area. Dedicate
542feet of right-Of-way plus th~ addit/onal width of the median.
w. Anir proposed landsca~ island.qmodians wi,bin th~ public right-of-way dedica~ by this plat
shduld be owned and malm*in~! by a homeowners association. Notes of this should be required
on fi~e fiaal plat.
Replace any existing damaged oJ~o, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be dmna~ed during thc
c, ommiction of the proposed development. Conta~ Construction Services at 387-4280 (with f~
number) for details.
AA,
Y. An~ existing irrisadon facilities should be rgocat~ outside of the right-of-way.
Z. Uti~i,', 'ty street cuts in pavement le~s than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing
by ..the District. Contact Construction Services at 38%6280 (with 6le numbers) for details.
Alllutility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages almttin~ the site should be
bo~ !~ th, d,velol~r.
BB. B~I on d~¢lopm~ p~ i~ this area and the r~ulting Uattic g~ncration. ~t~ff anticipates
tl~ tl~ mm~orl~tion syst~a *.ill b~ M~lUat~ m ~o~omrnod~t, ~lditional tr~i~ l~.er,,~l by
thi* proposal d~elopm~t with ti~ r~luir~t~ outli~d within thi~ report.
The foll6wing Site Specific Requirements and Standard RequiFements must be met or pFovided
for prioe to ACHD approval of the flnnl pht. '~ ':* i,".,.,..,,' '~: ~V ..:,~,,~*" ~ -' ?'*'..!j,-
Site SpeCific Requirements:
D~dicate 48-feet of right.o/way from the centerline of Eagle Road abuRing the parcel by means
o~a warranty deed. The right-of-way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be completed
ar/d signed by thc applicaat prior to scheduling the final plat for signature by the ACHD
Co..'mmission or prior to issuance ora building permit (or other required permits), whichever
OCCurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of
all:. requested material. The owner wilt be paid the fair market value of the right-of-way
d ,eiticated 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 brealdng ground, in accordance with ACHE)
O~i inance # 195.
?
D~ate 48-feet of fight,of-way from the centafline of Victory Road abutting the parcel by
m~sms ora watmmy deed. The fight-of-way purchase and sale agreement and deed mast be
cdmpleted and signed by the applicant prior to scheduling the iinal plat for signature by the
ACFID Commission or prior to issuance ora building permit (or other required permits),
w~c, hever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the fight-of-way dedication
~er receipt ofall requested material. The owner will be paid the fair market value of the right-
oftway dedicated which is an addition to existing ACI-ID right-of-way if the owner submits a
letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with
ACHD Ordiaance #195.
C~nstngt a 5~foot wide detached concrete sidewalk on Eagle Road located 2-feet within the
ne~v fight-of-way. Coordinate the location and elevation ofthe sidewalk with District staff. If
the sidewalk meanders outside of the right*of-way, provide an easemen! for the sidewalk.
Cbmstruct a 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk on Victory Road located 2-feet within the
ne~v right-of-way. Coordiaate the location and elevation of the sidewalk with District staff. If
th~ sidewalk meanders outside of the fight-of-way, provide an easement for the sidewalk.
COnstruct a center turn lane on Eagle Road for the Fast Easy Jet [hive intersection or road trust
for.' the improvements, whichever should Occur first. The turn lane shall be constructed to
prbvide a miniw~,m of 100-feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and
d~parture directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff.
C0nsuuct a cemer turn lane on F. aglo Road or road trust for tho improvements, whichever
sl/ould occur first for the~proposed shared driveway looted on Eagle Road appro:dmatcly 300-
feC-t south of'the north property tine. The mm lane shall be constructed to provide a minimum
o/, 100-feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions.
C~)ordinate the design ofthe turn lane with District staff.
Cgnstruct a center turn lane on Eagle Road for the East Copper Point Way intersection or road
t$$t for the improvements, whichever should occur first. The turn lane shall be constructed to
pl'ovide a minimum of 100-feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and
departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District slaff.
Suthcrlaad Farms.cram
Page 12
MAY 15 02 12:4~ A~ x~n o~= 4~
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
MAY ~
Construct a shared-driv~vay on Eagle Road for Lot 3, Block 2 snd Lot 4, BIo~ 2, as proposed.
This proposal sl~red-~ve~y is located on Eagle Road approxir~tely 300-fee~ south or'the
n0nh proI~'ty line. This proposed driveway me~s Dimict policy a~l is approved with thi.,
application.
Fare the driveway on Eagle Road that serves Lot 3, Block :2 and Lot 4, Bbck :2 its full width of
3.:0 to 3$-fe~ and at least 30-f,~ into the site beyond the edge of pavement offEasle tt, oad and
install payment tapers with 15-foot radii sbuttir~ the existing roadway edge.
Construct two main entrances to the subdivision, as proposed.. The proposed main entrance
locations meet current District policy and are approved with this application.
East Easy J~ Drive is proposed to be local~ on F, agle Road approximately 850-fee~ south
of the north property lil~ ~ is propos~ to aliga with Easy let Drive. East Easy Jll Drive
shall be clesiSned with 21-fi:~ stree~ sections on either side of a center median. The median
shall be comh'ucted a minimum of 4-fe~ wide (maxin~m 12-f~e~ wide) to total a minimum
of a lO0-square foo~ arm The applicam will be required to dedicate 54-fee~ of right-of-way
plus the additional width of~ mediau.
*~ South Bay Star Way. is proposed to be locaIed on Victory Road approximaI~iy $00-tbel east
of 'F.~e Road. South Bay ~ar Way st~l be deigned w/th 21-foot street sections on either
side ofa ceater median. Tl~ reed/an shall be constructed a minin~m of 4-feet wide
(mmdmum 12-feet wide) to total a minlm.m of a 100-square foot are~ The applicant will
be required to dedicate 54-feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median.
Construct Easy ]et Dfi~ west of South Nephrite Way as a commercial / industrial roadway, as
l~roposed. The roadway s~,n be consu~cted as a,lO-foot street section with curb, gutter, 5-foot
Wide concrete sidewalk within 54-feet ofrisht-of-way.
Designated Easy Jet Drive between South Nephrite Way and South Proud Way as a residential
collector street with no f~ont-on housing. This roadway shall be constructed as 36-foot street
sivzfions with curb, gut~' and S-foot wide ~oncrete sidewalks with access restrictions stated on
the final plat. Unless otherw~ noted, parking shall be prohibited on these street segments.
Coordinate the signage plan with District staff.
i
..Construct a commercial / industrial roadway that intersects East Copper Point Way
it)proximately 150-feet mst of'South Cobblestone Way, as proposed. This commercial /
i~dus~rial roadway ~ ~ poli~ ~d is spproved with this application. TI~ roadway
shall be conslrucied as & 40-fix~ m'~ se~on with mrb, gutter, 5-foot wide ~oncr~e sidewa~
~ithin $44eet of fight-of-way.
Construct all public roads within file subdivision u 36,.foot street sections with curb, gutter, and
~-foot wide concrete sidewalks within 50-feet of right-of-way, as proposed.
Extend Hollandale Stret~ an existing stub street into the si~e at the east property line that is a
l~art of the Muir W~.,~ji~. ti~roposed. Constnici Hollandale S~re~ as a stub ,reel
~aml F~-ms.ca~m
a ,,,~. Page 13
17.
19.
20.
w~. temporary bollards., A sJBn shall be placed on the bollards that states, '~thJs road will
5ecome an open connection when a public road to Overland Road is constructed."
Extend Knapp Drive, an existing stub street, into the site at the south property line, as proposed.
COnstruct Knapp Drive as a stub street with temporary bollards. A sign shall b~ placed on the
5~llards that states, "this road will become an open connection when a public road to Overland
ROad is constructed."
C6nstruct live stub streets, as proposed.
The first stub street, South Pond Way, is proposed to stub to r~e south property line
approximately 1900-6eot east of Easle Road.
The second stub street, South Mueyah Way, is proposed to stub to the south property linc
approximatdy 500..fi~t east of Eagle Road.
The third stub street, East Publisher Street, is proposed to stub to thc west property linc
approximately 730-feet north of Victory Road.
The fourth stub street, North Knapp Avenue is proposed to stub to the north property line
approximately 1,000-feet of the east property line~ TI~ stub street is proposed to cross the
Rideabaugh Canal.
The fifth stub street, East Copper Point Way is proposed to remain as a stub at the north
property line approximately 1,2$O-~et west of the east property tine.
P~vide a paved temporary turnaround at the end of South Mureyah Way' with a temporary
es~sement provided to the District and instafl a sign at the terminus of'the roadway stating that,
"~'~S ROAD WTT~ .I. BE EXTEHDI~ IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sisz~ plan for the
St~b street, and the desiBn of'the turnaround with District stafF.
S~bmit preliminary drawings for the cost of construct~8 the bridge ~rom Sutherland Farms to
the North property line. The applicant shall road trust for one ~ of the total cost of thc plans,
m~tcrial and labor to construct the bridge. The road trust or the construction of the bddge shall
b4 plmsed accor,4h~g to 6hal pla~ and traffic warrants.
COnstruct North Knapp Avenue as 36-foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide
cgncrete sidewalks. The ~koplicant shall be designated this roadway as a residential collector
sti'ect with no front-on hous'mg with a~,ess restrictions for these street segments stated on the
rural plat. Unless otherwise noted, parking shall be pro~ on these street sesmtmts.
Cbordinate the sisnase plan with Dist~ct staff'.
Construct an alley located on South Nepbrite Way notch of East Rolfc Strut, as proposed. The
al!ey stroll have a minimum of 1G-feet of right-of-way and shall be improved by paving the full
width and length of the right-of-way. Dedication of clear title to the fight-of-way, improvement
· y..~'~,: ~', , ~ ~ ~ ~".~'~,
Sutherland Farms. cra m
Pasc ~4
of the alley, and accept~ce of the improvement by the District a~ meeting its construction
st~lmdards are required for all alleys contained in a proposed development.
21.
COnstruct ACttD approved turnarounds at the end of East Shergar Court, East Monet' Court,
East Spur Court, South Halo Place, East Hillis Court, East Legal Place and the unnamed cul-de-
~ roadway that extends south from East Copper Point Way. Submit a design of the
turnaround for review and approval by District slaff.
22.
,The residential tumarounds ~ be constructed to provide a minimum turning radius of 45-feet
a~d the commercial turnaround~ shall be consUucted to provide a minimum mining radius of 55-
f-~et. The applicant ~ also he required to provide a minimum of a 29-foot street section on
either side of any proposed center islands within the tu.marounds. Tile medians shall be
c,~nstmcted a minimum of 4-feet wide to total a minimum of a 100-square foot area, Dedicate
5ii-feet of all/hr-of-way plus the additional width ofthe median.
Any proposed hmdscape ishu~s/medians within the public right-of-way dedicated by' this plat
~hall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this shall be required on
p,-t.
24.
25,
..Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during
the construction ofthe proposed devdopment. Contact Construction Sc'~vices at 387-6280
(With 61e number) for datails.
~ny exi~g irfil~tion facilitie~ shall be relocated outside ofthe right-of-way,
26.
27.
28.
Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old ~re not allowed unless approved in writing
..by the District. Contact Consm~ction S~ at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details.
AH uti!i'ty rely., cation costs associated with improving street ffonlages abutting the site shall be
I~ome by the developer.
Other than the access points specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel
a:~,ss to Eagle Road and Victory Road is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with
this application, shall be stated on the final plat.
Standard Requirements:
I. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall
~ made in writing to the ACI-ID Planning and Development Supervisor: Thc request shall
~pecifically identify eactl ~ to be reconsidered and include ~. written e~lanation of
Wily such a r~luiremen~ would res~ in a substantial hardship or inequity The writlen request
~ be submitted to the r)ist~ct no later than 9:00 a m on the day scheduled for ACHD
.~;m~mission action. Those items shall be reschedul~d for discussion with the Commission on
~e next available meetintt a~snda.
Sutherland Farms. chun
Page 15
R,~lue~ts submitted to th~ District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commi~on action
dO not provide sufficient:time for District staff'to remove the item from the consent agenda and
rq~on to the Commis~on resardin8 the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those
items will be a~ted on by the Commission H~le~$ I'~llov~ from the agenda by the Commission.
A~Commissioner, a member of ACt-iD s~For any other person objecting to any final action
t :aken by the Commission n~y request reconsideration of that action, provided the request is not
fc~r a reconsideration of an nction pr~v'iou~ requested to be/~onsidered, an action whose
p~isions hnve been partly and materially cnrried out, or an action that has created a contractual
relationship with third parties.
Only a Commission member who voted with the prevailing side can move for
reconsideration, but the motion may be seconded by any Commissioner and is voted
on by all Commissioners present.
ff a motion to reconsider is made and ~r, onded it is subject to a motion to postpone
to a certain time.
ao
The request must be in writin~ and delivered to the Secretary of the Highway District
no later than 3:00 p.m. on the day prior to th~ Commission's next scheduled regulaz
meeting followin8 the meeting at which the action to be reconsidered was taken.
Upon receipt of the request, the Secretary shall cause the same to be placed on thc
agenda for that next scheduled regular Commission meeting.
bo
The request for re, consideration must be supported by written documentation setting
forth new faets and information not preaented at the earlier meeting, or a changed
situation that has developed since the talcing of the earlier vote, or inform~on
establishing an error of fact or law in the earlier action. The request may also be
supported by oral te~imony at the meeting.
~ a motion to recon~id~ passe~ the effect is the original matter is in the exact
position it oc~pi, ed the moment before it was voted on originally. It will normally be
returned to ACHD staff for Rm. her review. The Commission may set the date of the
meeting at which the mattes' is to be returned. The Commission shall only take action
on the odsinal matter at a meeting where the agenda noticc so provides.
At the meeting where the orighud matte~ L~ again on thc agenda for Commis~on
action, intereru:d persons a~l ACHD staff may pre~ent such written and oral
testimony u the President of the Commi~ion determines to be appropriate, and the
Commi~on may take any action the majorky of the Commission deems advisable.
c. ff a motion to reconsider passes, the applicant may be charged a re.enable fee, to
cover admini~zative cos~, a~ established by the Commission.
Payment of applicable road i_,nLp, act fees are required prior to building construction ia accordance
w~th Ordinance #195. also ~'~l~.a, ~..~.:' ,"~ Highway D,stnct Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
...... '~:~: :~1 Suthedand
Pa~ 16
· : :~, ,;~, .-L,'~-J~.'~
MAY 15 02 12:45 ~ ~A~a ~: ~
AU design and constructh~n shall be in accordance with the Ada Coumy Hig~hway District Policy
Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all
applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically w~ived herein. An enginees' registered in the
State of Idaho shall prepnre and certify ali improvement plans.
The applicanl shall submit revised plans for staffapprov~ prior to issuance of building permit
(~ other required permits), which incorporates any required design chanses.
C0nsm~ction, use and property development shall be in conformance with ali applicable
requirements of the Ads'County Hishway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
I~ is the responsibility of the applic~t to verify ail existing utilities within the ri~ht-of-way.
l~xistin~ utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to
ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGIANE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full
bhsi~ess days prior to breaking ~%md within ACHD risht-of=way. The applicant shall contact
~CHD Trn~[ic Operations 387=6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare oi' ftlled) are
compromised durin~ any phase of construction.
No change in the to,,,* and condition~ of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing
a~..' d signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized
~presentative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon tl~ npplic~.ut to
obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
Any chan~e by the applicant in th~ planned use of the property which is the subject of this
~plication, shall require the applicam to comply with all rule~ regulations, ordinances, plans, or
c~ res~atory and leBnl restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in
interest advises the Hishway Dis~ct of'its intent to change the planned use of the subject
~operty unless a waiver/variance of said req~ or other legal relief is 8ranted pursuant to
the law in effect at the time the chanse in use is sought.
Condu~on of Law:
1. ~CHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an
..m~due burden on the existing vehiodar and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity
tmpacted by the proposal development.
Should you have any questions or comments, 'please contact the Plannin~ and Development
!~vision at 387-6170.
Submitted by' Commission A~on'
Plant~ and D~elol~ment Staff
SuiherlaMFarms. cmm
Sharon Smith
RECEIVED
HAY 1 6 2002
CiTY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICE
From: Dave McKinnon [mckinnod~}ci.meridian.id.us]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 2:05 PM
To:
'Sharon Smith'; William G. Berg Jr.; 'Daren Fluke'; jcenters~mandtbank.com; 'Shari Stiles'; Steve
Dear Commissioners,
It looks like I made a mistake on the Sutherland Farms Staff Report.
Beginning on page three (p.3) of the staff report, I wrote down all of the general standards applicable to zoning
amendments (MCC 11-15-11)in Bold with staff analysis in normal font. For some reason I neglected to include
two of the standards (B and C of the actual sections of 11-15-11) in the staff report. The two standards are as
follows, and should be included/inserted into the staff report:
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future;
Staff is unaware of any plans to re-zone the property in the future, and does not anticipate
receiving one in the future.
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the fashion
that would be allowed under new zoning- for example, a residential area turning into a
commercial area by means of conditional use permits.
Staff finds that Sutherland farms will be developed in a manner that that will be allowed under the
new zoning and according to the Planned Development standards.
I am sorry about the mistake and any confusion that it may have caused.
Good luck with the meeting tonight.
Dave McKinnon
Planner II
5/16/02
April 1,2002
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Sutherland Farm, Inc.
April 4, 2002
TEM NO. 7
AZ 02-004
REQUEST Public Heating - Request for annexation and zoning of 127.74 acres from RUT to C-G,
L-O and R-4 zones for proposed Suthetiand Farm - east of South Eagle Road and north of East
Victory Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEFT:
SANITARY SERVICE:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
See attached Comments
"No Remarks"
"No Comment'
"No Comments at this lime"
"We have No Objections to this Proposal"
See affached Comments
See attached Pelilions f~om neighbors
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Cify of Meridian.
RECEIVED
1 8
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
! March
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
Daren Fluke
J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201
Boise, ID 83709
Dear Mr. Fluke:
Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation
District for its review on the above-referenced development. If this development is under a
"rush" to be finalized, I would recommend that you submit a cashier's check, money order or
cash as payment of the fees in order to speed the process up. If you submit a company or
personal check, it must clear the bank before processing the application.
Should this development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be owned,
operated and maintained by the Irrigation District, I strongly urge you to coordinate with John P.
Anderson, Water Superintendent for the Irrigation District, concerning the installation of the
pressure system. Enclosed is a questionnaire that you must fill out and return in order to initiate
the process of contractual agreements between the owner or developer and the Irrigation
District for the ownership, operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call on me at the District's
office, or John P. Anderson, at the District's shop.
Sincerely,
Donna N. Moore, Asst. Secretary/Treasurer
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
DNM/smc
CC:
enc.
File
Water Superintendent
Will Berg, Meridian City
Sutherland Farm, Inc. P O Box 1338, San Mateo, CA 94401
APPROXIMATE iRRiGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
To:
'xl)e~opers of Suthe~_arm Subdivision, Meridian, Idaho
C/o lvI~aren F~, Planning Associate
J-U-B En/~A~eSs, Inc.
250 So~h"Be~ood Ave., Suite 201
Boise,'TD 83709-09~,~..~
From:
Neighbors adjacent to proposed Sutherland Farm Subdivision
(Names, addresses, and phone numbers are attached. Contact
persons: Spregg and Joyce Roundy, 4178 Los Altos Dr.,
Meridian, ID 83642. Phone (208) 362-9828)
Subject: Requests and Suggestions regarding Sutherland Farm Subdivision
Date: January 26, 2002
After the January 17 neighborhood meeting held by Mr. Fluke, those who
attended that meeting were invited to further discuss and "solidify" some of
their desires regarding Sutherland Farm. Those of us who chose to come,
met at the Roundy home Thursday, January 24, 2002, for this purpose.
We respectfully submit the attached requests and suggestions resulting fi:om
this meeting and to which all those attending agreed.
There were many neighbors who could not attend the meeting, yet voiced
some of our same concerns. We will be circulating this document and
obtaining their signatures in the form of a petition, which we shall forward
to you.
Our signatures follow.
MEETING OF NEIGHBORS ADJACENT TO
SUTI~RLAND FARMS SUBDIVISION
THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 2002
We submit the following requests and suggestions to the
Developer of Sutherland Farms Subdivision:
e
Provide a major north-south traffic artery into the heart of this
"landlocked" subdivision, going through the (future) commercial
development and feeding traffic onto Overland Rd.
Such traffic arteries have been required at other subdivisions, such as
Bristol Heights and Hiawatha, and have added to the desirability of
these subdivisions.
This artery would carry traffic in the direction it would naturally flow
to reach the freeway, hospital, grocery stores, etc., reducing need for
traveling on Eagle Road, which is already overlOaded.
Also, such an artery would reduce the need for Sutherland residents to
use Muir Wood Subdivision as their route of travel.. ~t4L,O~,,,&$,¢e-
We find the exit through Muir Wood objectionable. However, it
would be less so if
~a) the density of dwellings near Muir Wood were less, and if
b) there were more exits from Suthefland, such as the one suggested
in item # 1, above.
Eliminate commercial/limited office development bom Sutherland
Farms.
Since there is abundant commercial/limited office development going
in nearby, there is a) no need for more, and b) it would add to traffic
congestion on Eagle Rd. And Eagle Rd. already is almost impossible
to travel 'at some times of day!
To compensate for the revenue that commercial/limited office
building would bring to the developer, we would suggest replacing it
with
· Patio homes
· Retirement homes
· Townhouses.
Density of single family detached dwellings be no greater than 1.9 per
acre.
Sutherland is adjacent to Muir Woods on the east, whose density is
1.9 dwellings per acre. On the south and west, Sutherland is adjacent
to dwellings that sit on 2-5 acres each!
Sutherland lots adjacent to existing 2- to 5-acre lots be no smaller than
½ acre each, and be limited to only single story dwellings.
Without such limitations property value of the existing homes on 2- to
5-acre lots would be severely decreased by more dense building and
by obstruction of view.
To compensate for lower density of homes in the east and south parts
of Sutherland, we suggest more dense dwellings a) on the north side
of Sutherland, along the canal and adjacent to Silverstone commercial
development, b) along Eagle Rd. (see item #2, above), and c) toward
the center of Sutherland development. These more dense dwellings
could be townhouses, patio homes, retirement homes, and houses on
smaller lots. Clustering of some of these around open spaces and
waterways could be very appealing.
The home of Gale and Sherry Sasser is under construction on a 5-acre
lot, facing Victory Rd., south of Sutherland development. As the
plans fgr Sutherland are now drawn, the Sass,rs' home will be
bordered by 13 houses on small lots! This is far f~om a gradual
transition in lot sizes! .
We ask that the Sassers' property be surrounded by lots no smaller
than ½ acre eack, limited to a single story height, and that berms and
attractive fencing be placed between Sassers and their Sutherland
neighbors.
e
Farm land in the south part of Sutherland, east of Knapp Ln., was
built up 6-8 feet a few years ago by bringing in soil to improve flow
of irrigation water. If houses are built on the present ground height,
they will severely block the view of existing homes on the south side
of Sutherland, no matter how many stories the new homes may be.
We request that ground level be restored to its former height before
building begins.
We request berms and attractive fencing along the south side, between
Sutherland development and the 2- to 5-acre lots adjoining it there.
There is one exception: The beautiful home of Beryl Holtry was built
very close to his north prbperty line, to maximize his present view of
fields, ponds, and mountains. A berm along his property line would
completely block any remaining view. Therefore, we request fencing,
but no berming along the Holtry property line. (See attached map.)
A very practical reason for fencing is to prevent dangerous trespassing
onto properties with animals, ponds, and several swimming poo!s.
¸9.
At present along the south side of Sutherland there is a large pond
resulting from irrigation drainage. This pond, with the trees around it
and the wildlife it attracts, could be an attractive part of Sutherland
subdivision. We would like to see this pond, the natural drainage
waterways, and the trees remain and be enhanced to add beauty to the
proposed subdivision. Then we existing residents can continue to
enjoy them as well.
10.In the present plans for Sutherland, there is a barricade
proposed where Knapp Ln. meets Sutherland. We would prefer a cul-
de-sac at that point in the Sutherland development instead of a
barricade. Surely a cul-de-sac would be more appealing than a
barricade, to residents of Sutherland also.
11. In the present plans the southernmost exit from Sutherland
onto Victory Rd. will direct traffic toward the front yard, fi:ont
window and frOnt door of a home directly across Victory Rd., the
home of Kodney and Amber Reyes (3465 S. Victory). We request
that this exit be altered to cause no such unpleasant circumstances for
existing homes.
12.The home of Herb and Kathleen Papenfms is at 2680 Eagle Rd. The
road emering Sutherland Farms from Eagle Rd. will run along the
southern border of their property (see map). This road will probably
be named Easy Jet. We request that the Papenfuss property have
access to Easy Jet, so that they can enter or exit their property by way
of Easy Jet.
J
qJ
1
'1
· ,I
Meridian Fire Department
Joseph Silva
Deputy Chief
Meridian Fire Department
540 E. Franklin Rd.
Meridian, Id 83642
(208) 888-1234
March 19, 2002
RECEIVED
TO: Meridian Planning & Zomng Commission ~A~ ~:':1 2~2
FROM: Joseph Silva, Deputy Chief, Fire Preventionk,~
City
Of Meridian
SUBJECT: Sutherland Farms Subdivision File # AZ 02-004/~ City Clerk Office
The following will be the requirements and/or concerns to provide minimum levels of fire protection for
the proposed project:
That a fire-flow consistent with Appendix III-A of the Uniform Fire Code be provided to service
the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix III-A
2.: OPerational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before
combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3
:311 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian
Water Department.
Final approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
All internal & external roads shall have a radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius.
6. Insure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation per
section 1103.2.4 of the Uniform Fire Code.
7. The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards and be a mimmum of 37' wide.
UFC 902.2.1
8. The proposed 127 acre annexation will have an estimated transient population 1,395 people based
on an estimated 279,000 square feet of space to occupy at 200 square feet per person. Based on historical
nm analysis the Meridian Fire Department will respond to one call for service for every 24 people in the
service area. This will generate an estimated 145 additional calls for service at build out. According to a
report completed by Fire & Emergency Services Consulting Group in February of 2000 our requests for
service are projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and 3800 by the year 2010, this is up fxom 2069
responses in the year 2000.
9. The proposed project lies outside the five-minute response zone goal. Achievement of this goal is
subject to budgetary CO~ns~gintS and ~ :intended to enhance the probability of a favorable outcome on a
:~quest for Basic Life:SUpport ::The budget b0nstraints are typically defined as capital outlay for facilities
March 19, 2002
Page 2
that are located within 1.5 miles from a given location and sufficient operational funds to staff the
facilities.
10. The proposed buildings & uses shall comply with the 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
i RECEIVED
Petition re. SOUTHERLAND FARM SUBDMSION
Eagle Rd., between Victory and Eagle. HAR 2 9 2002
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICE
We, the undersigned, make the following requests with
regard to the Southerland Farm subdivision, proposed to be
built on Eagle Rd., between Victory and Overland:
1. No commercial or office space be included south of the
canal because
---Already there are commercial/office de{relopments
planned or being built nearby, and we see no need for
more; and"
---Already Eagle Rd. is overburdened with traffic, and
commercial/office development would make it worse.
Density of single family detached dwellings be no greater
than 1.9 per acre where adjacent to existing homes,
because
.... This would be a fair transition density from existing
adjacent lot sizes, which are ½ to 5 acres each; and
.... This could lessen the number of trips through the
existing Muir Woods subdivision.
o
Limit to a single story, the height of homes adjacent to
existing homes to create an amicable transition, especially
where existing homes are single story.
ON ~ SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPOSED
SUBDMSION:
e
Return g~ound to its original level, 6-8 feet lower than at
present,.before building begins (it was raised by infilling a
few years ago).
Retain and integrate.the existing pond, waterways, and
trees, to add beauty to Southerland Farms and to maintain
some of the beauty that we in existing homes now enjoy.
I ~3 61 ~j ,"~u~ I~~ pr~
Z5'48 S'. 5,,~s~, PL. Zc~.~S. oz:sq
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
NAME
FOR
AGAINST
APR - t~ 2002
CITY OF MERIDIAN
M_AYOR
Robert D. Cot'fie
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Tummy deWeerd
Keith Bird
Cherie McCandless
xxrflliam L. M. Nary
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 888-4433-FAX (208) 8874813
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 8884218
MEMORANDUM:
March 20, 2002
To:
From:
Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
David McKinnon, Planner II ~k ~
Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech
Re: Sutherland Farm i~
· Annexation and Zoning of 127.64 Acres from RUT and R-1 (Ada County) to
R-4 (Low Density Residential)'and:,~:C.G '(General Retail and Service
Commercial District), by Sutherland F~Inc (File No. AZ-02-O04).
· Preliminary Plat Approvals:of 308 Building Lots and 30 "Other" Lots on
127.64 Acres on Land:.ReqUestedr to be ReZ0ned to R-4 and C-G, by
Sutherland Farm, Lac (FileNo. PP,02,O04).
· A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to Allow a 20% Land
Use Exception (Office/High Density Uses in a ProPosed R-4 Zone), Reduced
Lot Sizes, Reduced Frontage Requirements, Reduced Setbacks, Reduced
Home Sizes and to Exceed Block Length Requkements, by Sutherland Farm,
Inc (File No. CUP 02-005)
We have reViewed the afOrementiOned applications and now offer the following comments,
as conditions of approval''~ These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly
modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATION SUMMARY
The Applicant, Sutherland Farm Inc., has requested the annexation and zoning 127.64 acres of
land adjacent to the east side of Eagle Road, and the north side of Victory Road. Approximately
eleven (11) acres of the subject property is located on the north side of the Ridenbaugh Canal.
The land is presently zoned RUT and R-1. The Applicant has requested that upon annexation, all
of the property south of the Ridenbaugh Canal be zoned R-4, and that all property to the north of
the canal be zoned C-G.
The Applicant's preliminary plat approval request is for 308 building lots (260 single-family
detached lots, 32 single-family attached lots (alley-loaded), 11 office/multiple family lots, and 5
commercial lots) and 30 other lots. The "other" lots include a four-acre park/pond area, a thirty-
foot wide pathway adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal, alleys, an irrigation lot, tot lots, and
AZ-02-004, PP -02-004, CUP0~-005 Smh~dand Farms AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2002
Page 2
required landscaping. The five (5) commercial lots will be located north of the Ridenbaugh
Canal.
The AppliCant has also requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development in order to allow reduced development standards including reduced setbacks,
reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced dwelling sizes, and to allow the Applicant's request
to exceed block length requirements. The following is a side-by-side comparison of the City's
minimum requirements and the reduced requirements that have been proposed by the applicant:
Setbacks- City Requirements (R-4) Proposed Setbacks (ToWnhomes)
Front: 20' Front: 10'
.
Side: 5'/per story Side. 0
Street side: 20' Street side: 0 '~-~ .
Lot Size- City Requirements PropoSedLot size~'~-.~.,
R-4 zone: 8,000 sq.ff. 3,829-5,7ili}~1. ff,:!~(T6wnhouses)
Per Dwelling Unit 6,500 sq. ff.' ~}ied Single-family)
Lot Frontage-City Requirements '::!)?i !'Proposed Frontag~::;?~::~
80'minimum 42' ~mum (townhOuse)
(Additional note: 105 out of 292 residential lots do nOt m~'~'ihe minimum R-4 standards)
Additionally, as pan of the planned development request, the applicant has requested a twenty
percent (20%) land use'exception to permit office/multi-family housing and attached single-
family housing in the R4. zone.
The planned deX;elfpment's amenities include two (2) tot lots, a four (4) acre park/pond area, a
pathway and an additional open sPaceddralnage lot.
The property north of the Ridenbaugh Canal (requested C-G zoning) is not a pan of the Planned
Development request.
LOCATION
The property is located '~Proximately ~ a mile south of Overland Road on the east side of S.
Eagle Road. The property extends easterly along the Ridenbaugh Canal for approximately 3,600
feet. The southern boundary of the property provides access to Victory Road, approximately
1,000 feet east of the intersection of Eagle and Victory Roads.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North:
South:
East:
Silverstone and Silverstone U, zoned C-C and C-G.
Rural residential properties, zoned RUT and R-l(Ada County).
Muir Woods Subdivision, zoned R-4 (Ada County).
AZ-02-004, PP--02-004, CUP02405 Sull~afland Farms AZ, PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2002
Page 3
West: Thousand Springs Subdivision, zoned R-4.
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS
According to Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both
the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances
of each proposed zoning amendment in 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 analys, is 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; ~ ' ~ '
Staff finds that the requested zoning d~signations,~R-4 to south of th~: Ridenbaugh
Canal and C-G to the north of the Ridenb~gh~.~canal, is harmoniOUs with and in
accordance with the adopted Comprehe~fir~:.~Plan and Generalized Land Use
Map, which designates the land to be "Mi~':'Residential" and "Single Family
Residential". : ....... ::~. ~ ..... '~'~:
Although, the Schedule of Use Control (IVICC11-8-1) states that only detached
single-family dwellings are permitted within the R-4 zone, the Planned
Development )=: Ordinance allows a mixture of different housing types,
(townhouses, duplexes and detached singlefamily dwellings) within a single
planned development, regardless of the underlying zone, so long as the overall
density 0fthe underlying zone is not exceeded (MCC 12-6-4 A).
Accordingly, the'overall density of the residential portion of the planned
development is approximately three dwelling units per acre (292units + 97acres =
3.01 units/acre).
Has there been n change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that
the arvn 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 approval of the annexation and zoning of Silverstone II on
the north side of the Ridenbaugh Canal would dictate that the adjacent property be
similarly zoned and developed (as proposed). The Canal provides a natural
buffer/separation between land uses.
Muir Woods Subdivision to the east has provided a stub-street at the Sutherland
Farm western property line in expectation of similar development.
AZ-02-004, pP-02.004, CUP02-005 Sutherlnnd Farms AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2002
Page 4
Ce
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;
De
Staff finds that general vicinity provides a mix of commercial uses and standard
to estate sized residential lots. The intended character of the vicinity, as noted on
the Generalized Land Use Map, is for mixed housing projects, detached single-
family lots and mixed uses north of the Ridenbaugh Canal. Staff finds that the
proposed 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.
Will the proposed uses not be hazard°uS 0r disturbing t0~:~xisting or future
neighboring uses;
The Commission and Council Shouldii!~ely onipUblic testimony'::~to determine
whether or not the proposed use vail i~bel dlsturbtng or hazardous to the
neighboring uses.
Staff does not anticipate that the Proposed uses will be hazardous or disturbing to
future or existing neighbors. :
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,i amendment shall be able to provide
adequately any of such services;
Staff finds that the subject property will be served adequately by all essential
public facilities and services, with the exception of water service. Computer
modeling indicates that existing available fire flows and pressures will not be
adequate to serve the Planned Unit Development area. The City of Meridian will
be bringing a new supply well on line in the Silverstone project within the next
six' to eight months, and with the development of the Silverstone project, a new
main Will extend under the Ridenbaugh Canal. According to the computer model,
once these two items are complete fire flows and pressures will be adequate to
serve the higher demands of the PUD area.
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;
Staff finds that there will not be additional requirements at public cost and that the
annexation and zoning will not be detrimental to the community's economic
welfare.
AZ-02.004, PP -02-004, CUP02-O05 Suthe~l~td Farms .AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2002
Page 5
Go
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 uses will create additional traffic on both Eagle and
Victory Roads; however, staff does not believe that the increase in traffic will be
excessive. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed development will generate
traffic, noise, smoke, odors or other nuisances that would be detrimental to the
general welfare of the surrounding area.
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; , ' i.
Staff finds that the proposed vehicul~'~.::~Pproach'i~n ,Eagle Road aligns with the
existing entry into Thousand Springs Sub'di~Sion, and should not appreciably
interfere with traffic on the surrounding streets: The other access (Victory) and
stub-streets provided for within the plat do not appear to be designed in a manner
that would create interference with traffic on surrounding streets.
Ada County Highway District's comments should be considered when making
this finding.
I.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance; and
Staff finds that no natural or scenic features of major importance will be lost or
damaged by approval of this annexation request. The overall design of the subject
property includes a pathway adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal.
Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of
Meridian. (Ord. $92, 11-17-1992)"
Staff finds that the annexation of this property would be in the best interest of the
City bY Providing a variety of housing types, the addition of employment
opportunities and the creation of additional recreation facilities (pathways and a
community park).
ANNEXATION AND ZONING' COMMENTS
The legal description submitted with the application appears to meet the requirements of the
City of Meridian and State Tax Commission and places the parcel contiguous to existing city
limits.
AZ-02-004, PP -02-004, CUPOR-005 Sutl~lnnd Farms AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2002
Page 6
2. The requested zoning of R-4 and C-G is compatible with the City Comprehensive Plan and
the Meridian Zoning Ordinances
3. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. Essential City services are
available to the subject property.
4. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed fi.om their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be
used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. .
5. A development agreement will be required as part of this anneXatiOn request.
PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS AND REOUIREMENTS
Sections 12-3-3 J.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance of a proposed
subdivision, the Commission/Council shall consider, i~,%~objeCtives.;,, :. of this title ~dat.. least the
a. The conformance of the subdivision with the ~2~nprehensive Development Plan;
As noted above, staff finds that the subdivision appears to be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
b. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
Stafffinds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed subdivision.
The continuity r of the prOposed, development with the capital improvement
program;
Staff finds that the subdivision'will not require the expenditure of capital improvement
funds.
d. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development;
Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing
supporting services.
e. The other health, safety or environmental prOblems that may be brought to the
Commission's attentiOn.
Staff finds that there should not be any other health, safety or environmental problems
associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's
attention.
AZ-02-004, PP -02-004, CUP02-005 Suth~rhnd Fnnus AZ PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2002
Page 7
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The preliminary plat has a number of blocks (9, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19) that exceed the 1,000 foot
maximum block length (MCC 12-4-5). However, because this plat is part of a planned
development the Applicant has requested that they be allowed to exceed this section of Code
without the need for a variance.
After reviewing the preliminary plat in light of the requested block lengths, staff would feel
comfortable allowing the 1,000+ foot long block lengths if the following modifications are
included on a revised plat:
· The addition of a micro-path, in accordance with the LandsCape Ordinance, that runs
between Lots 4, 5 and Lotsl6 and 17 of Block 18.
· The addition of a micro-path, in accordance with the LandsCape ordinance, that
separates Lots 9 and 10 of Block 19. The:!~o-path'~shall continue though Lot 1 of
Planning and Zoning staff have additional concerns wiih,~'the construction of homes that
effectively surround the proposed park (Lot 154, Block 1) and'~ffice buildings that surround the
large open space/drainage lot located adjaCent t~:the pathway in the'northwest area of the project
(Lot 12, Block 1). Surrounding the open space With'i~/fildings decreases the visual appeal of the
open space, reduces the accessibility of the Open sp~e:~:t~?those homeowners that do not live
adjacent to the open space, and may create a safety risk, as the P°lice department will not be able
to view the open space from the public right-of-way.
Staff recommends that the' CommisSion and the city Council consider reducing or eliminating
the seven (7) homes located on the sOutheast, corner of Lot 54, Block 1. The reduction or
elimination of the h0Uses would create larger~. open and usable park for the entire subdivision
Staff further recommends that the Commission and Council consider increasing the visibility of
Lot 12, Block 1, by providing additional open space along the east side of Lot 11, Block 1, or by
the requiring Lot 11 to become part of Lot 12 (thus increasing the visibility and amount of open
space provided).:':
SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS (~reliminarv ~iat)
Sanitary sewer and water service to this site shall be via new main extensions from the
existing mains adjacent to the property.
The submitted landscape plan includes conifers located in the required street buffer along
Eagle Road. This is in violation of the Landscape Ordinance; however, staff supports the
inclusion of the pine trees at this location because conifers have been permitted as part of
the Silverstone Corporate Center landscaping, immediately adjacent to the Sutherland
Farms project on Eagle Road.
AZ-02-004, PP-02-004, CUP02-00~ Sufltefland Fam~s AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2002
Page 8
10.
ll.
Fencing details shall be submitted with the Final Plat application. Fencing adjacent to
pathways or the Private Park shall not be over three feet in height if constructed of a solid
material, and shall not be more than 4 feet in height if it is non-sight obscuring.
Performance specifications for the common area pressurized irrigation system shall be
submitted with the Final Plat application.
The addition of a micro-path, in accordance with the LandsCaPe Ordinance, that runs
between Lots 4, 5 and Lotsl6 and 17 of Block 18.
The addition of a micro-path, in accordance with the Landscape"Ordinance, that separates
Lots 9 and l0 of Block 19. The micro-path shall continue though Lot 1 of Block 19.
There shall be a minimum separation often (10) feet between unattached buildings.
Add a note to the face of the plat requiring all 'sii~gl~ famiiY detached houses to provide a
minimum of 1,400 square feet of living space, ex~141O~~ the garage.
The required landscaping and irrigation system on Vi~ Road shall be installed prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of OccuPancy for any building'on any lot created by the
subdi.vision. Landscaping and fencing muSt"b~bo~ed for prior to applying for building
pernuts. :,:
The Applicant shall coordinate pathway construction requirements along the Ridenbaugh
Canal with the City's Parks Director, Tom Kuntz
The applicant shall' COordinate ACItD concerning the requirements and construction of
the Bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal
GENERAL COMMENTS foreliminary olaO
1. Please submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's final approval letter
for the subdivision name, and the lot and block numbering. Make any corrections
necessary to conform.
2. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
3. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing,
.A~02-0~4, PP =02-004, CUP02.005 ~ F~nns A~ PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2002
Page 9
landscaping, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the
final plat.
One-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations
designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at
subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants.
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, excluding the Ridenbaugh Canal. The ditches to be piped
should be shown on the site plans, 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...,, -,~ : i~:~,
Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Sections 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells
may be used for non-domestic purposes such ai~lahdscape irrigation. /:
Slopes within drainage lots are not to exceed a · 1.
FINDINGS FOR USE EXCEPTIONS WITHIN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
MCC 12-6-3 "Use Exceptions" require the COmmission and Council to make the following
findings in order to authorize specific uses that are not normally permitted by the use regulations
of the zone in which the development is located (no more than 20% of the gross area of the gross
project):
1. 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.
Stafffmds that the office/multiple'family housing uses are strongly related to the primary use
of the development (R-4). The office uses will provide services (medical, dental, optical
etc...) that will be complementary to the residents of the subdivision, and it will provide
employment opportunities as well.
Staff finds that multiple-family housing adjacent to the higher density townhouses is
appropriate within the overall development of this subdivision. The mixing of residential
uses and commercial uses will encourage the office development to be constructed in a
manner that will be pedestrian friendly. High-density housing will provide an immediate
consumer base for the office development.
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.
AZ-02-004, Pp.02-004, CL,'P02-00~ Sutl~dand Frans AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning CommiSsion/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2002
Page 10
Staff finds that the townhouse and the office/multiple-family housing uses are approximately
15.5% of the total area of land included in the planned development.
(32 townhouses * 4,271 sq. t~. average .-'43,560) + (11 office lots * 59,155sq. i~. average +
43560) = 18.08 acres of land devoted to excepted uses.
18.08 acres of excepted uses + 116.6 gross area of planned development (in acres) * 100 =
15.5% of the planned development will be devoted to excepted uses.
Staff finds that the size and intensity of the excepted uses is apprOpriate for this location and
size of development. .~ i:' .'
:?,.. '!,., ,:~..,.
3. The development will be phased so that constrUCti°n of the excepted use or uses will
be justified by construction of all or a prop°~onate amount of the principal or
· ~' ,. i.',~.~, - . ,
The townhouse use is projected as part of the first p~r.~.the development and that the
office/multiple-family housing will b,e. the final two p~gii~!S~,~taff finds that upon completion
of the townhouses and detached single2family dwellings, th~::i~sidents of the subdivision will
desire services that can be provided by later phases of this development.
4. The uses permitted by the exception are integrated into the overall project by:
a. Being located in proximity to and within convenient walking distance of the
primary uses.
Staff finds that the office/multiple-family/~ownhouse uses will be within convenient
walking distance' of the park and open space provided within the residential
.development.
b. Utilizing one 0r more of the main vehicular accesses to the primary use site as
the main access to the exception site or intereonnection through a system of
-' private roadways and/or pathways.
Staff finds that the site design incorporates interconnectivity though shared
vehiCUlar access Points. The applicant has provided a pathway system that would
connect the excepted uses with the R-4 residential uses.
Providing pedestrian and bicycle pathway connections with the primary use
site.
Staff finds that the applicant has not provided pathway connections with the
commercial use.
Orienting buildings on the exception site to facilitate vehicular and/or
pedestrian access from the primary use site.
Staff finds that the excepted uses are located in a manner that will facilitate
vehicular access from the residential uses.
AZ-02-004, PP-02-004, CUP02-00~ ~A F~ns AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2002
Page 11
e. 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 finds that the landscaping is consistent throughout the development.
Architectural and building bulk concepts will be hard to maintain, as this is
primarily a residential neighborhood with a variety of lot sizes, housing options and
lot dimensions. The Commission and Council should determine what, if any,
architectural/design concepts should be incorporated into all buildings within this
development..
s. The use(s) permitted by the exception neighSorh"°d ol munity serving in
size and character and not regional, and are not detrimental to:~djacent
neighborhoods in location and character. :- :? "~'::~'~':~
Stafffinds that the office use is not regionalin:~ize or character. '~ i:,ii'?
STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USES
The Commission and Council shall revieW the Phrticular facts 'and circumstances of each
proposed conditional use in terms of the follOwing and '~yapprove 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 I~rge enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open
spaces, parking landscaping and other features as may be required by this
ordinance;
Staff finds that the subje~Property is large enough to accommodate the requested use
and all other required features.
Bo
That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian
ComPrehensive Plan' and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance;
The current 'COmprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the property as "Mixed
Residential and Single-Family Residential". The proposed mix of residential, commercial
and office uses are harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
The project meets the requirements and objectives of the Planned Development
Ordinance.
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;
A7~02-004, PP-02.004, CUP02-005 ~ From AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2002
Page 12
Staff finds the design concept to be compatible with the intended character of the area.
The Generalized Land Use Map indicates that this area is intended for mixed residential
and single-family dwellings. The existing neighborhood to the southeast of this project is
currently large estate sized housing ranging in size from 2-5+ acres and the existing
neighborhood to the east is consists of approximately ¼ acre lots. All lots that area
adjacent to the east and southeast either meet or exceed the lot dimensions required by
the R-4 zone.
De
That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,
will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity;
Staff does not anticipate that the proposed project will have an ·adVerse impact on the
surrounding property; however, the Commission and COuncil shOUld consider any
testimony given at the public hearings before making this finding.
That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, street, police, and"f'We.proteCtion, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the persoitr~sP0nsible for the establishment of
proposed conditional use shall be able to provide' ad~luately any such services;
Staff finds that the proposed development can be adequately served by the essential
public facilities and services listed abOve.
Ge
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;
Stafffinds that the proposed use would not be detrimental to the economi'C welfare of the
community, nor would it create the need for any new facilities or services to be paid for
by the public.
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;
Stafffinds that no excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors will result from
the proposed use.
That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shah be
so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
Staff finds that the proposed use will not create significant interference with any traffic
on the surrounding public streets. The Council and Commission should refer to the
ACHD report for additional information concerning this finding.
AZ-02-004, pp -02-00~, CUP02-00$ b'mlm*land Farms AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2002
Page 13
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.
Staffdoes not find that any natural or scenic feature will be lost, damaged or destroyed
by issuance of this conditional use. The Ridenbaugh Canal is to remain open and
improved with a pathway.
SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS (Conditional Use Permit~
1. Applicant shall meet all of the requirements of the prelimin~:~plat as a condition of the
Conditional Use Permit.
2. All office or multiple-family housing uses prop~ ,- within the ~e~elopment shall be
required to apply for a conditional use pernu't for a planned development prior to
3. No more than 101 building permits shall be iss~d'~n Sutherland Farm Subdivision
until a secondary emergency vehicle access to Eagl~:~ad is completed.
4. E. Easy 1et Drive shall be fU~:'::ii~Proved (including:ii?CUrbs, gutter, sidewalks,
landscaping, and irrigation prio0 prior to the?issuance of an occupancy permit for any
building constructed within Phase five (5) of the subdivision. Additionally, all required
improvements adjacunt'ito. Eagle Road shall be comPlete prior to occupancy of any
building within Phase Five' (5) of the subdivision.
5. Ail site improvements (landscaPing and irrigatiOn) for the four-acre park/pond area, and
the pathway (Lot 7$)'.~onnecting the. park/pond area to Eagle Road shall be complete
prior t0 the issuance of:the 101~t occupancy permit within Sutherland Farm Subdivision.
The"applicant shall be required to maintain the pond in a manner that will prevent the
water from becoming stagnant or public nuisance (a mosquito breeding ground).
6. The i'emaining sections of the pathway (east of the 4-acre park/pond area) shall be
devel°PeA in accordan~e with the phasing schedule for the subdivision.
7. Ail development shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair
Housing Act.
8. No building permits shall be issued within the development until a final plat has been
recorded for this subdivision.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
AZ-02-004, PP -02-004, CUP02-005 Suthmtand Farms AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2002
Page 14
The subject property is located in an area designated as Mixed Residential in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan. 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.
Goals Section
Goal 4: To provide housing opportunities for all economic groups within the community.
Goal 8: To establish compatible and efficient use of land through the use of innovative and
functional site design.
Goal 3: To encourage the kind of economic growth and deVelopment which supplies
employment and economic self-sufficiency for existing and future residents, reduces the
present reliance on Boise and strengthens the City's.' abilitY 't° finance and implement
public improvements, services, and its open space c~acter.
Goal 8: To establish compatible and efficient use of 4~dthr0ugh the Useof innovative and
functional site design .... '"
Goal 9: To encourage a balance of land use patterns to i?sure that revenues pay for'services.
Economic Development
1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to!i'create a positive atmosphere that
encourages.., commercial enterprises to locate in Meridiin:
1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new commercial or industrial developments
should be harmonized with the natural environment and respect the unique needs and
features of each area. ," '-
1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
3.1U - Approve quality housing projects that meet the needs of all economic levels.
3.2U - Encourage efforts to develop and maintain quality neighborhoods and housing.,.
Land Use
1.10U Promotethe'design of attractive roadway entryway areas into Meridian which will clearly
identify the ~ommunity.
2.1U - Support a variety ~of residential categories for the purpose of providing the City with a
range of affordable housing oppommities.
2.4U - Encourage sidewalks and paved streets for all existing neighborhoods...
3.7 Industrial: uses which require the storage or the production of explosive or hazardous
materials should not be located near residential areas, and should conform to disposal,
spill and storage.measures as outlined by the U.S. EPA.
4.3U Encourage new commercial development in under-utilized existing commercial areas.
5.9 The integrity and identity of any adjoining residential neighborhood should be preserved
through the use of buffering techniques, including screen plantings, open space and other
landscaping techniques.
5.12 Strip development within this mixed-use area is not in compliance with the goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
5.13 Clustering of uses and controlled access points along arterials and collector streets will be
required.
AZ-02-004, PP 4)2-004, CUP02-00'J Suflledmd F~ms AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2002
Page 15
5.14
· Because these areas are near 1-84 and Franklin Roads, high-quality visual appearance is
essential. All development proposals in this area will be subject to development review
guidelines and conditional use permitting procedures.
Natural Resource & Hazardous Areas
2.1U Development along major drainage ways will be restricted to ensure that development
does not cause additional ground or surface water contamination.
3.1U Manage and prevent unsuitable uses along drainageways and protect the flood plain of
creeks and drains. ·
3.2U Protect the potential beauty and recreational trail opP6rtunities of all Meridian
waterways. ·
:.~
Community Design
1.3 Open space areas within all development
1.4 Major entrances to the City should be enhanced and e~phasized, unattra~ve land uses
along these entrances should be screened fi'o~!~ew.
2.1U Require businesses and government to install ~naintal~?landscaping.
2.3U Encourage the beautification of streets, parking
6.2U - Pedestrian access connectors willbe reqmred ~n all n~ ~' development to link subdivisions
together to promote neighborhood identity.
6.11U - Promote well-planned and WelladeSigned affordabl~i~!:h0using in all Meridian
neighborhoods. ':'!!"~:':i!~ i~i?!~:~:~
Transportation Chapter .,.
1.19U - Encourage proper design~ of residential neighborhoods to ensure their safety and
1.14- Design and perfo nce standards should b~ aP'plied to infilling development in order to
reduce adverse impaCtS upon exi~ adjacent development.
1.15 - As~i~'i-~De.veloPi~nt meth°dS?~:id standards are implemented by the City of
Meridian, ~aions p ng to planned development - maximum density,
dimensional standards, and Other requirements - shall not exceed 25% of the existing
requirements, and shall be recommended when one or more of the Planned Development
design'and developmental objectives are met.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the concept of developing this area with a medium-low density residential and
office uses, as proposed bY the applicant. ACHD has not yet issued a report concerning this
application; therefore, staffwould recommend continuing the public hearing until the report from
ACHD is available for review. Nevertheless, staff recommends resolving the following issue
prior to recommending approval:
Visibility/Usability/Accessibility of Open Space: as noted above in the "Additional
Considerations" section of this report (pg 7), staffhas concerns with surrounding the
southeast corner of the park with houses and with surrounding the large
common/drainage (Lot 12, Block 1) lot with office buildings and houses.
AZ-02.004, PP -02-004, CUPOI-O0$ $,,m~a,xd Fmms ,AZ. PP.CUP/PD
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
March 20, 2002
Page 16
Phasing: Staff needs to review the new phasing schedule prior to recommending
approval or denial.
Upon review of the ACHD report and the resolution of the above issues, staffwill be able to
make a recommendation of this project.
AZ-02-O04, PP-02-00~, CUP0'2-005 Sufl~tand Fruns AZ. PP.CUP/PD
RECEIVED
· APR - 3 2002
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Loreu E. Hontbaker
· )18 £. ~reen ~ou Dr.
Loren E. Hornbaker
2918 E. Green _C~o.yon ]Jr
MERIDIAN PARKS & RECREATION
Memorandum
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Tom Kuntz. Meridian Parks & Recreation ~-IL,-
CC: Meridian Park & Recreation
Re: Sutherland Farms Sub. Prelim/nary Plat
RECEIVED
APR - ~ 2002
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
The Parks and Recreation Commission and staff respectfully submit the following
comments for you consideration in regards to Sutherland Farms Subdivision:
1. We support and commend the developer for including a functional pathway
system and private Neighborhood Park within the subdivision design.
2. The neighborhood park located in Block 1, Lot 54 would be far more functional
and appealing as a subdivision amenity if the seven lots in the south east comer
were e 'hminated. It would expand the visibility corridor and increase the park
size to approximately 5 acres. The Parks department has a 5-acre minimum for
a city owned Neighborhood Park. If the maintenance costs for the 5-acre private
park were a burden for the homeowners in the future, the Parks department
would consider maintaining the site if it was deeded to the city.
3. The Pathway should be constructed as follows:
a. Ten-foot wide hard surface with ground sterilent, 6 inch compacted mad
mix, and 2 inches of asphalt (specs available).
b. Path should be located at the base of Ridenbaugh Canal bank or adjacent to
the canal maintenance road.
c. A 6-foot high medal fence should be installed between the path and the
canal.
d. Path should be a minimum of 10 feet from the back property lines.
· Page 1
e. Property line fencing adjacent to path should be see through or a maximum
of 4 feet high if solid.
'f. Bollards, garbage cans, and benches should be installed per park department
· Page 2
Sharon Smith
From: Tara Green
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 9:34 AM
To: Sharon Smith
RECEIVED
APR - 9 2002
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY-CLERK OFFICE
Subject: FW: For P&Z Commissioners Keith Borup and Jerry Centers
Page I o! J
..... Original Message .....
From: Spreggroundy@aol.com [mailto:Spreggroundy@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 9:23 AM
To,' Clerk@ci.meridian.id.us
Subject.' For P&Z Commissioners Keith Borup and .3erry Centers
Mr. Borup and Mr. Centers:
At our meeting with you last Thursday evening, April 4, re. the Sutherfand Farm subdivision, Annette DeAngelis
stood and spoke before your commission, expressing in a clear, respectful, and articulate manner concerns of
those of us residing in her neighborhood. Your response to her was extremely rude and disrespectful. We
couldn't believe what we were headng, nor could we discern what she had said or done to elicit such a response
from the two of you. You owe her an apology in the same forum in which you treated her so.
Sincerely,
Spregg and Joyce Roundy
4/9/02
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
Apdl 4, 2002
Page 62 of 77
Shreeve: That's it.
Walsh: Yeah. I haven't seen it, but --
Borup: Anything else, Mr. Walsh? Your time is up.
Walsh: Just one quick thought. Walt Lander has paid 35,000 dollars for a crosswalk at
Muir Ridge and Cloverdale. That has been bonded, I believe. Seeing how it's Boise it's
different, but when we with him he was telling us he had set aside 35,000 dollars for a
crosswalk at Muir Ridge and Cloverdale. That was a requirement of him to get his
subdivision. Eventually we may see some additional traffic. I realize it's down the road
and in the event we don't get an extension through there, if could we get a proposal for
a traffic light?. Half of it's paid for.
Shreeve: Where?
Walsh: On Cloverdale and Muir Ridge, which is the access to Muir Wood Subdivision.
Shreeve: You mean to the --
Walsh: Cloverdale to the east. Yes.
Shreeve: I think that would be something you'd have to talk with ACriD about. That
would be out of this body's hands.
Walsh: Okay.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Come on up.
Hapenfus: My name is Herbert Hapenfus. I own the three acres there that's on Eagle
and would also belong - yeah. Right in there. The only question I have is in checking
this at the office last week they mentioned it would be both gravity and pressurized
irrigation and so as long as we are looking at this right now and it's going to come back,
I just want to see that they don't forget that I need irrigation there with that -- those three
acres and that's basically all that I'm concerned with right now.
Borup: And that is a requirement. They will not interrupt your water supply. So they are
required to continue water supply to your property.
Hapenfus: Okay.
Borup: Come on up.
Deangelis: My name is Annette Deangelis and I'm on the board of the Southwest Ada
County Alliance and I'm also in the Rancho Los Altos Subdivision. My first comment
would be in regard to Mr. Fluke's statement about limited access into the subdivision. It
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
April 4, 2002
Page 63 of 77
seems to me if on Victory -- kind of like Boulder Creek. Do you know where Boulder
Creek is? Five Mile and -- when you enter at Boulder Creek it's green on both sides and
you go in kind of like a wonderful corridor and the Sassers, then, would have a lovely
berm without houses right there and that would be a lovely entrance and it would be
much more accessible and traffic would flow much nicer in and out onto Victory and the
same I would say on Eagle Road. If you leave that to future development or you leave it
undecided what's going to happen there, I mean you have 200 and something homes
or whatever is in there and you entered by the what, vacant fields or unidentified
territory. I mean --
Borup: Ma'am, when the road goes in it will need to be landscaped at that time.
Deangelis: Right. Right. But--
Borup: So if there is no road there wouldn't be, but once the road goes in there will be.
Deangelis: But what is adjacent to the road is so beneficial I -- you know, as a plus or
minus to that particular development. As was mentioned, the open space -- since there
is existing pond and existing open space to the south, it kind of would logically flow to
want to leave part of it there, also continue it down and then you have access more to --
contiguous throughout the entire subdivision. Compatibility is a large issue and I don't
care if your house is worth a million dollars or 65,000 dollars, they are building this
subdivision with our subdivision with open space, which I mean that's fine for the
developer, but when you walk through our subdivision you will see nothing but
backyards and probably barking dogs and old cars and whatever. So I do think that
there should be some respect and I don't care how much, you know, they charge for
these homes, but there should be a degree of respect and compatibility for those folks.
I mean I see it with Muir Woods right now and if Mr. Lander gets his office on the
corner, we will get to see his limited office. The rest of Muir Woods probably won't,
because he's going to build a big berm he says, but we will be able to see it, so here we
are -- and, again, the Sassers -- boy, that is just unreal. Oh. And as far as not being
able to sell one acre -- I mean single story homes, one of the contingencies upon
building in Rancho Los Altos -- and they are between two and five acres, is you have to
be a single story home and we are all single stories. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions? I had one, ma'am. You talked about the lot sizes against Los
Altos. Was the same concern expressed with Muir Woods?
Deangelis: Oh, indeed. Indeed. And, you know, the folks there are lovely and if you walk
down our street -- and, actually, there is one home that was totally impacted and they
can see what the folks are having for breakfast in the morning and we bought out there,
you know, with open space in mind and, yes, development is inevitable, but, wow, I
mean literally you can see what they are having -- and they have -, I think it's three or
four homes that they, you know, can look dght in through there: And vice'versa.
Borup: So you objected Muir Woods going in also, just as mUch as this?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
Apri~ 4, 2OO2
Page 64 of 77
Deangelis: Well, but in a positive way. We tried to make positive suggestions. We really
did. And we are still in the process, since 1997, we are still going for the Muir Woods
thing, so --
Borup: A lot of old cars in their backyards and stuff, is that --
Deangelis: Well, not in Muir Woods. Not -- no. I mean that was an exaggeration, but I
mean --
Borup: Okay.
Deangelis: But there are barking dogs, you know.
Centers: Mrs. Deangelis?
Deangelis: Yes.
Centers: You would have to agree that it would be almost impossible to put acreage
subdivisions back to back.
Deangelis: Oh, absolutely.
Centers: Or half acre subdivisions back to back, unless -- unless you had landowners in
between that you told you cannot sell your land unless you develop it into half acre lots.
So -- and that's what we are faced with. You look at subdivisions throughout the
Treasure Valley, R-8 backs up to R-4, R-4 backs up to half acre subs that might be in
the Boise impact area. I mean it's virtually impossible to keep them compatible so
everyone is totally happy. It can't be done. Impossible.
Deangelis: No. And I would agree there.
Centers: Thank you.
Deangelis: But as far as salability of large lots -- large lot subdivisions -- and I'll use Mr.
Lander as an example, he needs to developed Hialeah, which was half acre plus and,
you know, they were sold right away.
Centers: And I would tend to agree there is probably a good market for that, but if you
can find the land at the price.
Deangelis: Right. Well - and, again, without having dollars and cents in front of me, I
do contend that if he's going to say these apartments or townhomes or whatever and
have it, you know, pretty dense near the entrance there -- and I hope it's not going to be
office and commercial -- he's going to recover his dollar value -- and, actually, he will
probably enhance his subdivision and be able to get a better return on his dollars,
because it will be - they will be upscale sections. And, again, I think it sounds like
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
Apd~ 4, 2002
Page 65 of 77
you're a snob, but you don't lose money by adding amenities if you do it within reason
and his surrounding area adds to that reasoning. I mean he's not backing up to the
Beverly Hillbillies. I don't know.
Centers: Well, I don't think you or I want to tell him how to develop it, though.
Deangelis: But if he's developing in my backyard I think I have a right, because he's
going to make money on my open space and everybody else's in this reom.
Borup: But then would you also want them to tell you what you can do with your
backyard?
Deangelis: But they did. Before we could build in our subdivision we were told.
Borup: No. I mean your neighbor. That's the subdivision you chose to move in. Would
you want your neighbors saying they don't want you to put a swing set up out there or -
Deangelis: But they would and they do.
Borup: Your neighbors do?
Deangelis: Well, I mean -- okay. But there is enough mutual respect. But I thought that
that was the whole purpose of this, to have some sort of a meeting of the minds. I mean
-- because I guess if you can develop -- as long as you've bought it, you can put
whatever you want there, and that defeats the purpose of -
Centers: No. No. That's not true.
Deangelis: Okay.
Centers: It meets the Comprehensive Plan, the mixed use development, they have met
that criteria, that's why we are able to come here tonight.
Deangelis: Right.
Centers: And there is certain things that we want to make note of -- I certainly made
note of that northerly exit, you know, but my point is it's tough to satisfy adjoining
landowners where if you sit on two acres and you're going to have four or five houses
behind you, as you said - your key statement: I realize growth is inevitable.
Deangelis: Right.
Centers: Quote, unquote. And that's - you
fortunate. I don't know.
know, that's the unfortunate thing. Or
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
Apd~ 4, 2002
Page 66 of 77
Deangelis: But in the comp plan, both Boise's and Meridian's, I think it states
compatibility and so if the term compatibility is in there, it must mean something.
Borup: The definition of compatible would be like type zoning, residential against
residential. The buffering is needed for something that's not compatible, like commercial
against residential. That's where the buffering aspects kick in.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman -- and just -- you know, compatibility, but I guess the word is
transition is one of the words that maybe I would use and I think, Commissioner
Centers, that you're dght, they am not going to have two acre lots butting up against
there, that's not practical, nor is that preoposed, obviously, but I just seem to think that
there is some reom for making those lots just a smidgen larger for a more transitional
size of lots between those lots there on the south. And so I guess that's where I use --
not so much compatibility, as much as it is just a transition and that is also in our
ordinances that we look to some - there is some - I have to use the word compatibility,
some transition, at least consideration there anyway. And that's why I guess my earlier
comment would be that -- my opinion would be that the developer look at -- you know,
for example, there on Los Altos Subdivision you got, what, two, four, six -- maybe six
lots there.
Centers: How many do you want him to have?
Shreeve: One.
Centers: Five? One?
Shreeve: No.
Borup: You mean the lots bordering the other lots?
Shreeve: Right. Well, I think it just needs to be looked at, to be considered. Because
right now they are quarter acre lots right now. Roughly if you removed one, made five,
say it would be less than a half acm -- you know, maybe -- I don't know. Of course, if
you removed one -
Centers: A quarter acre is a good size lot.
Shmeve: Yeah. But butted up against a two to five acre lot? Well, that's all I'm
resenting, is I believe that them needs to be mom of a transition.
Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward. Come on up.
McKibbin: I'll be brief. My name is Dennis McKibbin. I live at 1820 S. Eagle Road. I live
on the southwest side up there and I own a commercial dog kennel there, which nobody
has mentioned, and I haven't had any problems with noise, but the development with
the commercial them - I talked to Daren there about it bdefly and the only problem that
March 25, 2002
REC IVFr'
MAR 2 7 200'7~
City of Meridia~
City Clerk Offic -
To:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commissioners
From:
Muir Woods home owners adjacent to the proposed Sutherland Farms
Subdivision. Morris and Elaine Bastian, 2727 South Mayflower Way,
Boise, Idaho, 83709, phone 229-6352.
Subject:
Concern and fear about the impact proposed Sutherland Farms
subdivision will have on Muir Woods; specifically the heavy traffic that will
be routed through Muir Woods in order for drivers to get to Sutherland
Farms.
Attached are the names and addresses of residents in Muir Woods who were shocked
and surprised when they learned Muir Woods is being recommended as a main
entrance and exit to the newly proposed by Sutherland Farm subdivision. (Daren
Fluke is the planning associate.)
Problem:
Most resiclents of Muir Woods moved in less than a year a(;o, thinking they had moved
into a small, quiet subdivision surrounded by a I'K)rse rancl3. Now this t~c)rse ranch is
being replaced by a 308 home subdivision with townhouses and commercial
development; and Sutherland Farms is proposing that Muir Woods be its primary
entrance and exit from the east (Cloverdale).
Sutherland Farms is a land-locked subdivision adjacent to Muir Woods. it lies south of
Overland between Eagle and Cloverdale Roads. Sutherland Farms wants to use the
streets and roads in surrounding subdivisions as entry ways; therefore traffic routed
into Sutherland Farms doubles the traffic in Muir Woods.
Two critical obJectlona:
1, Heavy traffic to and from Sutherland Farms will be will be entering or exiting
Muir Woods in order to get to their destinations in Boise/Meridian, etc. (Muir
Woods has only one entrance/exit, that being Muir Ridge. A potential
bottleneck in the making.)
2. Children's safety will be at risk. Parents in Muir Woods have a huge fear
that if Muir Ridge becomes the pdmary entrance into Sutherland Farms from the
east, extremely heavy traffic will be pouring through their subdivision and
neighborhood.
Proposal:
Eliminate any possible east/west road system that will connect Eagle and Cloverdale
Roads through Muir Wood's and Sutherland Farm's subdivisions. Drivers entering
Muir Woods or Sutherland Farms subdivisions must exit the same way they come in.
There are a number of subdivisions in Boise with that safety feature because it helps to
limit the number of cars coming through a given neighborhood. Examples:
1. Lewis Street and Warm Springs Hallow: in that subdivision drivers must
enter and exit at the same entrance. Drivers can't drive straigi3t through one
subdivision into another. This has helped keep traffic to a minimum in that area
of 6oise.
2. Morningside Subdivision: Drivers can't drive straight through Morningside
and over the hill to its neighboring subdivision. They must retrace
their steps and enter from the opposite side in order to get into the neighboring
sul~iivision.
3. Ann Morrison Park: Initially drivers could drive from Capitol to Americana Bivcl
through Ann Morrison Park. But college students and citizens took
advantage of the park road system and began using it as a short cut and an
alternative route to east or west Boise. The safety and serenity of the park
became jeopardized and the park Was closed to through traffic.
Most ol= t11e signers of the attaohed petition will be at tile public hearing April 4, 2002 to
express their fears and concerns regarding Muir Ridge being proposed as a primary
entrance and exit to Sutherland Farms.
We will be circulating this petition among the remaining residents of Muir Woods
between now and April 4 because we feel they have similar concerns and fears about
the impact Sutherland Farms will have on the safety and serenity Muir Woods. Ail
those who have signed thus far are planning on atte/~g the April 4th meeting.
Sincerely, .,,, .1Ali % ~ . ,
Morris and ~lalne Bastlan
2727 $out~ Mayflower Way (Muir Woods Subdivision}
Boise, Ida~,.. 837o9
~IAR 2 7
City of Meridi
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPOSED Clt~ Clerk
S~DWISION:
Return ground to its original level, 6-8 feet lower than at
present, before building begins (it was raised by infilling a
few years ago).
Retain and integrate the existing pond, waterways, and
trees, to add beauty to Southerland Farms and to maintain
some of the beauty that we in existing homes now enjoy.
12.47Z
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE
20-Jun-02
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 02-004
PROJECT NAME
Sutherland Farm
NAME
FOR
AGAINST
JUN 2 0 2002