HomeMy WebLinkAboutReserve Subdivision PP
P P 05-051
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
January 19, 2006
APPLICANT Dave McKinnon / Conger Management Group
ITEM NO.
6
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 8,2005 - Preliminary Plat approval
of 12 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres in a proposed
R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Blvd
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
See Previous Item Packet / Minutes in AZ Packet
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
See Revised Staff Report in AZ Packet
CITY ATTORNEY
~
Ií) . ~~fI\~ ¡,J
~ ~ ~~~~
<f> UI cJ
~/éY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
:!
- ~
>-, -"
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19,2006
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
Hearing Date: 1/19/2006
Planning & Zoning Commission
,,-Rfj~t IVED
of, C 'i" "/-,, '--
I l' ,-' - --", ,,' ' ~ "" "
/ t:l1{.lal}/,;.".t C ¿¡J.U;j
CJt\Y'oF MBRIDIAN
'-.:',' "
'<,: ,-,.,-, .'"' ¡ T"'; r: 1- ¡:: pl¿ r 1-- ~- i Î' r
'-';:~~'-è:~~"t~~.~.L::::;~"-';'-'- c- ,",-' .- \ ,-}" -- ,
C. Caleb Hood
Current Planning Manager
City of Meridian Planning Department
208-884-5533
SUBJECT:
Reserve Subdivision
AZ~05~050
Annexation and Zoning of5.0 acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low-Density
Residential)
PP~05-051
Preliminary Plat request for 12 building lots and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres
in a proposed R~4 zone, for Reserve Subdivision
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Dave McKinnon, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) and Preliminary Plat (PP)
approval of 12 building lots and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres. The site is located on the west side of
Locust Grove Road, approximately 1,000 feet south of Chinden Boulevard. This site is currently rural
residential with one single-family residence and accessory buildings. The site has not been previously
platted. However, four of the five acres proposed for development have been the subj ect of previous
preliminary plat applications. ill the spring of 2005, a 22 lot subdivision on 9 acres was submitted and
withdrawn by the applicant, C5 Development, on this site (AZ~05-004, PP-05-006 & V AR-05-005). ill
the summer of 2005, an 8 lot subdivision on 4 acres was submitted and then withdrawn by the applicant,
Conger Management Group (AZ-05-035 & PP-05-054). GO Properties, LLC, who owns one acre on
Locust Grove Road has now partnered with Jake Centers, who owns four acres, to submit the subject
applications. The five acres directly west of the subject site, with frontage on Jericho Road, has been sold
to James Luchini and is not a part of the subject applications. Please see History of Previous Actions in
Section 6 below. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The subject applications (AZ and PP) were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review.
Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat
applications below. At the December 8, 2005 public hearing, staff recommended denial of the subject
applications, At the December 8. 2005. public hearin!2:. the Plannin!! and Zonin!2: Commission voted to
remand the sub'ect a lications back to Plannin Staff so that Findin s and Conditions of a roval could
be drafted- As re oested b the Commission staff ha, included Findin~ Exhibit D and Conditiom of
Approval (Exhibit B) within the Staff Report for the hearin!! date of Janu 19. 2006.
3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing)
Recommend Approval
I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Numbers AZ-O5-050 and PP-05-051
as presented in staff report for the hearing date of January 19, 2006 with the following
modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.)
Recommend Denial
I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Numbers AZ~05-050 and PP-05-051 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 19, 2006 for the following reasons:
Reserve Subdivision Revised3 AZ-O5-050, PP-O5-051
PAGE 1
>, ""
CITY OF MERlDlAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19,2006
(You should state specific reasons for denial of the annexation and you must state specific
reason(s) for the denial of the plat.)
Recommend Continuance
I move to continue File Numbers AZ-O5-050 and PP-O5-051 to the hearing date of (insert
continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s)
for continuance.)
4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location: West side of Locust Grove Road, south of Chinden Boulevard, within
Section 30, Township 4 North, Range 1 East.
b. Property Owners:
Jake Centers
1979 Locust Grove Road
Meridian, Idaho 83642
&
GO Properties, LLC
5488 N. Bach Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
c. Applicant:
Dave McKinnon
Conger Management Group
405 South 8th Street, Ste. 290
Boise, Idaho 83702
d. Representative:
Dave McKinnon, Conger Management Group
e. Present Zoning: RUT (Ada County)
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant has applied for Annexation and Zoning
(AZ) and Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of 12 building lots and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres
proposed for RA zoning.
1. Date of preliminary plat (attached as Exhibit AI): 10/7/05
2. Date oflandscape plan (attached as Exhibit A2): 1/10/05
h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: "As you well know, this is the third revision for this
much.maligned subdivision, but the revisions continue to make it a better subdivision that
better reflects the City's Ordnances and Comprehensive Plan. The major changes to the
subdivision are comprised of the inclusion of the one-acre parcel of ground located (on)
Locust Grove (in the northeast portion ofthe proposed subdivision), a major revision of the
entry into the subdivision, the inclusion of several more building lots (to increase density) and
the placement of a pathway extending to the school area to the north. The inclusion of the one-
acre out parcel eliminates the need to jog the road at the entrance and allows the entire street to
be double loaded with residential housing. Furthermore, it eliminates an enclave parcel that
Reserve Subdivision Revised3 AZ-OS-O50, PP-O5-051
PAGE 2
,,-
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARlNG DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006
would have been difficult to re~develop in the future, and removes an additional access to
Locust Grove. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City of Meridian
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as well as the Plan's supporting policies." Please
see applicant's submittal letter for more infonnation.
5. PROCESS FACTS
a.
The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation and zoning as determined by
City Ordinance. By reason ofthe provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter
5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
The subject application will in fact constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a
public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
Newspaper notifications published on: October 31 and November 14, 2005
Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: October 21,2005
Applicant posted notice on site by: November 7, 2005
b.
c.
d.
e.
6. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): Rural residential with one existing home.
b. Description of Character of SuITounding Area: Rural residential, rapidly transitioning to
urban densities.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
1. North: School, zoned R-4
2. East: Rural residential, Dunwoody Subdivision, zoned RUT
3. South: Rural residential, zoned RUT
4. West: Vacant 5-acre parcel, zoned RUT; Approved Arcadia Subdivision, zoned R-8
d. History of Previous Actions:
The co-owner of the subject property, Mr. Jake Centers, also developed Arcadia Subdivision,
west of the subject properties. After receiving approval for Arcadia, Mr. Centers bought the
nine acres just to the east. The nine acres that Mr. Centers bought in October of2004 is
comprised of two parcels. Parcel A, the western parcel, is approximately five acres and Parcel
B, the eastern parcel, is approximately four acres. Mr. Centers told staff that he intended to
construct his personal residence on the western portion of Parcel A and therefore did not want
to extend Hidden Path Street.
As mentioned in the Summary Description above, in the spring of this year C5 Development
submitted three applications (AZ-05-004, PP-05-006, V AR-05-005). The applications
requested an R-4 zone for 22 single-family lots on 9 acres (the variance request was for the
cul-de-sac length). The proposed subdivision did not include connecting the public street from
Locust Grove Road to Jericho Road. mstead the applicant proposed a long cul-de-sac street
(Hidden Path). Staff recommended approval of the project, with a condition that Hidden Path
Street be extended to connect with Jericho Road to the west. Planning Department staff (Anna
Canning and Craig Hood) attended the ACHD hearing and specifically requested that the
District require the street extension as well. After the Ada County Highway District and the
City required the street connection, the applicant withdrew those applications.
After withdrawing AZ-05-004, PP-05-006 and V AR~05~005, Mr. Centers subsequently deeded
Reserve Subdivision Revised3 AZ-O5-050, PP-OS-OSI
PAGE 3
>-
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006
the five-acre, Parcel A to Not 4 Sale, LLC, and did not include it within the boundaries of the
second AZ & PP applications (AZ-05-035 & PP-05-034)(Jake Centers is a registered agent of
Not 4 Sale, LLC). Mr. Centers then submitted applications to develop eight buildable lots on
the four acres that he continued to own in his name (Parcel B). Shortly after AZ-05-035 and
PP-05-034 were submitted, the property owners directly north showed interest in partnering
with Mr. Centers on developing their one-acre parcel. Mr. Centers withdrew those
applications (AZ-05-035 and PP-05-034) and is now proposing to develop the four-acre
parcel, Parcel B that he owns and the one-acre parcel that GO Properties owns together.
Since the last submittal for development, Mr. Centers (via Not 4 Sale, LLC) has deeded the
five-acre, Parcel A to James Luchini. The five acres that Mr. Luchini cUlTently owns is not
included within the subject applications. Both the City of Meridian Plamung Department and
Ada County Highway District staff made it clear that an extension of Jericho Road was
necessary within Arcadia Subdivision so that a street could be extended to Locust Grove Road
through the subject property. City staff has infonned Mr. Centers several times that a
connection to Locust Grove Road, from Jericho Road, is in the best interest of the City. Staff
believes that the applicant has sold the five-acres to the west because he does not want
Commander Street (previously Hidden Path Street) to connect with Jericho Road. Staff
believes that development of the subj ect site is not in the City's best interest if a vehicular
connection to Jericho Road is not provided.
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities
1. Public Works
Location of sewer:
Location of water:
There are sewer mains located in Locust Grove.
There are water mains located in Locust Grove.
Issues or concerns:
None.
2. Vegetation: There are some mature trees along the south property line of the
property.
3. Floodplain: NA
4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of
natural waterways and waterways being used as amenities that intersect, cross or lie
adjacent and contiguous to an area being subdivided shall be tiled (VDC 11-3A-6).
5. Hazards: Staff tìnds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental
problems associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Councilor
Commission's attention; no hazardous natural features have been identified on the site.
6. Proposed Zoning: R-4
7. Size of Property: 5.0 acres
8. Description of Proposed Use:
f. Subdivision Plat fufonnation
Single-Family
1. Residential Lots:
12
2. Non-residential Lots:
3. Total Building Lots:
0
12
4. Common Lots:
5
5. Other Lots:
0
Reserve Subdivision Revised3 AZ-O5-050, PP-O5-051
PAGE 4
.~
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006
6. Total Lots: 17
7. Gross Density:
g. Landscaping
1. Width of street buffer(s): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along Locust
Grove Road, an entryway corridor (VDC 11-2A-4). The applicant is proposing a 35-
foot wide landscape lot adjacent to Locust Grove Road. The applicant is proposing to
construct 8-foot wide planter strips between the sidewalk and the curb of the internal
roadways.
2.4 units per acre
2. Width ofbuffer(s) between land uses:
NA
3. Percentage of site as open space:
be open space.
h. Proposed and Required Residential Standards: R-4
Setbacks Proposed Required
The applicant states that 11.8% of the site will
Front Living Area 15
Side Accessed Garage 15
Front Accessed Garage 20
Street side 15
Side 5
Rear 15
Frontage * 80
Lot Size 10,000
15
15
20
15
5
15
60
8,000
* There are two lots, Lot 2, Block 1, and Lot 2, Block 2, that only have 30 feet of public street frontage.
VDC 11-2A-3.B allows flag properties to have a minimum of 30-feet of frontage.
i. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): A new
public street from Locust Grove Road, Commander Street, is proposed to provide the only
access to the site. The applicant is proposing to extend Commander Street to the undeveloped
five-acre property to the west (currently owned by Luchini). The applicant is also proposing a
stub street (Sun Shimmer Avenue) to the undeveloped property to the south.
7. COMMENTS MEETING
On October 28, 2005, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with representatives of key
service providers to this property. Based on the joint agency/department meeting and other comments
received from agencies and departments, staff finds that the required public services can be made
available to accommodate the proposed development.
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
This property is designated "Medium Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Map. The Comprehensive Plan calls for single-family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units
per acre on this site (see Page 95 of the Comprehensive Plan.) There are only 12 buildable lots proposed
on the subject 5 acres. There is a maximum density of 4 dwelling units per acre allowed in the R-4 zone
Reserve Subdivision Revised3 AZ-O5-050, PP-O5-051
PAGE 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19,2006
by the UDC; the proposed gross density of Reserve Subdivision is 2.4 dwelling units per acre, Without
applying for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, the Comprehensive Plan allows a one step change
in density for resideniial areas, Staff finds that the proposed zoning desigoation, R-4, and density, 2.4
dwellings per acre, could be harmonious with and in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and
Future Land Use Map lithe Commission and Council allow the applicant to take one step-down in
density for this project.
Staff fmds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application
(analysis is in italics below policy):
Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 ~ Require that development projects have planned for the
provision of all public services.
When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the
subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands
proposed to be annexed in the following manner:
. Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the
developer's expense.
The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire
District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian
City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the
Meridian Rural Fire Department.
The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's
Office. Once annexed the lands will he serviced by the Meridian Police
Department (MPD).
The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained
by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change.
The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This
service will not change.
The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This
service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no
revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation.
.
.
.
.
.
Municipal, fee~supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department,
the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian
Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing
Services, and Sanitary Services Company.
Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 3 ~ Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel:
A Recommended Approach" from the National Center for BicYcling and Walking in all land-use
decisions.
This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkway facilities in new construction
and reconstruction projects, in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient. The subject applications
generally comply with the policies listed in the literature noted above.
Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6 - Require street connections between subdivisions at regular
intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow.
The submitted preliminary plat does not propose a street connection with Jericho Road in Arcadia
Reserve Subdivision Revised3 AZ-O5-050, PP-O5-051
PAGE 6
,
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006
Subdivision. The applicant has not included the 5-acre parcel that abuts Arcadia within the Subject
applications.
Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 13 - Review new development for appropriate opportunities to
connect to local roads and collectors in adjacent developments.
There are few Opportunities for an east-west connection to Locust Grove Road through this section. The
applicant is not proposing a street connection to Jericho Road with this application.
Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 9 - Require new residential development to provide permanent
perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown debris from entering
adjacent agricultural and other properties.
Fencing has not been proposed for this project. Prior to house construction, fencing should be
constructed around the perimeter of this site.
Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, ActionS - Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development
to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a conununity pathway
system.
The applicant is proposing a pedestrian connection to the school site to the north.
Chapter VII, Goal N, Objective C, Action 6 - Require pedestrian access in all new development to link
subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity.
See above.
Chapter VII, Goal N, Objective D, Action 2 - Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and
arterial streets.
One public street access to Locust Grove Road is proposed; direct lot access to Locust Grove Road
should be prohibited.
Chapter VII, Goal N, Objective C, Action 1 - Protect existing residential properties from incompatible
land use development on adjacent parcels.
The applicant is proposing a residential zone. The existing residential properties to the south, east and
west and the school to the north are compatible with the proposed development.
Chapter VII, Goal N, Objective C, Action 10 - Support a variety ofresidential categories (low-, medium-
' and high-density single family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for
the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities.
The subject application includes a request for the R-4 zone. Saguaro Canyon Subdivision obtained an R-4
zone; Arcadia Subdivision obtained an R-8 zone; and Westborough Subdivision obtained R-2, R-4, R-15
and L-O Zoning. The requested zoning designation contributes to the variety of residential zoning
categories in this area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this site.
9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: Meridian City Code 11-2A-2lists single-family detached
dwellings as permitted uses in the R-4 zoning district.
b. Purpose Statement of Zone:
R-4 Medium Low.Density Residential: The purpose of the residential districts is to
Reserve Subdivision Revised3 AZ-O5-050, PP-O5-051
PAGE 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DA TE OF JANUARY 19, 2006
provide for a range of housing oPPOliunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan. Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all
residential districts. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of
dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated
within the density range.
c, General Standards: The overall design of the proposed subdivision generally conforms to the
standards listed in Title 11 of Meridian City Code.
10. ANALYSIS
a, Analysis of Facts Leading to Recommendation
1. AZ Application: The Future Land Use Map designates this property 'medium density
residential.' Without applying for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, the
Comprehensive Plan allows a one step change in density for residential areas. Staff
finds that the proposed zoning designation, R-4, and density, 2.4 dwellings per acre,
could be harmonious with and in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and
Future Land Use Map if the Commission and Council allow the applicant to take one
step-down in density for this project.
Further, a street connection to Jericho Road from Locust Grove Road is important in
this location, The Commission and Council should evaluate whether allowing: the
sub'ect annexation without the ad'acent 5 acre arcel is in the best interest of the
City.
2. PP Application:
Special Considerations:
Open Space: The applicant has stated that the subdivision contains 11.8% of
landscaped open space, meeting the 5% minimum required by Ordinance, The
majority of this landscaping is passive in nature and provided in the proposed
parkways between the detached sidewalks and the streets, and within landscape
medians in the middle of the streets. The applicant has not proposed any large
landscaped common lots for active use by the residents, and none are required by
code,
Temporary Vehicular Turnaround: The applicant is proposing a temporary turnaround
easement for Commander Street. The turnaround is within Lot 2, Block 3. The Fire
Department and Sanitary Services Company have concerns with vehicles parking
within this turnaround easement and cars parking along Commander Street, restricting
the ability of vehicles to turn around,
Drivewavs for Lots 5 and 7. Block 1: Lot 1. Block 3: and Lot 5. Block 2: The
applicant is proposing a roundabout at the intersection of Commander Street and Sun
Shimmer Avenue. The Ada County Highway District does not allow driveways to be
constructed adjacent to traffic circles or roundabouts, The applicant should restrict the
driveways for Lots 5 and 7 of Block 1 and Lot 1 of Block 3 and Lot 5 of Block 2 from
being constructed adjacent to the traffic circle. A note will be required on the [mal plat
stating this access restriction,
Reserve Subdivision Revised3 AZ-O5-050, PP-O5-051
PAGE 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19,2006
Fencing: The applicant is not showing any fencing on any of the submitted plans.
VDC 11-3A-7A7a requires developers to construct fencing adjacent to micro-paths, to
distinguish common from private areas. Fencing adjacent to micro-paths is restricted
to either a 6-foot open vision or 4-foot solid (UDC 1] -3A-7A-7b).
11. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat (dated: October 7,2005)
2. Landscape Plan (dated: January 10, 2005)
Further, the Police Department has concerns with visibility into the school site to the
north. An fencin next to the school district ro eft shall either be 0 en-vision or
shall not exceed four feet in height if solid fencin!! is used (see comments from the
Police Department in Exhibit B below).
The a licant should c1arif at the ublic hearin how erimeter and micro- ath
fencin!! is !!oin!! to be constructed in and around this development.
Existin!! Residences/Buildin!!s: The site currently contains multiple buildings. These
buildings are not shown on the preliminary plat, as required. The applicant should
modify the submitted preliminary plat by depicting all existing structures. If the
existing home does not meet the building setback requirements of the R-4 zone, it
should be removed prior to signature of a final plat by the City Engineer.
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department
2. Public Works Department
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Parks Department
6. Sanitary Service Company
7. Ada County Highway District
C. Legal Description
D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Reserve Subdivision Revised3 AZ-O5-050, PP-O5-051
PAGE 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19,2006
; "V~ ~~~~~~~ø :-. -- ~ -~~T
_I, '"",,'-'J- C ,,' (t~ g)~
r -- "-"""~---'--"~,-..%,,
ì\
!>..""-,, $
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat (dated: October 7, 2005)
H
-,-
",
,'1.'0---""
"-,c::..";"~:2'
"-" -' "'--
.. ','
"i,~
"I', l
'~~i f
,:\1 5
...
--"
'0
~
"
3
':, ,i
" '
Lf;': ,
; :' :<
',;' ,
-, --- - ,-, -,,--
u
"
/----'-- -"'" -,u_-
; "-'--=-"=-'\ ' ':1'; '-(;-":-~~]--
-- -::II~I'i' II-"" '---,,'
1__, !, \!,,"::I¡i " I
, J¡ if I
::/"1 ¡:f -
i ',i~i' I
-'¡I:c;"di¡
~i:, ?) :
. ,,'
/,,"
'"
'- z
~ ë
--'¡¡J,
o.>~ ,
~:Ji5'i
«~èj~
20: ,,¡;
~'"~,;
i~~ '
"I
I
r- -
i i
i'"
" " I
,.;~;~:~(:=:"
,i':';
,,¡i:
i
-"-'II
-- -I:
;,
..,-- ---:-'-"-,
-':i
~~
~j
I
\','-,;,,/
/) Ilii;;
',p 1,0,
/1- :1"
Ii '
l-...c
c/
/..,
"'--,,--- ---- -'----,
"'--'------"-,..~'~----,--,~----
Exhibit A - Page 1
~
",'.'^,
.. - ¡,"
¡, " , ; "
1 I
,
I
, ,
,
I
,
,
'I
'C,
,j ¡;:
~~"!'~ It,
~~", "
If J9" '..'
< ""
~
.:',
",
~
--",
" ,
"
"I
, I
'I: ],
i'
i;j{;
:,.;,:,¡
r~i!
,',
;, '
:::j l'
!
",I,'
F
I
"
':,-
",'I ,
'..; ,
-".:;
;'
~'
.,'
0
:£1
j,
.
"
-----"'----~_.._-'""-'" -----'--.. -'-----------
~
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19,2006
2. Landscape Plan (dated: January 10, 2005)
Jl iEf~~;!m
r~. r II ' "
',,;f.¡ '. i,i, ¡' "
I"!/~ ! :1
I, ,,~'
~)
I,"" !
q
~J
i¡ :¡I,:::"
!
;,
':
"
~,:
~
,¡, i)'.-
':H;,;::~,:,!":jl",,
¡ I' i;;, : ~_Jj i, ~ ;!:,';,'
;: 0 ~ ~ ,;( ~' :: ;, ~ '
:: i.; i;; L: 1: :;
:;,¡rf;¡;;':L !:
,," ..'!, : j;; ,
, i, : :' ¡:' Ii 'i ¡ "f, I"
1" ,. ,_._:,'~,',:,--,r",¡,'"~,~,,:;~.'~",~,il"I'"
rC;~;' , '::
',,:1'---'1
.: 1- i,
~::- {! ,;;" i 1
I ,,' I:
!
,
ÎI :'
i. :Hri I.
¡, C"
, """,1";'
, 1"/"
:, ,--;
':T?r
iJi. I
I¡:, :
nii', .
;'::; f:'~ I
ill!! ~F
"~:.:h'- -
!;
!I;
i~!i!¡
,
¡
I
I
':i :
ðtl
~~~H
Exhibit A - Page 2
¡
,.,
"
I ,/
,!:~<~ ::." "'
'/'\G_,:'~i" ,:
~'
¡;i:,! ~!;i' ¡i
--
"".,,'t""-'"
.~t.::.~\' "',
.~:-~:-
R:~~ ,
)¡.w. ..
'0' ,
,,---
!"
,--
..~~'¡.I.'
" '~il
. '¡,';L.
',]'1..:
", I-""'"
,..-,..:",,:,:!.
if': --
! :
-
.!
;1
Nf¡"i::! ,j,j\I::J:;;al"',J"~'I'
i": ',:'CO!.' '.'i,
. :§;.~:';S:~¡': fJ It~§(:~;;~~I:;
! &l\ ')'~I!. I, "
11-(r~1 (/if' : ',;
, ~ ¡i.l/ It' '
1"'~¡'lli < -
l:1: l/iI"-'
'IIIII/;/'-II-,'~ ¡I
, // V"-, II
: '~~Jr~;~~:~.
"C_!~¡t JJ
- ~"
I " -- ,
,.;,<;'~~~t~T;;l~~~~~;)§::,', ,
c'/ I(¡: ~{~~);i."'~'¡""'.':' ~I
\~~.;iÚ~;
,_I
, ,
, ¡
, ;
'..'
;{!
u'.'
,c'
¡~:
'hi
f~\
'i£
-J'
~
I
, I
i'
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
Exhibit B - Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department
1.1 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP-05-051)
1.1.1
The preliminary plat labeled as P-1.0, prepared by Roylance and Associates, dated October 7,
2005 is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments and conditions of the
accompanying Annexation and Zoning (AZ-05-050) application shall also be considered
conditions ofthe Preliminary Plat (PP.05-051).
Place a note on the face of the final plat stating that driveways for Lots 5 and 7, Block 1, and Lot
1, Block 3, and Lot 5, Block 2, are prohibited from being constructed adjacent to the traffic circle
at the intersection of Commander Street and Sun Shimmer Avenue.
The landscape plan prepared by Good Earth Landscape, on 1-10-05, labeled Sheet L1.1 is
approved with the following modifications/notes:
. Per VDC 11-3G-3A, set aside 11.6% (0.58 acres) of the site for useable open
space, as proposed.
. Provide a micro pathway to the school site to the north, as proposed. Per VDC
11-3B-12C, construct a 5-foot wide landscape strip on both sides of a micro
pathway with at least 1 deciduous tree being planted every 35 linear feet on
both sides of the pathway.
. Per VDC 11- 3G- 3El, install at least one deciduous shade tree per every 8,000
square feet of common open space area, and install lawn, either seed or sod.
. Per VDC 1l.3B-IO, the applicant shall work with the City Arborist, Elroy
Huff, on designing, adopting, and implementing a protection and mitigation
plan for the existing trees on site. Submit a copy of said plan, if required by
the Parks Department, with the final plat application.
. A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape
architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan
and submitted prior to occupancy of any buildings. All standards of
installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14.
Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where
staff has reviewed such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the
preliminary plan with modifications as proposed by, staff. The proceeding
modifications and notes should be shown on a revised landscape plan
submitted with the fmal plat application(s).
Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, any building that spans across proposed
lot lines, or does not meet the setback requirements of the R-4 zone shall be removed from this
site or relocated in compliance with City Code.
Construct fencing adjacent to the micro-pathway to the school site to the north. A detailed fencing
plan shall be submitted upon application of the final plat. If permanent perimeter fencing is not
provided before issuance of a building permit, temporary construction fencing to contain debris
must be installed around the perimeter. Perimeter, common open space, and micro-path fencing
shall be designed according to VDC 1l.3A-7. Fencing adjacent to Lot 6, Block 1, shall be
restricted to either 4-foot solid or 6-foot open vision. All fencing on the north side of Block 1
(next to the school district property) shall either be open-vision or shall not exceed four feet in
1.1.9
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19,2006
height if solid fencing is used. The applicant should clarify. at the public hearing, how perimeter
and micro~ ath fencin is oin to be constructed in and around this develo ment.
1.1.6
Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Reserve Subdivision Home
Owners' Association.
1.1.7
Per UDC 11-3A~6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, and
waterways being used as amenities, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided
shall be covered. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or
lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the
Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate
plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat signature.
1.1.8
On the face of the final plat, place a temporary tumaround easement for Commander Street, west
of Sun Shimmer Avenue, on Lot 2, Block 3. The face of the garage on Lot 2, Block 3, shall be
located at least 2a-feet south of the southem edge of the temporary turnaround easement. Install
No Parking Signs on both sides of Commander Street adjacent to Lot 2, Block 3 and Lot 8, Block
1. Install a No Parking in Driveway Sign near the teffiÙnus of the temporary turnaround.
Coordinate the design of the temporary turnaround and No Parking Signs with the Meridian Fire
Department (888-1234).
Underground, pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP-05-051)
A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision ordinance and as
noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the final plat application(s).
Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision
pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17.
All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All
stonnwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11-
3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated
surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B.
Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed
such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as
proposed by staff. If the stonnwater detention facility cannot be incOIporated into the approved
open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-18, then the applicant shall relocate the
facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of
the developer to comply with ACHD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at
the time of final construction.
Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
Staffs failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or tenns of the approved annexation and
conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
Preliminary plat approval shall be subj ect to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6B- 7.
2. Public Works Department
Exhibit B - Page 2
2.13
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19,2006
2.1
Sanitary sewer service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains located in N. Locust
Grove. The applicant shall install mains to and through this development. Applicant shall
coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard fonns
of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum Cover over sewer
mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub~grade is less than three feet than alternate
materials shall be used in confonnance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in N. Locust Grove
Subdivision. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this
development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works.
Provide a 20~foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way
(include all water services and hydrants). Submit an executed easement (supplied by Public
Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A)
and an 81/2" x II" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both
exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD.
An all weather access road built to City of Meridian standard specifications shall be built for
operation and maintenance ofthe off-site water being proposed.
No manholes or water valves shall be allowed in the landscape island associated with the
roundabout. If mains are to be routed under the landscape island, no trees shall be allowed in it.
The applicant has indicated Settlers Irrigation will own and operate the pressure irrigation system
in this proposed development, evidence of a license agreement shall be submitted prior to
scheduling of a pre-construction meeting.
The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water (UDC 11-3B-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or
well water for the primary source. If a surface or well Source is not available, a single-point
connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,
the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to
signature on the final plat by the City Engineer.
Dedicate additional width to the Public Utilities, Drainage, and Irrigation easement along all
streets. There needs to be lO-feet of free and clear easement beyond the three and one half-feet of
sidewalk that encroaches out of the right~of-way.
All existing structures not meeting setbacks shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat
by the City Engineer.
If any of the existing houses are to remain as part of this development, the applicant shall be
responsible for the payment of assessments and the actual hook-up to City of Meridian services.
Additional width to the public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along the right-of way
shall be dedicated where the sidewalk is located past the right-of~way. The additional width
needs to be sufficient to allow for 10 feet of "free and clear" easement past the sidewalk.
Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from
domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-
domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed,
drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final
Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits.
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
Exhibit B - Page 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19,2006
2.14
A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to
signature on the final plat.
All development improvements, including but not linùted to sewer, fencing, micro-paths,
pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining
certificates of Occupancy.
Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat
per Resolution 02-374.
It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the }:<air Housing Act.
Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Anny Corps of Engineers.
Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
Compaction test results shall be subnùtted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.18
2.19
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.23
The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of
3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom
elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least I-foot above.
One hundred watt, highhpressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by
the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical
locations are at street intersections and/or flre hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are
determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light
contractor shall obtain design and pennit ITom the Public Works Department prior to
commencing installations.
2.24
3. }'ire Department
One and two family dwellings will require a fire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for
duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 500 feet
apart. International Fire Code Appendix C.
Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and
water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing.
Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 W' outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications.
d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers when spacing permits.
e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade.
g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5.
Exhibit B - Page 4
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
4.1
5.1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19,2006
h.
Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing
buildings within 1,000 feet of the project.
3.4
All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside
radius.
3.5
No obstructions shall be allowed within the temporary turnaround easement for Commander
Street, on Lot 2, Block 3. All roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section
D1O3.6 Signs.
3.6
Operational fire hydrants, temporary or pennanent street signs and access roads with an all
weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site.
3.7
The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards cross section requirements and
shall have a clear driving surface, available at all times, which is 20' wide. Streets with less than
a 29' street width shall have no parking. Streets with less than 33' shall have parking only on one
side. These measurements shall be based on the face of curb dimension. The roadway shall be
able to accommodate an imposed load of 75,000 GVW.
The proposed 12 lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total
estimated population of 35 residents at build out.
Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) ITom a hydrant on a fITe apparatus access road, as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants
and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout
with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or
903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183).
a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183
m).
b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in
accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet
(183 m).
Emergency response routes and fITe lanes shall not be allowed to have speed bumps.
Provide sÜmarze "No Parkinrz Fire Lane" adjacent to Lots 1. and 5-8. Block 1, Lots 1 and 5 (alonrz
Commander Street), Block 2 and Lots 1 (along Commander Street) and 2. Block 3.
4. Police Department
ert shall either be 0 en-vision or shall not exceed
S. Parks Department
Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape
Ordinance will be followed.
Exhibit B - Page 5
7.1.2
7.1.3
7.1.4
7.1.5
7.1.6
7.1.7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DA TE OF JANUARY 19, 2006
5.2
Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in
the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance will be followed.
6. Sanitary Service Company
6.1
in turnaround for Commander Street or across Commander Street ad'acent to Lot 8
7. Ada County Highway District
Site Svecific Conditions of Avvroval
7.1.1
The applicant shall do one of the following:
a. Dedicate by donation a total of 35-feet of right -of-way along Locust Grove Road, and construct
a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Locust Grove Road, located 2-feet within the
new right-of-way.
b. Do not dedicate additional right.of~way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along Locust Grove Road, located a minimum of 28-feet from the centerline of the
right-of-way, in an easement provided to the District.
c. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along Locust Grove Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-way.
Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and utilities.
Construct the new intemallocal street as a 33.foot street section with rolled curb, gutter, 8-foot
landscape strips, and 4-foot detached concrete sidewalks, as proposed. Provide the District with
an easement for the sidewalk that is proposed to be located outside ofthe right.of-way. Provide
written approval from the fire department for the reduced street section.
Construct Commander Street to intersect Locust Grove Road approximately 130-feet north of the
south property line as proposed.
Construct Commander Street as a stub street to the west property line, located 138-feet north of
the south property line, as proposed. Install a sign at the tenninus of the street stating, "TillS
ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE."
Construct a stub street to the south property line (North Sun Shimmer Avenue), located 380-feet
west of Locust Grove. Install a sign at the terminus of the street stating, "THIS ROAD WILL BE
EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE."
Coordinate the design of the proposed traffic circle with District Traffic Services staff and
provide written approval from the Meridian Fire Department. Restrict the driveway for Lots 5
and 7 of Block 1 and Lot 1 of Block 3 and Lot 5 of Block 2 from being constructed adjacent to
the traffic circle. A note stating the access restrictions for these lots will be required on the final
plat stating this access restriction.
Other than the access points that have specifically been approved with this application, direct lot
access to Locust Grove Road is prohibited and shall be noted on the final plat.
Exhibit B - Page 6
7.2.4
7.2.5
7.2.6
7.2.7
7.2.8
7.2.9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAR1NG DATE OF JANUARY J 9,2006
7.1.8
Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
7.2.1
Standard Conditions of A/J/Jroval
Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
7.2.2
Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or
right-of~way.
7.2.3
All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be
borne by the developer.
Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the
construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file
number) for details.
Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy.
Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing
by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for
details.
All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy
Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all
applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the
State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit
(or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes.
Construction, use and property development shall be in confonnance with all applicable
requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
7.2.10 Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance
with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
7.2.11
7.2.12
7.2.13
It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The
applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The
applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days
prior to breaking ground within ACHD right~of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic
Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during
any phase of construction.
No change in the tenus and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing
and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized
representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to
obtain written confinnation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
Any change by the applicant in the planned use ofthe property which is the subject of this
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or
other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest
advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless
Exhibit B - Page 7
CITY OF MERTDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19,2006
a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect
at the time the change in use is sought.
Exhibit B - Page 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER J7, 2005
c.
Legal Description
Roylance & Associates P.A.
"----
t:fl:,Jl,lj-3te;IB '. GIJ~'.11'{'/:lr" " I, an::i)I:"UIIOi"E:
391 W Sji',te S¡'~¿i So-Is E ;-~'Jlf, Id;ch~ B3[;16
---"--"; ~!",;il-(;;;~ I':~O~}:' G3Ç;i2~' FÚr2C5,: fn:;I:~¡~;~T
SqJtc-mb(:¡ i ~ -,no"
Pn'.ic~"i )\:,--\" :;:,,~,,;
L:èg::! Des>;:~1[.'lI'm
C5 D",:v~I"r:lk':r" .L.('
A:ln~,¡;;"(,h)~1 ,'\,fo'i;
:" DU A,en's
A tr¡¡¡::l or ),,11,1 1'01' ¡¡];,)C,U.:Üm ru,?u~t, j')::Jlc,d ir: lh,,' .')oulh",')SI Om' Qu:.mer o( Ihto'~OC1[¡i;~':~1 0"" Quarl.~:'
of StJvlion YJ,IO\V1!S!li;l ,I !\~(>r r.. Ran~L' J E:lsi. Roi~:", f\-1.~[JdiJ]1 Ad;¡ C'o:ml)' kh:¡':I. Ôl.:'~~cljkd '["~I r"Ill"",',:
Commcndug ell n rnllnd hr:,j:,~ cap mOllllrrlt'ntJng lh~ r\¡;T1ht:':,J51 C'\,mer d ~:.Jid Sc'(:t10tl 30. (]lc'tI,:l' JbJIil\\'t!l,;clhe
cast~t1y tine o~ :;:ud S¡;di'ln ,'II. Solllh n(l"',~7'5q" '\\'e;;1 J diS(¡'!n,..' (If !{:'f;, ','J j'('cj 10 I.h~' POIì,'T Of
HEGIJ\!NLNG
Tbe-Il-::c io!l('win¡; "';~,lId ea:';1e.dy liœ South Cft]?:'!9" \'\if:St J diS}¡mLt' ot ,13 I fIX tee! kl <I ¡,I(\jm:
Then",-, lem'in,!!, ö¡Úd ~,;,¡;;t"~,lly li[I~-Kurth RClC<,J9',P" ~\-'t"~t ~ dislanc:<: of (,)'i"j'I/i tee:: h) ¡; pojm;
~n~l'I ,:,c' [\-'1:1;; ilCt"':iE'OO" "<;1ST ~I di;¡lanc~' of ,112,1 (I fee] to ;i ~'Jjn::
1h;:uci.: South S9"'19'Ot;' E,%I ~ dUWë¡l'~ ,,(6<;:;,9(, t~i':T rei rh;:' POINT (If; f¡1'J"-'-;l\'r!\Cì
TI¡t' ahO\-'t'-desc,jheJ 1raC:1 of J~:)d C,-'l'Jl'-1Jns ,'J.~) ;'CI-es, m{ll{' (lj Jess, SUhWei [11 ;11] lè>:,1.~ri,J)¡: e:1,i;;:rnl:JJjS a[j~' np,ht,(-
of-w~.I',
"1..",, ~"p"O\h'-l-, L---, '
REc,'~E" , ", -', !,
'["'\,J.!.~-""--~~
¡lrepared IJ v:
]{()YI,"L">CT 8: ASSOCJ '\TES VA..
'~'f W STATE STREE'L Stlll'f-: F
E,-\(;I.t,:, IDAHO 83616
::'{)8 'n" 2824
]OS""IY¡ 2855 (f'¡\x;.
':Y~:~'~
X \Ff"J'~-I:"[:i","-",:, :: ""..\,::,11' "'I ,,:,:¡I"'--"":'""~Ú'"':I '",].:,.1 ,,1,1;,:
Exhibit C - Page 1
t'I1
~
~
g.
n
I
'"C
~
(Jq
0>
tV
EAST 1/16 CORNER
(PER SECTIONS 3{} AND 19
CAP UNREADABLE
1~ ~ ", ,.
- \
~\----..~ 1316,95". - -- - - -
..Ji" \
\ Nmm-¡ 1/4 CORNER
\-SECTION 30
FOUND BRASS CAP
", " ~ .' - 'f?'!
f.;r:\,¡,-~.v ~V'Pfi:'ì'//.II.", 1-----
';"-.JL'-,:,-,::::,~ '
b
',~.:',~':;:\rli~ijf1L.IC ~
Legenq
~
ib~
"
.wl
0
,
""...Ð-
.
BASIS OF BEARING
m- 589:51'18"[ - --.1633..2]'-
E. CHINDEN BL YO
NORTJ'ŒAST CORNER
SECTION 30,
rOUND BRASS CAP \
\
"
19\ 20
-11-'
JO/129
r '
POINT OF COMMI:NCfMCNT~.' '
,-!
- -
-.
1317,02'
u---'~
589'49'06"[
:¡"",
~ r'J~
. co
rolfn OF BEGINNING --"', ¡; I ~~
" °1-
tR,
655.96' '\),
- - i-t:
[XISTING 25' ~ 0
PRESCRIPTlV[ --\. I :::¡ a:::
RIGHT-or-WAY \1 I ~
"",Oct i\CRES I .'it' ~
f.o> ....
,.~én
...,::.;
I~~
J
" ""'-'f\
r
FOUND BRASS CAP
CALC'O PC1NT
FOUND 5/8 INCH
SlEEL f>jN
DROPER1ì' LINE
- - - - SECTION UNE
RIGJ-H~i)F-WAY UNE
- N8ru' 43"W
655,96' -
50
0
100
SCAlE IN FEET
é -
I) C5 DEVELOPMENT, LLC
L ANNEXA nON AREA
¡
ROYLANCE AND ASSOcrATFS PA I
["gi~"e', SurV:e,1Œr,~ L'J.,ap[,¡rtl'F er~ ¡r ,,; ",
3!11 '^' Sja'~ St'~et S"!'~ E, Ea(¡I~,ld~c,ç, eJ~lr,. i""f"'i""
pet)]')e J,2C'R) 'L\9-2g/4 . .J,. ~,7'!P,) g.l?- ,c.o.5,:, \,.-,~~.1 i
.. I -.¡
l
I
¡
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
{
~
;
["", """-':",;., , """'.J'"'";""""P"""',"';o1 ',[".'-"'" '(~"Z.,"" '/"':',:~":, 7'.-;,'" ",',ll.':"
)
t"j
..,
-<
0
.,.,
s:
m
~
0
»
z
'"
t'"
»
Z
Z
z
a
0
m
"0
»
;:0
..,
š:'
m
Z
..,
'"
..,
»
.,.,
."
~
m
"0
0
;:c
..,
."
0
;:c
;!
m
;¡;
m
:>
;>0
z
a
0
:>
..,
m
0
Z
0
<
m
š:'
v:J
m
~
-
,"
N
a
a
'"
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 17.2005
D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Annexation Findings:
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full
investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to
grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the
comprehensive plan;
5.
2.
The applicant is proposing to zone all of the subject property to R-4. The
Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the
applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive
Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, ofthe Staff Report.
The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the
proposed district, specifically the purpose statement;
The Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with
the established regulations and PU1þose statement of the R-4 zone.
3.
The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public
health, safety, and welfare;
The Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Commission and Council
rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when detennining this
finding.
The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact Upon the delivery
of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the
City including, but not limited to, school districts; and,
The Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment will not result
in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision
providing services to this site.
The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-5B-3.E).
For the reasons listed in the Staff Report for the hearing date of November 17,
2005 and the Annexation Findings above. the Planning and Zonin~ Commi"ion
finds that the prOPosed annexation is in the best interest of the Cit_.
4.
2. Preliminary Plat Findings:
In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or
short plat, the decision-making body shall make the fOllowing findings:
A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report
and Annexation Finding #1 above.
Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to
accommodate the proposed development;
B.
Exhibit C - Page 1
CITY OF MERID)AN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 17.2005
E.
F.
Exhibit C - Page 2
c.
Based on the comments received from the agencies and departments providing
service to this property, the Commission finds that all services are available or
can be made available for the proposed development.
The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord
with the City's capital improvement program;
There are cuuently no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity
of the project that are currently in the ACHD's Five Year Work Program or
Capital Improvements Plan. There are no City of Meridian projects for sewer or
water trunks planned for this area. All sewer and water extensions are planned to
be developer driven on this property. The Commission finds that the submitted
preliminary plat is in general conformance with the scheduled public
improvements and the City's capital improvement program.
D.
There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development;
If approved, the developer will be fmancing the extension of sewer, water, local
street infrastructure, utilities and iuigation services to serve the project. The
primary public costs to serve the future residents will be fire, police and school
facilities and services. The Commission finds there will not be excessive
additional requirements at public cost, and that the public is fmancially capable
of supporting services for the proposed development.
The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
general welfare; and
The Commission recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase with the
approval of this subdivision; however, the Commission does not believe that the
amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The
Commission finds that the proposed annexation and the development of this site
will not involve uses that will create nuisances that would be detlimental to the
general welfare of the surrounding area. The Commission does not anticipate the
proposed development will be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare.
The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
The Commission is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic
features associated with the development of this site that should be brought to the
Council's attention.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg,
December 8, 2005
Page 5 of 36
Zaremba: Okay. Next, for any of you that don't come to our meetings regularly, let me
describe our procedure, as we are about to get into the Public Hearing portion. In all
cases the applicant and our professional staff have spent quite a bit of time together
reviewing the application and discussing various different items. We begin with our staff
giving us a presentation on where the project is and what the project is and how it does
or does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances of the City of
Meridian and raise any issues that they feel need to be resolved. In that capacity the
staff is not either advocating for or against the project, but just clarifying for us what they
feel we need to know about it. Following that, we invite the applicant to come forward
and make their presentation and, in fact, they are advocating for their project and,
again, describing to us anything they feel we need to know, take that opportunity to
answer any objections that the staff has raised that they can't answer, and clarify for us
and the audience anything more we need to know about the project. We will allow the
applicant, along with their supporting members, who would be architects or engineers or
whoever, we allow them 15 minutes to make their part of the presentation. Following
that is when we do open it up to the general public and at that point we ask that you
prepare to be a little concise in presenting to us what you feel we need to know about
this application, questions that you have or items that you think need to be brought to
our attention, and we do ask that you confine your remarks to three minutes. And as
well, since we want to make sure that we hear everybody, we do ask that you only
speak when you're on the microphone. That way we can hear you and our recorder can
get it recorded for the record, and we also ask that you begin with your name and
address for identification. And as I said, we allow three minutes for that. There is an
exception. If there is a representative of a group -- for instance, the president of a
homeowners association, who is going to speak for other people who are not going to
speak, we do allow that representative to have ten minutes. And, then, as I say, we will
go through the list and call on people that want to speak. If a representative spoke for
somebody already, then, we ask that you just say that you have been spoken for.
Following that, the applicant has the opportunity -- theoretically, they have been taking
notes during the public testimony and the applicant has the opportunity to come back up
and take ten minutes to answer any questions that have been raised, make any further
explanation that needs to be made for us, then, theoretically, we close the Public
Hearing and deliberate among ourselves and staff and end with a recommendation that
we make to the City Council, where there will, again, be a Public Hearing on the same
subject. In theory that's the way it goes. And, let's see, I can't think of anything I
missed on that.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: AZ 05-050
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for
Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management
Group, Inc. - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden
Boulevard:
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: PP 05-051
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 single-family residential
building lots and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 6 of 36
Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management
Group, Inc. - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden
Boulevard:
Zaremba: So, we will proceed and I will open the public hearings for AZ 05-050, PP 05-
051, both relating to Reserve Subdivision, and even though these are continued
hearings, I will comment that all we have done in the past is continue them to this
meeting and there has been no prior discussion. So, we will begin with the staff report,
please.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As was just mentioned, this
item was on a previous agenda, but due to a noticing error this is the first time that it's
been heard, so I will give you all the facts around the subject applications. In fact, there
are two applications. The first one is the annexation and zoning for five acres and the
second one is a preliminary plat that includes 12 build-able lots and five common lots.
The site is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road, approximately 1,000 feet
south of Chinden. It is currently rural residential. There is an existing single family
home. If you look at the map on the one acre parcel, it's on the northeast portion, there
is an existing home on that site currently. This property has not been previously platted.
The property is designated for medium density residential uses on the future land use
map in the Comprehensive Plan. As you're aware, these aerial maps are oftentimes out
of date. This one is no exception to that. There is a school north of this -- of the subject
site there and I believe it's a joint campus. Eventually there will be another school
facility constructed on that site. To the east is rural residential, it's Dunwoody
Subdivision. It's zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south, excuse me, that's un-platted.
There is some large -- directly south there are two large parcels that are very narrow,
skinny parcels on Locust Grove Road. To the west is a vacant five acre parcel, which
I'll talk about a little bit more here in just a minute. And just to the west of that is Arcadia
Subdivision. That's zoned R-8 in the City of Meridian. So, four of the five proposed
acres that are proposed for development with this property have been the subject of
previous preliminary plat and annexation applications. I did want to give you a little bit
of history, because that does tie in quite a bit to staff's recommendation on this project.
The co-owner of the subject property, Mr. Jake Centers, also developed Arcadia
Subdivision to the west, as I mention earlier, and after receiving approval for Arcadia, he
bought the nine acres just to the east and C5 subsequently submitted a development for
annexation and preliminary plat approval to the city. The proposed subdivision did not
include connecting the public street to the Locust Grove Road to Jericho Road. Instead,
the applicant proposed a long cul-de-sac street. City staff did recommend approval of
the project with the condition that Hidden Path Street, which was the name of the street
coming in off of Locust Grove Road at that time, be connected to Jericho, because that
five acres did have 60 feet of frontage on Jericho Road. Planning department staff also
did attend the ACHD public hearing on this and requested that the ACHD also require
the applicant to connect Hidden Path Street with Jericho. After ACHD and the city both
required the street connection, the applicant withdrew those applications. Mr. Centers
did tell staff that he does not intend to construct -- that he did intend to construct his
personal residence on the western portion of the site and, therefore, did not want to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 7 of 36
extend Hidden Path Street, so that's why it didn't -- he didn't want to construct the
connection. And that was the first submittal for Reserve. Subsequent to that submittal
we did -- the city did receive and review an application for a four acre subdivision, which
is similar to what you see here. What's changed is they have also acquired the one
acre parcel to the north that I spoke of earlier in the introduction. Mr. Centers did deed
the five acres to the west to Not For Sale and it was not included with the boundaries of
that second preliminary plat application. Jake is the registered agent of Not For Sale.
He, then, submitted the applications -- that one included eight build-able lots on the four
acres and he continued to own it in his name. Shortly after submittal the property owner
to the north showed interest in partnering with Mr. Centers and they did withdraw their
application before it made it to this body. Staff is appreciative of Mr. Centers'
willingness to partner with the one acre parcel. That's something that we had talked
about, you know, trying to get that one acre parcel to come in with them, so we could
limit access points to Locust Grove Road and things like that. So, that was -- that was a
good change from the previous submittal. However, both the City of Meridian planning
department and ACHD staff made it clear that an extension of Jericho Road was
necessary -- was necessary within Arcadia Subdivision, so that street could be
extended to Locust Grove Road through the subject property. City staff had informed
Mr. Centers several times that a connection to Locust Grove Road from Jericho Road
is in the best interest of the city. Staff continues to believe that development of the
subject site is not in the city's best interest if the entire ten acres cannot be developed
together with a vehicular connection to Jericho Road. Therefore, staff is recommending
denial of the proposed Reserve Subdivision for the reasons listed in the staff report. I
didn't touch on the merits of the subdivision too much. If you want to talk about the
development a little bit, I guess staff doesn't necessarily have a problem with the layout
of the proposed development and, in fact, if we were to condition this for approval, there
probably wouldn't be a whole lot of changes required. Really, the only concern that I
have is some driveway locations around the roundabout. They are proposing a micro-
path to the school site. That's good. There is a temporary turnaround shown for the
extension of the public street in this location on that build-able lot, so that would go
away once this road ~- if that road ever gets extended. That's probably about the only
changes that we could see. I mean it's a fairly straight forward -- I guess density would
be the third. It is, I believe, 2.4 dwelling units per acre and the Comprehensive Plan
does call for between three and eight dwelling units per acre. So, it's a little bit below
what the Comprehensive Plan is calling for in this area. The applicant did submit a
letter and I'm sure he's got some -- some additional comments for you, but I think I'll
stop staff's report at this time, unless you have any other questions for me.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 8 of 36
Moe: Craig, in the report you do note that the five acres now to the west is now owned
by others, not the -- what was it, Just For Sale or Not For Sale. They have now deeded
it over to someone else?
Hood: That is correct. The deed -- the applicant did, actually, submit a deed for the
other five acres with their application and it was someone -- an individual who is not a
party to Not For Sale or other -- as far as I know. So, yes, a third party.
Moe: Okay. That will do it for now.
Zaremba: Okay.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: In that case, we are ready for the applicant, please.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Dave McKinnon, 735 South
Crosstimber. Craig's right, this property has got some history to it and Craig did a pretty
good job outlining the history of this. It's kind of funny. Jake, when he came back with
that second application and deeded it to Not For Sale, LLC, the reason why he did that
is because he kept getting numerous phone calls from other people and he puts all of
his properties now as Not for Sale, LLC, so when people pull up the name on the public
listings, they see that it's not for sale, so they won't call him. So, that's the reason why
he did that. So, Craig, if you could go onto the next slide. I think you have got a color
copy. There you go. This is what I handed out to you earlier tonight and I think you
guys all have a copy, including the attorney has a copy. I know he wanted one, so --
let's talk about what this project is and we can talk about what it was in the past and,
then, we can spend a little bit of time discussing how it needs to move forward or -- with
your recommendation one way or the other. What we have is a piece of property, it's
five acres in size, and as Craig pointed out, there used to be a one acre piece that
basically sat just like this. The roadway came in and jogged and came up. The one
acre piece is now part of this. It's done a couple of really good things for this project.
Number one, it centered the driveway, so it didn't have the jog in the road anymore. Got
rid of another access up on Locust Grove. And it created some additional building lots
because there was not that jog in the road. It became more developable for both
parties. So, instead of trying to cram a couple more houses onto that little one acre
piece by grabbing a stub street in the middle of the project, they are able to just go
ahead and front those houses on, instead of trying to put those with no frontage, which
was the plan initially. So, Jake actually has that property under contract with Go
Properties, LLC, and will close on that property and develop it with the rest of this
property, rather than this third party that's out there. The five acres to the other side,
Jake has deeded that over. It was originally two parcels of ground. He has sold it to
somebody. He no longer owns it. Doesn't want to do anything with it. Wants to
develop this piece of property. In doing his market study and market research, as you
know, we started this project -- I think I submitted the original application June 5th of
2005, so almost full circle a year later and this is what we have ended up with. In that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg,
December 8, 2005
Page g of 36
time he's done some market studies and the market studies say people want bigger lots
with bigger houses. This piece of property is 655 feet in length. It's 325 -- 335 feet in
width. So, he wanted to create some lots that were big, not too skinny, but they are,
obviously, going to be deep, because once you take out the 50 feet of right of way in the
middle and you have some deep lots -- he didn't want to create 65 foot wide lots with
130 feet deep, so twice as deep as they are wide. So, he tried to create a lot that's big.
And, more often than not, when people talk about the Comprehensive Plan, they are
trying to jam as much density as possible into a project. We have, actually, got a
developer who wants to do less density than is required and note number two on the
Comprehensive Plan allows you to go up and down at your discretion as to whether or
not you want to allow more density or less density without going through a
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Craig, can you go to the next slide? We have a
couple of elevations. No. I had submitted a couple elevations and I have got some
copies of those and I will hand those out and I have some additional colored photos that
I had sent in, just showing what the houses would look like. I had sent those to planning
and zoning. But we are trying to do a wider, larger product, and there is a large demand
for that and that's what Jake Centers would like to do on this property. Craig had
mentioned that the reason for staff denial is this doesn't connect all the way over to
Jericho. To that end we have provided a stub street to the west, so that when the new
property owner of the five acres wants to develop, he can develop that all the way
through to Jericho. We haven't eliminated the ability for that to happen, rather, we have
just come back with a smaller project and Jake's decided that this is what he wants to
build and does not want to include that five acres anymore. It's hard for me to evaluate
fully the comments from staff. The only comments we received were those from the
Planning and Zoning staff. We didn't receive comments from fire or Public Works
Department, or any of the others. You didn't receive them either in your packets. I don't
know how we can evaluate fully what all their comments are unless we receive those.
Because they recommended denial, they decided they would not include those at this
time. In the future we'd like to be able to receive those, so we know what the other
comments are from other agencies. There may be some comments from the other
agencies that would create some changes here, we just don't know what those are. So,
in the future we'd like to see what those are, but -- even if there is a recommendation for
denial. With that we think we actually have come up with a project that's going to work.
Craig, if you can go to the aerial. Just point out a couple things that may need to be
pointed out. The long skinny pieces, this has been purchased. Recently contacted
Jake Centers. It's an out-of-state buyer wanting to know what was going on in the area.
He bought it -- he just came in, bought it just this last week and said what's going on in
the area? I see that you're the property Owner to the north for this portion of it. Just
wanted to know what's going on. So, we are going to start seeing some more
development in this area. It's a long skinny piece. We have provided a stub street to
the south for them to develop in the future. In the last year or so Jake has tried to work
with that property Owner and they wanted more than what Jake was willing to pay. So,
we decided that a stub street would be appropriate at that location. ACHD has
reviewed this. We sat down with their staff numerous times on this project. They are
happy with Our stub street locations. They recognize the fact that in the future when
that property to the west develops, the city and ACHD will require that property to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 10 of36
provide a stub street to Jericho -- stub street to Jericho to connect Saguaro and Arcadia
all the way through to Locust Grove. So, in the future you're going to have everything
that the city wants to have happen. You have the authority to do that by your
discretionary authority with annexation. /'11 hand out a couple of those pictures of the
elevations, what we are trying to build on this property, and at that point /'11 ask for your
questions if you have any, and we can move forward. Sorry / didn't have copies for
everybody, but -- we are trying to build larger homes on this site and Jake Centers will
be the builder for this area. Tahoe Homes.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Mr. McKinnon, as far as the low density on this thing, is there a possibility --
would you anticipate that you could put another lot in there to where we can maybe
increase this just a little bit, because the -- we are a little bit lower than the city would
like to see.
McKinnon: Oh, there is definitely a possibility to do that. Like I said, we don't often get
asked by the Commission to add lots. Usually we have recommendation to lose some
lots. One thing I thought was kind of interesting, just up to the north of this site we have
some one acre lots that were approved by the city, developed in the county, with city
services. Also shown in the medium density residential area. And so we do have some
large lots in this area in what is the medium density area and --
Newton-Huckabay: Are you talking about the houses on Jericho?
McKinnon: Yeah. Those are all on one acre lots.
Newton-Huckabay: I just shake my head every time I drive by.
McKinnon: Seems kind of different, doesn't it. But across the street we have
Dunwoody and as you might remember when Leeshire came in that was the property a
little bit south of this, the Dunwoody people came in and said we don't want these small
lots, we want big lots, because all our houses over here are on two and a half acre lots
and we'd like to see some bigger lots. So, there is definitely a possibility that we could
add a lot to it, but the market research shows that people would really like to see some
big lots in north Meridian and so it provides some choices for people, rather than just
the 8,000 to 9,000 square foot that you typically see in the R-4 zone in Meridian, which
is the predominate size of lots in Meridian.
Moe: Basically, the reason for my question is is that, again, this body is trying to adhere
to the Comprehensive Plan and, basically, so I'm trying to get just a little bit closer to
where we are in agreement with that. I don't know whether you can answer this
question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Just, basically, reading through the report and
whatnot, I was struck somewhat that your client, who was pretty adamant about not
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 11 of 36
wanting to put a street over through that other five acres and so he's turned around and
sold the property. Why was he so adamantly not wanting to do this?
McKinnon: Can't I answer -- I can answer that question. It's really pretty simple.
Originally Jake Centers lived near this area. His office is on Locust Grove. He wanted
to build a very nice large house at this location, like many builders, he builds his own
houses and sells them after he builds a new one and moves up. This is where he
wanted to be. He wanted to be at the very back end. Craig, do you have a bigger
map? Can you go to the GIS map? There we go. He wanted to build at the very back.
That was a cul-de-sac there and what he wanted to do was live at the back of a cul-de-
sac lot where there is not any traffic, where all the traffic would peal off before it got to
his house, and so that's where he wanted to build. But when there was a requirement
for -- to connect all of Saguaro, 450 homes, plus all of Arcadia, was the only access to
Locust Grove, because Leeshire was denied right through there, right passed his front
yard, what he wanted to build, he decided he didn't want to do that anymore. So, he
said I don't want to deal with this piece of property. He mayor may not build his own
personal house in this new section, but he said at this time I don't want to create a traffic
lane that runs right here. If someone else wants to develop this property, someone else
stepped up, said they would purchase it from him, he sold it. In the future you guys
have the ability to provide that connection. He's provided a stub street for that and there
is 60 feet of right of way, like Craig pointed out, on Jericho with Arcadia.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: Well, the difficulty with that is that when Arcadia was before this Commission
I know there was a great deal of discussion about providing some kind of a stub there.
The people who at the time lived along Jericho and the future were going to live in
Arcadia, were promised that they would have other access out of there at that point, as
well as -- along with that public access it would -- it would make it easier to have a
pathway that would get to the school. The difficulty I have is that the developer of
Arcadia and the current application had the key piece of property under his control at
one tîme ~- I don't know him personally, but I'm -- when we talk about a spite strip we
are usually talking about something that's 20 or 30 feet wide. I suspect he would have
the wherewithal to provide a five acre spite strip and I have got to admit my personal
feeling is that's what's happening here. This is something that ACHD feels should
happen, something the city feels should happen, something that I believe we have
promised to the people on Jericho and even before they moved there, the people in
Arcadia, that this is where the access would be by providing a stub street and it's
difficult for me not to take this as an intentional frustration of the city. And that being the
case, I agree with staff that it isn't in the best -- regardless of the merits of how it's laid
out, that it isn't in the best interest of the city to go along with that. That's just a personal
opinion that I'm having some struggle with.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a comment back.
Zaremba: Yes, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg,
December 8, 2005
Page 12 of 36
McKinnon: There is some definite stubbornness by the developer of this. He really
wanted to build his house there and he did not want that street to connect through.
When Arcadia was developed there was, actually, no right of way that was proposed to
be on Jericho. He did not want to have any right of way on Jericho to connect to this
piece of property and that was -- I got a little bit of history with that, because I worked on
that project and on the project Saguaro. He didn't want to connect to Saguaro initially,
because that's a whole lot of people running through his property and the city said
you're going to put a stub street here to Saguaro and J worked on Saguaro, so I came
and said we agree to put a stub street here and Jake came in and wanted to block that
off and we said you can't block that off, Jake, that's a stub street. We have to provide a
connection up to the north. So, we came through and there was a lot of discussion as
to what this 60 foot strip of road was here. It's a 60 foot strip of road, but ACHD did not
call it a stub street. Remember, we had a lot of discussion of whether or not that's a
stub street or if it's actually just right of way and we had a lot of discussion about that.
We had a lot of discussion with ACHD. They didn't call it a stub street in their staff
report either. When he came back in for Arcadia he did not want that to connect. It's 60
feet, it would create a jog -- it's only 60 feet down, so it would come down, you would
have to have a 50 foot wide road, come down right here, start, and, then, droop up --
you know, run up to the top there and he just felt that it didn't work well for his project.
He didn't want to do that, so he fought against it. It's that initial -- like I said, there is
history. Initially he fought against that and --
Zaremba: It was a battle type discussion when Arcadia was before us.
McKinnon: And so it's been like that and Jake has been of the opinion that he doesn't
want that to come through his neighborhood, because he felt he was going to have a
lot. But don't forget at the same time this was all happening Leeshire Subdivision was
also being discussed. Leeshire Subdivision being this larger piece here, which was
promised that this is where another large access would be. In fact, a collector road was
proposed at that location, because that's the half mile location, which is the appropriate
location for a collector. The city denied Leeshire, because of density, because the
people in Dunwoody came out and said the density is not right. I think the comment
was it's a kingdom with the shire down below. I can't remember. Peasants -- the
smaller lots with the big one. I think in that hearing the Dunwoody people came out in
opposition to it. You had opposition from the neighborhood down below as well. And
they said density is too much. So, Jake brought the density down. He said let's make
some bigger lots. Let's not fight the neighbors on this. And he said if we got a collector
here that would get built first, this would not become the highway out. All these people
over here in Saguaro could get out through the collector at the proper location.
Leeshire hasn't been -- hasn't sold. It hasn't been resubmitted to you. The only access
that would have been built all the way out to Locust Grove would have been at this
location. The traffic light is going to be built at Locust Grove, people trying to get out to
turn left onto Chinden, probably run all the way through there and he felt that that's not
what he wanted to do. That wasn't the market he was trying to reach, so he fought
against it. The two properties -- Jake definitely knocked heads with the city. I've tried to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 13 of 36
say, Jake, let's just build it this way and get it over with. The city's recommending
approval. The developer wants to build what he wants to build. He doesn't own the
property anymore and so if he doesn't own the property, we don't have -- I don't have
the ability to convince him now to say you have to build that road in there. If it's not in
the best interest of the city, as you mentioned, Jake could hold that out as a five acre
spite strip. He doesn't own it. But even if he did own it and was holding it out as a five
spite strip, are we better off with a five acre spite strip or are a ten acre spite strip? If
he's got the wherewithal to hold a five acre, he's probably got the wherewithal to hold a
ten. I think it's in the best interest of the city to provide a road that would in the future
connect, rather than not have a road that would connect and leave that where it is right
now.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners?
Borup: The comment I'd have is I find it kind of refreshing to see a larger lot
subdivision. We have had a little bit more going that direction lately, but -- but for so
long it was -- everyone was wanting to do a step down -- or step up in density, not a
step down, and it seemed like just about everything coming through was asking for
variances and below minimums on lot widths and setbacks and just everything. From
the past testimony -- I mean that was the other project's -- proposed for this area that
the neighbors -- we don't seem to have any here tonight, so I think that says something,
that at least the neighbors are satisfied with it. We had a lot of opposition from both
those subdivisions previously on the density. That, to me, seems to answer that
question. You know, whether a house on the other five acres develops or what's going
to happen, I -- you know, that's not up for anyone here to probably know, but I do agree
that the Leeshire project is probably the more appropriate one for that connection to be
made anyway. You know, this is only 12 lots at this location. And I guess that's -- what
I'm saying, I'm in favor of it.
Newton-Huckabay: I wanted to comment if I can, Mr. Chair.
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: If I remember on the -- on the Leeshire, the biggest problem with it
that I had was the layout, was the -- he had all the green space in the back, surrounding
the big house, and, then, he had a bunch of row houses up front and it just was
lopsided. There wasn't a real problem with the density at this Commission level -- in
fact, I think this Commission actually recommended approval of that, but that being said,
I don't -- myself don't have a big problem with this -- this particular layout of this
development. It's a lot better than the last one before us. I think this is a bad area
anyway, the way that they -- the Jericho was built out I think was a prime example of
really bad planning in the county myself and I think no matter what you do over there,
it's going to be -- I just -- I think this is as good as anything you're going to get, because
I just don't think it was well thought out how all that was going to interconnect. Because
those are county properties, aren't they? On Jericho?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 14 of 36
Zaremba: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: But -- I mean as far as --
Zaremba: Well, they were developed in the county. We had -- I'm trying to remember.
They may be in the city now. I know this thing on the corner is in the city and the school
was in the city.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I don't know if they were annexed --
Zaremba: I think that was part of that annexation. But, you're right, they were
developed in the county when -- at a time when people thought that was a long way
from the city and the city would never get there. So, yeah, it was not planned to be an
urban area.
McKinnon: Actually, Commissioner Zaremba, those homes are still under construction.
Those are brand new.
Zaremba: Oh, they are?
McKinnon: Oh, yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: No, they are all built.
McKinnon: They are built, but it was just in the last year.
Zaremba: Along Jericho?
McKinnon: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
McKinnon: Those are brand new.
Zaremba: Oh, I thought they had been there for awhile.
Newton-Huckabay: No.
McKinnon: Those have city services. They are not on septic. Those have city water
and sewer and they had to come through and get approval from the city in order to build
there.
Hood: Mr. Chair, just maybe some more history, because that -- all of this, actually, did
get annexed here recently into the city. The ordinance just was approved a couple
weeks ago. There are five one acre home sites there, as Dave mentioned. Some of
them may even be occupied now. But the Comprehensive Plan designation for this has
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 15 of 36
changed, just because the county did allow all this, Jericho was a county sub.
Basically, a long story short, they threatened to go and do septic and well and get
United Water, so the city said we will let you develop, we don't want you to bring other
services in, we will provide you the services, but we didn't really get a comment on what
they were doing, we are like we will just provide you the services, so, anyway, that was
kind of how we ended up with a little bit of these five acre lots next to a school site. And
primarily that's why this area makes sense to have a little bit higher density, is because
there is a school right here and some folks -- you know, so the kids can walk to school --
I mean this isn't a huge parcel, it isn't going to make a big difference, but, generally
speaking, mean those -- that's why we have these designations on our Camp Plan is
because it does make sense to have that medium density or -- and they shouldn't be
estate lots, they should be more of a size where you can get a few more folks in there,
so their kids can walk to school and the infrastructure makes sense. Just on the
Leeshire thing real quick, another point of contention for the neighborhood was they
also had some office and commercial zoning there and that was a huge thing for them.
So, density was a major portion of that, but also the mixed use that they were proposing
I think is what ultimately brought them down and the layout. So, I just want to point
those things out and maybe just a couple other things that Dave brought up in his -- his
testimony tonight, is that I think that planning staff can include other agency's comments
in the future when our recommend is for denial, because primarily it's the planning
department's recommendation for denial. The fire department didn't say we
recommend denial. Public works didn't say we recommend denial. Mainly the issues
were planning issues. So, I think we can include those other agencies. What you won't
continue to see is the planning department's conditions of approval when the
recommendation is for denial. And, generally, when we can recommend approval,
when we can condition something for approval, that's the direction I like to go 99 times
out of a hundred, if I can condition them. Unfortunately, the two reasons that we are
recommending denial on this you can't condition. You can't condition that they add the
five acres, you know, over there and you can't condition more density, because you
have to, basically, hold another hearing, because now the property owners were noticed
that you have 12 lots and we wanted 14. So, both of those reasons we can't
recommend denial of this project as submitted, so -- or recommend conditions for
approval as submitted. So, I think that's all really wanted to touch on for now, so thank
you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Let me--
Newton-Huckabay: Is there public testimony?
Zaremba: I was going to say, let me do one thing. Let's go the public testimony portion,
which I believe is going to be very short. We have no one signed up to speak, but this
is an opportunity if anybody wants to add something that didn't sign up, you're welcome
to, and I see heads shaking no. So, Mr. McKinnon, we are ready for you to rebut all the
things that the audience have said.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg,
December 8, 2005
Page 16 of 36
McKinnon: Thanks for your time tonight, guys. I know you guys had this special
meeting. It wasn't your fault. It was a notice thing. I know you guys have given up your
time for us tonight. Jake wanted me to pass that along. He's thankful you guys were
willing to have this hearing tonight. I want to pass along my gratitude as well. Thanks
for meeting with us tonight. Regardless of how this turns out, I'm thankful for your
patience with us. I know this is the third time you guys have had to deal with this one.
You've had to deal with me and I know how hard that can be. We'd ask for your
recommendation for approval and we think we have got a product here that the larger
lots I think is the right thing in this location. There is a market demand for it and I think
that this is what needs to happen in this area. The future stub street will connect --
there is a stub street for it and there is a stub street to the south. We have provided
connection to the city school. But I'll sit down and ask for your approval. Unless you
have questions.
Moe: I do have one more question. /s the new property owner to the west, does he
understand what may happen to him in the future when he bought that property?
McKinnon: That's a question I can't answer, because I haven't talked to him. I do have
the name on the deed and that's all I have dealt with him.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: Is it your opinion that that new property owner is unrelated to Mr. Centers or
his --
McKinnon: He is not related to Mr. Centers.
Zaremba: Okay.
McKinnon: I don't know where or how or who that is. All I know is Jake said it's no
longer mine, it's this other guy's, and that's where I left it.
Cole: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Mike.
Cole: If I might ask one question of the applicant regarding that.
Zaremba: Yes.
Cole: The western part of the small five acres would have to sewer from Arcadia. If you
don't know that person that owns that, are you confident you will be able to secure the
necessary easements to route the sewer to this to sewer it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8,2005
Page 17 of 36
McKinnon: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Mike, my understanding is that in
Locust Grove we actually have a gravity line that can get back to the lifter in Vienna
Woods.
Cole: The conceptual plan shown that was submitted shows that you run out of grade
about a half to two thirds through the project in the western third to a half that sewers
Arcadia.
McKinnon: This direction?
Cole: That's correct.
McKinnon: Okay. We have already worked with the easements. In fact, there was an
easement that was granted that actually went onto that five acre parcel already and it
was for the water system, if you remember that.
Cole: I know -- well, but the water was going to go through as a condition that Arcadia
needed the --
McKinnon: Yeah, that's --
Cole: -- which has gone away, basically. They have bonded for that through the
Saguaro -- the Saguaro Canyon.
McKinnon: Okay.
Cole: The conceptual plans your engineer has submitted show that the western third of
this has to sewer back to Arcadia.
McKinnon: Sewer back to Arcadia? Yeah. I -- you know, Jake -- I know Jake has
talked to the guy. I don't know who it is, but I'm sure that's something that has been
worked out, because they are going to have to get sewer back that direction anyways,
there is no other way for them to get sewer --
Cole: Well, yeah, they would sewer through Arcadia, obviously.
McKinnon: They would sewer through Arcadia and you guys in the future would say it
has to be to and through.
Cole: It would have to be to and through. However, Wendy platted this, those back lots
would be subject to Sanitary Sewer restrictions until -- until that developed to bring you
sewer.
McKinnon: That's -- it's those kind of comments that we don't get that would have been
great to have, so I'd have an answer for them, we just didn't get them until tonight.
That's something we can definitely address. I know if there is a recommendation for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8,2005
Page 18 of36
approval tonight, you can't move it onto Council, because we haven't seen what those
conditions are or what the comments would be and they can definitely come forward
with an answer for that and get in touch with Jake and talk to him about that. I do know
that the pace of development for Saguaro has gone so fast that the sewer is actually
back to here already. It's gone that fast. All those lots are basically sold in Saguaro
Canyon. Build out has been a lot faster than expected. Jake initially had planned to put
a lift station here to pump back in Arcadia ~- and which direction was that going, do you
remember, Mike? The lift station? Was that going back up through Jericho?
Cole: Yes. The lift station was originally planned in Westborough and, then, Mr.
Centers struck a deal with Mr. Jewett to locate the lift station roughly there where your
pointer was. That's as soon as Saguaro's sewer is installed and approved, the lift
station will be brought offline, essentially never having being built and never being
operated, essentially.
McKinnon: So, the gravity line would actually be able to service back --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, my question is if we -- we can't recommend approval on
this development tonight, it will have to be continued; is that correct?
Zaremba: I sense we have two choices. One, we can recommend denial.
Newton-Huckabay: Denial. Flat out.
Zaremba: Or we can ask staff to bring us conditions for approval and add into that
anything we wish the staff to consider, but that would mean continue it.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I was going to say that I don't know that -- we need to have
the sewer discussion then, rather than this extra planning meeting on December 8th.
McKinnon: I will sit down.
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: It just seems that there is a lot of details yet to be worked out.
Zaremba: Do you have a sense of which direction we want to go of the two choices that
I mentioned? Are we working towards a resolution that we want to ask staff to make or
are we working towards denial?
Borup: I'm ready to make a motion right now.
Moe: My biggest concern is -- well, I guess I would ask staff -~ as far as the other
agencies were there comments that they just -- that we just did not get? I mean are
they -- I'd be curious to know what the other agencies' opinion of the project is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 19 of 36
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there was an agency comments
meeting held. Boy, it's been awhile now. Probably a couple few months. From what I
can recollect at that meeting the main concerns from the fire department had to do with
that turnaround and SSC -- actually, both had concerns with the turnaround, people
parking there and it not being signed adequately enough to know that, hey, you can't
park here, this isn't your driveway, this is a turnaround. And parking across the street,
because if you park on the north side of that road, you effectively have taken away
where you can back up to. So, that was pretty much the main comments that I had.
And a lot of standard comments from the fire department. It was radiuses and things
like that. The police department I believe commented --
Zaremba: Before you go on, is it your sense that if that turnaround is temporary or for
however long that other five acres isn't developed, but for the duration of the turnaround
would no parking signs in the area and across the street be okay, which could also be
temporary, when the turnaround goes away, the no parking signs go away?
Hood: That's what I envision. Correct. Yeah. And if you -- it doesn't really show up
well here. It's really an extra long driveway. They have got -- I don't know if that's 20 or
30 feet, but, then, they have got, really, a 20 foot pad on the other side of that and, then,
the garage. So, it's really -- it's really quite deep. But, yeah, signage is going to be
huge out there and just letting people know that you can't park basically anywhere at the
end of that road, so people can turn around.
Borup: I don't see a problem with the turnaround. It's deeper and you have got a
radius. It's a lot easier than pulling out of a parking lot -- parking spot in a parking lot.
You have got a lot more backup area.
Hood: But on paper it works fine. It's just when you get people that are parking there,
that you can't actually turn around, because --
Borup: But I mean even with somebody parking there you got more room than you
have got in a parking lot.
Hood: Yeah. It's for the ladder trucks and, you know--
Borup: Oh.
Hood: -- not your standard vehicles. It's not generally for the public, it's more for--
Borup: For emergency vehicles. Okay. Yep. That's the difference. But I thought -- I
didn't think you needed an emergency turnaround on that short of a stub.
Hood: It's longer than 150 feet, which is ACHD's maximum length you can have without
requiring a turnaround, so -- just briefly, I guess, maybe another one popped in my head
is the police department had some concerns about lighting of the micro-path. They
wanted to make sure that visibility in there is taken care of. They asked that it be -- it
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 20 of 36
could even maybe be taken care of with a street light. They just want to make sure it's
not some dark alley, you know, there. That's probably the main concerns now. As far
as Mike's concerned, I'm going to give it to him a little bit, because he has his own little
section on the staff report and he could have added -- there is a little thing that says any
issues or concerns from the Public Works Department and he put in none, so we could
have -- that could have been a topic of discussion -- not off the cuff tonight, but --
anyway, we can discuss that more, but -- but, again, for future reference we will include
all our agency comments in the staff report. And just so the Commissioners know, did
draft -- on page one there are the two proposed motions that we envision. There is a
third one I guess if you wanted to continue it again, that one is not proposed on there,
but, basically, the motions are there for you, so --
Borup: So, it would be my understanding -- if we did a recommendation to remand for
approval, as long as we didn't close the hearing and continue it, if there were any
concerns on any of the other agency reports, I mean that's not saying we have to
approve the -- or approve the application, just because we made a motion to have
conditions of approval.
Zaremba: Well, the motion would be to ask staff to provide us with conditions of
approval.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: That doesn't automatically mean that we are going to approve it.
Borup: Exactly. We'd still have the -- well, we'd have the opportunity to hear any of the
agency reports.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Moe: That would be the one to do.
Zaremba: And if that's the direction we are going, I think there are some things -- Craig
has already mentioned some of them that -- how the driveways around this traffic circle
are going to work and that my first instinct, at least on these two southern lots, is that
they ought to take their access off this stub street and remove themselves from
Commander Street entirely, but I mean those are things that staff and the applicant
would look at if we remanded it back to them to discuss. We can certainly give some
direction to staff. We want them to look at the access around the traffic circle. Do we
want them to be firmer about the density? My thinking is we probably made the
Dunwoody people happier with this kind of density and even during those public
hearings I've said that I'm all in favor of density closer to the core, but I can listen to less
density farther out in an area like this.
Borup: Yeah. We are about as far out -- I mean Chinden is the boundary.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 21 of 36
Zaremba: About the end now.
Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and didn't -- didn't we just have a development there,
though, at Chinden with a bunch of four-plexes or something like that? I mean it's kind
of a --
Zaremba: Jericho and Chinden has four-plexes.
Newton-Huckabay: It's a bit of a mixed bag out there in that area, that --
Borup: These are going to be half a million dollar homes. Might be nice to have more
of that in Meridian. Or more.
Newton-Huckabay: So what was the --
Zaremba: If we are moving towards hearing more of this at a later date, anything else
we want to tell staff to put in their staff report?
Borup: Well, I considered this as a conceptual design, that that's not necessarily where
the driveways are going to be going, you know, but I don't see a problem on those two
lots on the south of the roundabout and maybe that one on the north is kind of pulling
right in where it could be a traffic thing if there is --
Zaremba: The Public Hearing is still open if Mr. McKinnon cares to comment.
McKinnon: When we got this drawing back -- oh, sorry. Dave McKinnon, 735 South
Crosstimber. When we got this drawing back from the landscape architect who drew it
up, that was the first thing we saw was that jogged driveway on the north side and said
that's not going to work. So, we are aware of that. This is just a landscape architectural
rendering of what it could look like in the future. The things we thought were important
was to show you what it would look like with houses on it. A lot of times you get a black
and white drawing and it doesn't show anything. It's hard to envision what houses
would look like on it and this just gives you a better representation of what it would look
like. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: I had one --
Zaremba: I assume we are not discussing immediate denial tonight, so let me throw in
another mix, would be discussion of when we would continue it to. Next week is not an
option and I think January 5th is no longer an option, so we are probably talking about
our second Thursday in -- or third Thursday in January. Second meeting in January,
which I think is the 19th. At the moment that schedule doesn't look terribly full.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 22 of 36
Moe: Oh, I'm Sure we can change that.
Zaremba: Yeah, it will change between now and then, but there is one subdivision on it
at the moment. A couple other little things, but --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one question that I don't really understand --
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Was the reason for -- and probably read it and I just let it go -- the
City wanting the five acres was just the connectivity? Was that the main -- and we don't
think that without that connectivity now that it's going to work? Is that kind what that -- in
a nutshell?
Hood: Yeah. Connectivity to Jericho is the main reason for denial of it. Having that
connection to Locust Grove Road is in the best interest of the city and anything else
isn't.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: Well -- and continue to think that's important. I mean there are --
Newton-Huckabay: But if that -- there are stubs on the west side of that five acre parcel
already as well, right, so that -- that it's going to connect if it -- when it develops.
Zaremba: Let's say there is the opportunity there for a connection. As Mr. McKinnon
pointed out, it's not physically a stub street, but what happens is the existing street
comes right up to the property line.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. Well, I remember that.
Zaremba: For some distance and the anticipation is that that will become an
intersection.
McKinnon: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, ACHD and city staff made it very
clear at ACHD's commission hearing that that is intended to be a stub street on the
other side of Jericho. So, the east side of Jericho at this location is a stub street. That's
60 feet. They made it really clear and staff from your P&Z came to that meeting at
ACHD and they made it very clear that they wanted that to be a stub street. So, it is a
stub street and it would connect in the future when the five acre parcel develops.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm sorry to belabor this, but I got to ask one more question.
Can I ask it of staff?
Zaremba: Please do.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 23 of 36
Newton-Huckabay: Craig, under what circumstances, if this Commission does
recommend approval, could this whole thing get messed up and we end up with no
connectivity to Locust Grove, other than one, obviously, the property never develops,
but what -- what risk are we running to -- do you understand what I'm asking? Because
I don't think I'm articulating it very well. What kind of -- like I said, I think that this is
really bad planning all up in this area anyway when they approved that -- the county
one. I think it just set the stage for a real conundrum out here, but if we annex -- if we
annex this or recommend that we annex this, it develops, what are we setting ourselves
up for potentially?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I don't know that we are
necessarily setting ourselves up for anything. The stub street is there. What I don't
know is if a home's already been constructed on that five acre out parcel in Ada County
that's right where that quasi stub is what Ada County Highway District calls that 60 foot
piece that touches that five acres. They could go in there and pull a building permit in
the county, pop a house right there, you never get the connection. That could still
happen if you deny this, though. You don't get that connection. So, that's why I said
before that the only thing that's in the best interest of the city is to have the whole ten
acres come in, we get the connection, and it's done. I don't -- again, I don't think we are
setting ourselves up for anything. We will get another connection when Leeshire comes
in, when Mr. Lee's property develops, and it will, but the problem is going to be is that's
going to be your only east-west and is going to be a collector. This one was trying to
come and alleviate and split those -- the traffic distribution in this area from either having
it all go through Lee's property or all go through this property. If you get both of them
coming in, the traffic is going to be somewhat evenly dispersed. Now, obviously, the
traffic split isn't going to be 50-50, but it's going to be fairly split. So, that's -- again, no
setup. I think either way it's just more of -- we are throwing it back at the developer and
say, hey -- you know, it's similar to that one that was over by the freeway that we had
the skinny narrow parcel -- show us how it's going to develop. Until we see the whole
picture together, is piecemealing it together in the best interest of the city and that's
really the question. I mean we can -- if we say -- we can wait. We can just wait until it
all just comes in together and, then, that's when it's appropriate, but, again, you know,
this isn't setting the city up for anything.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess I'm trying to -- let's poke holes -- let's poke holes in
the logic that this is a good idea and, you know, what could happen -- what could go
wrong, I guess is what I'm asking is -- other than you thinking that another parcel -- or a
house gets built in the county on this property, that's been -- and that risk stands either
way, as you see it?
Hood: It does. I mean I have seen a letter from Ada County saying that they recognize
that five acres as a build-able parcel. So, that in itself -- that letter was kind of
disconcerting, because it really has only 60 feet of street frontage, which we provided to
it recently and that's, actually, below what their minimum street frontage requirement is,
but, anyways, yeah, I don't think I have anything else to add. It's just that's the best
interest of the city. This isn't necessarily the end of everything. I don't think it's a good
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg.
December 8, 2005
Page 24 of 36
point that, you know, because some bad planning has happened in the past, though,
that we just say, yeah, it can be okay, because we have pretty much given up on the
whole -- the whole area. So, I disagree a little bit there. I think we can make -- we can
make lemonade here, you know, so --
Newton-Huckabay: No. I agree. I think that's what I was trying to get at, is what's the
best way -- because I think the way they developed Jericho has messed up the whole
thing. If they would have done something a little more in the spirit of the
Comprehensive Plan out in that area, I think it might have come together better and I
agree with you, we need to make lemons out of lemonade and I guess I'm just not
wanting to throw any --
Zaremba: The one issue that helps me not be so certain that this is in the best interest
of the city is just the problem that you suggest. This developer had it within his power to
solve that problem and is intentionally not doing that. Is it in the best interest of the city
to let developers treat the city that way? That's my struggle.
Moe: Mine as well.
Zaremba: But not to belabor that point, do we want to ask staff for conditions of
approval and discuss it again on January 19th, I believe it would be? As well as all the
other agency comments.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: If we deal with it tonight, I would vote for denial. If we are -- if we are
considering it, then, I would like to see all of the other comments and the conditions.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: In the spirit of moving along, I'd move to remand AZ--
Moe: We need to close the --
Borup: Not if we are going to --
Moe: Oh. I'm sorry.
Borup: I move to remand AZ 05~050 and PP 05-051 back to staff so staff can draft
findings and conditions of approval, to be accompanied by all other agency reports and
continue this to January 19th, 2006. End of motion.
Moe: I will second that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg,
December 8, 2005
Page 25 of 36
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. So, that was to January 19th, believe. Has anybody
confirmed that day? I believe it's the 19th.
Borup: Yes. I looked on a calendar.
Zaremba: I have the agenda. January 19th it is. Thank you.
Item 6:
Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: PP 05-054
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 building lots and 1 other lot on
15.35 acres in an L-O zone for Touchmark Center Subdivision by
Touchmark of the Treasure Valley - southwest corner of Touchmark Way
and Franklin Road:
Item 7:
Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: CUP 05-050
Request for a Conceptual Conditional Use for office uses on 15.35 acres
in an L-O zone for Touchmark Center Subdivision by Touchmark of the
Treasure Valley - southwest corner of Touchmark Way and Franklin
Road:
Zaremba: Okay. Next we'd like to open the Public Hearing for PP 05-054 and CUP 05-
050, both of these relating to Touchmark Center Subdivision. And, again, even though
these are continued, we had no prior discussion. They were continued for a notice
problem. So, this will be our first discussion. And we will begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission; I am pinch hitting this
evening for Josh Wilson. He's at home with his kids. So, I will give this a shot. I did
make some notes here. This project also has quite a history behind it. I'll touch on that
in a minute. The subject applications are for a preliminary plat approval of 22 building
lots and one other common lot and conceptual Conditional Use Permit approval for
office uses on 15.35 acres in an L-O zone and those 15 acres are bolded there on the
map. The site is located on the south side of Franklin Road, west of Touchmark Way,
approximately a quarter mile east of Eagle Road. The site is currently vacant. There is
a single family home, I guess, on that property, I believe. The Comprehensive Plan
future land use map designates the land to be mixed use community. We'll go back to
that map for just a second. To the north are future commercial developments. This is
the road that goes around RC. Willey, zoned C-G. To the east are existing future
phases of Meadow Lake Village residential development. This is the zoning code, so
everything in purple here is office district. The reds are commercial. That's industrial
there, the gray. To the south are professional offices and St. Luke's, which is -- their
campus is right here. To the west are the existing -- quickly going away residences in
Montvue Park Subdivision. That's -- most of those are zoned R.1 still in Ada County.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE
January 19, 2006
ITEM #
5&6
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 05-050; PP 05-051
PROJECT NAME
Reserve Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE PRINT)
FOR
AGAINST NEUTRAL
)
'.r'~~~'1"~~)
~p / CITY OF 't' ~S'~"
'-/Vl erldiâfi ;--':1:c:' "\
IDAHO ,t
1", JJ
<:1"", þß
!'Ii, 4, TREASURE VN-i-"-"
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
Christine Donnell
Charles M. Rountree
Shaun Ward Ie
CITY DEPARTMENTS
Fire
540 E. Franklin Road
888-1234 / fax 895-0390
Parks & Recreation
11 W. Bower Street
888-3579 / fax 898-5501
Planning
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 202
884-5533 / fax 888-6844
Police
1401 E. Watertower Lane
888-6678 / 846-7366
Public Works
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 200
898-5500 / fax 898-9551
- Building
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 150
887-2211 / fax 887-1297
- Wastewater
3401 N. Ten Mile Road
888-2191 / fax 884-0744
- Water
2235 N.W 8th Street
888-5242 / fax 884-1159
!J"e¡
1903
MEMO
Date:
November 14, 2005
To:
Planning & Zoning Commission and City Staff
(Q) .
Sharon SmitiÞQMeridian City Clerk's Office
From:
RE:
November 17, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda Items - Publication Error
Frank at The Valley Times called our office this morning to alert us to the
fact that an error was made in the publication of the notices for the
November 17,2005 P & Z Commission agenda items. The notice for this
meeting was to be published on October 31st and November 14th, 2005.
The Valley Times did not publish the first notice on October 31 st. Frank
caught the error today as the item published for the first time. He was
very apologetic about the situation - this has rarely been a problem with
The Valley Times.
Affected are the Reserve Subdivision, Touchmark Center Subdivision and
Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision. After discussing the matter with the
City Attorney's Office and the Planning Department, we need to re-notice
the three projects in question. The earliest possible hearing date is
December 8, 2005 (as a special meeting) or December 15, 2005, which is
already a long agenda.
The City Clerk's Office and Planning Department requests your input as
to which meeting date these items should be re-noticed for. Thank you.
CITY HALL 33 EAST IDAHO A VENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433
CITY CLERK - FAX 888-4218 CITY ATTORNEY / HR - FAX 884-8723 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING - FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE - FAX 884-8119
Printed On recycled paper
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 17. 2005
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
---
~,-,
'---
, ----"-"--
SUBJECT:
--"-'-
-~
'~-"-
Hearing Date: 11/17/2005
Planning & Zoning Commission
Craig Hood, Associate City Planner
City of Meridian Planning Department
208-884~5533
#or':, \t$
oW'e;;d/:;~ ;
I;'¡,\H<':> f'
'J:
\~f,!,~t!.~-l4o r..,,_',,-',,-'" ,'.",,' y,..+~>' ",,-.,/.'
"\"6:
Reserve Subdivision
""
AZ~05-050
", Annexation and Zoning of5.0 acres from RUT to R~4 (Medium Low-Density
Residential)
PP-05-051
Preliminary Plat request for 12 building lots and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres
in a proposed R-4 zone, for Reserve Subdivision
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Dave McKinnon, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) and Preliminary Plat (PP)
approval of 12 building lots and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres. The site is located on the west side of
Locust Grove Road, approximately 1,000 feet south of Chinden Boulevard. This site is currently rural
residential with one single-family residence and accessory buildings. The site has not been previously
platted. However, four of the five acres proposed for development have been the subject of previous
preliminary plat applications. In the spring of 2005, a 22 lot subdivision on 9 acres was submitted and
withdrawn by the applicant, C5 Development, on this site (AZ~05~004, PP-05-006 & V AR-05-005). In
the summer of 2005, an 8 lot subdivision on 4 acres was submitted and then withdrawn by the applicant,
Conger Management Group (AZ-05-035 & PP-05-054). GO Properties, LLC, who owns one acre on
Locust Grove Road has now partnered with Jake Centers, who owns four acres, to submit the subject
applications. The five acres directly west of the subject site, with frontage on Jericho Road, has been sold
to James Luchini and is not a part of the subject applications. Please see History of Previous Actions in
Section 6 below.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. The subject applications (AZ and PP)
were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Staff has provided a detailed analysis
of the requested Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat applications below. Based on the analvsis
contained in this report, staff is recommendin!! denial of the proposed Reserve Subdivision.
3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing)
Recommend Denial
I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Numbers AZ-05-050 and PP.05-051 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 17,2005 and the preliminary plat
dated October 7, 2005 for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial of
the annexation; you must state specific reasons for denial of the plat. They should address how
the applicant might fe-do the application(s) to gain your recommendation for approval).
Recommend Staff Draft Findings and Conditions for Approval
I move to remand AZ-05~050 and PP-05-051 back to staff so staff can draft findings and
conditions for approval. Staff should include the following modifications to the findings of fact
and conditions of approval: (Insert the proposed modifications and justification (fIDdings) for
Reserve Subdivision AZ-O5-050, PP-O5-051
PAGEl
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER] 7.2005
approval).
4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location: West side of Locust Grove Road, south of Chinden Boulevard, within
Section 30, Township 4 North, Range 1 East.
b. Property Owners:
Jake Centers
1979 Locust Grove Road
Meridian, Idaho 83642
&
GO Properties, LLC
5488 N. Bach Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
c. Applicant:
Dave McKinnon
Conger Management Group
405 South 8th Street, Ste. 290
Boise, Idaho 83702
d. Representative:
e. Present Zoning:
Dave McKinnon, Conger Management Group
RUT (Ada County)
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant has applied for Annexation and Zoning
(AZ) and Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of 12 building lots and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres
proposed for R-4 zoning.
1. Date of preliminary plat (attached as Exhibit AI): 10/7/05
2. Date oflandscape plan (attached as Exhibit A2): 1/10/05
h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: "As you well know, this is the third revision for this
much-maligned subdivision, but the revisions continue to make it a better subdivision that
better reflects the City's Ordnances and Comprehensive Plan. The major changes to the
subdivision are comprised of the inclusion of the one-acre parcel of ground located (on)
Locust Grove (in the northeast portion of the proposed subdivision), a major revision of the
entry into the subdivision, the inclusion of several more building lots (to increase density) and
the placement of a pathway extending to the school area to the north. The inclusion of the one-
acre out parcel eliminates the need to jog the road at the entrance and allows the entire street to
be double loaded with residential housing. Furthermore, it eliminates an enclave parcel that
would have been difficult to re~develop in the future, and removes an additional access to
Locust Grove. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City of Meridian
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as well as the Plan's supporting policies." Please
see applicant's submittal letter for more information.
Reserve Subdivision AZ-O5-050, PP-O5-051
PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAff REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 17,2005
5. PROCESS FACTS
a.
The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation and zoning as determined by
City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter
5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
The subject application will in fact constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City
Ordinance. By reason ofthe provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 6, a
public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
Newspaper notifications published on: October 31 and November 14, 2005
Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: October 21,2005
Applicant posted notice on site by: November 7, 2005
b.
c.
d.
e.
6. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): Rural residential with one existing home.
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Rural residential, rapidly transitioning to
urban densities.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
1. North: School, zoned R-4
2. East: Rural residential, Dunwoody Subdivision, zoned RUT
3. South: Rural residential, zoned RUT
4. West:
Vacant 5-acre parcel, zoned RUT; Approved Arcadia Subdivision, zoned R-8
d. History of Previous Actions:
The co-owner ofthe subject property, Mr. Jake Centers, also developed Arcadia Subdivision,
west of the subject properties. After receiving approval for Arcadia, Mr. Centers bought the
nine acres just to the east. The nine acres that Mr. Centers bought in October of 2004 is
comprised of two parcels. Parcel A, the western parcel, is approximately five acres and Parcel
B, the eastern parcel, is approximately four acres. Mr. Centers told staff that he intended to
construct his personal residence on the western portion of Parcel A and therefore did not want
to extend Hidden Path Street.
As mentioned in the Summary Description above, in the spring of this year C5 Development
submitted three applications (AZ-05-004, PP-05-006, V AR-05-005). The applications
requested an R~4 zone for 22 single-family lots on 9 acres (the variance request was for the
cul-de-sac length). The proposed subdivision did not include connecting the public street from
Locust Grove Road to Jericho Road. Instead the applicant proposed a long cul~de-sac street
(Hidden Path). Staff recommended approval of the project, with a condition that Hidden Path
Street be extended to connect with Jericho Road to the west. Planning Department staff (Anna
Canning and Craig Hood) attended the ACHD hearing and specifically requested that the
District require the street extension as well. After the Ada County Highway District and the
City required the street connection, the applicant withdrew those applications.
After withdrawing AZ-05-004, PP-05-006 and V AR-05-005, Mr. Centers subsequently deeded
the five-acre, Parcel A to Not 4 Sale, LLC, and did not include it within the boundaries of the
second AZ & PP applications (AZ-05-035 & PP~05-034)(Jake Centers is a registered agent of
Not 4 Sale, LLC). Mr. Centers then submitted applications to develop eight buildable lots on
the four acres that he continued to own in his name (Parcel B). Shortly after AZ-05-035 and
PP-05-034 were submitted, the property owners directly north showed interest in partnering
Reserve Subdivision. AZ-O5-050, PP-O5-051
PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 17, 2005
with Mr. Centers on developing their one-acre parcel. Mr. Centers withdrew those
applications (AZ.05-035 and PP-05-034) and is now proposing to develop the four-acre
parcel, Parcel B that he owns and the one-acre parcel that GO Properties owns together.
Since the last submittal for development, Mr. Centers (via Not 4 Sale, LLC) has deeded the
five-acre, Parcel A to James Luchini. The five acres that Mr. Luchini currently owns is not
included within the subject applications. Both the City of Meridian Planning Department and
Ada County Highway District staff made it clear that an extension of Jericho Road was
necessary within Arcadia Subdivision so that a street could be extended to Locust Grove Road
through the subject property. City staff has informed Mr. Centers several times that a
connection to Locust Grove Road, from Jericho Road, is in the best interest of the City. Staff
__believes that the applicant has sold the five-acres to the west because he does not want
Coiiunander Street (previously Hidden Path Street) to connect with Jericho Road. Staff
believes that development of the subject site is not in the City's best interest if a vehicular
connection to Jericho Road is not provided. Please see Sections 8 and 10 below for more
analysis on why approving the subject applications are not in the best interest of the City of
Meridian.
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities
1. Public Works
Location of sewer:
Location of water:
There are sewer mains located in Locust Grove.
There are water mains located in Locust Grove.
Issues or concerns:
None.
2. Vegetation:
property.
3. Floodplain: NA
4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of
natural waterways and waterways being used as amenities that intersect, cross or lie
adjacent and contiguous to an area being subdivided shall be tiled (UDC 11-3A-6).
5. Hazards: Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental
problems associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or
Commission's attention; no hazardous natural features have been identified on the site.
6. Proposed Zoning: R-4
7. Size of Property: 5.0 acres
8. Description of Proposed Use:
f. Subdivision Plat fuformation
There are some mature trees along the south property line of the
Single~Family
1. Residential Lots:
12
2. Non~residential Lots:
3. Total Building Lots:
0
12
4. Common Lots: 5
5. Other Lots: 0
6. Total Lots: 17
7. Gross Density:
2.4 units per acre
Reserve Subdivision AZ-O5-050, PP-O5-051
PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 17.2005
g. Landscaping
1. Width of street buffer(s): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along Locust
Grove Road, an entryway corridor (VDC 11-2A-4). The applicant is proposing a 35-
foot wide landscape lot adjacent to Locust Grove Road. The applicant is proposing to
construct 8-foot wide planter strips between the sidewalk and the curb of the internal
roadways.
2. Width ofbuffer(s) between land uses: NA
3. Percentage of site as open space: The applicant states that 11.8% of the site will
be open space.
h. Proposed and Required Residential Standards: R-4
Setbacks Proposed Required
Front Living Area 15
Side Accessed Garage 15
Front Accessed Garage 20
Street side 20
Side 5
Rear 15
Frontage* 80
Lot Size 10,000
15
15
20
20
5
15
60
8,000
* There are two lots, Lot 2, Block 1, and Lot 2, Block 2, that only have 30 feet of public street frontage.
VDC 11 ~2A-3.B allows flag properties to have a minimum of 30-feet of úontage.
i. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): A new
public street from Locust Grove Road, Commander Street, is proposed to provide the only
access to the site. The applicant is proposing to extend Commander Street to the undeveloped
five-acre property to the west (currently owned by Luchini). The applicant is also proposing a
stub street (Sun Shimmer Avenue) to the undeveloped property to the south.
7. COMMENTS MEETING
On October 28, 2005, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with representatives of key
service providers to this property. Based on the joint agency/department meeting and other comments
received from agencies and departments, staff finds that the required public services can be made
available to accommodate the proposed development. NOTE: Because the recommendation is for denial,
staff has not included the comments and recommended actions from any agency or city departments.
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
This property is designated "Medium Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Map. The Comprehensive Plan calls for single-family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units
per acre on this site (see Page 95 of the Comprehensive Plan.) There are only 12 buildable lots proposed
on the subject 5 acres. There is a maximum density of 4 dwelling units per acre allowed in the R-4 zone
by the UDC; the proposed gross density of Reserve Subdivision is 2.4 dwelling units per acre. Staff finds
that the proposed zoning designation, R-4, could be hannonious with and in accordance with the 2002
Reserve Subdivision AZ-O5-050, PP-O5-051
PAGE 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 17,2005
Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map lithe density of the subdivision were between three and
four dwelling units per acre.
Staff finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application (staff
analysis is in italics below policy):
Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 ~ Require that development projects have planned for the
provision of all public services.
When the City established its Area qf City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the
subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands
proposed to be annexed in the following manner:
. Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the
developer's expense.
The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire
District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian
City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the
Meridian Rural Fire Department.
The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction qf the Ada County Sheriff's
Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police
Department (MPD).
The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained
by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change.
The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This
service will not change.
The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This
service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no
revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation.
,,-- '-, -
.
.
.
.
.
Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department,
the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian
Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing
Services, and Sanitary Services Company.
Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 3 ~ Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel:
A Recommended Approach" from the National Center for Bicycling and Walking in all land-use
decisions.
This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkway facilities in new construction
and reconstruction projects, in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient. Staff believes that the
subject applications comply with the policies listed in the literature noted above.
Chapter VI, Goal II , Objective A, Action 6 - Require street connections between subdivisions at regular
intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow.
The submitted preliminary plat does not propose a street connection with Jericho Road in Arcadia
Subdivision. The applicant has not included the 5-acre parcel that abuts Arcadia within the subject
applications. Staff believes that a street connection should be made between Locust Grove Road and
Jericho Road to provide for neighborhood connectivity and to enhance traffic flow in this area. Staff
believes that a vehicular connection is needed to Jericho Road for development of this property to be in
Reserve Subdivision AZ-O5-050, PP-O5-051
PAGE 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT fOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 17. 2005
the best interest of the City.
Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 13 ~ Review new development for appropriate opportunities to
connect to local roads and collectors in adjacent developments.
There arefew opportunitiesfor an east-west connection to Locust Grove Road through this section. Staff'
believes that it is appropriate for Commander Street to connect with Jericho Road through this property.
Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 9 - Require new residential development to provide pennanent
perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown debris from entering
adjacent agricultural and other properties.
Fencing has not been proposedfor this project. Prior to house construction,fencing should be
constructed around the perimeter of this site.
Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 5 - Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development
to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a conununity pathway
system.
The applicant is proposing a pedestrian connection to the school site to the north. Staff is supportive of
this pedestrian connection. Stqff believes that a pedestrian connection should occur between the subject
site and Arcadia Subdivision to the west as well.
Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 6 ~ Require pedestrian access in all new development to link
subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity.
See above.
Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2 - Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and
arterial streets.
One public street access to Locust Grove Road is proposed; direct lot access to Locust Grove Road
should be prohibited.
Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1 - Protect existing residential properties from incompatible
land use development on adjacent parcels.
The applicant is proposing a residential zone. StafJ.finds that the existing residential properties to the
south, east and west and the school to the north are compatible with the proposed development.
Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 10 - Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-
, and high-density single family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for
the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities.
The subject application includes a requestfor the R-4 zone. Saguaro Canyon Subdivision obtained an R-4
zone; Arcadia Subdivision obtained an R-8 zone; and Westborough Subdivision obtained R-2, R-4, R-15
and L-O Zoning. Staff .finds that the requested zoning designation contributes to the variety of residential
zoning categories in this area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this site.
9. ZONING ORDINANCE
a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: Meridian City Code 11-2A-2lists single-family detached
dwellings as permitted uses in the R-4 zoning district.
b. Purpose Statement of Zone:
Reserve Subdivision AZ-O5-050, PP-O5-051
PAGE 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 17.2005
R~4 Medium Low-Density Residential: The purpose of the residential districts is to
provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan. Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all
residential districts. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of
dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated
within the density range.
c. General Standards: The overall design of the proposed subdivision generally confonns to the
standards listed in Title 11 of Meridian City Code.
10. ANALYSIS
a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation
1. AZ Application: The Future Land Use Map designates this property 'medium density
residential.' The requested zoning and subsequent density proposed with the
subdivision is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Further, staff believes that
a street connection to Jericho Road from Locust Grove Road is important in this
location. Because the five acre parcel to the west is not a part of the subject annexation
request. and because a density of 2.4 dwellin~ units is bein!! proposed. staff does not
believe that annexation of this propertv to R-4 is in the best interest ofthe Citv.
2. PP Application:
Special Considerations:
Open Space: The applicant has stated that the subdivision contains 11.8% of
landscaped open space, meeting the 5% minimum required by Ordinance. The
majority of this landscaping is passive in nature and provided in the proposed
parkways between the detached sidewalks and the streets, and within landscape
medians in the middle of the streets. The applicant has not proposed any large
landscaped common lots for active use by the residents, and none are required by
code.
Temporary Vehicular Turnaround: The applicant is proposing a temporary turnaround
easement for Commander Street. The turnaround is within Lot 2, Block 3. The Fire
Department and Sanitary Services Company have concerns with vehicles parking
within this turnaround easement and cars parking along the north side of Commander
Street, restricting the ability of vehicles to turn around.
Fencing: The applicant is not showing any fencing on any of the submitted plans. Staff
recommends that the applicant clarify, at the public hearing, how fencing is going to
be constructed in and around this development.
Existinll ResidenceslBuildinlls: The site currently contains multiple buildings. These
buildings are not shown on the preliminary plat, as required. Staff recommends that
the applicant modify the submitted preliminary plat by depicting all existing
structures. If the existing home does not meet the building setback requirements of the
R~4 zone, it should be removed prior to signature of a final plat by the City Engineer.
b. Staff Recommendation: For the reasons listed in this reDort and in the findinf!s in Exhibit C.
staff recommends denial of AZ-O5-050 and PP-O5-051.
Reserve Subdivision AZ-O5-050, PP-O5-051
PAGE 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 17.2005
11. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat (dated: October 7, 2005)
2. Landscape Plan (dated: January 10, 2005)
B. Legal Description
C. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance
Reserve Subdivision AZ-O5-050, PP-O5-051
PAGE 9
CITY Or- MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER J7, 2005
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat (dated: October 7,2005)
Œì( :"ì"""""'~C) "",o""""¡""""""""""""'2þ"'" ---'" --,--
,¡¡'---)'~,:;:c::! v.:;~;;;:;;';;:;;";' "."'""-<. [' I: " f ' '[ -- It
(;;.~(':'i(-"-----~~~S~3":~'!~O>, J.f¡. "I" ',', ': II "..:""'-:'~""'II-<;f::~\".~I~:::,>
1"~)~~il,_"""------_.LV'd~..,"'N"""",,,,_~,<J,-,, ~~ ~~_IO!'._,~,..='--":""','-',,,,,'J:'""",",'~',', 1 ,,~* /;/1"
-,- , " '" ~ - -~~ - -', ";",:,:~_,::i,;:;,,;,,, ~~~/ ,~,,:;:,:'.
. .t .' ,"
j ~~ '! , 1;1 :;, ,
¡UUP,¡¡I qdit,hiL,:di'., ¡
~ I' i- I- j e ¡ i I' ~ , I \ , ! " ( ! , , ' ¡ " " ,,' I
0"'" ttl'."¡¡,."",I',¡",~",,
j
I- ~
:\"'"
~>g¡
~ffi§
<"'-8
Z"'"~
~It~,
~~~
It>-"
.. ~
,,-~_:.! ), -_š~
~ r I'~~~
5'. "~
¡ r~'- , ~
. .
c
Æ
-¿
§
g~
£~
~9
c :"
c
~
<
<
~
~
:i
,¡¡
i;r~: I
f!
-,,- ----'-"----,
.." ..,,'~ " '-------"'õ;;-;;;;;;',...,;.'-----"'---
' -'----'-~-'~;,~,;~~~~~;--~~,':'~: ;-.::~:' ~&,
r;t,-~~ij, r:~1
~. ~ Ii' ,," ~;ì1'
:--- ¡¡ ,,-'~-_!~, I,' ~~'-',':
L~¡¡, ';'~-';/fi:"ú~' '~~~~~~~ I~
Ä-"-~( "...",......"
I" ", ~', /;;;:::..,;..~ ti
r :3 ""i, ¡ ~l~' ,;, ,Ii
;-'*~~ -- '-¡I ","~ (~"i ._"~ - ~"';
~---'.,^" _~_,:_Ii..~". ,~_~__I
t
~
:¡
l'
<
~
0
"
(
i'
¡;¡
;~ .
." ~
,- ,
-" ~
~i -
~~
,,~
~~
,..
f~
"
I;¡
\1
L
'J:
'.,
;,:'
,
",~ ,
-_.__._"._.~"---,--,--------
Exhibit A - Page 1
i I
I"
: II
k ,; ~
"'IJ"~ 'i;')
'11<',;, "
,/ ~,i, ,"
j!i!~ ~'¡;¡¡ ,
~I"I¡,$ 1:; /'-1
j":' 1/1 ¡;? ~
!Im¡!~? ~!: ji ,,'
I.
, ¡I:
:' I i
, I"
I'
1""1
, ,
, ,
U
i..
j ø :
~~~b~ I~ )~â
f~"p'¡(::,
JiI!~;;; ¡;¡~;~
!~;;::,; ;' :1°;
B' ~,V"
im ;L; ;~It Nlti!¡lì ¡
':¡¡"i'!l il-;¡! ~I:çí-'¡ ii'
i ,~ ~I '. ;. >'-' '1;11'
,,:- (J'; !!¡¡r ,/,,'.," H t
~j ; í~¡! I1t.f *1: 1j! j~
ili!! Wi mjj iJW~ iNr ii
h
::;1"
- --',
J ,;, :_'
'. ";'
i ¡
Ih.W '
.!"" ¡ .,\ ;
fii;~¡:~
i}; ¡¡ ~
.§!;: V,A
1'1 !,~:;
, ------""---~-,,-----..
,," ,
,"--
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 17, 200S
2. Landscape Plan (dated: January 10,2005)
-'-",
'8
I-~~'-- --, '
-'~----
'-~-
'---~,
i Iii,
--- w n
-y--------- "iii II: '
'--~~ f
, I', ~" Il~ !
I 1',1"1' J I ~.
" ~. t, , i" --
" ,h . .,,1
,¡ ,
. ¡ ~
, , . 2
.,; ')""
Ii " . I l' ~ .
" . 'I"" a '
.: ¡ ,¡ ,¡'" ð I
;; ,j! 'I .j -- i
--' I - - . í' - ~
i' ,¡ " ¡--, 'I ¡ w "
,1' i , ..
;¡ ¡ , ¡ ~ t, I. ¡ I ~ ,;L.
¡-\\ÎI1Il!¡~~'iF
,! f I ¡ , ; ;' ~~ .. >:: ¡, i.. g
,¡ ¡ ¡ i ' ( '! 1.' , :;, iP",
, ¡ !" L ¡, --~ .
!; Iji 11: -- F! I
-i¡ ¡ "I' ¡\ ,I ,
I:! ¡, ¡ ; ; i¥ ;
:~ I "!' ¡ j; ,I' ,;,
:., ',' I- j > I,!.
i;! p1qp~! j
!;, ~!!! ~ ' r Ii: ,
Ii j ¡:!, 1 h f; ¡
,:!,in'HUtl! ..
~i{¡ ;¡;¡!511¡:~lql'-"--
~!!¡!:~::.::'~.~~ I
~:C:I I!,¡,.,¡
; ~!l;' ;"" .;
~""I :-ltL
rt :; I' I'!.
i /Bin I: ,t L
I i
, . I i J
g Ii 1 li!",' ,!i
~ ~~ HH ,!l~f¡!! II :
~_1!_I~_!:t,. 111.1
. --
"---""-'-""""
Exhibit A - Page 2
I ~- -;~,/':;~;~I~~,~~~~r:.~.~j: ",/"
!'a'" ! SI',. t'?('¥"::)~/i--":f-"rl";'" "
: " ¡ . . " I~':~__~j ¡,'
.. '.;~ , , : "i . í ¡ II '
i " ;4 h.': I .. -- ,,",
I /1 iI i -."
./ (I-' ~t
f II I i ~¡:
L ..' ~~
.I~i'~:;è~~.", ,,:~~ I
. ¡.!~ , ¡~
, ,., 'IIi JlI ~ ;!1,
';, I~' I.., !' , .. ~'
" "~~' . ;~I' " .
"'I'IJ':~"~': 'tI'" ,
~' ~,., , \ '
~ ipl~I'" \ , '
.. ¡ ". i ¿ '. '
"" \ . .
'c~-i" ¡¡: .
h ¡I. i ,;
r .;1,' "fi
h.,'-' Ii), :,~,
i""'" " ~¡
;1 'Ii
~;
~
'"
'.' ..",-1 ~:¡
'::L ,'~' .
1, ~¡. ,';,
',U~; ..
...uu_..-,."'.....-.--.--
"":;:;"'~::-,i'!., I
..._------".
!'-'""-,,
;,'-'",
'0',
NV7d 3dV:JSON'tI"
.",nqll'INl
--'
m..
'----~---..
,-T-.
~~.
:.!-
i:!
:!:'
<si
~~
~~
::f.
-=/1
~:~:.,',. ì¡i
-. ,-------
II
. ~ ;,
'"
. ...""'-.-..---...-...,
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAff REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 17, 2005
B. Legal Description
Roylance & Associates P.A.
tngineeæ. Surveyors. Landplanners
. .. - ,
391 W. Slate Street, SurtE! E t:agl¡;, Idaho 83616
.-.-."'"-"'-
---T~hone (200) 939-2824 Fay (2ooi¡¡j9-2B55 '
September 14. 2005
Prnj¡XI Nt'- 2SF.(i
Legal Description
CS Dcvdopmem. LLC
Annel>mwn Area
5.00 Acres
A tract of land fnr annexation pUTpo~es located in Lhl' Snl11.hea5t Onc Quarter of th", :-Jortbcas! One Quaner
of Section .~(), Towm;hip 4 Korth. Range I E~~t. Boi~e Mendian, Ada COUllty, Idaho, dcscribt:d ;L~ fo!lows:
Commencing al 1\ fOlllld bm<¡s cap molilIrnl',nting Ihe !\or1be¡¡st Comer of said S~tiO)) 30. ¡(¡(:net', fl)!lo~'inf the
easterly line ot said Se<:lion .~O. South 00°37'59" West a distant;c of U2tU9 fc.et to till', POIt\1"f OF
BEGINNING.
lbencc tollov.~ng said ea...rerly line South 00"37'59" West a distance of ~ß 1.98 feel to .1 point;
Ibcnce.lcaving saidea:;t<'.-rly linc North 89°49'4;\" West II distance of ('i5'i,\.I(í feef 10 ¡J point;
TIJcnœ Korth (Xr38'OO"t:ast a dista:nœ of 3321 () feet t(1 " point;
TIlcnce SfJuth 89<49'0(," East a distllJ1çe (If 655 96 feet to the POJNT' OF fŒGINN LM3..
The ahoye-descrihetl tract of land cumain~ -'iJ)(J ¡¡cres, Jl)Ol'e 01 less. ~uh.lect to al] t~xj8tif]g caserm'ms and righls-
of-way.
., '
RE'llilw APP~P\lj1<....--~-
e",).<:~--= l
Prep<\red By:
ROYLANCE & ASSOCTATr_" PA
:~9J W STATE STREET, Sinn:,: r.
EAGLE, IDAHO 83616
208-C:;:W2824
208-91\) 2855 (FAX)
,,- "'¡< Pli~LI(;
-'-. ,:'" "'"'" 1
X:\Pr"Jc.;;1:<'.c".,:,",,<, '2:. ~I,',.i,,:,,",,'d -"f'" I ,"Jell,., O',U;-Jrl ;çpd J.,~,
Exhibit B - Page 1
BASIS OF BEARING, , ,
--- SB9'S1'1S"£ - ---.l633.97'-
E. CHINDEN BLVD
tTi
><
::r
g:
OJ
'"C
I»
()Q
~
tV
EAST 1/16 CORNER
(PER SECTIONS 30 AND 19
, ~.."" CAP~NREAOABl£"""
19,
-'Þ-, -.. - --- - --- -
3°\ 1J16.QS'
,I NORTJ-J 1/4 CORNER
SECTION 30
FOUND BRASS CAP
RE~.i'.B.9:VAI.,. ' i.----'
C?v +l.:-==:::=....:..L,( ,
~"49'O5.E
";~:;~i~~ (;~gfIÇ
È
c,,¡
n
n
Legend
~ FOUND BRASS CAP
&>
CALC'O POINT
"
FOUND 5/B INCH
STEEL PIN
bl PROPERTY UNE
E~
n - - - - SECTION UNE
8
z - - ":O,.WAY UNE
NB9"49'4J"W
.
50
0
100
~
C5 DEVELOPMENT, LLC
ANNEXATION AREA
SCALE IN FEET
\F"<.""\:<',l"'~",:',""~"',I>'n"",,"\PI'l\~,..h,\:',,"'-,P1"1 'rJ115,jw, 9/H/2ê"Jõ 7,J';,'~ ~~ MZ'
NClHHEAST CORNER
SECTION 3°,
, FOUNt> BRASS~CAP li-. 20
- 1317,02" -.-/ Y' r
POINT Of COMMENCEMENT ~.~
~.
. en
01 "'>
II') .
. (IJ
POINT OF BEGlNNING'r ~I ~
555Q~' --- ~,
~ - r~
["
, a:I
EXISTING 25' ~ 0
PRESCRIPT1\£ ",I ~ 0::
RIGfH-OF-WAY 1 ~
I ':I: ~
~t-
I n gJ
¡ /§9
I z
j
I
~o\
I T
n
'""Ì
><:
0
."
s::
trJ
;>:J
I::'
;;
Z
-0
......
»
z
z
Z
C1
5,0:1: ACRES
"
trJ
'"
»
;>:J
'""Ì
s::
[T1
Z
'""Ì
'"
..,
>
.."
."
;>0
(T]
'"
0
;>0
..,
.."
0
;>0
'""Ì
::I:
[T1
::I:
trJ
»
E
z
0
I::'
>
'""Ì
rn
0
.."
Z
0
<
trJ
s::
to
trJ
;>0
655,96' -
ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES PA
w91~eers Suryeyors LQ"dplo~ners ~
3g1 W Siote Street Sui!", E Eogle Idaho 83516 OII""'"
Phone (208) 939-2824 «I~ PO8) 939-2'855 a<1r
-
.....
'"
.,=>
<::>
v.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER ]7, 2005
C. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance
1. Annexation Findings:
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full
investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to
grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the
comprehensive plan;
The applicant is proposing to zone all of the subject property to R-4. Staff finds
that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. However, staff further finds that the
concurrent development and density proposed does not comply with the
applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies for this property. Please see
Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report.
2.
The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the
proposed district, specifically the purpose statement;
Staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the
established regulations and purpose statement of the R-4 zone.
The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public
health, safety, and welfare;
Staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends that the Commission and
Council rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when
determining this finding.
The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery
of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the
City including, but not limited to, school districts; and,
Staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in any
adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision
providing services to this site.
3.
4.
5.
The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-5B-3.E).
For the reasons listed in the StaffReoort for the hearin!! date of November 17.
2005 and the Annexation Findin!!s above. staff finds that the oroposed
annexation is not in the best interest of the City.
2. Preliminary Plat Findings:
In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or
short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings:
Á. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, ofthe Staff Report
and Annexation Finding #1 above.
Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to
accommodate the proposed development;
B.
Exhibit C - Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAff REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 17, 2005
Exhibit C - Page 2
F.
c.
Based on the comments received from the agencies and departments providing
service to this property, staff finds that all services are available or can be made
available for the proposed development.
The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord
with the City's capital improvement program;
There are currently no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity
of the project that are currently in the ACHD's Five Year Work Program or
Capital Improvements Plan. There are no City of Meridian projects for sewer or
water trunks planned for this area. All sewer and water extensions are planned to
be developer driven on this property.
There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development;
If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, local
street infrastructure, utilities and iITigation services to serve the project. The
primary public costs to serve the future residents will be fire, police and school
facilities and services. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional
requirements at public cost, and that the public is financially capable of
supporting services for the proposed development.
The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
general welfare; and
Staff recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of
this subdivision; however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will
be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Staff finds that the proposed
annexation and the development of this site will not involve uses that will create
nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding
area. Staff does not anticipate the proposed development will be detrimental to
the public health, safety or general welfare.
The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
Staff is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features associated
with the development of this site that should be brought to the Councilor
Commission's attention. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council
reference any public testimony that may be presented regarding natural, scenic or
historic features of which staff is unaware.
D.
E.
'-'-, -
Attn-: ~Me~idi.ê~~n Planning and Zoning Commission
',' :~$rve $l;It>.qi!, '" ~ '6>-050 a . ,:~" ,~ Staff Report
----
'-"
Dear Commissioners,
',--
'-'-,---
",--,-~
I _nave júst received and reviewed the above noted staff report for the Reserve
--5------ ------./~ubdivision and would like to offer written response prior to the Public Hearing.
--- There is a history to this property, which I won't dispute, but what you, as a
'-~-------<,___Gommissioner, have in front of you is a small larger lot subdivision with ample open-
spacë1hafis--ãn improvement over the past submittals. The developer ofthis property no
longer owns the five acres to the west, and has provided a stub-street to the west when
that property develops in the future.
The one-acre out~parcel that prompted a great deal of discussion and disagreement at the
entrance of the subdivision has been included as a part of this plat. The inclusion of this
property fixes the alignment ofthe entry road and eliminates the concerns of how this
piece would re-develop in the future. ACHD has approved ofthe new alignment, is happy
with the proposed elimination of an existing access to Locust Grove and is satisfied with
the stub-street locations.
Please try to look at this application for what it is and not what it has been in the past.
The remainder of this letter will follow the outline of the staff report, (a "No comment"
response indicates agreement).
1. Summary Description: No Comment
2. Summary Recommendation: Understandably, I disagree with the staff analysis
and the staff recommendation for denial. I will discuss the staff analysis in detail
below, but at this point it should be noted that this report fails to include comments
from referral agencies (i.e. Fire, Police, Parks, SSC, Public Works, ACHD etc...)
making it difficult to evaluate the entire application from an applicant or Commission
point of view (why ask the other agencies for comments if they are not presented to
the applicant and Commission for evaluation?).
3. Proposed Motion: I prefer the second motion, recommending approval, but this
will difficult to do at the Public Hearing because the Commission has not been
provided with any recommended conditions of approval, or referral agency comments
to forward on to Council. This will require a continuation, which could be avoided if
sample conditions and referral agency comments are included in future staff reports.
4. Application and Property Facts:
No Comment
S. Process Facts:
No Comment
6. Land Use:
No Comment
7. Comments Meeting: It would be nice to know what the comments are, but given
that none are offered, we cannot comment at this time.
_.
8. Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals: Staff is concerned with the fact that
this subdivision is not dense enough and that the lots are too big for the area. This
analysis does not recognize note number two on the Comprehensive Plan Map that
allows for density to move up or down a step in density. This note is typically used to
ask for higher density, rather than lower density. Given the history of this application,
as it has been noted by staff, it should be pointed out that the original design was
opposed by Dunwoody Subdivision residents as being to dense. Furthennore no one,
to my recollection, has ever complained about a subdivision having lots that are too
big, it has always been the otherway around. The City has approved one-acre home-
sites (much bigger than what is proposed) and apartments (much more dense) in a
low-density designated area to the north. We feel that the larger lots in this area are in
confonnance with the larger surrounding lots. Larger lots are going to be less
common in the future due to price of land and are usually encouraged by the city and
neighboring uses.
No comment on Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 or Chapter VI, Goal II,
Objective A, Action 3.
Chapter VI Goal II Objective A, Action 6 regarding interconnectivity: Staff wants
to require this parcel ofland to connect to Jericho. That would be fine, but this parcel
ofland does not touch Jericho. The developer no longer owns the 5 acres west of this
site, but does provide a stub street to the west to allow a future connection to Jericho
when the property develops.
The City cannot require this off site improvement and because it does not connect, we
have provided a stub street for future connection to the west and also a stub to the
south.
No additional comments
9. Zoning Ordinance:
No Comment, it complies with the Ordinance
10. Analysis: #1: Staffis recommending denial because a five acre parcel not owned
by the applicant is not included with this application, notwithstanding the stub-street
connection to the five acre parcel to the west for future connection.
Many properties are annexed and subdivided in the city every year that do not
connect to every development in the area, and they are required to put in stub-streets
this 5 acre parcel should not be treated differently.
#2: Special Considerations:
Open Space- No Comment
Temporary Vehicle Turn-around- We will work
with the Fire Department to address their concerns.
Fencing- We will provide a fencing plan
Existing buildings- all existing buildings will be
razed and will be indicated on a revised preliminary
plat map
C. Findings: Annexation: #1 and #5 both refer to the staff report for denial; these are
the two findings that would need to be modified to allow the annexation to
take place.
Preliminary Plat Findings: "A" is the only finding that would need to be
modified to allow the Commission to support the proposed plat. This Plat
does confonn with the policies of the Comp Plan and the density is
allowable under the direction of note number 2 on the Future Land Use
Map.
The proposed subdivision and annexation, although small, will be a valuable addition to
the City of Meridian. I look forward to meeting with you soon to discuss this matter in
more detail. If you have any questions please contact me at 353-2515 or via e-mail at
dm ckinno new. con!Z enrrou P. corn.
Sincerely,
Dave McKinnon
Conger Management Group