Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBienville Square Sub PP P P 05-059 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT Red Cliff Development, LLC February 16, 2006 ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from February 2,2006 - Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision - 2935 North Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See Previous Item Packet / Minutes in Al Packet CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See Memo in Al Packet CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: ~ (lj) rn ~ /tp p ro V~ % e/c- CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See comments in Al Packet CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS'IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Se Revised Master Plan and Landscape Plan Contacted: Date: Z- It! 1)(,1)- Emailed: Staff Initials: Phone: '-' ú- g gsõ (~. Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 15 Febnmry 2006 Melidian Planning and Zoning Commission Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 l{F:,; (~.~; 1~ I"lE~l,,) RE: Finch Lateral relocation/tiling - Carol Subdivision F,t:J~:: j f }OOE c~rr'{ OF ÎvìEF~IO AI< '-.rr',/ CI-EP;( r-..,,":"--:",r-"r Dear Chairman and commission members: As per your request that the Leslie residents living along the Finch Lateral meet withMr. Unger and Mr. Haggett concerning the relocation and tiling of said Lateral. We have complied with that request. Out first meeting was with Mr. Bill Henson of Nampa/Meridian lnigation and the two representatives from Red Cliff, Wednesday, February 8th along the Lateral access. At that time, after much discussion and hearing what will be required by the irrigation district and what could not be done, the neighbors voted to leave the Lateral open and not tiled. N ampa/Meridian requiring 18 feet of access fi..om the edge of the lateral to the north will be the irrigation district's required maintenance access road. Deciding on that we then discussed what Red Cliff proposed for their project which would abut the maintenance road. Included in this discussion was, a see through wrought iron fence with landscaping long that fence, possibly a small berm, then the foot path, and then more buffer area with landscaping. We also met SatlU-day the 11 th with Red Cliff and discussed all concelllS and obtained some commitments for whatever they are worth. I hope that we, the seven residents along the lateral, have met and can-ied out what you ask of us. Ido believe that there are still many questions from the Carol residents along the west boundary of Red Cliffs project. I am sony to say that for the most patt we feel that Red Cliff is not all together straight fOlward and will say what they think needs to be heard. I sincerely hope that is an incon-ect thought. Sincerely, 2832 Leslie Dr. Meridian, Idaho February 14, 2006 '-I"-)l-ï~' ~'y;-¡., ". - \ ..::1 ~j "~~j.J - ;1,: Meridian City Hall Meridian City Planning & Zoning Commission 33 E. Idaho Street Meridian, ID 83642 ;.::;.r(-{ OF,' MERIDIf'\f\! ,; t....E-RV c:r~'!Cc: To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to the Meridian City Planning & Zoning Commission to state that my wife. Alana Eigen & myself would like to voice our vote of approval for the currently proposed plan discussed with the Red Cliff Development regarding the fencing along the Finch Lateral. We met with the Red Cliff Development personnel on February II, 2006. Based upon their proposal, all in attendance agreed with the proposed plan. Mr. Billy Knorpp has a sketch that will outline the agreed upon plan. We look forward to working with the Red Cliff Development to see that we can have a mutually beneficial development project at the comer of Us tick Road & Eagle Road. ~. erely, ~. . - .> I, "J' '-', , ç ", I ,) ,. i;, ;2 , "j(G(/l1~. (JJ}-1 John & Alana Elge~ ð 2908 Leslie Drive Meridian, ID 83642 STAFF MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: '-t') "Hi f-.; Fir-V"- v'E'1"-l ,,\,- -.l, ..,,' .. ,-.J. ,. .:.J .P .- r !" ~'1I /¡lrlf; , -0", J,., ::;iTy OF MERIDIAN -.',-j-' , C'[ l-=pï,( cr~--r-'!(~C SUMMARY: Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date: February 16,2006 ,') .--,.' ,i' . ¡ (""""'~'l-{">f"',' ./-i "-,/ \,.,-,-,,/ J- '-,:- j j ,i/ Iii: ./ ¡ P&Z Commission Joseph Guenther, Associate Planner :_, ", Bienville Square Subdivision AZ~05-057 - Annexation and Zoning of 18.43 acres from RUT and Rl to R-8 (Medium Density Residential), R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) and C- G (General Commercial) for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, INC RZ-05~019 - Rezone of 10.05 acres ofC-G (General Commercial) to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) and R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, INC PP-05-059 - Preliminary plat for 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi- family residential lots, 14 common lots, and 7 commercial lots on 27.30 acres for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, INC CUP-05-049 - Conditional Use Pennit for mixed use development within 300- feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, INC PS-05-002 - Private Street for providing frontage to multi-family site. V AR-05-023 -Variance to UDC 11-3H-4.2 for allowance of an access point to Eagle Road/SH55, On February 2,2006 the Planning Commission voted to continue the application to allow the applicant time to meet with the neighbors to discuss the fencing on the southern property boundary and allow staff time to draft adequate conditioning, On February 9,2006 the applicant, Bob Unger, indicated that he had in fact met with NMID and the neighbors to discuss the southern property boundary, He indicated that it was their intention to not cover the Lateral as previously shown on the landscape plan and in the request. Mr. Unger further indicated five of the seven property owners had indicated their preference for the ditch to remain open. The entire ditch would be required to comply with the standards as listed in the UDc. I have asked Mr. Unger to provide a revised copy of the Landscape plan and to detail the changes he is requesting in a letter to the Commission. Instead of amending conditions as previously indicated, the date of the landscape plan would be the only change to the staff report dated February 2,2006. Staff will have further comment available at the hearing on February 16,2006 after given a chance to review the landscape plan, which is anticipated to be submitted on Monday Peb 14,2006 and immediately mailed to P+Z members, If there are any questions please feel free to email me at guentheî@l11eridiancity.org or call the office at 884~5533. -----"-------,.,~""---,,- --' -;:~~ If -i;;~"Wf¡t,i~~ ~~~. (k~ut~ ~u:- -_.",--- John S. Franden, President Carol A, McKee, 1st Vice President Dave Bivens, 2nd Vice President Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner February 3, 2006 To: Red Cliff Developments, Inc. 2060 S. Eagle Road Meridian, 10 83642 Representative: WRG Design, Inc: Ashley Ford 453 S. Fitness Place Eagle, 1083616 Owner: John Ewing 1500 Eldorado Street Suite 4 Boise, 1083704 Subject: Bienville Square/MPP-05-059/MRZ-05-019/MAZ-05-057 Mixed Use 2935 N. Eagle Road On February 1, 2006 the Ada County Highway District acted on your application for the above referenced project. The attached report lists site-specific requirements, conditions ot approval and street improvements, which are required. It you have any questions, please teel tree to contact me at 208-387-6178. Sincerely, ~~ t<.or: c: R Christy Richardson Planning Review Supervisor Right-ot-way & Development Services, Planning Division CC: Project file, Construction Services, Utilities, City ot Meridian Ada County Highway District. 3775 Adams Street. Garden City, ID . 83714 . PH 2083876100. FX 345-7650. www.achd.ada.id.us _._-"-----~----- ~ - Right-at-Way & Development Services f f .¿ ~', 1-,. ~ .- Planning Review Division .J/ ~ '" -. -:-. - tk --vrr- uL ~ ~c-e- This application is approved at the staff level on February 1, 2006. Tech Review tor this item was held with the applicant on December 2, 2005. Please reter to the attachment for request for reconsideration guidelines. Staff contact: Christy Richardson, 20B-3B7-617B-phone, 20B-387-6393-fax, crichardsonCâJ.achd. ada. id. us File Numbers: Bienville Square/MPP~O5~O59/MRZ~O5~O19/MCUP-O5~O52 2935 N. Eagle Road (SH-55) Site address: Applicant: Red Cliff Development 2060 S. Eagle Road Boise, 10 83702 Representative: Ashley Ford WRG Design, Inc. 453 S. Fitness Place Eagle, 10 83616 Application Information: The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat, rezone and conditional use application to the City of Meridian for a mixed use subdivision with 54 single family lots, 22 multi-family lots and 7 commercial lots. The 17.25- acre site is located on the west side of SH-55, south of Ustick Road. Vicinity Map JJìJL ~ ffi:j trLJIII I! ,-~rll 1~lr t\~{ ~I - -'- ' I :1 'Ii F- --I t / ,<~(" SITE : Eil I Î <r:;~\ ~ i_'rl_-.l~---- r= I'-\~/ /---... :--"""--------11 7{/<)'"¡:~?'~"~~~Õõ~".,---.1=g~~~: ' 1"-" lEi ~~'----./;j¡I~-! J --T--T \ I )'%- ¡"-~}-- i i -- c+=tr1t=j - ì:I=f.-d f--.-J "'-\, r------___Jl_--,"_, -+--~i------1 [~'!! rrB ¡------, 1------\\ 'I 9 (1}-----11 ! ffir - P-": 1----' -\~i ~C[I:UI::I)jl¡-----1l1 -fl-- I " ""--.-- , ,,:;-;"",""',---""'-"-0' U : I , 1 MCUP-O5~O48 2 A. Findings of Fact 1. Trip Generation: This development is estimated to generate over 2,402 vehicle trips per day based on the submitted traffic impact study. 2. Impact Fees: There will be an impact fee that is assessed and due prior to issÙance of a building permit. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. 3. Traffic Impact Study: A traffic impact study was submitted with this application and a summary is noted below. 4. Site Information: The site is currently undeveloped and vacant. 5. Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area: Direction Land Use Zoning North Commercial/Sadie Creek Promenade C-G South Single family residential R-2 West Single family residential R-2 East Undeveloped C-G 6. Impacted Roadways Roadway Frontage Functional Traffic Count Speed Classification Limit Ustick Road None Minor Arterial 10,833 on 8-5-3 w/o 40 MPH Eagle Road Eagle Road Principal 41,939 on 1-6-05 n/o 995' Arterial/State 50 MPH (SH-55) HiQhwav Fairview Avenue B. Findings for Consideration 1. Traffic Impact Study Summary A traffic impact study was prepared by Gary Funkhouser of Stanley Consultants. . 15% of the site traffic is projected to have origins/destinations west of the site and travel on Ustick Road west of SH-55 . 20% of the site traffic is projected to have origins/destinations east of the site and travel on Ustick Road east of SH-55 . 35% of the site traffic is projected to have origins/destinations south of the site and travel on SH-55 south of Ustick Road . 30% of the site traffic is projected to have origins/destinations north of the site and travel on SH-55 north of Ustick Road. . At build-out, Bienville Square is projected to add less than 2% of the total traffic on SH-55 during PM peak hour. MCUP-O5-048 . At build-out, Bienville Square is projected to add less than 3% of the total traffic on Ustick Road during the PM peak hour. - . The proposed right-inlright-out access on SH-55 does not meet ITD spacing requirements. . The Eagle Road/Ustick Road intersection is projected to operate at LOS D in2008. . The Eagle Road/Fairview Avenue intersection is projected to operate at LOS E in 2008. . The Eagle Road/Pine Avenue intersection is projected to operate at LOS Fin 2008. . The Ustick Road/Cloverdale Road intersection is projected to operate at LOS E in 2008. . The Ustick Road/Locust Grove Road intersection is projected to operate at LOS B in 2008. . If access is allowed on Eagle Road, auxiliary lanes are warranted. (These should be coordinated with lTD.) 2. Ustick Road Ustick Road, from Leslie Drive to Ally Street, including the Eagle Road intersection, has just been widened and improved to 5-lanes. Sidewalks were not constructed with the roadway improvement project, but are required to be constructed as development occurs on the undeveloped properties. The intersection was widened to include dual left turning lanes. This project was a public/private partnership that involved other land owners and developers in the area. On November 9, 2005. the ACHD Commission reviewed and approved MCUPO5-048, a conditional use application for the Kohl's Department Store located at the northwest corner of Ustick and Eagle Roads. With that application, the Commission approved the installation of a signal at the west property line. The signal was approved under the following conditions that also apply to this application: b. That no signals be allowed on Eagle Road to this site. The applicant's original proposal included a signal at the % mile on Eagle Road. ITD's Eagle Road Study allows for signals at the Y2 mile. On this segment of Eagle Road, Wainwright Drive will eventually be signalized at the Y2 mile. The City of Meridian's newly adopted Unified Development Code also prohibits access to the state highways except at the Y2 mile. ACHD staff is recommending approval of this signal to "spare" Eagle Road of the addition of another signal not located at the ~ mile. The addition of signal on Eagle Road, not located at the Y2 mile, will further complicate signal timing and congestion on the state highway. c. That a north-south public roadway be constructed at the signal access to eventually tie into Wainwright Drive north of Ustick, and to provide access to the parcels south of Ustick. The additional traffic on the new roadway will help support the need for the Ustick Road signal. d. That all costs associated with the signal be borne by the applicant, except for materials that will be donated by ACHD. Staff recommends donation of the hardware because the signal will provide benefit to surrounding property owners. (This applicant should work with the Kohl's developer regarding timing and installation of the signal.) 3. Internal Roadways With the preliminary plat for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision, ACHD required that applicant to construct a north-south public roadway as a 40-foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on both sides of the roadway from Ustick Road to the north property line of this site. 3 MCUP-O5-048 4. 5. C. D. 1. 2. 4 The applicant is proposing to extend Sadie Creek Avenue into the site at the north property line, with a network of local streets throughout the subdivision, including a public street intersecting SH-55. ACHD will not allow a new public street intersection at SH-55, because of the signal that was allowed on Ustick Road that will serve all of the uses in this area. A public street in this- area could create cut- through traffic through the subdivision from Ustick Road to SH-55, which is not a desired scenario because of the front-on housing and residential uses. The applicant may, if allowed by the City of Meridian and ITD, construct a private street or driveway off of SH-55 to serve the commercial uses, and provide parking on the west side of the commercial uses where a public street would terminate. This would allow the residents in the area to access the' commercial uses without accessing SH-55, and would eliminate an unnecessary public street access to SH-55. Roadway Sections . Extend Sadie Creek Avenue into the site as a 40-foot street section, transitioning to a 36-foot street section, within 50-feet of right-of-way with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk. . All streets within the subdivision may be constructed as 36-foot street sections. . The applicant is proposing to construct a private street/alley. The alley could be constructed as a public alley, if it is paved 16-feet wide, within 20-feet of right-of-way. If the alley is private, it should be signed accordingly, so that ACHD does not maintain a private alley/street. Roadway Access Because ACHD is not approving a public street off of SH-55, access to the residential portion of this site will only come from Ustick Road. Sadie Creek Avenue north of this site to Ustick Road will need to be constructed and dedicated prior to final plat approval for this site. Access to Surrounding Subdivisions The site is surrounded by single family residences in Carol's Subdivision served by Leslie Drive, both west and south of the site. While it would be useful for the existing dwellings to have access to the signal at Sadie Creek Avenue, and to the commercial uses, all of the lots in Carol's Subdivision have dwellings on them, and there is no public right-of-way through that area to access this site. Eagle Road Right-at-Way, Improvements and Access The City of Meridian, applicant and ITD should work together to determine if additional right-of-way or improvements are necessary on Eagle Road (SH-55). Access points should be approved in accordance with the Eagle Road Corridor Study. Note to the City of Meridian ACHD requests that the City require parking on the west side of the commercial uses for the residents of this subdivision and nearby subdivisions, to have access to the commercial uses off of Ustick Road and local roadways, rather than SH-55. ACHD is not allowing access to SH-55 via a public street. Site Specific Conditions of Approval Extend Sadie Creek Avenue into the site from the north property line. Transition the roadway from a 40-foot commercial street section to a 36-foot wide street within 50-feet of right-of-way, with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk. Sadie Creek Avenue north of this site to Ustick Road wíll need to be constructed and dedicated prior to, or in conjunction with final plat approval for this site. MCUP-O5-048 4. 3. All local streets in the subdivision should be constructed as 36-foot street sections within 50-feet of r¡ght-of-way with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk. The proposed alley may be constructed as a public alley if it is paved 16-feet wide within 20-feet of right-of-way. OR The proposed alley may be constructed as a private drive/street, if it is signed accordingly. 5. 6. Bourbon Street shall terminate in a culdesac and shall not extend to SH-55. Public road access to SH-55 is prohibited. 7. Provide a letter from ITD stating required improvements and access decisions. 8. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. D. Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. 2. Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or right-of-way. 3. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual. ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 7. 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. 8. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 9. Payment of applicable road impact fees will be required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Impact Fee Ordinance. 10. 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. 5 MCUP-O5-048 11. 12. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. - . Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans. or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a , waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. E. Conclusions of Law 1. The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of Approval are satisfied. 2. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. 6 MCUP-O5-048 -~ ¡ KOO~ &ore ~ SJb SITE 7 MCUP~O5-048 8 Request for Appeal of Staff Decisic:m 1. "Appeal of Staff Decision: The Commission shall hear and decide appeals by an applicant of the final decision made by the ROWDS Manager when it is alleged that the ROWDS Manager did not properly apply this section 7101.6, did not consider all of the relevant facts presented, made an error of fact or law, abused discretion or acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the interpretation or enforcement of the ACHD Policy Manual. - a. Filing Fee: The Commission may, from time to time, set reasonable fees to be charged the applicant for the processing of appeals, to cover administrative costs. b. Initiation: An appeal is initiated by the filing of a written notice of appeal with the Secretary , of Highway Systems, which must be filed within ten (10) working days from the date of the decision that is the subject of the appeal. The notice of appeal shall refer to the decision being appealed, identify the appellant by name, address and telephone number and state the grounds for the appeal. The grounds shall include a written summary of the provisions of the policy relevant to the appeal and/or the facts and law relied upon and shall include a written argument in support of the appeal. The Commission shall not consider a notice of appeal that does not comply with the provisions of this subsection. c. Time to Reply: The ROWDS Manager shall have ten (10) working days from the date -of the filing of the notice of appeal to reply to the notice of the appeal, and may during such time meet with the appellant to discuss the matter, and may also consider and/or modify the decision that is being appealed. A copy of the reply, and any modifications to the decision being appealed will be provided to the appellant prior to the Commission hearing on the appeal. d. Notice of Hearing: Unless otherwise agreed to by the appellant, the hearing of the appeal will be noticed and scheduled on the Commission agenda at a regular meeting to be held within thirty (30) days following the delivery to the appellant of the ROWDS Manager's reply to the notice of appeal. A copy of the decision being appealed, the notice of appeal and the reply shall be delivered to the Commission at least one (1) week prior to the hearing. e. Action by Commission: Following the hearing, the Commission shall either affirm or reverse, in whole or part, or otherwise modify, amend or supplement the decision being appealed, as such action is adequately supported by the law and evidence presented at the hearing. MCUP-O5-048 II II Development Process Checklist !8JSubmit a development application to a City or to the County !8JThe City or the County will transmit the development application to ACHD !8JThe ACHD Planning Review Division will receive the development application to review IZJThe Planning Review Division will do one of the following: DSend a "No Review" letter to the applicant stating that there are no site specific requirements at this time. DSend a "Comply With" letter to the applicant stating that if the development is within a platted subdivision or part of a previous development application and that the site specific requirements from the previous development also appl: to this development application. IZJWrite a Staff Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating thE proposal for its conformance to District Policy. DWrite a Commission Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Policy. IZJThe Planning Review Division will hold a Technical Review meeting for all Staff and Commission Level reports. IZJFor ALL development applications, including those receiving a "No Review" or "Comply With" letter: . The applicant should submit two (2) sets of engineered plans directly to ACHD for review by the Development Revie", Division for plan review and assessment of impact fees. (Note: if there are no site improvements required by ACHD, then architectural plans may be submitted for purposes of impact fee calculation.) . The applicant is required to get a permit from Construction Services (ACHD) for ANY work in the right-of-way, includin~ but not limited to, driveway approaches, street improvements and utility cuts. DPay Impact Fees prior to issuance of building permit. Impact fees cannot be paid prior to plan review approval. DID YOU REMEMBER: Construction (Zone) D Driveway or Property Approach(s) . Submit a "Driveway Approach Requesr form to Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Construction (for approval by Development Services & Traffic Services). There is a one week turnaround for this approval. 0 Working in the ACHD Right-of-Way . Four business days prior to starting work have a bonded contractor submit a "Temporary Highway Use Permit Application" to ACHD Construction ~ Permits along with: a) Traffic Control Plan b) An Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan Designer, if trench is >50' or you are placing >600 sf of concrete or asphalt. Construction (Subdivisions) 0 Sediment & Erosion Submittal . At least one week prior to setting up a Pre-Con an Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan Designer, must be turned into ACHD Construction - Subdivision to be reviewed and approved by the ACHD Drainage Division. 0 Idaho Power Company . Vic Steelman at Idaho Power must have his IPCO approved set of subdivision utility plans prior to Pre-Con being scheduled. D Final Approval from Development Services . ACHD Construction - Subdivision must have received approval from Development Services prior to scheduling a Pre-Con. 9 MCUP-OS-O48 Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 28 of 112 Zàremba: Okay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: And so this will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 2nd, 2006, and for the sole purpose of discussion of the school site and the associated stub streets and pathway. Borup: And, Mr. Chairman, yeah, I think it would help if we -- and a preliminary plat showing the stub street and how that would affect the school site and such would be helpful. Rohm: Yes, it would. Thank you. Due to the length of that application discussion, we typically wait until 9:00 o'clock to take a break, but we are going to take a short break right now for about ten minutes. So, we are adjourned until 20 minutes until 9:00. (Recess. ) Item 6: Item 7: Item 8: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: AZ 05-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: RZ 05-019 Request for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C-G to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: PP 05-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi- family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: CUP 05-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: Rohm: Okay. I'd like to reopen the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and ~ Zoning Commission for February 2nd, 2006, and begin with opening the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, and CUP 05-052. All of these relating to Bienville Square Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Bienville Square Subdivision is an annexation. This portion up here. The annexation is for this Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 29 of 112 portion listed in purple on the screen. The annexation is for 18.43 acres and I will go into the zoning here in a second. The second portion is a rezone of this portion that's listed in red here. These two parcels are the Bienville Square Subdivision annexation and rezone. With that, the annexation will require a development agreement and this portion listed in red -- or shown in red has an existing development agreement tied to it at this time that I'll try and go into a little bit further here in a second. With this, the site is located on the southeast corner of Ustick and Eagle. It is approximately 600 feet south of that intersection and mostly in a southwesterly direction. There is one major feature, which is the Finch Lateral, which runs around the perimeter of this site. The Finch Lateral has a 40 foot irrigation easement on it for Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. The Finch Lateral will be tiled on this site, as well as there is a user's lateral that comes in approximately where I'm slowing off of Eagle Road and would continue through this site, which also will be piped and Public Works will certify that the ins and outs of that tile pipe will be maintained. With this we have a plat. The plat for 54 single family residential lots, 24 -- 22 multi-family residential lots, 14 common lots, seven commercial lots for the entire site of 27.3 acres and the Conditional Use Permit is a conditional use permit that is issued due to the fact that this is a mixed use regional district, which is within 300 feet of a residential district. Tried to have Barb include a slide. This is a slide that I created tonight. It's very rough, but it shows a little better definition of what the three zoning designations would be for the site. Closest to Eagle Road the applicant is proposing a general commercial district. The general commercial district is approximately -- I believe it's 68 acres. The transitional district between the commercial and single family residential is an R-15 district and, then, the R-8 district would be to the furthest to the west. This is, actually, tilted a little bit odd ball. This is facing to the east. North would be to the left of this slide. This has three distinct portions -- three distinct portions, but there is, actually, four portions of it that I would like to define. Closest to Eagle there is five building pad sites that are listed for office or retail use, as well as two larger retail buildings approximately in the 12,000 square foot range. This is in general commercial. These would be general commercial uses that would be proposed at this site. The applicant has brought in an amended portion -- an amended design for this general commercial area. Obviously, within the general commercial area certain things can shift around slightly. The amended design, staff would actually support better than this design, due to the fact that the applicant has an ACHD condition that this portion must terminate and no access shall be directed to Eagle Road. I should have pointed this out already. This is Sadie Creek Avenue, which is a -- will be a public road. The public road will loop around the residential district. This is a commercial cross-access point and there is private streets that have been applied for in order to provide frontage and access to the multi-family. Now, with that there is a commercial access point to Eagle being proposed with this site. The applicant has taken this commercial access point and shifted it approximately to between the ~ southerly two most buildings. So, the access point to Eagle would be in this location and that commercial access would continue down to what is referred as Cajun Boulevard, which would be the private street. This access point here would facilitate that commercial traffic between the Sadie Creek Promenade application, which was recently approved to the north of this site, and it would facilitate a better commercial cross-access to the private street system and, then, out to Eagle Road, as well as to Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 30 of 112 satisfy ACHDs' conditions that the public street shall terminate and not provide a direct access to Eagle Road. Staff would support that design. I will show you that here in a second. The applicant does not have a hard copy of that I can show you at this time. It's on his presentation. With this application staff has reviewed it in compli-ance with the existing development agreement. This is the conceptual site plan that was brought before the City Council for the annexation of the ten acres that lied originally within 2003. This site that was to the south of us did pull out of the annexation request, which was the 18 acres. This site does indicate multi-family residential, as well as commercial and office, with a transitional use to the residential uses west of this site. The transitional use in this area is appropriately planned for. The applicant is providing the multi-use pathway, as well as to landscape the Finch Lateral, according to the Unified Development Code. The multi-family residential portion, obviously, is within the R-15, which would be a condominium project, as well as the commercial operation. So, the plan that is before you is consistent with what the development conceptual plan was presented to the City Council in 2000 -- in 2003 and signed in 2004. With this we have several elevations. These would be the alley loaded products and the condominium projects. I'll let the applicant better define that area. One last thing. There are three products residential. The condominium projects would be in the R-15 district. In the R- 8 district there is two areas of distinction. These are the front loaded single family residential products. These lots do approximate in the eight to ten thousand square foot range. There is some of them are actually larger, which provides a good transition to the R-2 district to the south of this site. These products in the middle are an alley- loaded product. They are, obviously, smaller lots and I don't have the lot size, but I believe those were around 4,500 square foot lots. The amenities to the site are provided to -- there is a basketball court and tennis court, as well as significant open space design. There is a minimum of 50 feet between these condominium units in the center. There is a clubhouse with an on-site post office, so each one of these -- this entire condominium unit would receive their mail at one central location. The applicant is also proposing to provide the multi-use pathway that would -- that would connect Eagle Road at this location and continue through to Ustick Road along the perimeter of the site, which would be off that Finch Lateral. Probably forgetting a couple of things, but I will stand for questions at this time. Staff is recommending approval of this application. The dates of the design may change due to the applicant making up the amendments to their site plan. Staff would support an approval of that, if the applicant - - or if the applicant's design is satisfactory to this Commission tonight. And at that, before I guess I'll stop, I'd like to show you the applicant's amended design. This would be the revised design, which would show one large box retail unit. I believe the applicant has indicated this would be something of an athletic club, as well as this would shift that to the -- to the south. Staff would support this better, because this is approximately the quarter mile location, which does better facilitate limited access to- Eagle than it would at the other alternate location. And I guess at that I will stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 31 of 112 Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Joe, I just had one. I was going through the -- as far as the requ-irements and noting in the R-17 -- or, excuse me, R-15, under the lot size, you had it noted as required as a 8,424 and proposed a 2,400. Is that a type there, I assume? That would be page six. Guenther: Yep. That, actually, should be -- 8,424 is the propose lots, 2,400 is the required lot. Moe: Okay. Guenther: Yeah. Moe: I wanted to make sure. Thank you. Borup: Oh. Just reversed. Moe: Yeah. Borup: Just -- Commissioner Moe, that was it? Just one clarification. Did you say the pathway was going through to Ustick? I couldn't remember. The project would also be doing a pathway there? Guenther: Yes. They have 35-foot landscaping in here that would continue that pathway to the Ustick corridor. Borup: Okay. Moe: You said there were -- you do have a copy of the -- the new plat? Guenther: This is the only -- the only revised layout that the applicant has delivered. This would be the one that we would amend the staff report in order to approve tonight, if you so chose. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of staff? At this time I'd like to have the applicant come forward, please. Unger: Good evening, Mr. Chair and Commission Members. My name is Bob Unger, I'm with Red Cliff Development. Our address is 787 East State Street, Suite 125, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. And appreciate the excellent job staff has done in reviewing the project, particularly with this revised plan, and we can just go ahead and start with this plan, so I don't have to explain to you that we are changing it. And we also appreciate staff's Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 32 of 112 ret;ommendation for approvaL If you remember, about a month ago we were on the agenda to be heard. You did open up a hearing and we did ask for a postponement. At that time we thought that we might be getting a commitment from a big box, which that did not happen, so staff has recommended that we proceed with our application as originally submitted. So, that's where we are now and I did want to explain to you what has transpired in this past month. As staff has explained, Ada County Highway District in their requirements specifically stated that they did not want us to have a public road that connected from Ustick out to Eagle Road and as such that's part of what necessitated this -- turning this into a cul-de-sac. So, the public road stops here and we come back out to Ustick over here. This particular revision and relocating our access over here is something that we did show to the neighbors. We had a neighborhood meeting this past Saturday and they seemed to appreciate this revision over our original access here and, if I remember correctly, I believe the Commission even said something about that a month ago, that it would rather see something over here. So, we have tried to do something here that works for everyone and for us. And as staff has kind of discussed, we do have this public street access here over to Ustick. We also have our private street here, which will come out and access to Ustick at a location right in through here. There was a provision for the Sadie Creek Promenade folks to provide us a cross-access for that and we were to coordinate with them to make that location happen, which we are working with them to accomplish that. The access on Eagle Road, we have actually moved that down to the quarter mile mark, which turns out to have been a location that was identified during the original annexation of the Rewe property, which is this portion of our property, which staff had shown you earlier. That was one of the two locations. This location and another location right here for access to Ustick Road -- or Eagle Road. So, we are trying to follow along with that also. We have in our -- our ITD application for this access is pending at this time. Our traffic engineer has been in contact with them and they are kind of holding off on ours and also the Sadie Creek Promenade accesses. The indication we are getting is that they are waiting to see what the City Council decides. So, we are hoping to get an answer one of these days from them. As far as utilities, utilities are available to the site or close enough that we can extend them into the site, sewer, water, through the city. All other services are available and, of course, will be installed when we construct the project. If we could go to the next one, Joe? I'm going to kind of run through these as best as possible. This is our -- basically our retail area. And I know you have seen these two pictures before, because these are the same pictures that the Sadie Creek Promenade folks showed you and the only reason I really wanted to use these -- and forget the palm trees, because that's not going to happen here. But what we want to convey here is that we are going to work with the Sadie Creek Promenade folks to -- in our design, in our architectural design, et cetera, so that we have two projects that work together well, instead of conflicting architectural structures throughout the project. So, we want to- show that -- we are going to work with them and try to, you know, kind of work our architecture so that we work as a unified design, instead of two separate designs. Joe, could we go to the next one, please? All right. And this is in the middle portion of the project, condominium portion of the project. These are the structures that we are proposing. And, actually, we are -- we are modifying these structures slightly, so that all three of these will be two car garages, instead of one. It makes it much more desirable Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 33 of 112 wnen everybody has a two car garage and it also helps out with the parking situation. And if you will notice, we have drive alleyways -- or not really alleyway -- well, accesses -- common accesses to access the garage areas. We have asked that fire review. These we have met with fire and our accesses and, then, our drives are in compliance with the fire requirements. Moe: Could you note the south elevation? I'm interested in the -- Unger: Over here? Moe: Yes. That's correct. Unger: Okay. Well, you will see either this end or this end. Mae: Okay. Thank you. Unger: And also these structures are very unique. There is a full front porch, covered front porch on these. You can kind of see it there from side angles. And they really do take on a single family residential look in the design, although they are, you know, 4,000 square feet total. In fact, each of the units -- we have three bedroom, two bath units and two bedroom, two bath units in there, and square footage ranges from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. So, they are fairly nice condominiums. In the next portion of the project we have alley-loaded or rear-loaded lots. We have a common drive that runs down through here and, actually, it is going to be designated as a private road. And this is an example of the type of structures that we are looking at putting in there. We will work further -- with further detail in getting the full designs on these, but I wanted to give you some sort of an idea of the appearance of the structures. We also have open space area with a pathway running through this portion here. And we feel that these are going to be pretty desirable and our lot ranges in there are just under 5,000 square feet and we have some that range on up to 6,500 square feet, depending upon which bend of the road you're in. Joe. And, then, on the -- our western border, which wraps right around here, these are all front loaded. Once, again, we are just trying to give you some sort of an idea, an example of the type of buildings we want to put in there. I didn't have any really good single stories to show you, but it would be a mix of some single stories and two stories. These lots will range anywheres from I think 6,000 square feet up to -- over in this area we are looking into the 10,000 square foot. On the rear loads and the front loads the square footage of the buildings that we are looking at are somewhere in the area of at least 1,600 square feet up to 2,400 square feet. Okay. We can go onto the next one, Joe. Thank you. Okay. As discussed by staff, we have the Finch Lateral that runs along here. We are proposing to tile that. I have discussed - that with Nampa-Meridian, John Anderson, very preliminarily, and they would support us doing that and we may also be able to get them to participate. Along with that we are proposing to put in a pathway that would be located over top of the piped ditch and, then, of course, our pathway runs across here. We will also tie into this short section that the Sadie Creek Promenade not would do. Once, again, we have some pathways running up through here. So, we are trying to get everything connected nicely. Along Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 34 of 112 with -- in discussing the Finch Lateral, we also have this lateral that runs down through here. Actually, this one that runs right down -- I'm sorry, it's right here. Runs along this parcel line. Of course, that would be piped and continued onto terminus over here where it feeds other properties to the west. That would be reviewed by city -- the city engineer and also we have a gentleman who kind of represents the users, we were fortunate enough to meet him Saturday and discuss some of the issues on that lateral and we feel that -- real confident that we can work with them and make sure that we satisfy everybody's needs and continue the water flow through there. As far as open space on this project, we have three plus acres of dedicated open space. I'm going to start off over on this side where we are showing over here -- we have a volleyball court, a basketball court, or a hard surface court. That's a horseshoe pit there. Over here we are going to do a clubhouse and a pool. We have a tot lot in this area. And this is all open space area here for recreational purposes. All of the area in between these condos -- and we have over 60 feet between the buildings in here, so it's a fairly large area of open space, sufficient enough for, you know, kids to go out there and throw a football and things like that. Intermixed throughout all of this we have some picnic tables, barbecue pits, and things like that. We are very aware that a development such as this -- and particularly in the higher density areas, that we need recreational areas, particularly for kids, so that the kids aren't running over into the neighbors' yards over here or down here or out into the streets. So, we have got a substantial amount of open space and recreational areas for -- for the kids and for the adults. As far as the buffering -- of course we have a 35 foot buffer along here and a meandering sidewalk and with all of our buffering, not just along here, but the buffering that we will be doing pretty much around the entire boundary of the project, with the exclusion of where we connect into here, we are looking at putting in substantial buffering with trees and shrubs and things like that to really, you know, provide a really nice buffer all the way through this and, then, along here maybe not quit as heavy as what we would do where we border the existing residential area. But certainly it's -- and they are hard to see. There, actually, are trees in here. It's hard to see on this plan. Along this -- particularly along here we are also looking at doing some sort of a berm along with our landscaping along there. And we have discussed with the neighbors -- I guess Sadie Creek Promenade has committed to constructing a -- I believe a -- some sort of a decorative block wall. The neighbors have asked us -- along here have asked us to continue that forward and up to this point we have said that we would certainly consider that. Something we would like to do is spend more time with the neighbors and look at some alternative fencing ideas, bring in a landscape architect and a few things to see if there is something we can do that would be acceptable with them, but a little more economical, because I can see if we do it here, then, I'm going to have to do it here and by the time I get done I'm going to be putting in 13 -- close to at least 3,000 feet of concrete wall, which is very very expensive, somewhere in the area of about, you know, - five, six dollars a foot. That's just -- and that's probably on the cheap side. So, it is something that we would like to meet and spend more time with the neighbors on to discuss maybe some alternate fencing and some dense -- very dense landscaping along there. Somebody threw this at me today and I thought it was great. We'd much rather see green-scape than gray-scape. So, we are going to work on that with those folks, but we will fence the boundary. And I hear the beeper and it's perfect timing, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 35 of 112 b~cause I'm done and I thank you all very much for your time and the time of your staff and as staff has stated in their report, our proposal substantially does comply with the city's codes and regulations and we feel that this project will be a very nice addition to the city and I will stand for any questions you might have. - Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of the applicant? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Well, I have a couple, yes. I noted on the landscape drawings that you are showing a cedar fence on the west side. Is that what you have proposed? And you're rethinking that issue as the block as the property to the north has done? Unger: That is correct. Our -- in our submittal we showed a cedar block combination type fence and in the last couple of neighborhood meetings that we have had, the neighbors have -- along the -- I'm sorry, along the western boundary has said, well, would you consider doing something like -- like they have done I guess behind -- is it Home Depot or -- who is that over there? Lowe's. And we have looked at that and we have said that we would -- you know, we would seriously consider that. But at that time we weren't looking at the possibilities of doing that, so -- so, it's something we want to revisit with the neighbors. Moe: Next you made reference -- showed some elevations for the properties on the west property line, which were all two story, and you said you were going to have some single story in there. Do you know what kind of a balance you're going to have as far as how many -- are there going to be more two stories than single or do you know that yet? Unger: Actually, we have -- we really have not considered any kind of a balance there as to what that would be and Rob Haggett is here and maybe he can come up and address that when I'm done. Moe: You had shown the elevations of the front side. Unger: Yeah. Moe: I would be very interested to see what the rear is going to look like that are overlooking the properties to the west. That's what I was concerned about. That's it for me. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 36 of 112 Zaremba: Three general questions. The sports facilities here -- are you intending to light those or will they just be daytime use? Unger: Mr. Chair. They would be daytime use only. Zaremba: Okay. I ask that question before the people to the south ask it. Unger: Right. Zaremba: The second question. With a mix of commercial properties and residential properties -- where I'm going is the maintenance of the open areas and common areas. Are there going to be separate homeowners association for the three different zones? I mean two homeowners and one commercial owners association or is it going to be all one association or what happens? Unger: Mr. Chair, in the past on other projects we have had a property owners association for an entire project, because of the maintenance of the open area and things like that. I think in this particular situation we may be able to have a -- where we have a homeowners association for the residential portion of the property and an owners association for the commercial portion and -- but who would also jointly work together. I'm not sure how we would work that out legally. So, I guess at this point we are proposing one property owner's association that would -- that would control all the architectural and all the maintenance, et cetera and et cetera. Because we have -- not only do we have public streets in here, but we also have some private streets and also these little private streets here are also going to be used by these folks also. So, some of that maintenance should come out of that owners association, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Unger: It's something we have to look at a little bit closer. Zaremba: Okay. What I hope is my final question at this point. Unger: Okay. Zaremba: I do like the suggestion of moving your access to Eagle much farther south. I believe in Meridian code and perhaps ACHD there is -- they don't encourage connecting public street and public street with a private street. Unger: Correct. Zaremba: So, I'm not quite sure how that's going to fly, but that wasn't really my question. My question was going to be at the access to Eagle are you looking for a full access intersection or is that going to be right-in, right-out? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 37 of 112 - - Unger: Mr. Chair. Although our original application -- our variance, we were requesting a right-in, right-out, because we knew that that's all we could get here, this particular location, actually, since it's at the quarter mile mark, actually puts us in a position where we do want to request a full access there. And that's what I have shown as a full access, as opposed to the right-in, right-out. Zaremba: I would certainly encourage that. I probably was the one that suggested the moving of it, but -- Unger: Yes. Zaremba: -- also in anticipation of -- we some time ago -- is this working? Well, the two portions of your property, the one that would be the northern portion -- thank you. We had a -- we had an application on -- I think it was that piece that only had a right-in, right-out and as one of the people at public testimony pointed out, that means that anybody that needs to reverse direction is going to drive through Leslie Lane to do it. So, I have to say I'm very much not in favor of the right-in and right-out, but I would even like to see Sadie Creek's right-in, right-out disappear, so that more of the traffic was coming out here and helped you meet the warrants for a signal there. But if you're going for a full access, I'm much happier about that. Appreciate that. Unger: And we appreciate that, too, and if you could pass that onto the City Council when our variance comes up, we would appreciate it. Zaremba: Happy to express my opinion. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: That's it for me. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Unger, I think the only question I had clarification on the boundary fence. You said your original proposal was a block and cedar? Did I hear that right or -- Unger: Correct. Borup: So, block pillars with cedar in between, is that -- Unger: Yes, sir. Borup: And the fence at Lowe's, was that some type of -- was that a concrete panel or - Unger: It's a -- it's a decorative block wall. Borup: So, is this a CMU type of block? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 38 of 112 Unger: Yeah. Borup: Okay. That's what I thought. panel. Unger: Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's what I meant when I said a concrete Borup: But you have not looked into that at all? Unger: We haven't looked -- we haven't gotten into that part of it that deep yet. You know, the cost -- I -- you know, just from experience, the cost of that, you know, far exceeds your cedar fence or a vinyl fence. In fact, one of the things that we -- you know, that we wanted to discuss with the neighbors was the possibility of a -- some sort of a wrought iron fence with extensive landscaping and things like that to go along with it. Just -- and we really haven't had a chance to talk with the neighbors about that. It's something that we just came up with this week. Borup: And the property to the north, has been solidified on the type of fence or wall that they are doing or is that still in negotiation? Unger: Along this area? Borup: No. To the north. Unger: Oh, I'm sorry. Borup: I thought you had mentioned they were doing a block wall. Unger: Right here. Borup: Yes. Unger: Right here. Right. We understand that that's what they had committed to. Borup: Okay. Unger: So, if they have committed to that, you know, it kind of puts us in a spot where we almost had to follow along with what they are doing, you know, unless -- you know, unless the neighbors are, you know, open to something else that we don't know, so -- Borup: Or maybe we can get some more testimony on that. Right now I think where you left it it was kind of open-ended. Unger: Right. Right. Anyway you look at it, you know, we are definitely going to fence it and it seems logical to do the same with what Sadie Creek has done, but then, again, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 39 of 112 - " they haven't gone to City Council yet either, so you never know. If I could, one other point. I'm -- since you brought up the lighting issue. These units here are -- they are not going to have like huge outside lighting or anything that like, they are going to have standard residential lights, you know, just like any single family house out -here is going to have a light, you know, on the front porch and things like that. It will be the same situation here, unless the city specifically requires any additional lighting, that would be the only lighting that we would be proposing in this particular area. And, of course, the commercial will -- this area is definitely going to have the standard lighting that's required for commercial development. With just this one small one over here, it should be fairly minimal lighting throughout this area here. So, we are hoping with that -- all of that we can really reduce any kind of glare that might even try to creep over to the neighbors. That's everything. Rohm: Good. Thank you. Unger: Thank you very much. Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to ask Candy Seeley if she would like to come forward. Seeley: Hi, my name is Candy Seeley. I live at 1567 North Leslie Way. I, actually, live across the street from the houses that will be backing up to the property. I do have a strong opinion on the fencing. I think it needs to be exactly the same as what's already been offered and told going to be put up, because it would look pretty stupid, you know, having a block wall behind two of the houses and, then, go along and having some other funky design after he just got through saying he's going to try and match the buildings in design with the people next door. Now, all of a sudden he doesn't want to match the fencing. I have a problem with that. I also, I guess, am still quite upset by the fact that I don't understand why the four-plexes still need to be in the middle of the property. We have already -- from my opinion understood that the requirement for the housing is already taken care of by the back -- the lots that are backing up and, then, the alley-driven houses, why the middle area needs to be four-plexes, why can't it be office space? I guess that's basically my problem with what's going on here. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Janice Helms? She has indicated she doesn't need to speak. Linda Morris. Morris: I'm Linda Morris. I live at 1374 Leslie Way. And my home is on that west end. I was at the Saturday meeting the developer called and the homeowners specifically - asked several times what kind of fencing would be put along the west end and unless I misunderstood, what we went away with was that whatever the property owners of those new homes put behind their yard for fencing is what there would be. This is the first time we have heard about a path between our property and the undeveloped property. That really has more concern for us, because -- and that more foot traffic is going to go right along our boundary and for us, not only on the east side of our Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2. 2006 Page 40 of 112 - . boundary, but on the south side of our boundary, because we are right on the corner down here and where they tile right up to our property line, unless something else happens that we haven't heard of, we have that open ditch there, which we much enjoy, because all the wildlife like to be in there. It seems to me you're going to focus the kids down that path and, then, you're going to go right behind our place right into the ditch area there, too, which could be a safety concern. Besides more traffic along our area. So, I guess my real concern is that we have heard several stories on what's going to be the barrier between us and the development and it changes all the time. Like I said, this is the first time we have heard about a path. And I would like to see something concrete before you guys -- excuse me -- before the Commission or the Council here gives an okay to this development, because we keep hearing so many different things and, well, we are looking into this, but they don't commit to anything. So, we have no idea what's going to happen for landscaping and fencing. We keep hearing different stories and different stories from what you're hearing, so that's my concern. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Would you care to offer a suggestion as to what you would like to go there? I can understand if there is going to be, actually, a regional pathway there, that you would want to separate your property from it. Do you have a preference for what you would like to ask go there? Morris: The block fencing that they are suggesting to go along the north end of the houses, to go along -- between us and the pathway. But, then, I'm also concerned what happens, again, right here. Rohm: You need to speak into the microphone. Borup: And there is one right there for you. Zaremba: Right here. Morris: If this path comes right to here and, then, turns here, I can guarantee you, unless there is some kind of barrier here, the kids are not going to stop here and hang a left -- or hand a right. They are going that way. They are going to come right down here, here is open water here, and here is our place right here and you know how kids are, the place you're not supposed to go, that's right where they are going to head. Borup: So, you would like a fence there? Morris: Something, yes, across here where they are not having access, yes. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe while the next one is coming up, just might mention, the exhibit that we got dated January 5th shows landscaping and a fence and pathway and Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page41of112 - - everything along the west, so I'm not sure why that wasn't presented at the meeting, but that was what was presented to us. Rohm: Betty Rosso. Rosso: My name is Betty Rosso and I live at 2832 Leslie Drive. I am a little concerned about the tiling of the canal. Not that I oppose it totally, but I talked with John Anderson and he told me that it had been over two years before anybody had contacted him about that Finch Lateral and that if it were tiled, the access road would still be in effect and that property would still belong to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation and it would not be used for a path or anything else. There is no trespassing on their property. And, secondly, I wondered if, in fact, as she just mentioned, at the end where the tiling would come down, then, there would be open canal again. The canal -- I can tell you I keep my canal clean and I'm down in there working and that can be a very swift running canal. And I am concerned about the safety of that. Plus, I'm also concerned about the elevation of the condos, four-plexes, whatever you want to call them, on that lateral boundary facing our homes along there. I'm also wondering about this access to Eagle Road and how much traffíc is going to be coming through there and back through the Sadie Creek Promenade out to Ustick. It seems to me there is an awful lot of housing and a lot of traffic and a lot of commercial stuff and they are all on just one -- one in and out on Eagle and two on Ustick. It seems to me there is an awful lot of car travel there for such small streets and small openings and possibly right-hand turn only coming out of -- onto Ustick. I don't know if that's true or not. Anyway, those are my concerns at this point and thank you very much. Rohm: Thank you. Mark Snodgrass. Okay. From the audience he said no comment at this time. Billy Knorpp. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, while he's coming forward, I would comment that I believe the one roadway at what would be the west end that intersects with Ustick is intended to be full access and I believe signalized. And, then, the other side of it will go behind the Kohl's department store on the north property, so that one at least has full access. Knorpp: My name is Billy Knorpp. I live at 2972 Leslie Drive. My home is about right there. I have -- just want to echo some of the concerns that they have. It appears that they have no plan for a buffer along the back of the entire property line along the south side. What he just told us, which we didn't hear -- I wasn't at the meeting. I got some feedback from people. But what he just told us is they are going to make a pathway that basically goes right along the back of our lots. That's unacceptable. Completely unacceptable. There is going to be no -- and he's planning on putting up a cheap fence - that will -- and he's not even talking about a fence along our boundary, only along this one, because he thinks he might be forced to by Red Cliff. So, actually, I want to change my vote on -- I put I'm neutral. I'm completely against what he's planning right now. I thought it was going to be acceptable from the earlier plans, but no longer do I believe that. So, he's planning to tile the ditch, put a path right along the back of my fence. No barrier whatsoever, except maybe a cheap fence he's going to put up that's Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 42 of 112 gòing to fall down in another ten years. It needs to be one of the permanent type fences. Who is going to maintain this fence? Ten years from now the thing's going to fall down if he puts it up and nobody's maintaining it. It can't be a fence that is going to fall down. It has to be a block fence with a berm and 30 or 40 feet of a buffer between us and them. Right here where my house is and right along here where the others are, very close the way they have got it planned. I can't tell exactly from the plans they have, but it looks like that is -- on the order of 20 or 30 feet from my back fence. There is no barrier whatsoever. That is completely unacceptable. The other thing is they are going to be two story buildings looking right down on my backyard. Those need to be -- if they are going to put two story -- I agree with the previous testimony. They should not be two story buildings there. If they are going to be two stories, there should be no lights on our side and no windows on the south. And it was always noted that the right of way along the ditch -- what we would prefer is that the right of way to the ditch remain the way it is now with the ditch that they can't put anything on it that is going to encroach upon our backyards. So, I believe that's alii wanted to say. Do you have any questions of me? Rohm: Thank you. Before we move to the next person that signed up here, I have a question of staff. The proposed pathway along that south line parallel to the Finch Lateral, is that something that the city is encouraging to move pedestrian traffic through the properties? Guenther: Mr. Chairman, the 2002 Comprehensive Plan does call for a multi-use pathway -- a regional multi-use pathway on the Finch Lateral. The pathway location does -- is shown to come from the north property -- or the west property -- east property boundary through the west property boundary, come through the Leslie Creek -- or the Leslie -- or the Carol Subdivision and, then, continue to the west from there. The location has changed slightly with the developments that have occurred off of Ustick Road and it -- this location would better connect that multi-use pathway to the sidewalks on Ustick and, then, to the north -- again to the North Slough. Rohm: Thank you. The reason why I asked those questions is because the -- and I'm not speaking for the developer, but in compliance with ordinances and Comprehensive Plan, these regional pathways are something that are encouraged within our own Comprehensive Plan system and I'm not trying to speak for them, but in compliance with what we are proposing -- what we have told them is a requirement, this is the response that they have made. So, it's -- I want you to know that it's not something that they just came up with on their own, it's something that's been encouraged by the cities themselves. So, with that being said -- and we will continue with that discussion as to - the applicant response to your concerns in their rebuttal. So, with that being said, I will go to the next person that signed up and that's Steve Grant. Grant: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, my name is Steve Grant. I live at 1534 Leslie Way, which is kind of at the northwest corner. My home is the third one in. Third lot in. I don't see a -- maybe this is it. It would be right about there. And I don't know if my -- yeah. I think the residents have always had kind of too big issues. One transition and Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 43 of 112 - . the other traffic. And as has been indicated before, the Sadie Creek folks have made a couple of commitments for this property here. One being a masonry fence, as you have heard. Second being a 3D-foot easement. I think, if I read right in the staff report, that this area would only be 25 feet and I think we are anxious to have continuity along the -- you know, all of this area here, so that it's consistent and I think you can understand why we would want that. I think the landscaping plan -- I don't know that it's been submitted, but is a concern. We would much prefer evergreen trees that would be -- provide that barrier year around, rather than, you know, trees that shed their leaves at the end of the summer and, you know, for six months you would have -- you would be staring at each other. I think there is -- you know, I'm not quite sure why, you know, a public road is not allowed, but a private one is. That doesn't make a lot sense to me, because access is access and I'm concerned that even moving that down here is going to cause, you know, some congestion and safety issues here. While I would be in favor of a full access for reasons that I think Commissioner Zaremba has indicated, if that's not approved -- and it may well not be, then, they may approve right-in, right-out and, then, we have a huge issue with this. And that right-in, right-out might be a compromise. I don't know how that would work and I guess that's to be determined. I think it's also one of the things we would like to have them consider is that, you know, homes -- those homes along that area there, if they are second story homes, that there would be no windows facing west and I think that provides privacy for not only us, but also for the residents there, if that can be accommodated in their designs. I think that that's -- those are the -- again, the issues that we are concerned about. Transition of traffic -- and you have heard them a number of times from us over the last two and a half years and we appreciate your consideration for the things that we have outlines as our concerns. That's alii had. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions? Borup: Just one, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Yeah. Borup: And, then, on the -- just on the wall, I think so far everyone has testified on preferring a block wall. I haven't heard any discussion on the concrete panels like behind Lowe's. Knorpp: I think they are interchangeable to us. Borup: Okay. That's what I was wondering. Knorpp: Yeah. Borup: But either one is -- accomplish the same thing. Knorpp: We are interested in continuity and I think they have -- I don't know -- she's shown us some elevations that a block that -- they are not necessarily -- they have got, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 44 of 112 , . yòu know, the face of the block wall is broken up a little bit, which would mitigate some sound issue and other things. So, I think we could work those out. But a good barrier I think is what everybody is interested in as a part of that transition. And, again, the 30 foot -- by the way, the -- it's important to note that the -- the decision has been made in the negotiation with those folks on Sadie Creek that the fence would be on our property line, rather than, you know, the property line of these homes. Guenther: Correct. Knorpp: Otherwise, you're going to build -- you're going to probably build two fences anyway, but we'd wind up building our own fence if it was on that property line, so -- Borup: And that is where their landscaping plan shows it. Knorpp: It is? Borup: Yes. Knorpp: Okay. And to my knowledge there is no pathway here -- dedicated pathway, it's just -- and if I heard correctly from staff, that the path is -- the only path is -- on the plan is on that southern boundary. Do I understand it correctly? Because I have never heard that there would be a path. It would be open, but I have never heard of a foot path there. Borup: I think the concern is if you have a path that doesn't go anywhere, you have got to turn around and go back. Knorpp: Good point. So-- Borup: And now that would be to Ustick. Zaremba: Well, what I understood staff's explanation was that the regional pathway showed on the Comprehensive Plan continues into your subdivision. Borup: Right. Knorpp: That's the first time I -- Zaremba: And this is avoiding that. Knorpp: Well, this would be here no matter what. And I don't know -- again, I don't know -- I have never heard anybody discuss -- like a paved path. It would certainly be open, so that somebody could walk there if they wanted to, but I assume it would be grass or some kind of a maintained, you know, surface. But, again, a lot of questions, a lot of concerns, and as you have heard from other residents, there are a lot of questions Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 45 of 112 - - and we are -- we feel like it's appropriate to get those resolved before we move on. Anything else? Rohm: Thank you. Knorpp: Thank you. Rohm: I'd like to return to Linda Morris for just a moment. I believe she had some -- didn't you have a -- something you wanted to bring up? One more thing on -- Morris: We had heard nothing about this path along the western side at all. I mean maybe you had heard about it. Rohm: I think you need to restate your name, too. Morris: Linda Morris. Rohm: Okay. And that was your additional concern? Because I saw you down there -- Morris: Yes. That -- and as I said, Saturday -- this Saturday we met with them and we were trying to get more information on what's going to happen on the western -- on the western side here and nothing. We didn't get any answers. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. That's what I needed. Thank you. That's the end of the list of people that have signed up for this, but it's open, so anyone else is welcome to come forward. Thurston: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I think I did sign up. My name is David Thurston and I live at -- Rohm: Oh, I'm sorry, I messed up. Thurston: Okay. David Thurston. I live at 1470 Leslie Way, Meridian, Idaho. My home is right there. And the question I have is concerning the -- Mr. Unger's comments about tiling this ditch. He's indicated that he had met with the gentleman who represents the water users of that ditch. I'd just like to have clarification of who that gentleman is, because I am a water user on that ditch and I don't know of anybody who has been given that authority to speak for all of us. So, I'd like to know the name of the gentleman who represented the water users for that ditch and represented the things that Mr. Unger stated. Rohm: What is your concern specifically to that? Thurston: Well, he indicated that they had met with somebody who represented the water users and that this gentleman had agreed to whatever they -- the specifications Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 46 of 112 f6r the tiling of that ditch and I'd like to know who that individual is and exactly what are the specifications. Rohm: Well, I -- not knowing what those specifications are at all, but it is their obligation to make sure that the water that you currently are receiving will continue -- Thurston: Yes. Rohm: -- to be received and I think that that's the primary point of any of this, is that you continue to receive water in the fashion that you had in past. Borup: And the city also requires it to be tiled. Thurston: Yes. I realize that. But as a -- the ditch is owned by the water user, not by Nampa Irrigation District, and so as a water user I want to know who is making decisions on behalf of my -- on behalf of me. So, I just wanted him to clarify that. Rohm: And I think we will get that, so thank you. Thurston: Thank you. Rohm: And I'm sorry I missed your name on the first shot through. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this issue? Okay. At this time -- oh. Quick one. Please come forward. Knorpp: Billy Knorpp. 2972 Leslie Drive. The question that you raised about the path, I don't think there is any problem with that path, I just don't want it right along my back fence, unless there is some -- unless we do put the brick wall in there and there is a barrier between me and whatever is going along that path. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd like the applicant to come back forward, please. Oh. And this will be a -- Rosso: Just short. Betty Rosso. 2832 Leslie Drive. Mr. Davis from Champion -- what is it called, that new division there? Davis's -- where the Davis's dairy was. Borup: Champion Park. Rosso: Champion Park. Okay. He was the one here Saturday that was concerned about the irrigation and I don't know that he was speaking for the irrigators, he was - more concerned that his water was going to continue to come. And, again, I wanted to- - the pathway has -- was startling to me, I guess, and especially when Mr. Unger said that it would follow on top of the canal, which Mr. Anderson just told me that that property, plus the road, would not be usable. They only maintain it themselves and it is not to be used or be trespassed upon. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page47of112 Rbhm: Okay. Thank you. Rosso: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Okay. With that, would the applicant like to come forward and offer some clarifications to some of the issues brought up by the testimony? Unger: Once again, for the record, Bob Unger, Red Cliff development. First of all, I have to say I misquoted the price on the wall. It's running about 50, 60 foot -- or bucks a foot, not -- I don't know where I got five. You can't do cedar for five. Borup: No, you can't. Unger: And -- yeah. Be a cheap wall, wouldn't it? And it's -- you know, we are going to settle this right now. You know, we have made somewhat of a commitment to the folks on the wall, we will make that commitment now. Okay? Borup: Excuse me. When you say commit, you're saying either -- either block or concrete wall? Unger: Yeah. To match up -- to match up with whatever Sadie Creek Promenade is doing. Zaremba: Are you including the south property line as well? Unger: If we end up tiling it, that's probably what we are going to have to do. If we don't end up tiling it, we will have to fence it all on our side. And that's where I was going with the whole tiling of the ditch and in -- you know, I have spoken with John Anderson. I talk to John Anderson all the time in Nampa-Meridian. In fact, I have two other projects this Finch Lateral runs through that we are building right now and we are piping both of those projects and we are putting landscaping on top of those projects with a license agreement through Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. It is a standard operating procedure. We also provide a path/drive on their easement, so that they can still access and maintain if they ever have to get there and repair any pipes or anything like that. Okay. And that is standard stuff that is done through a license agreement with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, so that's what we are proposing here. Moe: Mr. Unger, you did make one statement and I'm a little -- you said if we tile. Will you explain that one to me? Unger: We have committed to tiling this thing, but the neighbors are saying -- I'm hearing from the neighbors they don't want us to and -- but our proposal is to go forward with that and unless you folks change it, that's our proposal. Rohm: Well, just as a point of clarification, then, the tiling, coupled with the fence, I think is the solution that everyone wants to drive home here and so if you tile it and a Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 48 of 112 regional pathway is along that tiling, then, the fence would be in order. I think that's the conclusion that we are trying to get to. Unger: And that's -- and that's what we are trying to say here. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Unger, while we are on the subject of the fencing and so - - somebody mentioned whether there would be double fencing along the rear property line, so -- of what you're proposing and I think the city would say that if there is a block wall on one side, that abutting a pathway would have to be probably no more than four feet clear vision or something like that along the new property lines. That's pretty standard. Staff, am I doing that accurately? Guenther: These standards are -- there is a standard condition in this report that says that all fencing shall comply with the fencing standards listed in section three of the UDC. Unger: Yeah. Did you want a response on that or-- Zaremba: Well, I just want you to be aware of the issue. You probably are, but I just wanted to raise it. Unger: Exactly. Moe: Mr. Chairman, just one other comment on that same subject. Basically, you're expressing to put the block or a concrete wall up at the property line all the way around? And, then, the path is -- would be on their side anyway, so, then, they have a shorter one, if they so -- Unger: If I could, I think -- I think what we -- you know, along the ditch here -- and I guess maybe that's part of why the fencing issue along this ditch is a tough one for everybody, is I build a fence on somebody else's property. All of these folks -- and well -- and we are going to have to figure this out. All these folks along here, their property lines run to the center of the ditch. And the ditch lies within an easement and I'm not -- I believe the one along here is -- I think it's a 40 foot easement. It could be a little larger. I can't build a fence on their property. I can build a fence on my property. So, if we all work together we might be able to build a fence to accomplish one goal, but at this point, you know, we are going to have to build our fence and it's going to have to be along -- along this easement on our side. Rohm: And the pathway would lie to the south. Unger: The pathway would be on that side -- yeah, on the south side of our fencing. Borup: Can you do -- if you had an agreement with them to build a fence on their property, is there any problem with that? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 49 of 112 Unger: I think we would entertain that. Borup: But I realize every property owner would have to agree to that. Unger: Exactly. Borup: And maybe while you're on that, 40 feet you said is what the easement is, to your understanding? Unger: I believe it's 40 feet. I'd have to check that to be sure, but I believe so. Borup: That is what your document says, too. Unger: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Unger: Okay. Let me finish up a couple things and I think that will wrap it up. As a matter of fact, you're correct, this -- Sadie Creek there is a full access and signal going in right there on Ustick. Where was this? Oh. Separation -- I think -- this -- this is a 30 foot landscape buffer with a path there. That's what staff told us. Two years ago I was doing a 30 foot path or -- you know, a buffer there, so we have 30 foot there minimum. This is -- you know -- you know, we have at least 40 foot of separation there. Over to the condos we are looking close to a hundred feet, over to these structures here. So, at least a hundred foot separation there. Rohm: And that's to the property line, not to the -- Unger: Yeah. To the center of the ditch. Rohm: Yeah. Thank you. Unger: Yeah. So, we have some good separation there and the one gentleman about piping the lateral that runs down through here -- and I appreciate the lady coming up and identifying the gentleman. He gave me his name and number and for the life of me I couldn't find it in my files. But he indicated that -- you know, that there really wasn't anybody -- a good contact and I said, well, when we get ready to design this, who do we contact? He says what -- give me a call and, then, you know, I'll help you through that. So, he really didn't represent himself as, you know, the -- representing everybody of the users association, but he was the first person that came up and identified himself as - one of the users and I thought good connection to have, since finding out who these users are sometimes are tough. So, I know I have got it written down, I just didn't have it on a piece of paper I had in my hand. So, I think we have a good project here and I think -- I think we are responding to a lot of the concerns of the neighbors. I think the whole wall fencing issue can be totally resolved throughout this process and we are Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 50 of 112 more than willing to work with everybody on it. So, we certainly feel we have a good project and we would ask for your recommendation of approval. Rohm: Okay. And thank you, I appreciate your -- I believe we have come a long way -- Unger: Oh, I think so. Rohm: -- tonight as far as the fencing and I appreciate both the public testimony and your response to that. There were a number of people that also spoke to the two story condominiums along that south line and I'd just like your comments on that. Unger: That's a very hard -- very hard thing for us to look at and restrict I mean I'm sure -- catch up with me, Joe. You know, I assume some of these are going to be single story, but to specifically say half of them are going to be single story or not going to be single story is -- it really restricts the use of those lots, the value of those lots to some extent, but also you have to -- also have to understand that the houses to the west of the project, those are all on their own one acre lots and the houses themselves are approximately -- and approximately 40, 50 feet from the property line and maybe even further. So, there is a huge separation of their backyard and, then, we have got another 30 foot of -- we have the wall, we have the berming and the landscaping, and, then, these structures that we have in here have an additional 15 foot setback, that's the rear setback requirement, so you start adding it up, you have got 40 to 50 feet, plus another 30 feet, so you are looking at at least 70 feet -- 85 feet separation between buildings. That's a pretty good size separation. Rohm: And thank you. I -- that's the response I was looking for. Unger: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: One of the other suggestions -- and I think it referred to the condos and not other areas -- was that on their south surfaces they don't have windows and I would only comment that the police department consistently asks to have windows, particularly where there is a pathway involved, so that there is public visibility on anything that might be happening on the pathway. So, I'm not sure that's an issue we can help the - gentleman with. You probably need to have windows there. Unger: Right. Borup: These two are the south, so there is very limited windows. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 51 of 112 Mae: Mr. Chairman, I think he was, actually, talking more about the homes on the west side. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Unger: Thank you very much. Rohm: Thank you. Before we move forward I'd like to just give each of the Commissioners an opportunity to kind of summarize their thoughts on this project and see if we have some concerns and we will go forward. Commissioner Zaremba, have some comments? Zaremba: I do. And I think my overall comment is that this whole concept pretty well matches the intent of the mixed use area. It has a mix of uses and combined with the other uses on the other Corners of Ustick and Eagle, brings the proper element of what is being asked for in the Comprehensive Plan identifying that area as mixed use. I will say that if on the original plan the roadway continued straight out to Eagle on the original drawing and had to be right-in, right-out, even though I like the project, would have been voting against it. The new configuration is important to me. If that can end up being a full access intersection and it's very logical at that point that the development on the other side of Eagle would line their road up with it as well and further make it reasonable that it be signalized and full access, that not only helps this development, but one of the advantages of a signalized intersection is that people that are trying to get in and out of Leslie, a signal does what's called platooning. It slows down the jackrabbits and let's the turtles catch up with them and it gives you several hundred feet south a break in traffic that would not otherwise be there. So, there is a lot of reasons why, in my opinion, the project is fine. I think it's extremely important to have the access where the new design shows it and with it there I can support it. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Commissioner Borup, do you have some final thoughts on this? Borup: Well, I think it's -- you know, as we hear time and time again, we are -- we are in the city limits of Meridian and there is going to be growth and we need to try to accommodate the best we can, realizing that an acre lot is not going to be abutting against acre lots. So, my concern is best to see what could be done on buffering and privacy and appears to me that the developer has agreed to -- I mean clarify this, a 38 -- a 30 foot easement to the west and it will either be a block or a concrete panel wall of some type and I assume to be worked out between the neighborhood and the developer. The property to the south, I don't know that that's been settled and I -- I don't - have a high comfort to going into things where they are up in the air, unless there -- unless there is some stipulations that can be placed somehow. It sounds to me like a good solution was if a ditch is tiled, a wall on the south -- to the south side of the easement, but that would necessitate the wall to be on the property owner's side of the ditch and on -- against their property -- against their usable property, which would separate it from the ditch. So, I don't know, I mean it would have to be an agreement Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 52 of 112 with everyone along there. The other concern I had is maybe -~ I don't know if we got a lot of detail on landscaping. I don't think we have the one tree per 35 feet, which is a minimum along the south. It has that landscape plan. Josh, has that been analyzed at all? '. Guenther: Commissioner Borup, the landscape plan is not approved with this application. It would need -- and there is conditions in there that this applicant's landscape architect needs to certify two things, that the appropriate number of trees have been provided for, as well as one tree per 8,000 square foot of turf be provided for and we don't have those calculations at this time. We, typically, receive those through the phasing plans of the final plat, but they are conditions of approval. Borup: Could maybe something be added as far as maybe increasing that density at this time? Guenther: If the Commission so chooses, what we -- what this Commission has done in the past is say add -- take the total required number of trees in that 20 percent or something along that line in order to further buffer it. But that's something that we have utilized in the past. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: There may be an issue along that south property -- Guenther: For the easement. Zaremba: -- if it's a tiled ditch you can't plant a tree there. Borup: Yes. I think they will only allow shrubs and bushes and -- without the root invasion and stuff. Zaremba: I think the ordinance requires that if there is a place where you can't plant the trees, you still have to put that number of trees just somewhere else; isn't that correct? Guenther: Yes. It's tree mitigation. Borup: So, along the west line would be a good place for that. Guenther: Yes. Or out of the easement. Borup: Pardon? Guenther: Or out of the easement. Borup: Oh, out of the easement. Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 53 of 112 Guenther: On the landscape plan it does show that there is several trees planted along the southern portion of that boundary. However, the roughly 40 feet of landscaping, which would be required in this area, most of it is in the easement. However, it could be designed in order to accommodate trees immediately at that easement line, which is what the landscape architect has preliminarily shown. Borup: Okay. Thank you. That's alii had. Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Before I make comment, Joe, one question I have for you. Well, I guess more of a statement than anything. I guess if, in fact -- my biggest concern -- as far as what's gone on tonight, I'm in favor of the project. I think some compromises have been taken care of and whatnot. The one concern I still have is the block wall, as far on the south property line, and as to whether or not it ends up being on the north side of the ditch and, then, we still need to put a fence on the south side of that walking path at that point, would that not be correct? Guenther: That would be correct. Moe: So, that we'd have visual for that. Guenther: Well, there is standard fencing required for multi-use pathways, which is a section of our code. Moe: Well, my point is is I'm just concerned that although the applicant has stated he will want to work with the neighborhood to try and install block fence on their property, whether or not all the neighbors agree to that, we don't know that tonight and so, therefore, we are in a situation where we are requiring them to put a block wall in. If that is the case, then, that other fence would have to definitely go in on the south side of that walking path. And, therefore, that would be a condition that we would want to clarify as well, based on the report. Borup: Mr. Chairman, my plat shows there is only seven lots on the south. I'm just curious how many of those seven homeowners are here tonight. South line. Three out of the seven. Zaremba: Well, I certainly think they could influence their neighbors to -- if it got them a nice block wall, I think they could influence their neighbors to join them. Rohm: Okay. And I guess -- and echoing both the public concern and the Commission comments on that, has staff seen where they have been able to work with adjacent property owners and place a fence on the adjacent property outside of their project to be in compliance with fencing along that regional pathway? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 54 of 112 Guenther: Chairman Rohmj in a situation like this -- and Mr. Cole has already kind of talked about it a little bit here. Is that they can relocate that pipe anywhere within that easement and be able to put the fencing in there on their property line in order to accommodate the required separation from fence to the piped ditch. And - Nampa-Meridian -- obviously, they have dealt with this situation before and have come up to resolution. I guess while I have got you, it seems that this might be something that if we continued the application for two weeks to allow staff time in order to draft a condition with the applicant in order to adequately address that and bring this back to the Commission in two weeks, because the second thing is that we still -- I haven't been able to review a full scale plan for this southern boundary and it seems to be more of a problem than originally I had anticipated. So, in order to give staff more time, I guess we would change our recommendation to continue it for two weeks in order to allow us time to keep the hearing open in order to work through this condition that we need -- or that we seem to be going towards, as well as to get a better large scale copy and adjust some of the staff report. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: If we went that direction, I would add one more thing to be discussed among staff and the applicant and probably ACHD and that would be the newly aligned access to Eagle, seeing if we can make that be a public street. I know ACHD has said no public connection, but they don't actually control Highway 55. Just a comment for discussion. Guenther: Chairman Zaremba, just for point of clarification, staff is recommending denial of that -- of that access point to Eagle Road, as it is inconsistent with Unified Development Code. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: Which will be presented to the City Council with the bulk of this application. Rohm: Okay. I think that it's the consensus of the group as a whole that the fencing issue along the south line is a major concern to those people who spoke tonight and I believe that the applicant has offered up some alternatives that would make it acceptable to the testimonies received, but it's easier said than done for us to be able to respond to that in the form of a motion tonight, so I think that a two week continuance, so that applicant and staff can work together to get that verbiage down, so that it would - be included in the staff report in a fashion that is acceptable to the public and to the applicant is probably in order. And with that being said -- Borup: Mr. Chairman, I would request maybe one other item be included on that. Rohm: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 55 of 112 Borup: And that's if those seven property owners could be contacted -- maybe that would be up to the applicant to contact them and perhaps just to -- I don't know, maybe a non-binding agreement as far as where they like the fence and see -- basically, in my mind to see if all seven of them are in agreement on the location of the fence. If they are not in agreement, then, there is going to be another direction that needs to go. If they are in -agreement, then, something could be worked out. Rohm: And I think that that's the direction we need to go as well and so I'm pretty sure the applicant understands where we are going with this. So, I think at this point in time I would entertain a motion. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move to continue file numbers AZ 05-57, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, and CUP 05- 052 to the regularly scheduled meeting of February the 16th, 2006, give staff time to review documents and resubmit. Does anybody want to second that? Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue items AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, and CUP 05-0-52 to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: And thank you, folks, all for coming in and very much appreciate your testimony and we will see you in two weeks. Item 1 0: Continued Public Hearing from January 19. 2006: AZ. 05-062 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RUT to R-8 for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC - 2445 North Wingate Lane: Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: PP 05-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 25 single-family residential lots and 2 common lots on 5.11 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC - 2445 North Wingate Lane: Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open up the public hearings of AZ 05-062 and PP 05-062, both pertaining to Sharp Estates Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I realized here late in the game that the clerk did not run you a copy, because I did not send them any copy of the staff report. Actually, it was the same copy that you had back on the 19th of January CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02116/06 STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Dl~-~«'j~~I'V<--.,E<J"~)'" t \l-:'- j "1" "I.I":")(I£11.: ,'- t:._':: I,) -",', I) GIT'{ OF tJ1E.RIOIAN -'"T'"i (.'1 CR1/, r""F:-Cj(,F:: - '" .-,' '.--.'..-.." '.' ',-'" , ,-'... Planning & Zoning Comniission Hearing Date: January 5, 2006 Continued to: February 2, 2006 Continued to: February 16, 2006 -, -,~ ;': I/I'~ - "j ,y'" ,¡' ctG'~';(;¡I(;t~/l"-'<."1,':' 1:".\1-1'" I' P &Z Commission Joseph Guenther, Associate City Plamler Bienville Square Subdivision, All applications are for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, me. AZ~05-057 - Atmexation and Zoning of 18.43 acres from RUT and Rl to R-8 (Medium Density Residential), R -15 (Medium High Density Residential) and C- G (General Commercial). RZ~05-0l9 - Rezone of 10,05 acres ofC-G (General Commercial) to R-8 (M edium Density Residential) and R -15 (M edi unl High Density Residential). PP-05-059 - Preliminary plat for 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi- family residential lots, 14 common lots, and 7 commercial lots on 27.30 acres, CUP-05-052 - Conditional Use Peront for mixed use development within 300- feet of a residence. PS-05-002 - Private Street for providing frontage to multi-family site. V AR,05-023 -Variance to UDC ll-3H-4.2 for allowance of an access point to Eagle Road/SH55, 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Red Cliff Development, INC, is requesting approval ofa Preliminary Plat with a Conditional Use Pel1l1:it (CUP) to construct retail/restaurant/and office uses as well as a mixture of attached, detached and alley-accessed residences on approximately 27,36 acres within the Bienville Square Subdivision development located approximately ~ mile south of the southwest comer of Us tick Road and Eagle RoadlSH-55. A portion of the subject property was in the Kissler, Cobb, Eagy annexation project AZ-03-0l8 and a corresponding Development Agreement (DA) , (Similarly, a portion of the Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision project il111l1ediately north of this site was also in that annexation application,) The DA (Instrument No. 104107406) requires that any future use be approved either through a site specific CUP application or a Plamled Development. A concept plan for the overall site was submitted with the application for information purposes (not for formal approval). The Commission should note that the applicant has also submitted a Variance application that will be before the City Council concurrent with the subject applications, The Variance request proposes one new approach to N. Eagle Road/State Highway 55, for one right-in/right-out access driveway. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has not approved any approach pennits on this site. The Variance application pertains only to the right-inlright-out access lying approximately 1,000 feet south of Us tick Road. The overall design of the site is paramount on City Council and ITD approval of the Eagle Road approach. However, if the applicant is unsuccessful in obtaining an approach, Staff feels the proposed conditions and an amended Development Agreement for the 27.36 acres could sufficiently address interconnectivity issues associated with development of the site. Currently the Sadie Creek Promenade Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-05-057/PP-05-059/CUP-05-052/RZ-05-0 I 9/PS-05-002 Page I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR TI-IE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 Subdivision property to the north provides one public street access to Us tick Road, and staff is proposing cross access to the two other approved Ustick Road approaches, 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION On December 8, 2005, the Commission continued the Sadie Creek Promenade project to the January 5, 2006 hearing in order to discuss both the subject propeliy and the Sadie Creek Promenade property at one time. The original intent was to have a full hearing of both proj ects at that time and to address issues common to both development proposals. On January 5, 2005 the Commission voted to table the item at the applicant's request until the February 2,2006 hearing, The applicant was considering redesigning the site, but has instead decided to proceed with the original configuration as advertised for the public hearing; therefore no changes to the site layout were proposed prior to Februmy 2,2006, On Feblllary 13, 2006 the applicant submitted a revised master plan reflecting the Planning Conunission discussion of February 2, 2006. Staff supports the revised design as submitted which includes open vision fencing along the Finch Lateral as the applicant is no longer proposing to tile the ditch, Staff is recommending approval of the subject applications (AZ-OS-OS7/PP-OS-059/RZ-05-0 19/PS-05-002 and CuP-OS-OS2) with the conditions noted in this repOli. PROPOSED MOTIONS (to be considered after the public hearing) Recommend Approval I move to reCOlllinend approval of File Numbers AZ-OS~OS7/PP-OS-OS9/CuP-OS-OS2/RZ-OS- 019/PS-OS-002 as presented in staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 with the undated preliminary plat drafted by Staruey Consultants with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications) Recommend Denial I move to reconunend denial of File Numbers AZ-OS-OS7/PP-05-0S9/CuP-OS-OS2/RZ-OS- 019/PS-OS-002 for the following reasons: (you should state specific reasons for deniaL You should address how the applicant might re-do the application to gain your recommendation for approval.) Recommend Continuance I move to continue File Numbers AZ-OS-OS7/PP-05-059/CuP-OS-OS2/RZ-OS-019/PS-OS-002 for the hearing date of February 16, 2006, to _,2006, and in addition to staff's conm1ents, direct the applicant to make the following changes: (insert comments here) 3. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a, Site Address/Location: SW comer of Us tick Road and Eagle Road/SH5S Township 3N, Range IE, Section S b. Owners Red Cliff Development, INC 2060 South Eagle Road Meridian Id 83624 John Ewing 1S00 £1 Dorado Street, Suite 4 Boise Id 83704 c. Applicant: Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-OS-OS7 /PP-OS-OS9/CUP-OS~OS2/RZ-OS-0 19/PS-OS-002 Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT POR THE HEARING DATE OF 02116/06 Red Cliff Development, mc 2060 South Eagle Road Meridian Id 83624 d, Representative: e. Present Zoning: Ashley Ford, WRG Design, INC General Retail and Commercial (C-G), Meridian, RUT-Rl-Ada County f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use-Regional- 2002 Comprehensive Future Land Use Map g. Description of Applicant's Request: 1, See Exhibit Al (prepared by Stanley Consultants) for a copy of the proposed plat, Exhibit A2 shows the proposed landscape plan, and Exhibit A3 shows a detailed site plan which depicts the lot layout, building, parking and access locations with adjoining subdivisions. h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The application notes that the mixed use regional designation provides for the overall site to be developed with a mixture of Retail/Restaurant/ OfficelDrive through and other Commercial uses oriented around automobile traffic, the rear portions of the site are designed around transitional uses of a mix of single-family detached units and multi-family residential units. The applicant notes that the site is an ideal location for a retail/residential complex and will provide the additional landscaping along drive aisles, the design review for structures along the gateway corridor, and develop the new pubJic street to improve traffic movement in the area, 4. PROCESS FACTS f. 5. LAND USE a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation and zoning as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11 Chapter 5 Article B Section 3, a public hearing is required before the City Council on tlns matter. The subject applications will in fact constitute preliminary plats as detem1Ìned by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11 Chapter 6, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use / planned development as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11 Chapter 5 Article B Section 6, a public hearing is required before the City Council on tlns matter. b. c, d. Newspaper notifications published on: December 19 and January 2,2005 Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: December 19, 2005 Applicant posted notice on site by: December 26, 2005 e, a. Existing Land Use(s): Bare land, two single family residences. b. Description of Character of SuITounding Area: Large lot residential, highway-oriented services, rapidly urbanizing c, Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Future pad sites within Sadie Creek Promenade proposal zoned C-G and Ada County Rl. Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-05-057 /PP-05-059/CUP-05-052/RZ-05-0I 9/PS-05-002 Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 2. West: Residential Subdivision zoned Meridian City R-2 and Ada County RI 3. South: Residential Subdivision zoned Meridian City R-2 and Ada County RI 4, East: Road, d, History of Previous Actions: In April 2004, the owners and City entered into a Development Agreement for various High Density Commercial, Multi-family Residential, transitional, and office uses under File AZ-03-0 18. Some propeliy was armexed and zoned to General Retail and Commercial (C~G) with a Development Agreement while other pOliions of the propeliy were not included in the annexation leaving out parcels which were addressed with the original conceptual plan. The 18.43 acre out parcel immediately south of the C-G site is included with this project. Future pad sites within the Kissler Almexation project zoned C-G, Eagle e, Existing Constraints and Opportunities I. Public Works Location of sewer: Location of water: Extension of mains in Ustick Road/Sadie Creek Promenade Extension of mains in Ustick Road/Sadie Creek Promenade Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: Agri cuI turallIniga ted 3, Flood plain: N/ A 4. CanalslDitches lITigation: The Finch Lateral courses the southem part of property and the Milk Lateral courses the northern part of the property 5. Hazards: None identified 6. Size of Property: 27.3 acres 7. Description of Use: Retail, Office, Commercial, and Restaurant uses and associated parking and landscape improvements along Eagle Road. Attached townhouse and single family residential, front accessed and alley accessed products. £. Subdivision Plat InfOlmation The submitted plat includes an R-8 proposed zone with 54 single-family residential lots of which 20 units with street side garages along the western property line are located in Block 2 (lots 20-40) which are in the 6,000 to 8,000 square foot range. The 34 alley accessed homes are located in Block 3 and are approximately 4,500 square foot in area. These lots are designed to meet the minimum standards of the R-8 district. The submitted plat also includes 22 lots in an R~15 proposed zone. These R-15 products are designed around a modified townhouse design and each building would be contained on a lot with potential for a future condominium plat on the individual units, The applicant has included a clubhouse and additional parking contained in common lots. The submitted plat also contains seven lots in a C-G proposed zone with commercial uses. Commercial uses are shown to be a mix of restaurant/retail and office spaces with two approximate 12,000 square-foot buildings and five approximate 6,000 square-foot buildings. g. Landscaping 1. Width of street buffer(s): per the Future Land Use Map, both Ustick Road and Eagle Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-05-057/PP-05-059/CUP-05-052/RZ-O5-0 J 9/PS-05-002 Page 4 CITY OF MERIDJAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFP REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 Road are designated as "Entryway Corridors," As such, the ODC (Table 11-2B-3) requires a 35-foot wide street buffer adjacent to both roadways, The landscape plan (Sheet Ll.l) proposes a 35-foot wide buffer along Eagle Road. If the applicant proposes to construct the "Entryway Corridor" buffers in easements they must meet the landscaping standards required in the ODe. 2. Width ofbuffer(s) between land uses: Table 11-2B-3 requires a 25-foot wide buffer between commercial uses on C-G-zoned land and residential uses. The properties to the west are zoned R-2 (City of Melidian) and RI (Ada County), and are cun-ently residential. Lots adjacent to the site on the west and south as shown on the landscape/site plan shall include a 25-foot pennanent easement or the 25 feet shall be included in a common lot as defined by the landscaping standards of the ODe. 3, Percentage of site as open space: The ODC does not require open space or site amenities for commercial uses. The open space contained in the residential uses is shown to be 3.3 acres or 16.4 percent and applied as an additional amenity. TIllS calculation should be reduced to not include any landscape buffers. The applicant shall clarify these calculations to be consistent with the amenity standards found in ODC Chapter 3, Article G, 4, Other landscaping standards: The landscape buffer along Eagle Road should be constructed in accordance with ODC Chapter 3, Article B. h, Planned Development Characteristics - N/ A i. Conditional Use fufoffi1ation: 1. Non-residential square footage: To be determined, 44,000 square feet shown 2, Proposed building height: 65 feet, or C-G standards 3. Percentage of site devoted to building coverage: Not defined 4. Percentage of site devoted to landscaping: 3.53 acres, 12.9% 5. Percentage of site devoted to paving: Not defined 6. Percentage of site devoted to other uses: 7. Number of Residential units: N/A j, Amenities - The applicant is providing a clubhouse in Lot 12 Block I, recreational facilities in Lot 20 Block 2 and additional open space for the residential amenities, The applicant is also proposing a water feature in the turnabout in Block 6. k. Off-Street Parking (residential uses) - provided within the R-15, to meet the multi-family standards set forth in ODC 11-4-3.27 N/A 1. Proposed and Required Residential Standards - R-8 and R-15 bulk standards apply as found in ODC 11.2A. R-8 (Standards) Setbacks (*a11 streets local) Front Living Area Side Accessed Garage Front Accessed Garage Proposed 15 Required 15 15 20 Street side 15 15 20 15 Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-05-057/PP-05-059/CUP-05-052/RZ-05-0 19IPS-05-002 Page 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 Side 4 4 Rear 12 12 Frontage-alley loaded 45 40 Frontage-garage fronted 60 50 Lot Size-alley loaded 4,630 4,000 Lot Size-garage fronted 6,023 5,000 Lot Size- Corner 5,188 5,000 R-15 (Standards) Setbacks (*all streets local) Proposed Required Front Living Area 10 10 Front Accessed Garage 20 20 Street side 20 20 Side 4 4 Rear 12 12 Frontage 20 0 Lot Size 2,400 8,424 Maximum building height 40 40 m. Proposed and Required Non-Residential Parking - One off-street parking space required for every 500 square feet of gross floor area. Also, one Type A and one Type B parking space required for the loading area (per UDC ll-3C-8). The proposed total building floor area is 40,000 s.f., which requires 80 parking spaces. The total number of parking spaces has not been calculated. This may be addressed during detailed CUP review and building design review but the design appears to meet the minimum standards of the UDC parking requirements. n. SummaI)' of Proposed Streets andlor Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The applicant is proposing one new access point to Eagle Road/SH55 to serve the Bienville Square project at approximately 1,000 feet south of the Ustick/Eagle hltersection. As noted previously, ITD must issue a right-inlright-out pennit for this access, and the access is further contingent on the Meridian City Council granting a variance to UDC 11-3H, In addition, the recorded DA between the applicant and the City requires either a public or private street be constructed parallel to Eagle RoadlSH55 that may connect to the nOlih boundary and may also connect to Eagle Road, if allowed by ITD at a point to be detennined by ACHD. TIlls project will connect with Sadie Creek Avenue, a proposed public street connecting to Us tick Road through the Sadie Creek property, to meet the frontage road requirement and possibly connect to Eagle Road. In addition, the applicant will be required to connect to and provide cross access to the three new access points to Us tick Road at the following locations in the proposed Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision applications: . Driveway #1 - 400 feet west of Eagle (light-inlright-out with center median) Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-05-057/PP-05-059/CUP-05-052/RZ-05-0 19/PS-05-002 Page 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 . Driveway #2 - 600 feet west of Eagle (full access) . Driveway #3 - I, 1 00 feet west of Eagle (full access public street (Sadie Creek Avenue) with proposed traffic signal) Ustick Road, from Leslie Drive to Ally Street (on the east side of Eagle Road), including the Eagle Road intersection, has just been widened and improved to 5 lanes, The intersection was widened to include dual left turn lanes. The applicant's CUP site plan shows a connection with the new public, commercial street extending south of Us tick Road, beginning approximately ~ mile west of Eagle Road/SH55. The preliminary plat (Sheet 1) shows this roadway (Sadie Creek Avenue) as a 50-foot street section, continuing as a public street in a loop design around the R-8 development with private streets providing frontage for the townhouse development. The area (Kissler Annexation site) concept plan shows the road connecting to the propeliy south of the site with a looped design and possible connection to Eagle Road through this site. The area plan shows private, internal driveways connecting to tlllS public street; such driveways run mostly north/south connecting Sadie Creek Avenue to Ustick Road. For a detailed report on both ITD's and ACHD's actions and comments, please see the letters/reports submitted with the application materials, 6. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING On October 28th 2005, staff held an agency conunents meeting. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all cOl1Unents and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in Exhibit C, 7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject site is designated 'Mixed Use-Regional' on the Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, this designation is defined in part as an area that is situated in highly visible or transitioning parts of the City where innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The MU-R has no upper limit on the square footage of non-residential uses and is intended to allow a broad range of uses. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy): . Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services, (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City selïJices to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands proposed to be annexed in the following manner: . The suQject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian - City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department, The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Office, Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD), The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change. . . Bienvillc Square Subdivision AZ-05-057/PP-O5-059/CUP-O5-052/RZ-05-0 19/PS-05-002 Page 7 CTTY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 " The subject lands arecurrent~y serviced by the 1I1eridian School District #2, This service¡,vill not change, The subject lands are currently se/1JÎced by the Meridian LibraT)! District, This service will not change and the Meridian LibraT)! District sliould suffer 110 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, 1I1eridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company, Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective B: Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area. Stafffinds that the site is designatedfor MU-R on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, Although strictly commercial uses have not been spectfically plannedfor this property on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and through the Development Agreement from the annexation, the overall site plan when combined with the proposed Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision meets the general classifications for mixed use regional. . Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective B, Action 5: Locate new community conunercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to complement with adjoining residential areas. Ustick Road is classified as an arterial roadway. The applicant is proposing access from the adjoining commercial areas from micropaths, sidewalks and shared streets which will provide future connection to residential areas west of the site along Ustick Road, Staff believes that the commercial areas proposed compliment the existing and planned residential areas in the vicinity. . Chapter VII, Goal N, Objective D: Encourage appropriate land uses along transportation conidors, Staff believes that the proposed land uses are appropriate along the adjoining transportation corridors (Ustick Road and Eagle Road). . Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2: Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. The ACHD evaluates access points in their analysis; no direct lot access is allowed to any of the arterial/collector roadways. The proposed access points to the arterial streets generally comply with ACHD 's standards, Please see the ACHD staff report and Exhibit B for the conditions from ACHD. This site does notfront on an ACHD controlled arterial road although Sadie Creek Avenue provides a collector system for the internal circulation of residents. . The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has a policy for access to a Type IV Principal Arterial will be at intersections only, and spaced at one-half mile intervals in urban areas. ITD allows approaches (other than intersections) in special cases and on a temporary basis, The Eagle Road access shall he eliminatedfrom this project if the Meridian City Council does not grant a variance and/or if ¡TD does not approve an approach for this site. Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1) Biel1viIle Square Subdivision AZ-05-057/PP-05-059/CUP-05-052/RZ-05-0 19/PS-05-002 Page 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFf REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 The properties adjacent to the subject site are designatalfor a 11iide variety (if uses, North of the site is planned for commercial uses, east (if the site are proposed commercial developments also tied in with this project by development agreement, and west and south of the site are vefY low density uses and expected to continue these uses as per the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Alap, The project provides a transition from the intense commercial uses along Eagle and Ustick Roads into a mix of residential densities from the C-G District to the R-8 and R-15 Districts, The applicants have included residential to residential use bz!ffers along the south and west boundaries as well as additional open spaces along the commercial corridors by providing amenities and open spaces- . Chapter VII, Goal N, Objective D, Action 5: Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation conidor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.). The applicant is proposing to construct appropriate buffers along all of the adjacent arterial streets. By ordinance, a minimum 251oot wide landscape bu;ffer is required adjacent to residential uses and 35-foot wide landscape buffer to Gateway Corridors. The landscape plan shows the appropriate landscape buffers, Staff also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application: . "Require all new parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands." (Chapter V, Goal III, Obj. D, #3, page 43) "Eagle Road is the major north-south arterial in Ada County. The capacity of this alierial should be protected by minimizing the number and location of private driveway access connections to this impOliant roadway. The City should recognize, adopt, and help implement the Eagle Road Access Control Study, prepared by ACHD in 1997." (Chapter VI, page 71) "The capacity of arterial. . .roadways Call be greatly diminished by excessive driveway cOlIDections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACHD to minimize access points on arterial. . ,roadways as development applications are reviewed," (Chapter VI, page 72) "Develop methods, such as cross~access agreements, :ftontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points on to arte11al streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #12, page 79). "Identify transitional zones to buffer commercial and residential uses, to allow uses such as offices and other low intensity uses." (Chapter VII, Goal I, Obj, B, #7, page 102) "Restrict curb cuts and access points on. . . arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Obj. D, #5, page 107) . . . . . 8. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists retail store/restaurant/ drive thru/ office/ financial institute uses as permitted uses in the C-G zarling district. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways, C-G General Retail and Service Commercial District: The purpose of the C-G district is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related ßienville Square Subdivision AZ-05-057/PP-05-059/CUP-05-052/RZ-05-0 19/PS-05-002 Page 9 CITY Of MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR TI-IE HEARING DATE OF 021I6/06 services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public, All such districts shall be connected to the municipal water and sewer systems of the city, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage c1usteling of commercial development. c. General Off-Street Parking Standards (from UDC ll-3C-5): The following standards shall apply for off-street vehicle parking for nonresidential uses: In all Commercial Districts the requirement shall be one (I) space for every five hundred (500) square feet of grOSS floor area. d. Structures Subject to Design Standards (1l-3A-19.B.5): All structures on property adjacent to an entryway couidor (Ustick/Eagle Roads) are subject to the design standards listed in this section. e, Outdoor storage/refuse areas (11-3A-12): Outdoor utility meters, HV AC equipment, trash dumpsters, trash compaction and other service f-i.mctions shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts ofthese functions are flllly contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. 9. ANALYSIS 9a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation The PP/AZ/RZ/CUP/PS application appears to substantially comply with the Unified Development Code. However, there are several areas of c1alification and some modifications required to both the site plan, cross access, public road design, and building elevations. Below are several special considerations for the P&Z Commission to review at the public hearing: Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation 1. AZ Application (AZ-05-057): Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, Staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed development. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of the required facts and findings for a Zoning Amendment. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped on 10/24/2005 by Michael Marks, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension, Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape iuigation. All future development of the subj ect property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. All future uses shall not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. UDC llA5B-3D provides the P&Z Commission and City Council the authority to require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Bienvj e Square Subdivision AZ-O5-057/PP-O5-059/CUP-O5-052/RZ-O5-0 19/PS-O5-002 Page 10 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/]6/06 Meridian that may require some written commitment for all future uses, Due to the close roximit of existin. and future residential uses staff believes that a Develo Jment A reement is necessm to ensure that tlus 1'0 Jert is develo ed in a fashion that is consistent with the comprehensive Dlan designatioli and does not negatively impact nearby properties, Staff believes that the Development Agreement should include the following provIsIOns: Phasing Plan: Generally, the applicant anticipates the phasing plan to begin with the commercial lots near the Eagle Road intersection and then continue development to the south and east. Construction is anticipated to reflect market demand and construction needs. Staff is supportive of this request but believes that some of the amenities proposed with the development should be constructed prior to the development build out. Therefore, that prior to issuance of any certificate of zoning compliance all landscaping shall be constructed along the southern and eastern property boundary and along Eagle Road to the point of connection with adjoining projects. The commercial/office lots should include either a peITllanent easement or be redesigned to include landscaping in common lots. Non-Residential Buildings: The applicant has requested a maximum of 54,000 square feet of retail/restaurant/office spaces. Staff proposes to limit the applicant to their request with an allowance of up to 20% additional conul1ercial square footage (65,000) for more marketable conditions. The maximum square footage of one single building shall not exceed Y2 of the maximum request. Residential Buildings: The applicant has shown several elevations for both alley accessed residential, townhouses, and detached single family residential products. Staff supports these elevations but would also support better clarification of the specific height, bulk, types of materials, and locations proposed for each type to address the concerns of adjoining property owners and to include witlun the DA. Pathways: The applicant shall coordinate with the Meridian Parks Department and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to define the location of the multiuse pathway, bridge maintenance, and landscaping along the Finch Lateral. The applicant shall comply with all design and maintenance standards as defined by UDC 11-3A-8 unless specifically waived by the Meridian City Council. That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are available from the City of Melidian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape inigation, That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance - with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. All future uses shall not involve uses, actiYities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 2, PP Application (PP-05-059): The proposed preliminary plat substantially complies with the Zoning Ordinance. Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-O5-057/PP-OS-OS9/GUP-OS-O52/RZ-OS-019/PS-OS-OO2 Page II CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 Special Considerations: Sidewalks: The applicant is proposing to construct 5-foot wide sidewalks on some of the intel11al streets/drive aisles, The sidewalks may be detached from,the curb with a 5~foot wide landscape strip. The proposed landscape strips do not include trees, only grass, The applicant is proposing to plant trees on the back side of the sidewalks, but staff believes that the trees should be planted between the curb and the sidewalk to provide the pedestrians with cover and to make the streetscape more attractive. The width of the planter strip between the sidewalk and the curb should be increased to a minimum of 8-feet wide and include Class II trees. Since the applicant has submitted a plan which is conceptual in nature staff feels the sidewalk locations shall be made consistent with the UDC including drive aisles which shall include at a minimum as' attached sidewalk or 4' detached sidewalk. Land Use Buffers: UDC requires landscape buffers between different land uses. Per UDC 11 ~3B-9, a 25-foot wide landscape buffer is required between single-family homes and C-G zoned property, The UDC requires the land use buffer to be provided by the higher intensity use and to be located on the building site of the higher intensity use, unless the adjacent and higher intensity use has not provided the buffer. The applicant is showing a 3D-foot wide buffer between the single-family homes and the detached single family residential lots, as well as the commercial and multifamily lots on the landscape plan, but the buffer is not shown on the preliminary plat. The applicant should be required to create a 3D-foot wide landscape buffer lot along the lots that abut the single-family lots. Said buffer shall contain materials in accordance with 'ODC ll-3B-9 and not include impervious surfaces such as parking areas or driveways. The pathway proposed shall be landscaped in accordance with 'ODC 11- 3B-12. See Exhibit B below. Landscape Street Buffers: Arterials: UDC 11-2B requires a 35~foot wide street buffer along classified arterial roadways and entryway couidors. Eagle Road is classified as an Artetial Road. On the submitted landscape plan, the applicant is proposing to construct a 35-foot wide street buffer along Eagle road. The applicant should be required to depict the required street buffers on the face of the final plat in an easement or place the required buffers in common lots as per ODC 11-3B. See Exhibit B below. Commercial Streets: 'ODC 11 ~2B requires a lO-foot wide street buffer along commercial roadways. On the submitted landscape plan, the applicant is proposing to construct a la-foot wide street buffer along both sides of W. Bourbon Street and Cajon Court. However, the street buffer easements are not labeled on the plat. The applicant should be required to depict the required 10- foot wide street buffer easements along local roads on the face of the final plat. Ditches. Laterals, and Canals: There are several inigation laterals that bisect this - parcel. Per UDC ll-3A-6, all iuigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled, The applicant is proposing to tile all of the inigation facilities located on site with the exception ofthe Finch Lateral. See Exhibit B below. Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized inigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (UDC 11-3A-15). The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-OS-OS7/PP-OS-OS9/CUP-05-052/RZ-05-0 19/PS-05-002 Page 12 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is used, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with City Code, See Site Exhibit B below. Fencing: The applicant is showing a six foot cedar and block fence along the perimeter of the propeliy which would meet the standards of the ODe. A detailed fencing plan should be submitted upon application of the final plat (ODC 11-3A- 7), If permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building pennit, All fencing should be installed in accordance with City Code. The applicant has submitted a revised fencing request as directed by the Planning Commission on 2/2/06, The request isfor a six foot open vision fence along the Finch Lateral and a composite fence along the southern boundary See Exhibit B below. Cross-access Intel11al: There are some commercial lots that do not have fi:ontage on a public street. h1stead the applicant is proposing to provide cross-access easements to the lots that do not have public street frontage. Because several of the proposed lots do not have frontage on a public street, the applicant should provide a cross parking/cross access agreement for all of the lots within the office and conunercial portions of the subdivision to use the driveways and parking aisles, The site will be redesigned if not granted access to Eagle Road by the Meridian City Council and/or ITD. The Commission has conditioned the Sadie Creek Project to provide at least one of the non-signalized access points to Ustick Road to be designed to serve as a commercial collector for interconnectivity to the north and south and vehicular movement in the north/south direction, Maintenance of the drive aisles and parking areas should be provided for in a note on the face of the final plat, AND/OR in a document such as CCRs, See Exhibit B below, Cross~access South: The applicant shall be required to provide cross access to the parcels north of the site, The project is a portion of a larger site project (Kissler Armexation) and the sites shall maintain consistent traffic flow for the entire site. Eagle Road Access: The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has a policy for access to a Type IV Principal Arterial will be at intersections only, and spaced at one- half mile intervals in urban areas, ITD allows approaches (other than intersections) in special cases and on a temporary basis. The access point shown at approximately 1,000 feet south of the Us tick Eagle Road intersection shall be eliminated as it does not meet criteria of either ITD or the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. However, the this property inunediately south of the site has been developed by Ada County which makes a break in the area which does not allow for a frontagelbackage road to be created on the south west side of Eagle and Us tick The applicant has an open application with ITD for the access to Eagle Road. CUP Application (CUP-05-052): The proposed Conditional Use request substantially complies with the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Elevations: The applicant has submitted building elevations of the proposed structures. The application lists the proposed building materials, including stone, brick, stucco and timber to be accented with chrome, aluminum and gloss painted trims. ODC 11-3A-19 Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-OS-OS7/PP-OS-OS9ICUP-OS-OS2/RZ-OS-0 19IPS-OS-002 Page 13 CITY OF MERfDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 requires al1 structures on property adjacent to an entryway conidor to comply with the. design standards listed in tIlls section, Staff's interpretation of the UDC is that the applicant may choose to place the "primary entrance" on an elevation other than the public street side. However, the public street elevations (Ustick Road and the new road on west boundary) must stilI meet the other standards listed in 11-3A-19 (except for the primary entrance standards), The elevations will need to be reviewed prior to issuance of CZC to comply with the following ordinance standards: a) Facades: Facades visible from a public street shall incorporate modulations in the façade, roofline recesses, and projections along a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the length of the facade. b) Roof lines: Roof design shall demonstrate two or more of the following; a) overhanging eaves, b) sloped roofs; c) two (2) or more roof planes; d) valying parapet heights; and e) cornices, c) Mechanical equipment: All ground-level and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened to the height of the unit as viewed from the property line. d) Color and Materials: Exterior building walls shal1 demonstrate the appearance of lllgh-quality materials of stone, blick, wood or other native materials, Smooth- faced concrete block, tiIt~up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels are prohibited except as accent materials. 2. Refuse/Service Area Screen: Neither the Site Plan or Landscape Plan call~out how or if the refuse/service area on the west side of the buildings will be screened. UDC ll-3A-12 requires the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. The applicant's CZC application must clearly demonstrate how this standard is met. 3. Cross Access: The property to the north will be providing two points of access for intercol111ectivity and is directly tied with the existing Development Agreement for providing a frontage road to Eagle Road, The applicant has provided a design consistent with two points of access, one point at Sadie Creek Avenue and the second point for the drive aisle approximately 700 feet west of the UstickiEagle intersection. There shall be cross access with a section designed to meet private street standards with the second point of access not designated as a public street. 4. Private Streets; The applicant is proposing to use Lot I Block 8 to provide future access N. Castille Street. The applicant has submitted a Private Street application as required by UDC 11-3F.3. The plivate street standards are listed in UDC 11-3F. The applicant -, shall design and construct the private streets in compliance with the standards listed for Private Streets in UDC 11-3F Private Streets. See Exhibit B. The Meridian Fire and Police Departments are requesting a minimum of 24' paved sections for alleys which shall not apply to the R.15 district as this would exceed the standards set forth by ACHD and the UDc. Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-05-057/PP-05-059/CUP-05-052/RZ-05-019/PS-05-002 Page 14 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 5. .common/Open Space: The applicant has a qualified application meeting the requirements ofUDC 11-3G. The proposal is showing 16.4% of qualified open space in the residential district which meets the requirements of a minimum of 5% open space, 6. Multi-Use Pathway: The applicant is not Showing but will be required to install a multiuse pathway in accordance to the Comprehensive Plan, The pathway shall be along the Finch Lateral in a location to be agreed upon with the Parks Director and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. CurTently, NMID has a 40' easement upon which the applicant is proposing to install the pathway, All NMID standard conditions shall be applied to this site and all pedestrian access easements shall be enacted. Staff will require the applicant to construct or bond for improvements to the multi-use pathway prior to occupancy of any commercial building. The pathway connection is listed as an amenity to the residents and users of the site and will be essential for pedestrian connection &om Ustick Road to Eagle Road, The pathway with the associated landscape standards will also buffer the future commercial uses and the transitional residential lot sizes to the existing large lot Ada County Subdivision which sulTounds the site, Therefore, the pathway shall be a priority to be completed as SOO11 as practical with the future development of the site, 7. Amenities: The applicant is required to provide one amenity per 20 acres. The applicant is showing qualified site amenities as follows: 11~3G-3C-1 - Quality of life amenities - Picnic arealbasketball couri in Lot 10 Block 2 11-3G-3C-2 - Recreation amenities - Clubhouse, in Lot 12 Block 1, tennis couris in Lot 10 Block 2 11- 3G- 3C-3 - Bicycle circulation amenities - Several blocks are connected with an intemal 5' pathway which will be required to connect to the required Multi-use Pathway along the Finch Lateral. Amenities are generally located centrally and in common lots, These common lots shall be maintained by the Bienville Square (Home or Business) Owners Association, The landscape architect shall certify that one tree per 8,000 square feet of lawn has been provided on the landscape plan. 9b. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, staff [lids the AZIIRZIPP/CUP/PS applications substantially confom1 with the adopted DA, Comprehensive Plan policies and UDC standards. As noted under "Special Considerations," we recommend the building elevations be submitted in compliance with the entryway conidor standards, the access point to Eagle Road be eliminated and redesigned, and a private street section for cross access provided to the south be added to the preliminary plat in place of the proposed Eagle Road access. We recommend approval of the AZ/RZIPP/CUPIPS application with the conditions shown in Exhibit B. 10. EXHffilTS A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (by Stanley Consultants, no date) 2. Landscape Plan (by The Land Group, dated October 13, 2005) Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-OS-OS7/PP-OS-OS9/CUP-05-0S2/RZ-OS-O 19/PS-OS-OO2 Page IS CTTY OF MERIDIAN PLANNTNG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARTNG DATE OF 02116/06 3. Site Plan (dated July 9, 2005) B. Legal Descriptions C. Conditions 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works 3, Fire Depaliment 4, Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Services 7. ACHD D. Required Findings from UDC- 1. Annexation 2. Rezone 3. Prelinùnary Plat 4. Conditional Use Pennit 5. Private Street 6. Variance - To be completed after a reconunendation from the Plarming Commission BieTlville Square Subdivision AZ-OS-OS7/PP-OS-OS9/CUP-OS-OS2/RZ-OS-O 19/PS-OS-OO2 Page 16 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 -------------" ,--,---------- --n_-'m____,---"-" "_.""'-----m_------__--" -----", -- , Exhibit AI: Preliminary Plat 1 (Stanley Consultants) No date --n--___.._----------------- --"'------~----,------ -----------""'------"----"'--'--- ¡-- --'.'. n_,_---__,-,------- --" ì "1---- '" , \, "----..,,-----..- ----- --""-"--"------10--- -..' sa f ¡¡,¡;fHiiik!HI1WIi ~¡¡;¡:¡ï!'J~¡i!~¡ii!;g l_k,l- ]'11:' 'ii! j'I/I":ll":il 'i 11 \.. ,-.> f'-' ,'" ¿: ---" , w.,j';;'<"".'1:;;;¡ HiW'm ¡¡j¡j¡ ;;Úi ,,', . --- .. ~¡;¡¡ ¡¡1[!í !l ¡!!~ iE!iiili~í i ¡!:~¡m i~~m;~ ¡~¡;j mE -¡~HJ¡J¡jl';)j!¡¡'--':f;¡¡ jJdJ;~~í!~) !! ":¡-""¡"""'¡--"",t'"!'íì^"'--'-"'""~'i "'-""-""'/1;"'" .æ¡!¡ ¡ll'¡"/j'ú-- î. *1 ill ¡~¡\I: ti ¡is '\;11,xf! . j i b 11" :~J 1:;' î ! fi¡I"ii¡"~"j )'¡ Î'-'!I"¡':-I';i¡-:' i 'ii' :!;;'~'Ili¡i! ¡¡'Wi '~'II ,¡¡~;!;IÍ;iJ ' ~ ;,,¡,,",--1'1I1"II'III),I--}"I--,"" " 1/1" "'.("1' I !J~'" .;¡~ 'J"'.lij> ,i b'¡11it!&'i~¡!i¡,,¡'!¡';d:.i:t¡ '~Ij . ",I!,;,.¡hf., 11"!lI'¡Í¡ tm'f¡"Æ.',o _I 'T"TT' q¡' ,!".l,fl¡,Iþ~ ---. ....!.,'--,I!--,-', P-"fl' ¡"~¡ '!;~ H '¡ ~ ijWIJ f; i ¡1 ¡ J¡k¡'~ j i ~I 'IIII-¡-!) ".. """ , -- I~¡U UI W:I! : 1110-/11=1';11111",,' ¡!tri1~111 : ¡11 Pi nmH¡/i,r/¡iHWI!iHH f¡i-¡rl~ ~I 'Ii H!:¡¡:'/J'!"""'¡ ;,1", ;~: i. -""¡il."!'.,'- "1'1---/ "11.. ,--- I". d!;iJ,djdl"¡.¡ ',' f~:¡;-;------' ;WI,,! ~¡ -.J¡~I ! 1!J,L:1': " 'L .. - j f '.1 r ""'NY'""'" ---aUA"~ . l . ..... """"",. ,",.'c..",'""-,.,---", '-'r--- """"<N_""'",.."""",,, °"00""." --.._----~----- - Bienville Square Subdivision Exhibit A Page] ¡ .', ',", ---..,-",---:..:,:.:~' "!i - -ï '"1"'r ,J --- n '. ¡i¡ ¡ I,; i '~('1 ,; t L~ ~ù. i ;' , i' j§ J,J ~@-~ i 1.J; ¡ 11--11"-'-> ¡;: fT ' -I,m/H" i : '--~lt 'U1~¡I¡; fltrl: ,xw' f I '11' ' "';~i-.L ' !! ,c'--'."-:"~< ',VI \-1, ÞUJ'" -- , jl ----",,----_..- ~:i;::.E'~:," .." '.. """".." CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/]6/06 Exhibit A2:, Landscape Plan L1.0 (The Land Group) Dated October 13, 2005 "'~;~~~~"'-"~'~=-,,~::.:c'-" - ,~-~~~--,._-""'" "---M,___"".._"",--- ..--..'..-"..--""-.."-..'-.-,.""---""'--.,--.....--"..--....---,..,,,- I ;t¡'-TCJ'>-"'- " ' , hi Hi~! ~~~(; !r~ ':,; :C;ì! ;; I- I I I - p' j ¡':~<¡ '-'-"/ fL:~ " , HI'~¡€¿1:= ;_¿i/f:.. '"" itf'l ":', ,," t; I II 'I' ',' {?--" tf,,---{--,":::,t"--F ~ r{\;=.'~~ ,- - 'if : f . :' ,- r;;;~(§, C¡- ~_Oþ} <u"~¿"--" ((, !:r,1;:i'[;~£/j" é~~:7~:}" ,'"" "'"',, ; f ~ ~~ "'~;~:::~-~~:,~ !~~j "', ;':¡: ,,--,Ð= I "JH' I'" cm~l~ ---,I'-"._---""ji¡"/ !,;tn};: ~:',---, i~i.I'~£BJlltlllæ:j.r~;;¡"'i q i ~,t.,,:,~¡;-! iæl¡II¡Ij';II'llrlll'l$ ~i :,i¡¡' ~¡U:à, ;. ,,';,t't' ~I!ILI'~I" -~¡';t_'E ,: ';':, :{f;1fg~~~""~~¿;~~~;~~¡-c~""'"\!>,,.",,¡,,:,,,,"._."",I!" """":"";"."""";" ].'."."-".".":'.""£'1,.::,1- '!,', ~ ¡õ, 01 O"~ ,:~~!J", ,/ rrJ j {lrllltlU ~ ~ i!i~nrr !P/ìm:i~ "<Gf.' , H!,'I'I,!'II,£II,II",'f ftl~'-":,'I~::"",II,',f"""'~/II'I!¡,,ll~'(T o3 , ..., 'f ,r, 1", II,," ~: "" I: I 'J: I 'I' ~ !iil¡IiJh¡¡ ¡ïViilm!if¡m¡1!lllÍliiliiJiÌj¡I;i!iil¡'~<';:,~.:~ ! -J ' I' ',II 'I¡:i'~ 'III, I,' ¡q ¡1¡1:!Ii/!!'i!1I!11nrJ¡!/d;lhJI;:¡¡III!,J¡uI¡d LI; I " ,-J "I"¡,,I¡¡JIJ'I"lf/¡¡!/III!¡JI!/ ¡"'I'llh<ø ""(" ¡tml¡íJïijji}l!ti¡ fIn i, ¡itn iJ'}f1 ~ i I' I Hi,/ ! nl H /1; if I¡¡ì¡ Uir¡"H !II/JII'/'ll !2 '-- flffl'flJl¡llt! ((d <"'I'i;¡ 1,:li¡ ¡1" '¡il¡;:tI!H¡Jjl:J!~¡U11iIJ11~ '",' ¡",':!I",¡r ill!,,'1. il¡"! ~ ¡I¡!'~ ,..j l,¡jiw¡;"th,¡,jI/!I¡,¡'", ,,' : '," ""', ';1/ !;/I:I!-/ji!i',¡,¡I¡liJ(jl¡¡:::" "~I "I:':--"-"...:..;"::,:",:_~",."",,,:,,. Hi,! ,1¡ill/ji'l/did!!-!!!I)!!!,,/]',II!¡.'I ¡~ ' ' , .' I' r J"" '¡- 'I':' I.. '-""""',,"r','" Ii: :¡":';,; ;¡'~í 0 ,.11/ UI 1'ld'J",~¡!j '~Jil,(,lI/jl!¡/J¡¡i¡11"111 ""u_u~--- ..-,-,'-1:",-'--.1 'JI, 1""jl/"-II-.I"Jj¡"¡ f ¡ , ' . 'i II I f ¡ Ii ¡ oj; I,) I . I /! --,---"-,,._- --.- "", ! ¡!/¡¡¡'jl¡f¡,IU!ljlllll " ;:,'i¡:: ¡~ .., ' , if....;" ,~¡ ~.1¡ 11; il;~ .... ,! F: 0 c: :; :j 0 "" en ~œ'" 1!!iHIPi!i¡'¡S = B'E:~:~~::~,;RE "']""" -:-- """!!"""",,,,-"."-- ..C,--):!; (~;:t) ~"'",," --'- Bienvillc Square Subdivision Exhibit A Page 2 CITY OF MERIDfAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02116/06 Exbibit A2: Landscape PIan L1.1(The Land Group) Dated October 13~ ZOOS '""""""-""="== ,=~= -. - '--.,--,- --'-- ---'- -'-~1 // :::1 <V ~ ~ ii " t" i¡ ? r- -, ~':4 ~-,'j\ -, BienvilIe Square Subdivision Exhibit A Page 3 ',1 .,1 -,!:";-' ¡ -, --- ",' ""< -- -- - cc-------_..""=--.,...---,-,---~~"~--~- ' i:¡,;! I~~.",:~" BjENVILLE SQUAf~E ,- .. .. .!i.. /;;,;~:;r::\ 'IUI¡' i .';'1 , ' ;:'~ {~i -H f ¡, ,1 ,.,~,' MEF~IOiAtJ tD'\i-iO ;'i' "~~"~[~"'(i ~",--..,~ """'------",,~ " '- ,,~-- ----" ",:::~,;- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 ExhibitA3: Site Plan ,:i ,-,,¡. "I ; 1)1 .. ,.~¡ I~ '~i, . jø~ i,1 ., .1 . ,,;,., ;ì¡l. 1 I; .--..--"..--- ---- -"--'"---.",..-----,, li-,-- ,¡ ¡ ! ",- 1'" '~:, T ~J 't.> '.;" ~ ;:1 'I>, . ):fiij f ", ,,- I .~ "i'" "-;c:!" ¡ I ~ I ii, if .. --... -", . ~ ,J:, > ,,", If ï Ii ¡ ¡ I I I ' --- ".." - --. . -- . "'--'----"-----"'----_'_--,,----._- . '. .. ...-. ----.- "-,,_... ,,'.' 1- - °;- - "j!' -~ .,.'1;, t ! : :jji~-Jl~,!1 , .o.{cC ¡ , t :-ll~'-,,: .~ :! 1 .. ¡cc.",)- !J,~1P"::-le! :: :!! , . / ~""D ~: ,i'll' : : ¡ ; ; -- --"!.)-~~-~:-:~-,V!¡ i! ')~r~:"'l¡H:Vi: ,,- '~., ;' r:;::';",; 'j,:-; ii ,I", ¡ :: I!' . I ;~t',ì'j!{' ! 'f...--cl ¡ ..". ' "¡;tl"" ";:/Ulji¡¡: '~I! I; ,./ :, Q' ,i ' ~Æ ."~~~~~~,,~,,~:,}j '\<:)) \¡ I. I ! """"<,C-:':'::'::C-i ~. II i I 'II IJI'I'I' I . i : I --------.--.--------------.---..--..------.---,--.,----... Bienville Square Subdivision Exhibit A Page 4 i' ,.,' i"I,' ;,,"1 ¡ ¡ ;¡ III '\ ¡ ;i' iI i ¡ I i ! CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 Exhibit B: Legal Description - Subdivision DESCRIPTION FOR BIENVILLE SQUARE SUBDIVISION OCTOBER 13, 2005 A PARCEL OF LAND 8EING PORTIONS OF PARCEL "0" OF RECORD OF SURVEY NO, 6418 AND OF THE NE Y. OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 5, T. 3 N" R. 1 E, 8,M" THENCE S 00°00'00" E 677.57 ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 5 TO A POINT; THENCE N 83°54'00" W 57,36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERL Y RIGHT OF WAY OF EAGLE ROAD, THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE S 01°14'39" W 97496 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY TO A POINT; ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION THE FOLLOWING: THENCE N 44°05'18" W 227,63 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 72°24'04" W 221 ,28 FEET TO A POINT: THENCE S 77"26'30" W 667.38 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 72°35'42" W 233.35 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N O{)01S'11" W 1129,35 FEET ALONG BAja BOUNDARY TO A POINT; LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION: THENCE S 71 °28'10" E 803,90 FEET TO A POINT: THENCE S 83"1'1 UÜ E 51021 FEET 1'0 THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THiS DESCRIPTiON. COMPRISING 2/',36 ACRES, MORE OR LESs, S,\D[F.,p,.'Rcn .--\ BienviJle Square Subdivision Exhibit B Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 - -"'.~"'~--'^""~",","'"""",""~"""-,;,=~,,,;,,,.,^,....-~'.-<4_~"_.",,.<, .'1/ I -"~lir; l " >',:':' "-, 0 CO ::'! (f) tn _..J 0 Q:: <1; U --- ",.--.....""",-"""-",-.."",,.. """".,--..,,---.,., ",--...." ----, ",-- -'-~"'"' "--, - """ uc::;nu-: R (I A" l,,: s::: -~,) --- -, -" t:[ì z 0 DJ :> I i ¡ ~~~, : """".. I ..,....,.. : :: I "........ I ',J ,. "',",,- : 1:'-, ------"'- y-' - - " PREVIOU.s ANNEXATION -t!f1~ ,'-,I)\': '---;eel_, """-'!l\:::>f,',- I '-",," --J()b\¡ '-"O/()(I" ,-y;,.,:;:.,",' I ;,1 87O" ';0 ¡ tì 1167- ¡"!-..~:!!.9"OO' [ N 8<J~¡'IOO'E (')r- '~I"-I- "9- ,- "CAROL'S SU8DI~SJ~N o~~~ ~'/ I 7821" N 9~ "!G (ii)" W c: ~) 14 UNF'LA TTED ~\i,j¡~Lul ¡¡Iy'.) [/HIEJi f fCf;( , BI:J~VIIJ;:- ~;I,JUÞ.r\r SUf3nl\" <::;IC:Î'~ /II)'-:¡QFI'I 1,\) n"l~ Nt.' ,i,; n¡: SEC 'I !e\( ,,-, i '.' ,- ,'- , ,"-," . """""-'- "":" -_.--" Bienville Square Subdivision Exhibit B Page 3 e Stanley Consultants If),, ,'-' '" ,'-',;,':',',----', ,,' ,;,y, "-~-- "';, " , 'F -','.".:-, ~, .. :-;:-:':,;,-~-:~, "'J" ,...~-'""_. I" : ':,,_,,1;1 '" - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE!>-RING DATE OF 02/16/06 Exbibit Ii: Legal Description - Annexation DESCRIPTION FOR BIENVILlE SQUARE SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION OCTOBER 24, 2005 A PARCEL OF lAND BEING A PORTIONS OF THE NE Y. OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 5, T. 3 N" R 1 E, B.M., THENCE S 00°00'00" E 955.14 ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 5 TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE S 00"00'00" E 691_06 FEET ALONG SArD SECTION LINE TO A POINT: THENCE N 90°00'00" W 78.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF EAGLE ROAD: THENCE N 44°05'18" W 227.63 FEET TO A POINT; ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION THE FOLLOWING: THENCE N 72"24'04" W 221,28 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 77°26'30" W 667,38 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 72°35'42" W 233.35 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 00°15'11" W 569.21 FEET ALONG SAID BOUNDARY TO A POINT; LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION: THENCE N 87"06'00" E 335,19 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 7QOTOIJ F 319_00 FEEì TO A POiNT: THENCE N 77"06'00" E 267.75 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 89"54'00' E 20000 FEET TO A POINT: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 Exhibit B: Legal Description - C.G (General Commercial) DESCRIPTION FOR BIENVILLE SQUARE SUBDIVISION C-G ZONE OCTOBER 13, 2005 A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PORTIONS OF PARCEL "0" OF RECORD OF SURVEY NO, 6418 AND OF THE NE Y. OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARL Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 5, T 3 n. R 1 E-. 8.M.. THENCE S 00"00'00" E 677.57 ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 5 TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE S 00"00'00" E 968,63 FEET ALONG SAID SECTION LINE TO A POINT: THENCE N 90.00'00" W 78.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF EAGLE ROAD; ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION THE FOLLOWING: THENCE N 44°05'18" W 227.63 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 00"37'20" E 786.75 FEET: LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION: THENCE N 72°24'04" W 213.51 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 83'54'00" E 434,01 fEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION, COMPRISING 8,73 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. B/J' \IVfL L 1-('0\1 \fERCI.A L CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I-lE~RING DATE OF 02/16/06 Exhibit B: Legal Description - R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) DESCRIPTION FOR BIENV/llE SQUARE SUBDIVISION R15 ZONE OCTOBER 13, 2005 A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PORTIONS OF PARCEL "0" OF RECORD OF SURVEY NO, 6418 AND OF THE NE Y. OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 5, T- 3 N., R. 1 E, B.M., THENCE S aoaoo'OO" E 677.57 ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 5 TO A POINT; THENCE N 83°54'00" W 434_01 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION: THENCE S 00"37'20" W 786.75 FEET; ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION THE FOLLOWING: THENCE N 72°24'04" W 7,77 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 77"26'30" W 594,16 FEET To A POINT; LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION: THENCE N 00"37'20" E 132,52 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 89°22'40" E 105.87 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 87.11 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 50,00 FEET, A DElTA ANGLE OF 99°49'13", A TANGENT OF 59.40 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 40°42'43" E 76.50 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 09"11'53" W 17U4 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 205.40 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 57500 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 20"28'023", A TANGENT OF 103.81 rEEl AND A CHORD BEARING N 01'02'08' E 204,31 FEET TOA POINT OF TANGENCY; THFNCE N ~¡ 1--;':0.,,' ~ 5<?f ":::!C;T "-0 A F)(JI~jT CF (::.Jf~\!';T!.IRr; BIF~vrr.LE-R-15 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/1 6/06 THENCE 232.28 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 625,00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 21 °17'37", A TANGENT OF 117.49 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 00"37'20" E 230.94 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 10'O1'28"W 1'/1.52 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 69.25 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 79°21'123", A TANGENT OF 41.48 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 49°42'04" W 63.85 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 89"22'40" W 148.60 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE: THENCE 23.81 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 100,00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 13°38'38", A TANGENT OF 11.96 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 82°33'21" W 23.76 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 75°44'02" W 41.56 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE 18,13 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RJGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 300,00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 03°27'42", A TANGENT OF 9.07 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 15°59'49" W 18.12 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSED CURVATURE; THENCE 93,21 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 17°48'08". A TANGENT OF 46,98 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 08'49'36" E 92.84 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE S 71 "28'10" E 609.64 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 83°54'00" E 133,56 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION, COMPRISING 10,03 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BIE-'iVrLLE-R-J " CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 Exhibit B: Legal Description - R-8 (Medium Density Residential) DESCRIPTION FOR BIENV/llE SQUARE SUBDIVISION R8Z0NE OCTOBER 13, 2005 A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PORTIONS OF PARCEL "0" OF RECORD OF SURVEY NO, 6418 AND OF THE NE Y. OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE BOl8E MERIDIAN, MERIOlAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BEING MORE PARTlCULARl Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING A T THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 5, To 3 N, R. 1 E, 8.M., THENCE S 00°00'00" E 677.57 ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 5 TO A POINT; THENCE N 83°54'00" W 567,57 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 71 °28'1 O"W 609.64 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE N 71°28'10" W 194.26 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION; ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION THE FOLLOWING: THENCE 8 00°15'11" E 1129,35 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 72°35'42" E 233.35 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 77"26'30" E 73,22 FEET TO A POINT; LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDNlSION: THENCE N 00°37'20" E 132.52 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 89°22'40" E 105.87 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 87.11 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT. SAJD CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 5000 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 99"W13 , A TANGEN r or; 59.40 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 40"42'43" E 76.50 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 09'11'53" W 171.74 FEET TO A P01NT OF CURVATURE; Tf-IFW:T ?O5 ':1) FE¡:;:T /lL,)\I(:; .I\.':i.:r:!\!E TC Ti..I~;: r::'(:;liT ~;'\i[) ,,';' .0:; >!;,"'I~I(,/. :. ":::f:-~:-T/[:El"':."'\'~:::I;:l)~"'-J?6(1.'_:".'" BIE\IVIL LF-R-~: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNfNG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 TANGENT OF 103_81 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 01 "02'08" E 204.31 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 11'16'08" E 5321 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 232.28 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 625,00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 21"17'37", A TANGENT OF 117.49 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 00"37'20" E 230"94 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 10o01'28"W 111.52 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 69,25 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 79"21'123", A TANGENT OF 41.48 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 49"42'04" W 63.85 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 89°22'40" W 148,60 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE: THENCE 23,81 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 100,00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 13°38'38", A TANGENT OF 11.96 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 82°33'21" W 23,76 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 75°44'02" W 41,56 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE 18,13 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 03"27'42", A TANGENT OF 9.07 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 15°59'49" E 18,12 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSED CURVATURE; THENCE 93.21 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 17°48'08". A TANGENT OF 46.98 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 08°49'36" E 92,84 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION, COMPRISING 10.11 ACRES. MORE OR LESS, BlENV/l.L.E.H.,S 1.1.4 1.1.5 1.1.6 1.1.7 1.1.8 1.1.9 1.1.10 1.1.11 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02116/06 C. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS- (Bienville Square) 1.1.1 The preliminary plat labeled as I prepared by Stanley Consultants, with no date, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments/conditions of the accompanying Almexation and Zoning (AZ-05-057) and Conditional Use Permit (CuP-05-052) applications shal1 also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat. Create an open space lot for the proposed 30-foot wide landscape buffer along the south and west boundaries. Said buffer area shall contain materials in accordance with ODC 11-3B and not include impervious surfaces such as parking areas or driveways. A multi-use pathway shall be located as depicted on the master site plan submitted February 13, 2006 and dated Febmary 8, 2006, the construction of the pathway shall comply with ODC 11-3A~8 Graphically depict on the face of the plat, the required 35-foot wide landscape buffer along Eagle Road. Depict on the face of the final plat a 10-foot wide landscape buffer along both sides of W. Burbon Street and N. Cajon Court. Said landscape buffers shall be in either a common lot or an easement adjacent to the rights of way. The landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, labeled Sheets LS 1.1, is not approved with these applications a landscape plan consistent with ODC 11-3B shall be submitted with the final plat which reflects any changes made to the preliminary plat to redesign the subdivision consistent with approved access points. Including but not limited to ful1landscaping along Eagle Road which culTently is listed as a right-inlright-out access, A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted consistent with the master site plan dated February 8, 2006 and stamped received on February 13, 2006 for fencing along the Finch Lateral. All other fencing shall remain consistent with the landscape plan dated October 13, 2006, 1,1,2 1,1.3 Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy the perimeter landscaping and fencing shall be installed or a surety agreement shall be in place, Construction or bonding for the multi-use pathway shall also be completed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for Bienville Square Subdivision. With the final plat application, submitted revised copies of the landscape plan with the changes listed above. Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Bienville Square Subdivision BusinesslHome Owners Association(s). Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment will be screened from view from any public right-of- way. The applicant shall submit drawings at the time of CZC submission that demonstrate this condition is complied with, The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in ODC 11-3A-11. The awnings on the east elevations shall extend at least 20 feet beyond the entry doors, measured from the building face to the outer edge of the awning for the retail buildings. The applicant shall submit a drawing at the time of CZC application submission to demonstrate compliance with this condition. 1.1,12 Comply with ODC 11~3A-12 regarding a screen for the refuse/service area, CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARrNG DATE OF 02/16/06 . . 1,1.13 No iaigation pump station or facility is shown on the Site Plan. Ho.wever, if one is proposed for the site, it must be located outside of any required street buffer. Impervious surfaces are prohibited in said buffers. 1.1.14 Prior to the City Engineer's signature of the final plat, all existing structures sl~all be removed from the site. 1.1.15 Provide cross access/cross parking agreel11ent(s) for all lots in Bienville Square Subdivision. All cross access drive aisles shall only approach the ACHD approved points of access to the public street system. Maintenance of the aisle and parking areas shall be provided for in a note on the face of the final plat, AND/OR in a document such as CCR's. Other than the points of access approved by ACHD, City of Meridian, and LTD, direct lot access to Eagle Road, is prohibited. A note shall be placed on the final plat restricting access to Eagle Road. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Pem1itting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 1.1.16 1.1.17 1.1.18 1.1.19 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.1.20 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to City Code. 1.1.21 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. All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stOlIDwater detention facilities incOlþorated 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 pennitted under UDC Il-3A-18, If the stonnwater detention facility cannot be incorporated 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. 1.1.22 1.1.23 The applicant shall submit a detailed fencing plan with the final plat application for the subdivision. If pennanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building pennit. All fencing should be installed in accordance with City Code. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be mitigated. 1.1.25 All iaigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled, unless otherwise 1.1.24 2,6 2,7 2.8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 1.1.26 approved by the In-igation District(s). Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate in-igation/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, altel11ate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat signature, Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or ten11S of the approved annexationlconditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance, Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in ODC II-6A. 1.1.27 2. Public Works Department 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains planned in Sadie Creek Subdivision, CulTently there is no sewer adjacent to this site and the City of Meridian does not guarantee service in the timelines outlined in the UDC. The applicant shall install all mains necessalY to provide service; 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 tlu-ee feet, if Cover from top of pipe to sub~grade is less than three feet than altel11ate 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 Sadie Creek Subdivision, The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.2 2.3 2.4 The applicant shall be required to COlU1ect to the existing main in N. Eagle Road with a 10-inch mam, 2,5 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants), The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat. The description shall be consistent with the graphically depicted easements on the plat but be recorded as a separate document using the City of Meridian's standard fonus. Submit an executed easement (supplied by Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHlBIT A) and an 8112" xII" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHlBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. The applicant has not indicated who will own and operate the pressure in-igation system in this proposed development. If it is to be maintained as a private system, plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the construction plan review. A "draft copy" of the operations and maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "final draft" being required prior to final plat signature on the last phase of this project. If it is to be owned and maintained by an Irrigation District then evidence of a license agreement shall be submitted prior to scheduling of a pre~construction meeting. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized Înigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12~13~8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well Source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single.point connection is 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, All existing structures shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2,12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2,11 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I-lEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 2.9 All in-igation ditches, laterals or canals,exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per ODC 11 ~3A~6. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate inigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Wodes Department. If lateral Users association approval can't be obtained, altemate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature, 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. The applicant has not indicated how the stom1 drainage from the proposed private streets will be disposed. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer COrd, 557, 10-1 ~9l) for all off-street parking areas and private roads. Storm water treatment and disposal shall be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Sto11n Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies, Off-site disposal into surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval, The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. 2.10 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building pennits, 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 limited 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 constlllction 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 Fair Housing Act. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the EnviroI1l11ental Protection Agency. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Pennitting 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 perfol111ed in confol111ance with MCC lI-12-3H. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 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 l~foot above. 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3,10 3,11 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR TI-IE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 2,23 One hwldred watt, high~pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are detennined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company, The street light contractor shall obtain design and pennit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations, 3. Meridian Fire Department 3,1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Depatiment. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 Yz" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec, d, Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant location. e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing pennits, f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. g. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade, h. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the JFC Section 509.5. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. Provide at least a 20' wide Fire Lane for all internal roadways all roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D1O3.6 Signs. Fire lanes and streets shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6". This includes mature landscaping. Operational fire hydrants, temporary or pelIDanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site, Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D, The new commercial lot will have an unknown impact on Meridian Fire Department call volumes, The Meridian Fire Department has experienced 2612 responses in the year 2004. According to a report completed by Fire & Emergency Services Consulting Group our requests for service are projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and 3800 by the year 2010. The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the - development of tlns project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the trash dumpster enclosure. Provide a Knoxbox entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 5.2 ..- ." CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR TI-Œ HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 3.Ï2 The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required intersection( s). 3.13 The Fire Dept. has concerns about the ability to address the project and have the addresses visible from the street which the project is addressed off of. Please contact Vicki Heugly (898-5500) to address this concern prior to the public hearing, 3.14 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.15 There shall be a fu-e hydrant within 100' of all fire department connections, 3.16 Where a pOliion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) fi:om 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), For Group R~3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 4. 4,1 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). Police Department The proposed plat and/or site design encourages high-speed, cut-through traffic, The applicant shall work with the Ada County Highway District to provide traffic calming design to decrease travel speeds on Sadie Creek A venue. The proposed drive through has limited visibility from a public street. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall meet with the Police Chief to discuss methods of increasing visibility to the facility. The proposed development and/or plat do not offer natural surveillance oPportunities of the public areas. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall meet with the Police Chief and/or Planning Staff to discuss features that increase visibility, including but not limited to: doors and windows that look out on the public areas, front porches, and adequate nighttime lighting. The site plan and/or landscaping plan shall be revised in accord with those discussions. The proposed after-hours walk-up facility (e.g. ATM) has limited visibility fTom a public street. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall meet with the Police Chief to discuss methods of increasing visibility to the facility, The loading areas shall be separated fTom all public parking areas. Parks Department Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance 11-3B will be followed, 4.2 4.3 4,4 4.5 5. 5.1 Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR nlE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 5.3 Tree Grate and Tree Box standard: The proposed tree grate shall be a 6 foot by 6 foot, cast iron, French pattern tree grate. This grate shall be placed in a 6 foot by 6 foot inside diameter tree box with a steel grate frame set in concrete. Prior to CZC approval, contact Meridian Parks and Recreation Department for specifications and tree box construction drawings, Sanitary Service Company Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. 6. 6.1 7. ACHD Site Specific Conditions of Approval 7.1 Extend Sadie Creek Avenue into the site from the north property line, Transition the roadway from a 40-foot commercial street section to a 36-foot wide street within 50-feet of right-of-way, with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk. 7.2 Sadie Creek Avenue north of this site to Ustick Road will need to be constructed and dedicated prior to, or in conjunction with final plat approval for this site. 7.3 All local streets in the subdivision should be constructed as 36-foot street sections within 50-feet of right-of-way with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk. The proposed alley may be constructed as a public alley if it is paved l6-feet wide within20-feet of right-of-way. OR The proposed alley may be constructed as a private drive/street, if it is signed accordingly. Bourbon Street shall tenninate in a culdesac and shall not extend to SH-55. Public road access to SH-55 is prohibited. Provide a letter from ITD stating required improvements and access decisions. Standard Conditions of Approval Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12 Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or right-of~way. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged dm-ing the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 7.19 7.20 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/1 6/06 7,13 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details, 7.14 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State ofIdaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 7.15 The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building pennit (or other required penllits), 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. 7,16 7.17 Payment of applicable road impact fees will be required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Impact Fee Ordinance. 7.18 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 0-800-342-1585) 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 ITom the Ada County Highway Disttict. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 Exhibit D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance ODC 11-5B-3E. Annexation/Rezone Findings: The commission and council shall review the pmiicular facts and circumstances of each proposed zoning amendment in tem1S of the following standards and shall find adequate evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment: Á. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, 'Mixed Use Regional' is defined as m"eas including commercial and residential development consistent with auto and service oriented uses. Staff finds that the requested General Commercial (C-G) zoning designation is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map, which delineates the subject property as "Mixed Use~Regional". The purpose of the C-G district is "to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or mierial streets; to fulfill the need of travel~related services as well as retail sales for the transient and pennanent motoring public." Staff finds that the proposed zoning is in general cO11Íom1ance with the comprehensive plan (please see Section 7 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific comprehensive plan action items that apply to this development). B. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement;; ConcUlTent with the annexation and zoning application, the applicant has submitted a prelinlinary that proposes commercial products for the subject site (PP-05-059/ CUP-05- 052). Staff does not anticipate that the applicant plans to rezone the subject property in the future if the accompanying PP application is approved. Staff finds that the various proposed commercial uses would be allowed (permitted) within the requested C-G zone. The site is being proposed as three portions of commercial, high density residential and medium low density residential and upon build out staff would not anticipate changes of usage for this site. C. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The applicant has submitted elevations for the proposed conunercial and residential units and has agreed to use the design guidelines for commercial projects along gateway conidors when designing building facades, Staff finds that the proposed C-G zone with the proposed retail, office and restaurant uses, if designed, constructed and operated in accordance with adopted city ordinances, should be hannO1lious and appropriate in appearance with the intended character of the vicinity. The site is intended for - commercial uses which, based on the Comprehensive Plan description, will have such uses as retail, wholesale, service and office uses, as well as appropriate public uses such as government offices. Staff finds that the R-15 zoning designation along a C-G General Commercial will be an appropriate use buffer. Furthennore the R-8 proposed zoning designation along the western boundary of the site further transitions these uses from the low density residential uses west of the site. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 Staff finds that the proposed development will change the existing character of the area, which is still largely rural. However, the proposed development is generally hal1nonious with the intended character envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff does not find that the proposed zoning/uses will adversely change the essential character of area. The Commission and Council should rely on public testimony (oral and written) to detennine whether or not the proposed use will be disturbing or hazardous to the existing or future neighboring uses. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed uses will be disturbing to future or existing neighbors, as long as landscaping, fencing and other recommended conditions are exercised. FUliher, staff does not anticipate that the proposed uses will be hazardous as long as the applicant complies with the conditions contained in Exhibit C and all City Code provisions, D. 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 applicant will be responsible for the extension of all utilities necessary to serve this proposed development. Pennanent sanitary sewer service to this development is to be provided by the extension of sewer in Us tick Road and extended south through Sadie Creek Avenue to be looped with extensions in Eagle Road. The applicant will be responsible for the extension of utilities to and through this proposed development. Sizing and routing shall be coordinated with the Public Works Department. Other urban services, such as water, are near to this site and the applicant should be able to extend such services to the site. Staff finds that the subject site is proposed for development in a fashion similar to other properties in the area. The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay park and highway impact fees. ACHD had not submitted a staff report with site specific and standard conditions which will be attached as Exhibit C prior to the hearing date of November 17, 2005. On December 13, 2005, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with representatives of key service providers to this property. Based on the joint agency/department meeting and other comments received from agencies/departments, staff finds that except for sanitary sewer, the public services listed above can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. The Commission and Council should reference any written and/or verbal testimony submitted by any public service provider, regarding their ability to adequately service this project. 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 - proposed zoning and subsequent development will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. E. The annexation is in the best of interest ofthe City (UDC 11-5B-3.E). If the a licant enters into a Develo ment A "eement DA with the Cit stafffmds that the annexation and zoning of this property to C-G. R-15 and R-8 would be in the best interest of the City. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HIE HEARING DATE OF 02/[6/06 2. -Preliminary Plat Findings: ODC 11-6B-6 In detel111ining the acceptance of a proposed subdivision, the Commission shall consider the objectives of this Title and at least the following: A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Please see Annexation Findings Item A above. B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate accommodate the proposed development; Please see Annexation Findings Items C and D above C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord the City's capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds, D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Please see Exhibit B for comments and conditions from other agencies and departments. E. The development will not be detrimental to the public heath, safety or general welfare; and Staff is not aware of any health, safety or general welfare problems associated with the development ofthis subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Conmrission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to detennine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware, F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is not aware of any natural, scenic or historic features which require preservation, The applicant will be required to maintain, fence, and improve the wateIWays which are existing on this site. Furthennore the applicant shall define with the Parks Department the location of a multiuse pathway which will further enhance the natural features of the Finch Lateral as well as providing an additional use buffer. 3. Conditional Use Findings UDC 1l-SB-6E The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use in tenns of the following, and may approve a conditional use pemlit if they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the site is 27.3 acres and is large enough to accommodate all required parking, landscaping, loading and other standard regulations required by the ODC. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/16/06 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the proposed residential/retail/restaurant/office uses meets the objectives ofthe Comprehensive Plan as listed in Section 7 of this repOli. Some of the standards ofthe UDC are not culTently being shown by the applicant's site plan and building elevations, Specifically, the site plan needs to reflect the elimination of access to Eagle Road and building elevations need to be submitted in compliance with the entryway colTidor design standards, If the applicant makes these changes, or an access variance is granted, this finding will be met. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds that the proposed retail uses complies with the uses permitted in the C-G zone and those uses allowed under the Development Agreement. The building height, parking layout, landscape buffer widths and other dimensional standards shown in the application generally comply with the ODe. The property adjacent to the west boundary to approximately 320 feet south of Us tick Road is zoned R-2 and is proposed as low density residential uses. The applicant will be required to construct the proposed buffer between land uses to address this less intensive use where commercial lots abut. The multifamily proposal is an appropliate transition from the Commercial uses to the lower density residential uses which sunound the site, 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with aU conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that the proposed development wíIlnot adversely affect other property in the vicinity if the applicant complies with all CUPIPP/AZ IRZ conditions and constructs all improvements and operates the use in accordance with the UDC standards. Traffic volumes will significantly increase. However, both ACHD and ITD have reviewed the application and placed special conditions on the applicant. These standards may include lighting, screening, landscaping and other areas intended to mitigate potentially hallnful effects. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water and ilTigation are available to the subj ect property, A recently completed public-private partnership to improve Ustick Road to five lanes and ACHD includes planning to install a traffic signal at the west boundary of the site shown at - Sadie Creek Avenue. The commercial land use should not have any impact on the school system. Please refer to other comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR II-IE HEARING DATE OF 021I6/06 Staff finds that the applicant will pay to extend the sanitary sewer and water mains into the site, No additional capital facility costs are expected from the City. The additional commercial structures will improve the tax base for the City of Meridian. The applicant ancl!or future property owners will be required to pay highway impact fees. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds that the proposed development will not involve uses that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the sulTounding area. Staff recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision; however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Staff flllds the future buffer between land uses along the property boundary and the use and Eagle Road buffers will help to mitigate noise, [lImes and glare created by the additional traffic, 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The applicant will be required to comply with all state and local ordinances regarding conveyance of water and maintaining historic points of access. The Ada County Histolic Preservation Council's Site Inventory does not show any structures or places listed for the subject property. We are unaware of any other scenic or historic features. 4. Private Street - UDC 11-3F-5 A. The Design of the private street meets the requirements of this Article; The applicant will have to certify that the Ada County Street Naming Committee has accepted the private street names, The design ofthe streets meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3pw4, no gates are allowed or proposed. Roadway and stonn drainage shall be contained on site. The street width shall be a minimum of 26 feet of paved surface for all private streets other than alleys. B. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons property, or uses in the vicinity; and Staff does not anticipate any hazard, nuisance or other detriment from the plivate streets if they are installed and maintained as designed. C. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. Staff does not anticipate any conflict with the comprehensive plan. See findings above for comprehensive analysis. PP 05-059 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT Red Cliff Development, LLC February 2, 2006 ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from January 5,2006 - Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision - 2935 North Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See Previous Item Packet CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See Staff Report in Al Packet 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: OTH ER: Date: ,;¡ I , } ()I nJ,;hone: d'11 0- ö30lJ> ~ Contacted: Emailed: IIc mee ings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 2 February 2006 .-RI1JCEIVED FEB .- 2 2006 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office RE: Bienville Square Subdivision - Red Cliff Dear Chairman and Commission members: I do not want to be known as the whiner of Carol Subdivision but I am beginning to feel that way, Tuesday, 24 January, residents of the Carol Subdivision received a notice from Red Cliff that they would be meeting with us on Saturday, 28th at City Hall and enclosed a printout of a brand new all commercial plan, BienviUe Square, for the properties at Ustick and Eagle Rd, A good number of us attended even with the short notice and a Saturday to boot. When we arrived we were met with an entirely different and updated Bienville Square Subdivision plan, Although we were taken by surprised by this move, we had a fairly decent exchange of information and ideas, One being that they were going to tile in the Finch Lateral and if I understood it colTectly, they would then include the maintenance road and property to the center of the canal into their subdivision. They said that they had discussed this with Mr, John Anderson ofNampa/Meridian lITigation District. Last fall I had checked with Mr. Anderson if there were any plans for the Finch lateral. At that time he said there was none, I called and spoke with him Tuesday, 31 January, and he assured me that if anyone had met with Red Cliff it would have to have been more than two years ago as there has been no recent discussion about the Finch Lateral. He also said that if they wanted to tile the Lateral, which be fine with Nampa/Meridian, it would not be done in the year 2006 and that the access road and the canal area would stm be property ofNampa/Meridian and could not and would not be included into the BienviUe Subdivision. I think this should be discussed with Red Cliff, Also during the meeting, again, if! understood colTectly, Red Cliff was willing to erect a property line fence or masonry wall north and south along the Leslie Way homes at the west boundary: They seemed not so inc1Ìned to continue a fence/wall east and west at the south boundary along the Finch LateraL There are a number of homes on Leslie Dr. which back up to the Lateral and the residents would certainly appreciate a division of the Carol Subdivision and Bienville Subdivision properties, As a subdivision, we are also very concerned with the probable increase of traffic through our neighborhood with the development ofBienville. We are already experiencing people cutting through as a short cut to miss the Ustick and Eagle intersection, We would like to have some declaration from Red Cliff, as we had from Landmark, to help with closing Leslie Dr. and Eagle Rd. Another problem, it seems, at one of the P & Z meetings some suggestions were made to make Red Cliff's proposal more acceptable to the surrounding homes, My neighbors and I felt that having LO as a buffer and pleasing landscaping was a very good suggestion, In my opinion Carol Subdivision is ratner unique in that it is mature, has large lots and it is small with only 49 residences. We would hope that whatever the development -in the Bienville property, it will enhance the area not just become another high density, cookie cutter subdivision. Sincerely, ') -'J :¡;) JUt- ITf¿U$~ Betty Rossow 2832 Leslie Dr. Meridian 83642 887-0955 bltr3@netzero,com STATE OF IDAHO ) ) § ) COUNTY OF ADA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING RECEIVED Id N "J ~ r {)D" """~"')(~"I,.¡¡ CITY OF MERIDIAf'J '¡..." , ;! '/ CLERK (lc'n(~r:- /, Mike Arnold Premier Si ns Inc 2100 E. Fairview Avenue Suite 7 855-0380 (name) (address) (phone) Meridian Idaho . being first duly SWorn upon (city) (state) oath, depose and say: I personally posted the subject property with the hearing notice sign 10 days prior to the public hearing for the Annexation of 17.25 acres into the Ci of Meridian and Zonin re uests for all 27.30 acres to be CG for 2935 South Eaale Road. Dated this 23rd, day of January , 2006 '7$,/ L# I (Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. /Î ( . ";~I ,,¡;~' P ;!L2 Æ¿k./ ~~~~Zn:ft~'~~~~~cLc<,-ù ~> My Commission Expires: 7- 2.8. ¿; ? "".." 1/, I, ,,\\~ rLE'" III;; "",. \J~;; ",:-\ """""'" ,~~~ ,^ "'~' A~"" ..,.. -;. ~ >" ,-'- ¡~"-:' ~ ';;:./0 ..-\-;. ~Ot;z ~::: ::: ~ (J!::: ~ \ ..olJn\,~ j 0 ff -¿ .'-'" \oJ ",-,-.:to ~ '\ or """"""""""fJ'tf' ,,~ ;~;; 1'4TE of \", ;;""'1/"""'\\' Masterlaffid-posting -'-""--,,, ""'-'-"----"~"- "-~."'..__.,"'-,.~,--'" ----:--'~..~--'""'._-! CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: .RECEIVED ..IAN 3 0 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN '-:::!TY CLERK OFFICF= Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date: January 5,2006 Continued to: February 2, 2006 P&Z Commission ':' i"/ ctG, I;(;¡i;~;;; '.' " .. f' "f,\ ¡i, Joseph Guenther, Associate City Planner Bienville Square Subdivision, All applications are for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, INe. AZ-05-057 - Annexation and Zoning of 18.43 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8 (Mediwn Density Residential), R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) and C- G (General Commercial). RZ-05-019 -Rezone of 10.05 acres ofC-G (General Commercial) to R-8 (Mediwn Density Residential) and R-15 (Medium High Density Residential). PP-05-059 - Preliminary plat for 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi- family residential lots, 14 common lots, and 7 commercial lots on 27.30 acres. QJP-05-052 - Conditional Use Pennit for mixed use development within 300- feet of a residence. PS-05~002 - Private Street for providing frontage to multi-family site. V AR-05-023 -Variance to UDC 11.3H-4.2 for allowance of an access point to Eagle Road/SH55. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Red Cliff Development, INC, is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat with a Conditional Use Pennit (CUP) to construct retail/restauranVand office uses as well as a mixture of attached, detached and alley.accessed residences on approximately 27.36 acres within the Bienville Square Subdivision development located approximately):;í mile south of the southwest comer of Us tick Road and Eagle RoadlSH-55. A portion of the subject property was in the Kissler, Cobb, Eagy annexation project AZ-03-018 and a conesponding Development Agreement (DA). (Similarly, a portion of the Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision project immediately north of this site was also in that annexation application.) The DA (Instrument No. 104107406) requires that any future use be approved either through a site' specific CUP application or a Planned Development. A concept plan for the overall site was submitted with the application for infonnation purposes (not for fonnal approval). The Commission should note that the applicant has also submitted a Variance application that will be before the City Council concunent with the subject applications. The Variance request proposes one new approach to N. Eagle Road/State Highway 55, for one right-inlright-out access driveway. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has not approved any approach pennits on this site. The Variance application pertains only to the right-inlright-out access lying approximately 1,000 feet south of Us tick Road, The overall design of the site is paramount on City Council and ITD approval of the Eagle Road approach. However, if the applicant is unsuccessful in obtaining an approach, Staff feels the proposed conditions and an amended Development Agreement for the 27.36 acres could sufficiently address interconnectivity issues associated with development of the site. Currently the Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision property to the north provides one public street access to Ustick Road, and staff is proposing cross access to the two other approved Ustick Road approaches, Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-OS-OS7/PP-OS-OS9/CUP-OS-OS2/RZ-OS-0 19/PS-OS-002 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DA TE OF 02/02/06 2; SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION On December 8,2005, the Comnússion continued the Sadie Creek Promenade project to the January 5, 2006 healing in order to discuss both the subj ect propel1y and the Sadie Creek Promenade property at one time. The original intent was to have a full hearing of both projects at that time and to address issues common to both development proposals. On January 5, 2005 the Commission voted to table the item at the applicant's request until the February 2,2006 hearing. The applicant was considering redesigning the site, but has instead decided to proceed with the original configuration as advertised for the public hearing; therefore no changes to the site layout were proposed prior to February 2,2006. Staff is recommending approval of the subject applications (AZ-05-0S7/PP-OS-OS9/RZ-OS-019/PS-OS-002 and CuP-05-0S2) with the conditions noted in this report. PROPOSED MOTIONS (to be considered after the public hearing) Recommend Approval I move to recommend approval of File Numbers AZ-OS-057/PP-05~OS9/CuP-05-052/Rz-OS- 019/PS-05-002 as presented in staff report for the hearing date of Febru81Y 2,2006 with the undated preliminary plat drafted by Stanley Consultants with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications) Recommend Denial I move to recomniend denial of File Numbers AZ-05-057/PP-OS-OS9/CuP-OS-052/Rz-OS- 0 19/PS.05-002 for the following reasons: (you should state specific reasons for denial. You should address how the applicant might re-do the application to gain your recommendation for approval.) Recommend Continuance I move to continue File Numbers AZ-05.0S7/PP-OS-059/CuP-05.052/Rz-05~Ol9/PS-OS-002 for the hearing date of February 2,2006, to~, 2006, and in addition to staff's comments, direct the applicant to make the following changes: (insert comments here) 3. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: SW comer of Us tick Road and Eagle RoadlSH5S Township 3N, Range IE, Section 5 b. Owners Red Cliff Development, INC 2060 South Eagle Road Meridian Id 83624 John Ewing 1500 El Dorado Street, Suite 4 Boise Id 83704 c. Applicant: Red Cliff Development, INC 2060 South Eagle Road Meridian Id 83624 d. Representative: e, Present Zoning: Ashley Ford, WRG Design, INC General Retail and Commercial (C-G), Meridian, RUT ~Rl-Ada County Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-OS-OS7/PP-OS-OS9/CUP-OS-OS2/RZ-OS-019/PS-OS-002 Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use-Regional - 2002 Comprehensive Future Land Use Map g. Description of Applicant's Request: 1. See Exhibit Al (prepared by Stanley Consultants) for a copy of the proposed plat, Exhibit A2 shows the proposed landscape plan, and Exhibit A3 shows a detailed site plan which depicts the lot layout, building, parking and access locations with adjoining subdivisions, h, Applicant's Statement/Justification: The application notes that the mixed use regional designation provides for the overall site to be developed with a mixture of Retail/Restaurant/ OfficelDrive through and other Conunercial uses oriented around automobile traffic, the rear portions of the site are designed around transitional Uses of a mix of single~family detached units and multi-family residential units. The applicant notes that the site is an ideal location for a retail/residential complex and will provide the additional landscaping along drive aisles, the design review for structures along the gateway conidor, and develop the new public street to improve traffic movement in the area. 4. PROCESS FACTS d. e. f. 5. LAND USE a. The subjeçt application will in fact constitute an annexation and zoning as detennined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11 Chapter 5 Article B Section 3, a public hearing is required before the City Council on tlllS matter. The subject applications will in fact constitute preliminary plats as detennined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11 Chapter 6, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use / planned development as detennined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11 Chapter 5 Article B Section 6, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. c. Newspaper notifications published on: December 19 and January 2,2005 Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: December 19, 2005 Applicant posted notice on site by: December 26, 2005 a. Existing Land Use(s): Bare land, two single family residences. b. Description of Character of SUITounding Area: Large lot residential, highway~oriented services, rapidly urbanizing c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North; Future pad sites within Sadie Creek Promenade proposal zoned C-G and Ada County Rl. 2. West: Residential Subdivision zoned Meridian City R-2 and Ada County RI 3. South: Residential Subdivision zoned Meridian City R-2 and Ada County RI 4. East: Future pad sites within the Kissler Annexation project zoned C-G, Eagle Road. Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-OS-OS7/PP-OS-OS9/CUP-OS-OS2/RZ-OS-0 19/PS-OS-OO2 Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 d. History of Previous Actions: In ApÚI 2004, the owners and City entered into a Development Agreement for various High Density Commercial, Multi-family Residential, transitional, and office uses under File AZ-03-018. Some property was annexed and zoned to General Retail and Commercial (C-G) with a Development Agreement while other portions ofthe property were not included in the annexation leaving out parcels which were addressed with the original conceptual plan. The 18.43 acre out parcel immediately south of the C-G site is included with this project. e, Existing Constraints and OPPortunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer; Location of water: Extension of mains in Ustick Road/Sadie Creek Promenade Extension of mains in Ustick Road/Sadie Creek Promenade None Issues or concerns: 2. Vegetation: Agricul turallIn-iga ted 3. Flood plain: N/A 4. CanalslDitches lITigation; The Finch Lateral COurses the southern part of property and the;: Milk Lateral courses the northern part of the property 5. Hazards; None identified 6. Size of Property: 27.3 acres 7. Description of Use: Retail, Office, Commercial, and Restaurant uses and associated parking and landscape improvements along Eagle Road. Attached townhouse and single family residential, front accessed and alley accessed products, f. Subdivision Plat Infonnation The submitted plat includes an R-8 proposed Zone with 54 single-family residential lots of which 20 units with street side garages along the western property line are located in Block 2 (lots 20-40) which are in the 6,000 to 8,000 square foot range. The 34 alley accessed homes are located in Block 3 and are approximately 4,500 square foot in area. These lots are designed to meet the minimum standards ofthe R-8 district. The submitted plat also includes 22 lots in an R-15 proposed zone. These R-15 products are designed around a modified townhouse design and each building would be contained on a lot with potential for a future- condominium plat on the individual units. The applicant has included a clubhouse and additional parking contained in common lots. The submitted plat also contains seven lots in a C-G proposed zone with commercial uses. Commercial uses are shown to be a mix of restaurant/retail and office spaces with two approximate 12,000 square-foot bUildings and five approximate 6,000 square-foot buildings. g. Landscaping 1, Width of street buffer(s): per the Future Land Use Map, both Ustick Road and Eagle Road are designated as "Entryway ColTidors." As such, the UDC (Table 11-2B-3) requires a 35-foot wide street buffer adjacent to both roadways. The landscape plan (Sheet Ll.I) proposes a 35-foot wide buffer along Eagle Road, If the applicant proposes to construct the "Entryway ColTidor" buffers in easements they must meet the landscaping standards required in the UDc. Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-O5-057IPP-O5-0S9/CUP-OS-OS2/RZ-OS-O 1 9IPS-O5-002 Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 2, Width ofbuffer(s) between land uses: Table 11-2B-3 requires a 25-foot wide buffer between commercial uses on C-G-zoned land and residential uses. The properties to the west are zoned R-2 (City of Meridian) and Rl (Ada County), and are cun-ently residential. Lots adjacent to the site on the west and south as shown on the landscape/site plan shall include a 25-foot pennanent easement or the 25 feet shall be included in a conunon lot as defined by the landscaping standards of the ODC, 3. Percentage of site as open space: The ODC does not require open space or site amenities for conunercial uses. The open space contained in the residential uses is shown to be 3.3 acres or 16.4 percent and applied as an additional amenity. This calculation should be reduced to not include any landscape buffers, The applicant shall clarify these calculations to be consistent with the amenity standards found in ODC Chapter 3, Article G. 4. Other landscaping standards: The landscape buffer along Eagle Road should be constructed in accordance with ODC Chapter 3, Article B. h. Planned Development Characteristics - N/A i. Conditional Use Infonnation: 1, Non.residential square footage: To be detennined, 44,000 square feet shown 2. Proposed building height: 65 feet, or C-G standards 3. Percentage of site devoted to building coverage: Not defined 4. Percentage of site devoted to landscaping: 3.53 acres, 12.9% 5. Percentage of site devoted to paving: Not defined 6. Percentage of site devoted to other uses: N/ A 7. Number of Residential units: N/A j- Amenities - The applicant is providing a clubhouse in Lot 12 Block 1, recreational facilities in Lot 20 Block 2 and additional open space for the residential amenities. The applicant is also proposing a water feature in the turnabout in Block 6. k. Off~Street Parking (residential uses) - provided within the R-15, to meet the multi-family standards set forth in ODC 11-4-3.27 1. Proposed and Required Residential Standards - R-8 and R~15 bulk standards apply as found.in ODC 1I.2A. . R-8 (Standards) Setbacks (*all streets local) Proposed Required Front Living Area 15 15 Side Accessed Garage 15 15 Front Accessed Garage 20 20 Street side 15 15 Side 4 4 Rear 12 12 Frontage-alley loaded 45 40 Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-OS-OS7/PP-OS-OS9/CUP-OS-OS2/RZ-OS-0 I9/PS-OS-002 Page 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02102/06 Frontage-garage fronted 60 50 Lot Sizehalley loaded 4,630 4,000 Lot Size-garage fronted 6,023 5,000 Lot Size- Corner 5,188 5,000 R-15 (Standards) Setbacks (*all streets local) Proposed Required Front Living Area 10 10 Front Accessed Garage 20 20 Street side 20 20 Side 4 4 Rear 12 12 Frontage 20 0 Lot Size 2,400 8,424 Maximum building height 40 40 m. Proposed and Required Non~Residential Parking - One off-street parking space required for every 500 square feet of gross floor area. Also, one Type A and one Type B parking space required for the loading area (per UDC 11-3C~8). The proposed total building floor area is 40,000 s.f., which requires 80 parking spaces. The total number of parking spaces has not been calculated. This may be addressed during detailed CuP review and building design review but the design appears to meet the minimum standards of the UDC parking requirements. n. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The applicant is proposing one new access point to Eagle Road/SH55 to serve the Bienville Square project at approximately 1,000 feet south of the Ustick/Eagle illtersection. As noted previously, ITD must issue a right-in/righthout pennit for this access, and the access is further contingent on the Meridian City Council granting a variance to UDC 11- 3H. ill addition, the recorded DA between the applicant and the City requires either a public or private street be constructed parallel to Eagle Road/SH55 that may connect to the north boundary and may also connect to Eagle Road, if allowed by ITD at a point to be detennined by ACHD. This project will connect with Sadie Creek Avenue, a proposed public street connecting to Ustick Road through the Sadie Creek property, to meet the frontage road requirement and possibly connect to Eagle Road. In addition, the applicant will be required to connect to and provide cross access to the three new access points to Ustick Road at the following locations in the proposed Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision applications: . Driveway #1 - 400 feet west of Eagle (right-in/right-out with center median) . Driveway #2 - 600 feet west of Eagle (full access) . Driveway #3 - 1, I 00 feet west of Eagle (full access public street (Sadie Creek Avenue) with proposed traffic signal) UstickRoad, from Leslie Drive to Ally Street (on the east side of Eagle Road), including the Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-OS-OS7/PP-OS-OS9/CUP-OS-OS2/RZ-OS-019/PS-OS-002 Page 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF O'ID'/O6 Eagle Road intersection, has just been widened and improved to 5 lanes. The intersection was widened to include dual left tul1llanes, The applicant's CuP site plan shows a cOlmection with the new public, commç:rcial street extending south of Us tick Road, beginning approximately ~ mile West of Eagle Road/SH55, The preliminary plat (Sheet 1) shows tlllS roadway (Sadie Creek Avenue) as a 50-foot street section, continuing as a public street in a loop design around the R-8 development with private streets providing frontage for the townhouse development. The area (Kissler Annexation site) concept plan shows the road connecting to the property south of the site with a looped design and possible connection to Eagle Road through this site. The area plan shows private, intel1lal driveways connecting to this public street; such driveways run mostly north/south connecting Sadie Creek Avenue to Ustick Road. For a detailed report on both ITD's and ACHD's actions and comments, please see the letters/reports submitted with the application materials. 6, AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING On October 28th 2005, staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in Exhibit C. 7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject site is designated 'Mixed Use-Regional' on the Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, this designation is defined in part as an area that is situated in highly visible or transitioning parts of the City where innovative and flexible design oPPortunities are encouraged. The MU~R has no upper limit on the square footage of non-residential uses and is intended to allow a broad range of uses. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy): . Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands proposed to be annexed in the following manner: . The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District, Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Office, Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (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. . . . . Bienville Square Subdivision AZ~O5~O57/PP-O5-059/CUP-O5-052/RZ-O5-0 19/PS-O5-002 Page 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEh-RING DATE OF 02/02/06 . 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 Dtility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective B: Plan for a V811ety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area. Staff finds that the site is designatedfor MU~R on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Although strictly commercial uses have not been specifically plannedfor this property on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and through the Development Agreement from the annexation, the overall site plan when combined with the proposed Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision meets the general classifications for mixed use regional. . Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective B, Action 5: Locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to complement with adjoining residential areas. Ustick Road is classified as an arterial roadway. The applicant is proposing access from the act/oining commercial areas from micro paths, sidewalks and shared streets which will provide future connection to residential areas west of the site along Ustick Road. Staff believes that the commercial areas proposed compliment the existing and planned residential areas in the vicinity, . Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D: Encourage appropriate land uses along transportation conidors. Staff believes that the proposed land uses are appropriate along the adjoining transportation corridors (Ustick Road and Eagle Road). . Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2: Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. The ACHD evaluates access points in their analysis; no direct lot access is allowed to any of the arterial/collector roadways. The proposed access points to the arterial streets generally comply with ACHD 's standards, Please see the ACHD staff report and Exhibit B for the conditions from ACHD, This site does not front on an ACHD controlled arterial road although Sadie Creek Avenue provides a collector system for the internal circulation of residents, . The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has a policy for access to a Type IV Principal Arterial will be at intersections only, and spaced at one-half mile intervals in urban areas. ITD allows approaches (other than intersections) in special cases and on a temporary basis. The Eagle Road access shall be eliminated from this project if the Meridian City Council does not grant a variance and/or if ITD does not approve an approach for this site. Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1) The properties adjacent to the subject site are designated for a wide variety of uses. North of the site is planned for commercial uses, east of the site are proposed commercial developments also tied in with this project by development agreement, and west and south of the site are very low density uses and expected to continue these uses as per the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The project provides a transition from the Bienville Sql!are Subdivision AZ-OS-OS7/PP-OS-OS9/CUP-OS-OS2/RZ-OS-0 19IPS~OS-002 Page 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 intense commercial uses along Eagle and Ustick Roads into a mix of residential densities from the C-G District to the R-8 and R-15 Districts. The applicants have included residential to residential use buffers along the south and west boundaries as well as additional open spaces along the commercial corridors by providing amenities and open spaces. . Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 5: Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation colTidor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.). The applicant is proposing to construct appropriate buffers along all of the adjacent arterial streets. By ordinance, a minimum 25-foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to residential uses and 35-foot wide landscape buffer to Gateway Corridors, The landscape plan shows the appropriate landscape buffers. Staff also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application: . "Require all new parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands," (Chapter V, Goal III, Obj. D, #3, page 43) "Eagle Road is the major north-south arterial in Ada County. The capacity of this arterial should be protected by minimizing the number and location of private driveway access connections to this important roadway. The City should recognize, adopt, and help implement the Eagle Road Access Control Study, prepared by ACIID in 1997," (Chapter VI, page 71) "The capacity of arterial. . .roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway connections to the roadways, The City should cooperate with ACIID to minimize access points on arterial. . .roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page 72) "Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points on to arterial streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj, A, #12, page 79). "Identify transitional zones to buffer commercial and residential uses, to allow uses such as offices and other low intensity uses." (Chapter VII, Goal I, Obj. B, #7, page 102) "Restrict curb cuts and access points on . , . arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Obj. D, #5, page 107) . . . . . 8. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts: ODC Table 11-2B.2lists retail store/restaurant/ drive thru/ office/ financial institute uses as pennitted uses in the C-G zoning district. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. C~G General Retail and Service Commercial District: The purpose of the C-G district is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the transient and pennanent motoring public, All such districts shall be connected to the municipal water and sewer systems of the city, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. c. General Off-Street Parking Standards (from ODC 11-3C-5); Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-O5-057/PP-OS-O59/CUP-OS-O52/RZ-O5-0 19/PS-O5-002 Page 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 The following standards shall apply for off-street vehicle parking for nonresidential uses: In all Commercial Districts the requirement shall be one (I) space for every five hundred (500) square feet of gross floor area. d. Structures Subject to Design Standards (l1-3A-19.B.5): All structures on property adjacent to an entryway con-idor (UsticldEagle Roads) are subject to the design standards listed in tIns section. e. Outdoor storage/refuse areas (l1-3A-12): Outdoor utility meters, HV AC equipment, trash dumpsters, trash compaction and other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. 9. ANALYSIS 9a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation The PP/ AZ/RZ/CUP/PS application appears to substantially comply with the Unified Development Code. However, there are several areas of clarification and some modifications required to both the site plan, cross access, public road design, and building elevations, Below are several special considerations for the P&Z Commission to review at the public hearing: Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation 1. AZ Application (AZ-05-057): Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, Staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed development. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of the required facts and findings for a Zoning Amendment. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped on 10/24/2005 by Michael Marks, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic pUrposes such as landscape in-igation, All future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. All future uses shall not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. UDC 11-5B-3D provides the P&Z Commission and City Council the authority to require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Meridian that may require some written commitment for all future uses. Due to the close proximity of existing and future residential uses. staff believes that a Development Agreement is necesSary to ensure that this property is developed in a fashion that is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation and does not ne£!:atiyely impact nearby properties. Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-05-057/PP-05-059/CUP-05-052/RZ-05-0 19/PS-05-002 Page 10 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 Staff believes that the Development Agreement should include the following proVlslOns: Phasinll Plan: Generally, the applicant anticipates the phasing plan to begin with the commercial lots near the Eagle Road intersection and then continue development to the east. Construction is anticipated to reflect market demand and construction needs. Staff is supportive of this request but believes that some of the amenities proposed with the development should be constructed prior to the development build out. Therefore, that prior to issuance of any certificate of zoning compliance all landscaping shall be constructed along the southern and western property boundary and along Eagle Road to the point of connection with adjoining projects. The commercial/office lots should include either a pennanent easement or be redesigned to include landscaping in common lots. Non-Residential Buildinlls: The applicant has requested a maximum of 54,000 square feet of retail/restaurant/office spaces. Staff proposes to limit the applicant to their request with an allowance of up to 20% additional commercial square footage (65,000) for more marketable conditions. The maximum square footage of one single building shall not exceed Y2 of the maximum request. Residential Buildinlls: The applicant has shown several elevations for both alley accessed residential, townhouses, and detached single family residential products. Staff supports these elevations but would also support better clarification of the specific height, bulk, types of materials, and locations proposed for each type to address the concerns of adjoining property owners and to include within the DA Pathways: The applicant shall coordinate with the Meridian Parks Department and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to defme the location of the multiuse pathway, bridge maintenance, and landscaping along the Pinch Lateral. That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5- 7 ~517, when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. All future uses shall not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 2. PP Application (PP-05-059): The proposed preliminary plat substantially complies with the Zoning Ordinance. Special Considerations: Sidewalks: The applicant is proposing to construct 5-foot wide sidewalks on some of the internal streets/drive aisles. The sidewalks may be detached from the curb with a 5-foot wide landscape strip, The proposed landscape strips do not include trees, only grass. The applicant is proposing to plant trees on the back side of the sidewalks, but staff believes that the trees should be planted between the curb and the sidewalk to Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-05-057IPP-05-059/CUP-05-052/RZ-05-019IPS-O5-002 Page II CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 provide the pedestrians with cover and to make the streetscape more attractive. The width of the planter strip between the sidewalk and the curb should be increased to a nlinimum of 8hfeet wide and include Class II trees. Since the applicant has subnlitted a plan which is conceptual in nature staff feels the sidewalk locations shaH be made consistent with the ODC including drive aisles which shaH include at a minimum a 5' attached sidewalk or 4' detached sidewalk. Land Use Buffers: ODC requires landscape buffers between different land uses. Per ODC llh3B-9, a 25~foot wide landscape buffer is required between single-family homes and C-G zoned property. The ODC requires the land use buffer to be provided by the higher intensity use and to be located on the building site of the higher intensity use, unless the adjacent and higher intensity use has not provided the buffer. The applicant is showing a 30-foot wide buffer between the single-family homes and the detached single family residential lots, as well as the commercial and multifamily lots on the landscape plan, but the buffer is not shown on the preliminary plat. The applicant should be required to create a 30hfoot wide landscape buffer lot along the lots that abut the singlehfamily lots. Said buffer shall contain materials in accordance with ODC 11- 3B-9 and not include impervious surfaces such as parking areas or driveways. The pathway proposed shall be landscaped in accordance with ODC 11- 3B-12. See Exhibit B below. Landscape Street Buffers: Arterials: ODC II-2B requires a 35~foot wide street buffer along classified arterial roadways and entryway cOlTidors. Eagle Road is classified as an Arterial Road, On the submitted landscape plan, the applicant is proposing to construct a 35-foot wide street buffer along Eagle road. The applicant should be required to depict the required street buffers on the face of the final plat in an easement or place the required buffers in Common lots as per ODe II-3D. See Exhibit B below. Commercial Streets: ODC 11-2B requires a 10-foot wide street buffer along Commercial roadways. On the submitted landscape plan, the applicant is proposing to construct a to-foot wide street buffer along both sides of W. Bourbon Street and Cajon Court, However, the street buffer easements are not labeled on the plat. The applicant should be required to depict the required IOh foot wide street buffer easements along local roads on the face of the final plat. Ditches, Laterals, and Canals: There are several iITigation laterals that bisect this parcel. Per ODC 11 h3A-6, all ÌlTÌgation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled. The applicant is proposing to tile all of the iITigation facilities located on site. See Exhibit B below. Pressure Irr:Ü!ation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized iITigation systems be supplied by a yeaNound source of water (ODC 11-3A-15). The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a singlehpoint connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is used, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the [mal plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized ilTigation system should be installed to aU landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with City Code. See Site Exhibit B below. Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-05-057/PP-05-059/CUP-O5-052/RZ-O5-019IPS-05-002 Page 12 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02102/06 Fencing: The applicant is showing a six foot cedar and block fence along the perimeter of the property which would meet the standards of the UDc. A detailed fencing plan should be submitted upon application of the final plat (UDC 11 ~3A- 7). If permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fenCing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building pennÎt. All fencing should be installed in accordance with City Code. See Exhibit B below. Cross-access Intemal: There are some commercial lots that do not have frontage on a public street. Instead the applicant is proposing to provide cross-access easements to the lots that do not have public street ITontage. Because several of the proposed lots do not have frontage on a public street, the applicant should provide a cross parking/cross access agreement for all of the lots within the office and commercial portions of the subdivision to use the driveways and parking aisles. The site will be redesigned if not granted access to Eagle Road by the Meridian City Council and/or !TD, The Commission has conditioned the Sadie Creek Project to provide at least one of the non-signalized access points to Ustick Road to be designed to serve as a commercial collector for interconnectivity to the north and south and vehicular movement in the north/south direction. Maintenance of the drive aisles and parking areas should be provided for in a note on the face of the final plat, AND/OR in a document such as CCRs. See Exhibit B below. Cross-access South: The applicant shall be required to provide cross access to the parcels north of the site. The project is a portion of a larger site project (Kissler Annexation) and the sites shall maintain consistent traffic flow for the entire site. Eagle Road Access: The Idaho Transportation Department (!TD) has a policy for access to a Type N Principal Arterial will be at intersections only, and spaced at one- half mile intervals in urban areas. !TD allows approaches (other than intersections) in special cases and on a temporary basis. The access point shown at approximately 1,000 feet south of the Us tick Eagle Road intersection shall be eliminated as it does not meet criteria of either !TD or the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. However, the this property immediately south of the site has been developed by Ada County which makes a break in the area which does not allow for a frontage/backage road to be created on the south west side of Eagle and Ustick. The applicant has an open application with !TD for the access to Eagle Road. CuP Application (CuP-05-052): The proposed Conditional Use request substantially complies with the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Elevations: The applicant has submitted building elevations of the proposed structures. The application lists the proposed building materials, including stone, brick, stucco and timber to be accented with chrome, aluminum and gloss painted trims. UDC 11-3A-19 requires all structures on property adjacent to an entryway corridor to comply with the design standards listed in this section. Staffs intetpretation of the UDC is that the applicant may choose to place the "primary entrance" on an elevation other than the public street side. However, the public street elevations (Ustick Road and the new road on west boundary) must still meet the other standards listed in 11-3A~19 (except for the primary entrance standards). The elevations will need to be reviewed prior to issuance of CZC to comply with the following ordinance standards: Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-OS-OS7/PP-OS-OS9/CUP-OS-OS2/RZ-OS-O 19/PS-OS-OO2 Page 13 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 a) Facades: Facades visible fi.-om a public street shaH incorporate modulations in the façade, roof line recesses, and proj ections along a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the length of the facade, b) Roof lines: Roof design shall demonstrate two or more of the foIIowing: a) overhanging eaves, b) sloped roofs; c) two (2) or more roof planes; d) varying parapet heights; and e) cornices. c) Mechanical equipment: All ground~level and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened to the height of the unit as viewed from the property line, d) Color and Materials: Exterior building walls shall demonstrate the appearance of high.quality materials of stone, brick, wood or other native materials. Smooth- faced concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels are prohibited except as accent materials. 2. Refuse/Service Area Screen: Neither the Site Plan or Landscape Plan call-out how or if the refuse/service area on the west side of the buildings will be screened. UDC 11-3A-12 requires the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. The applicant's CZC application must clearly demonstrate how this standard is met. 3. Cross Access: The property to the north will be providing two points of access for interco111lectivity and is directly tied with the existing Development Agreement for providing a frontage road to Eagle Road. The applicant has provided a design consistent with two points of access, one point at Sadie Creek Avenue and the second point for the drive aisle approximately 700 feet west of the Us tick/Eagle intersection. There shall be cross access with a section designed to meet private street standards with the second point of access not designated as a public street. 4. Private Streets: The applicant is proposing to use Lot 1 Block 8 to provide future access N, Castille Street. The applicant has submitted a Private Street application as required by UDC 1l~3F.3. The private street standards are listed in UDC 11-3F. The applicant shall design and construct the private streets in compliance with the standards listed for Private Streets in UDC 11-3F Private Streets. See Exhibit B. The Meridian Fire and Police Departments are requesting a minimum of 24' paved sections for alleys which shall not apply to the R-15 district as this would exceed the standards set forth by ACHD and the UDC. 5. Common/ODen SDace: The applicant has a qualified application meeting the requirements of UDC 11-3G. The proposal is showing 16.4% of qualified open space in the residential district which meets the requirements of a minimum of 5% open space. 6, Multi-Use Pathway: The applicant is not showing but will be required to install a multiuse pathway in accordance to the Comprehensive Plan. The pathway shall be along the Finch Lateral in a location to be agreed upon with the Parks Director and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. Currently, NMID has a 40' easement upon which the applicant is proposing to install the pathway. All NMID standard conditions shall be applied to this site and all pedestrian access easements shall be enacted. Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-O5~O57 /PP-O5-059/CUP-05-052/RZ-O5-0 19/PS-O5-002 Page 14 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 Staff has required the applicant to bond for improvements to the multi~use pathway with this application, The pathway connection is listed as an amenity to the residents and users of the site and will be essential for pedestrian connection from Usticlc Road to Eagle Road. The pathway with the associated landscape standards will also buffer the fllture commercial uses and the transitional residential lot sizes to the existing large lot Ad.-"} County Subdivision which suHounds the site. Therefore, the pathway shall be a priority to be completed as soon as practical with the future development of the site, 7. Amenities: The applicant is required to provide one amenity per 20 acres, The applicant is showing qualified site amenities as follows: 11-3G-3C-1 - Quality of life amenities - Picnic arealbasketball court in Lot 10 Block 2 11-3G-3C-2 - Recreation amenities - Clubhouse, in Lot 12 Block 1, tennis courts in Lot 10 Block 2 11-3G-3C-3 - Bicycle circulation amenities - Several blocks are connected with all internal 5' pathway which will be required to connect to the required Multi-use Pathway - along the Finch Lateral. . . Amenities are generally located centrally and in common lots. These common lots shall be maintained by the Bienville Square (Home or Business) Owners Association. The landscape architect shall certifY that one tree per 8,000 square feet of lawn has been provided on the landscape plan, 9b. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, staff finds the AZIIRZIPP/CUPJPS applications substantially confonn with the adopted DA, Comprehensive Plan policies and ODe standards. As noted under "Special Considerations," we recommend the building elevations be submitted in compliance with the entryway corridor standards, the access point to Eagle Road be eliminated and redesigned, and a private street section for cross access provided to the south be added to the prelinùnary plat in place of the proposed Eagle Road access. We recommend approval ofthe AZlRZ/PP/CUP/PS application with the conditions shown in Exhibit B. 10. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (by Stanley Consultants, no date) 2. Landscape Plan (by The Land Group, dated October 13, 2005) 3. Site Plan (dated July 9,2005) B. Legal Descriptions C. Conditions ] . Planning Department 2. Public Works 3. Fire Department 4, Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Services Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-05~057/PP-05-059/CUP,O5-052/RZ-O5-0 19/PS-O5-002 Page 15 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 7. ACHD - Pending D. Required Findings from UDC- 1. Annexation 2. Rezone 3. Preliminary Plat 4, Conditional Use Permit 5. Private Street 6. Variance - To be completed after a recommendation from the Planning Commission Bienville Square Subdivision AZ-OS-OS7 /PP-OS-OS9/CUP-OS-OS2/RZ-OS-O 19/PS-OS-OO2 Page 16 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 Exhibit Al:PreIiminary Plat 1 (Stanley Consultants) No date r-- -----------------------'--------"----_._---._---~--_.._- --------"---------------n_____-----n___.__----------- ----------'_.,---------------- I -- -------------.------------------ ----..----------------.-,.--------- ,~ -0,._,- '-, , i ¿, ,- '.7"- ,1 -- - ,n 1'; ~ l' /. \t - ! - J " i i ¡ í -. --- """,. / - -- ,g ',h"Fð Ii # "~'¡j~;hîh ¡Î~'¡' U ¡' " 1/ ,ij I¡iii!i;---' f¡" "If ¡If lit I F.- ~'jl i~fH ¡Ù!:¡}i.Hf if.! ';f!ìifli; ! i ¡!,!"j~¡"II' 'J"tr.' 'I D{i¡UltîHHm ~f¡fl~'W h f¡ II. ~fi'l ;. I!:, ,8 ,> [' .. J . í iii:'!,~!dfj:.t !fJ'tl¡H5 :1 ill'I"i;'.~r'ã,l ~. ¡H:f~ n ¡-,,!¡u'H¡fijl 'P1!.,I. "'I ] ill I¡m !iî¡¡; : j ¡ I ifF ¡ ¡ijjlFi ¡ J ~' Ci~f-¡' f"í¡!ní;!¡¡¡~ f: "" ~§¡ MB II .! 1m' I .1 "III-I-iII/II"" '1[11/-'-11: "I'ImmmWîljlWW11Hirìf !'~~.L,I':",~_I~-. '¡no~,R;"F j¡1Í~J¡¡ I!¡.~f '-.1- iNJ!iflp,plí'¡~'¡lii.'i fI' f.!,.,¡-.1!,' '¡¡liE ~. '¡ ,I i 'I -" I!:. 'H ¡. ¡ Ii Îlr,L r / . -'- '~"VJl.C" UARE I , ,oc.-"." '",..,"'"""..,,~.."-.. ""~""-""'-""""", O""'" "'" ---------,--- ;I~ ~, ~ i'J --@-~ "., "'~"'-'" '" ::~;;;¡",:;'~., '0 ""',"",",. Bienville Square Subdivision Exhibit A Page I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 Exbibit A2: Landscape Plan Ll.O (The Land Group) Dated Octobel' 13, 2005 r~?"~~:':.:~,;',"~>~"'"'""",-"""-"-,,,,,",:,~-~,,",",-~- !~~..--._'---",.---.,..---------.._,.._.._--- _...,-", """-""""--,..".".--., ,.---""'-----'-.._--...._,-"--~_._,, I I ~::::'1 Ii: I. ..."~~,,,!'rD:"~;~_(_".:,,'ED 1 ~'~""..:' -." i'-)"j':~W i ' '~","" ¡ {iY ! "':':-: :¡ {/,' I ;" ,;- \'i: I~: ,,; "'--_i - ~~ 7 r- -, Q :,~j ;Å",-": ¡! 'Mh;' , ff¡liff 1¡t:IJ~: It,. , !. ! [l\1 I( '-- ,,-- , BrENV/LLE SQUARE MEHID/AN. IDAHO ;-; dl~ {$~~~~ " ,;;" '-~.~ri..Ji " ",.¿".,,~.,,'-'" - Bienville Square Subdivision Exhibit A Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DA TE OF 02/02/06 Exhibit A2: Landscape Plan L1.1(The Land Group) Dated October 13, 2005 '"'-"~'~"":"""-",o'~!'.:~""""""L=~,,,,-~.o'=~:,!,,=~:,----_.._,--"'-'-----"~---'--" -""-"_.._-"-.,,----~----,,------- --- '--"~-.. ---'---'--"'.--.-.,,- ,,----- .'C/"',-", I;:' -, J(; rC( I:: -'.) (-",;1 - (;iIf'y:"" !Ii' I ~iiw\t;~II):,'~¡~l¿ r 1- -,I;.:"':.-.._',-.,-._-,~.'-,,.' ,,'J',,- '../.>;,1 - : :;" - ;'" ' ~.-_. '/---- :1' , :, ;; ,! ¡ : '. ~" :, '¡ '~';,:_;;),~;; ,/ ,,' "---.' "-':--L:,- ,-f.',1-\.;,,-':~-:, )(î: W <rpŒfïi;ì¡Æ --- - " !~ mIHA,~ t:I '1!Ii¡l « !¡if!' " n .",.j, ~ ìiiii/; 6 Hum ã ¡i-/'¡¡¡¡ o-j J 1;'/ ;u "J " to ,I'J~ !" t<1.<' "I ." ¡¡ii' ï: ¡ , (I' ,~ 'il~fJ iÔ Iii,! 1, ;:. ;,.1'; :tJ ,- '1 r- " '. j¡ "" ,. , <' I 11ì¡' 11 ¡;¡ J r -, ~_C_!: :. ;: ¡¡(,1m,;! !I,f,M'I;- j;.:IJ"~:, o;{\~ - ,~ MERlO:AN. IDAHO B/ENVILlE SQUARE , I" i';j~',~,-, "'f- "f' !i;!I~ ~~~~} Bienville Square Subdivision Exhibit A Page 3 J¡ 'J - , f CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 ExhibitA3: Site Plan " , ',' '<' , ", !i'i!' ",C, ".. i ,c" JWiJ ,",' ,,"', , ;},::, " " ' \,~;' ,;¡ ':", " ,"'c"i, , ,', : ~ .,' I : I¡:ii'l n "--,, -n "C~£'-'!c~~~~=~":~~§:~i=~cci~.~-:== i lii/'I; I i,i, : 'Iilii: : !!ill' i iil! ; , li,l,' il/!ii i i Ii!:: : :jll'lll ,,< ¡ , "~I IIi . ,ii;! I iiii I ¡ ¡¡ ! "", I"'i ~ ,',I,,~-,~.~',:,--~, r'C~,",f¡ 'It, I",!,I/III,! ;i i-(¡/ .; ':~,c--,~,-_;jH, :! 1¡I:f ! ~ ~'~ /"li,i~;1~ LlIIII; "1'1 '," "%;c-~~~~,:), '" /¡J!i¡ill! - ' ~ --:""'----" --,-,;1 i II r if ¡¡T;~ ~ f,":r:êq.Ii,/I/II¡ Ii !~?!!{i"! ¡ ~ ;:!::~I~I" '{Ii 'I II/'W /'1 ;\ . '",," , ',""'" ", "'; . O¡;I i I' I ¡ I'¡~,j'; '" i ,;:i;'::fi "'j'J';ï jlii' I¡ , ' '.l~,~;~~~~1~~111¡11' : L,¡""""""",:~-"",-¡"-"",:-",,,~,"'-~C~","",:,¡",:",,,<~,:,,""':_;""""~~~"<"'~~¡ Ii:: -- - =~- " ~"I" ',,:) ¡ ill: 'I '1,/1 'I!I III ¡Ii , ,1/ Ii! "1" (?-' T -0 1;} '-'"" 10;. " "Y' '\) '11> ~, -',-", , "'-' '--, " ,', ""c" " ", ' ritdr ,~ ' i ::'~ ' i Ii 'i ,;,e:! i ,( """""<,,: , ""--, "-'-'_::':/ .~: II" " ','HUIII! í : I BienviIle Square Subdivision Exhibit A Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 Exhibit ß: Legal Description - Subdivision DESCRIPTION FOR BIENVILLE SQUARE SUBDIVISION OCTOBER 13, 2005 A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PORTIONS OF PARCEL "0" OF RECORD OF SURVEY NO, 6418 AND OF ïHE NE y., OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 5, T. 3 N., R. 1 E., B,M.. THENCE S 00"00'00" E 677.57 ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 5 TO A POINT; THENCE N 83"54'00" W 57.36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF EAGLE ROAD, THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE S 01°14'39" W 974,96 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY To A POINT; ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION THE FOLLOWING: THENCE N 44"05'18" W 227,63 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 72°24 '04" W 22128 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 77"26'30" W 667,38 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 72°35'42" W 233,35 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 00°15'11" W 1129.35 FEET ALONG SAID BOUNDARY TO A POINT; LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION: THENCE S 71 "28'10" E 803.90 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 83'54'00" E 510 2' FEET TO THE: REAL POINT OF BEGINNiNG OF THIS DESCRIPTION. COMPRISING 27.36 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SADIE PARCEL A Bienville Square Subdivision Exhibit B Page I CITY OF MER!DIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 "".","".-",,",~--, z 0 ;V (JJ ,/ 5 0 ill .it ::> :ìl( (I) j (f) ---1 0 Ct: <{ () 'T:"'/',;,:.,:, """""""---'-"'~-""""'-- '" ", " '-"'-"--~,,-,, -- '-'-.... '<-"-;-"-"'~~'~'=""""'"'~"""""--~"'~---'-'--' '-- """'~---~--~""~'"", I 1,1>::,T/(I< ROAri ,:';2 .:>:) -- --" iT! I J ¡ ~~~" . "", t..... I , , ----... , ,; ........ 1',--, I' ""~ . c"', -"---- ",I I " . PREVIOUS ANNEXA TION ""'-~:" Þû' ;~ 'hV c. '0"1: C",?" ""'<l1111c-,p ----IN¡C, - --- JJO70C'" ";'.,-:,:)':$ 'ç: . :') /:110S'¡!(I'¡ n 1?67,ì~"...~,:19.00' E N tffJ54'(JO'£ Pj¡","f~l"' '-- )..~ '; ,.l'j:' ' /7"2.(, , , ' 221 28' v~-~, ;"~,,::,~-:,:"":;" -~ '~'<t';>" . <; "- %fi'.. "':"} -t'i:: 't CAROL'S SUBDIVISION ~,- ':",-.'::" f- I /B 21' ~J 9:)"0(; GO" IN 5 14 UNPLA 1TEO -<' '--- ,i\í,j¡\lt ,x p, fl'/~ E. ?}--¡ I E¡¡ r f Of;;: , Bla~VILL¿::;QUArŒ SIJRf)IVI"';~()N I IJ.I(ÞTH¡ 1.\) THC NF Î.-'( flf ':+C tin!',,' "':'",/:' ,/:">c, .---~-<-- Stanley Consultants ,,;-; :~:-v" ":,,\1",'r:<, ',,";'-:-- ", - ,:;;:/-,.," "c:/ "i\,.'C" ,,-- "-"-""""-""";'-...,._._-.~~-~-"-_.-.._~......-.. I ""I.i'" "~j Bienville Square Subdivision Exhibit B Page 3 -.. , CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 Exhibit B; Legal Description - Annexation DESCRIPTION FOR BIENV/llE SQUARE SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTIONS OF THE NE Y. OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, fDAHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 5, T, 3 N" R. 1 E, B,M" THENCE S 00°00'00" E 955,14 ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 5 TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; OCTOBER 24, 2005 THENCE S 00"00'00" E 691,06 FEET ALONG SAID SECTION LINE TO A POINT: THENCE N 99"00'00" W 78.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERL Y RIGHT OF WAY OF EAGLE ROAD; ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION THE FOLLOWING: THENCE N 44°05'18" W 227,63 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 72"24'04" W 221.28 FEET TO A POINT: THENCE S 77°26'30' W 667,38 FEET TO A POINT: THENCE N 72°35'42" W 233,35 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 00°15' 11" W 569.21 FEET ALONG SAID BOUNDARY TO A POINT; LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION: THENCE N 87"06'00" E 335.19 FEET To A POINT; THENCE N 89"54'00' E 20000 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 79'OTOO' E 3 HU)O FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 77°06'00" E 267.75 FEET TO A POINT: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 Exhibit B: Legal Description - C-G (General Commercial) DESCRIPTION fOR BIENVlllE SQUARE SUBDIVISION CoG ZONE OCTOBER 13,2005 A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PORTIONS OF PARCEL "0" OF RECORD OF SURVEY NO, 6418 AND OF THE NE Y., OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BEING MORE PARTICUlARl Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 5, T. 3 N., R. 1 E., B.M" THENCE S 00.00'00" E 677,67 ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 5 TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE S ooaoo'OO" E 968.63 FEET ALONG SArD SECTION LINE TO A POINT; THENCE N 90°00'00" W 78.21 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF EAGLE ROAD; ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION THE FOLLOWING: THENCE N 44°05'18" W 227,63 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 72°24'04" W 213.51 FEET TO A POINT; LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION: THENCE N 00°37'20" E 786.75 FEET; THENCE S 83'54'00" E 434,01 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTJON, COMPRISING 8.73 ACRES, MORE OR lESS. BH:~vru 1< CO\f\Œ RCIA I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAff REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 Exllibit B: Legal Description - R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) DESCRIPTION FOR BIENVILLE SQUARE SUBDIVISION R15 ZONE OCTOBER 13,2005 A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PORTIONS OF PARCEl "0" OF RECORD OF SURVEY NO, 6418 AND OF THE NE Y. OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO. BEING MORE PARTfCULARL Y DESCRIBED As FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 5, T, 3 N" R. 1 E" B.M., THENCE S 00"00'00" E 677,57 ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 5 TO A POINT; THENCE N 83°54'00" W 434,01 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; . THENCE S 00,"37'20" W 786,75 FEET; ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION THE FOLLOWING: THENCE N 72°24'04" W 7,77 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 77°26'30" W 594.16 FEET TO A POINT; LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION: THENCE N 00°37'20" E 132,52 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 89°22'40" E 105.87 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 87.11 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 99"49'13", A TANGENT OF 59.40 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 40°42'43" E 76.50 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 09°11'53" W 171,74 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE: THENCE 205.40 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE. HAVING A RADIUS OF 575,00 FEET, A DEL TA ANGLE OF 20>28'023", A TANGENT OF 103,81 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 01 '02 'OB " E 204,31 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N '1/¡I~Îm;;' F: 53 ¿ i Ic,:" f' T 10 A remiT ry;;; C:LiPVATi.I¡?E Bif!\\'ILLE-R-15 CJTY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 THENCE 232.28 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 625,00 FEET, A DEL TA ANGLE OF 21 °17'37", A TANGENT OF 117.49 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 00'37'20" E 230,94 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 10"01'28"W 111.52 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 69.25 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 50,00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 79°21'123", A TANGENT OF 41.48 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 49042'04" W 63.85 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 89"22'40" W 148.60 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 23.81 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT. SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 13°38'38", A TANGENT OF 11.96 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 82°33'21" W 23.76 FEET TO 'A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 75°44'02" W 41.56 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE 18.13 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET. A DELTA ANGLE OF 03°27'42", A TANGENT OF 9-07 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 15°59'49" W 18.12 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSED CURVATURE; THENCE 93,21 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE lEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 300,00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 17048'08", A TANGENT OF 46.98 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 08°49'36" E 92.84 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE S 71028'10" E 609.64 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 83°54'00" E 133.56 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION. COMPRISING 10,03 ACRES, MORE OR lESS. BIE:\\'ILLE-R-¡:; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 Exhibit B: Legal Description - R-8 (Medium Density Residential) DESCRIPTION FOR BIENVILLE SQUARE SUBDIVISION RBZONE OCTOBER 13,2005 A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PORTIONS OF PARCEL "0" OF RECORD OF SURVEY NO, 6418 AND OF THE NE X OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARL Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 5, T, 3 N., R. 1 E" B.M, THENCE S 00°00'00" E 677.57 ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 5 TO A POINT; THENCE N 83"54'00" W 567.57 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 71 °28'1 O"W 609,64 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE N 71°28'10" W 194.26 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION; ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION THE FOLLOWING: THENCE S 00°15'11" E 1129.35 FEET TOA POINT; THENCE S 72°35'42" E 233,35 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 77"26'30" E 73.22 FEET TO A POINT; LEAVING SAID BOUNDARY OF CAROL'S SUBDIVISION: THENCE N 00"37'20" E 132.52 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 89°22'40" E 105.87 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 87.1 f FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET. A DEL TA ANGLE OF 9S! '~9' 3"', A T ANC3ENT OF 59.40 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 40<42'43" E 76.50 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 09"11 '5.3" W 171.74 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENcr; ;;>0;> 'In FEE r /1 (¡ide 1\ ,.:ClriVE ì () THli'. r:iGi-H, <;p\!f) r:! n;"JF it,,~,\f:l',j(;I- ,,:'.:¡C-.¡,,;;'t::r;'!il,UElr,:, 1')¡;'2').d'.iO¿;',t BJENYJLU"R-:;; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 TANGENT OF 103,81 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 01°02'08" E 204.31 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 11"16'08" E 53,21 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 232.28 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 625.00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 21<17'37", A TANGENT OF 117.49 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 00°37'20" E 230_94 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 10o01'28"W 111.52 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 69,25 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 50,00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 79°21'123", A TANGENT OF 41.48 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 49"42'04" W 63,85 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCEN 89°22'40" W 148,60 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 23.81 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 100,00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 13°38'38", A TANGENT OF 11.96 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 82°33'21" W 23,76 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 75°44'02" W 41.56 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE 18,13 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 03°27'42", A TANGENT OF 9.07 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 15°59'49" E 18,12 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSED CURVATURE; THENCE 93.21 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 300,00 FEET. A DELTA ANGLE OF 17°48'08", A TANGENT OF 46.98 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING N 08°49'36" E 92.84 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION, COMPRISING 10.11 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BIENvrU.E-R-S .~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DA TE OF 02/02/06 C. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 1.1.1 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS- (Bienville Square) 1.1.2 The preliminary plat labeled as I prepared by Stanley Consultants, with no date, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments/conditions of the accompanying Annexation and Zoning (AZ-05-057) and Conditional Use Pennit (CUP~05-052) applications shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat. Create an open space lot for the proposed 30-foot wide landscape buffer along the south and west boundaries. Said buffer area shall contain materials in accordance with ODC 11-3B and not include impervious surfaces such as parking areas or driveways. Graphically depict on the face of the plat, the required 35-foot wide landscape buffer along Eagle Road. Depict on the face of the final plat a 10-foot wide landscape buffer along both sides of W. Burbon Street and N. Cajon Court. Said landscape buffers shall be in either a conunon lot or an easement adjacent to the rights of way. The landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, labeled Sheets LS 1.1, is not approved with these applications a landscape plan consistent with ODC 11- 3B shall be submitted with the fmal plat which refleCts any changes made to the preliminary plat to redesign the subdivision consistent with approved access points. Including but not limited to full landscaping along Eagle Road which cUlTentIy is listed as a right-inlright-out access. With the final plat application, submitted revised copies of the landscape plan with the changes listed above. 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.1.5 1.1.6 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Bienville Square Subdivision BusinesslHome Owners Association(s). Any roof~mounted mechanical equipment will be screened from view from any public right-of- way. The applicant shall submit drawings at the time of CZC submission that demonstrate this condition is complied with. The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in ODC 1 l-3A-l 1. The awnings on the east elevations shall extend at least 20 feet beyond the entry doors, measured from the building face to the outer edge of the awning for the retail buildings. The applicant shall submit a drawing at the time of CZC application submission to demonstrate compliance with this condition. 1.1.7 1.1.8 1.1.9 Comply with ODC II-3A-I2 regarding a screen for the refuse/service area. No ilTigation pump station or facility is shown on the Site Plan. However, if one is proposed for the site, it must be located outside of any required street buffer, Impervious surfaces are prohibited in said buffers. Prior to the City Engineer's signature of the final plat, all existing structures shall be removed from the site. 1.1.13 Provide cross access/cross parking agreement(s) for all lots in Bienville Square Subdivision. All cross access drive aisles shall only approach the ACHD approved points of access to the public street system. Maintenance of the aisle and parking areas shall be provided for in a note on the face of the final plat, AND/OR in a document such as CCR's. 1.1.10 1.1.11 1.1.12 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 ¡ .1.14 Other than the points of access approved by ACHD, City of Meridian, and ITD, direct lot access to Eagle Road, is probibited. A note sball be placed on the final plat restricting access to Eagle Road. 1.U5 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Pern-ritting that may be required by the Enviromnental Protection Agency. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian BUilding Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 1.1.16 1.1.17 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT LUg Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to City Code. LU9 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. 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 pennitted under UDC 1 1- 3A -18- If the stonnwater detention facility cannot be incorporated 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, 1.l.21 The applicant shall submit a detailed fencing plan with the [mal plat application for the subdivision. If pennanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building pennit. All fencing should be installed in accordance with City Code. Ll.22 Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed /Tom the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be mitigated. L1.20 1.1.2.3 All iIrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled, unless otherwise approved by the lITigation District(s). Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate inigationldrainage 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 [mal plat signature. 1.1.24 Staffs failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or tenus of the approved annexation/conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.1.25 Preliminary plat approval shall be subj ect to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6A. 2. Public Works Department 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 2:1 Sanitary sewer service to tIlls development is being proposed via extension of mains planned in Sadie Creek Subdivision. CulTently there is no sewer adjacent to tIus site and tIle City of Meridian does not guarantee service in the timelines outlined in the UDe. The applicant shall install all mains necessary to provide service; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard fo11ns 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 confol1llance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in Sadie Creek Subdivision. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through tIus development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.2 2.3 2.4 The applicant shall be required to connect to the existing main in N. Eagle Road with a 1 O~inch mam. 2.5 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat. The description shal1 be consistent with the graphically depicted easements on the plat but be recorded as a separate document using the City of Meridian's standard forms. Submit an executed easeme11-t (supplied by Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" 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. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. The applicant has not indicated who will own and Operate the pressure irrigation system in this proposed development. If it is to be maintained as a private system, plans and specifications wil1 be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the construction plan review. A "draft copy" of the operations and maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "final draft" being required prior to final plat signature on the last phase of this project. If it is to be owned and maintained by an Irrigation District then evidence of a license agreement shall be submitted prior to scheduling of a pre~construction meeting. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well SOurce is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shal1 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 [mal plat by the City Engineer. All existing structures shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. AIl irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per ODC 11-3A-6. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate in-igationldrainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non.approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 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 ilTigation, The applicant has not indicated how the stonn drainage from the proposed private streets will be CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINO DEPARTMENT STAFF REFORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 2.12 disposed. A drairutge plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engjneer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking are", and private roads. Stonn water treatment and disposal shall be designed in accordance with Department of Enviromnental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Stonn Water R-est Management Proctices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies- Off-site disposal into surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction whicb bas authority over the receiving ,cream provide, written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding ShaIIow Injection WelIs, St,eet signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada Coonty Highway District and tbe Final Plat for this subdivision shaII be recorded, prior to applying for building pennits. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% wiII be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irogation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be instalIed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of'occupancy. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction insPection fees, as detennined during the pl"" review process. prior to 'i_ture on the finaI 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 Fair Housing Act. Applicant shal1 be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Pennitting that may be required by the Envirorunental Protection Agency. Applicant shaH be æsponsible for application and compliance witb any Section 404 Pennitiing that may be required by the Army COIþs of Engineers. Developer shaIl coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. All grading of the site shall be perfonned in confonnance with MCC 11-12~3H. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfiIl, where footing would sit atop fiII material. The engineer shaIl 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 wan, high-pressure sodium streetlights shaIl be reqtrired at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Allsireetligbts ,ball be installed at subdivider's expense- Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hYdrants, Final design locatio", and quantity are detennined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and pennit ftom the Public Works Department prior to commencing instaIIations. 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 3. Meridian Fire Department 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEFARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02106 . 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fIre protection will be by the Melidian Fire Departrneut and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 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 spec. d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red I 0' to each side of the hydrant location. e, Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers when spacing permits, f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. g. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. h, Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the lFC Section 509.5. 3.3 All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.4 Provide at least a 20' wide Fire Lane for all internal roadways all roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D1O3.6 Signs. 3.5 Fire lanes and streets sball bave a vertical clearance of 13' 6". This mcludes mature landscapmg. 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. Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. The new commercial lot will have an unknown impact on Meridian Fire Department call volumes. The Meridian Fire !>e¡>anmem bas experienced 2612 responses in the year 2004. According to a report completed by Fire & Emergency Services Consulting Group our requests for service are projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and 3800 by the year 2010. The fIfe department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the trash dumpster enclosure. Provide a Knoxbox entry system for the complex prior to Occupancy. The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required intersection( s ). The Fire Dept. has concerns about the ability to address the project and have the addresses visible ITom the street which the project is addressed off of Please cootact Vicki Heogly (898-5500) to address this concern prior to the public hearing. Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the futernational Building & Fire Codes. 5.3 6. 6.1 7. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 3.15 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all fire department connections. 3.16 Where a portion of the facility or building hereaJJ:er constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hYdrnot on a fire apparatos access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fu'e hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code omcial. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved auto:matic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183), For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 4. 4.1 For buildings equipped throughout with an approved auto:matic 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). 4.2 Police Department The proposed plat and/or site design encourages high~speed, cut-through tramc. The applicant shall work with the Ada County Highway District to provide traŒc calming design to decrease travel speeds on Sadie Creek Avenue. The proposed drive through has limited visibility from a public street. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall meet with the Police Chief to discuss methods of increasing visibility to the facility. The proposed development and/or plat do not offer natural surveillance oPportunities of the public areas. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall meet with the Police Chief and/or Planning Staff to discuss features that increase visibility, including but not limited to: doors and windows that look out on the public areas, front porches, and adequate nighttime lighting, The site plan and/or landscaping plan shall be revised in accord with those discussions. The proposed after-hours walk-up facility (e.g. ATM) has limited visibility from a public street. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall meet with the Police Chief to discuss methods of increasing visibility to the facility. The loading areas shall be separated from all public parking areas. Parks Department Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance I I -3B will be followed, Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance Tree Grate and Tree Box standard: The proposed tree grate shall be a 6 foot by 6 foot, cast iron, French pattern tree grate. This grate shall be placed in a 6 foot by 6 foot inside diameter tree box with a steel grate frame set in concrete. Prior to CZC approval, contact Meridian Parks and Recreation Department for specifications and tree box construction drawings. 4.3 4.4 4.5 5. 5.1 5.2 Sanitary Service Company Please contact Bill Gregory at sse (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. ACHD .,-, CITY OF MERIOIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REFORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02106 SÌfe Specific ConditiollS ojApproval 7.1 Extend Sadie Creek Avenue into the site from the north property line. Transition the roadway from a 40-fool conunercial street section to a 36-fool wide street within 50-feet of right-of-way, with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk. 7.2 Sadie Creek Avenue north ofthis site to Ustick Road will need to be constructed and dedicated prior to, or in conjunction with final plat approval for this site. 7.3 All local streets in the subdivision should be constructed as 36-foot street sections within 50-feet of right-of-way with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk. 7.4 The proposed alley may be constructed as a public alley if it is paved 16-feet wide within 20-tOO¡- of right-of-way. OR The proposed alley may be constructed as a private drive/street, if it is signed accordingly. 7.5 Bourbon Street shall terminate in a culdesac and shall not extend to SH*55. 7.6 Public road access to SH-55 is prohibited. 7.7 Provide a letter from ITD stating required improvements and access decisions. 7.8 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions of Approval 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 Any existing inigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACfID roadway or right-of~way. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and aU applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State ofIdaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required pemrits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7.19 7.20 ..."-. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINO DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02106 T16 Construction, use and property development shaIl be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for OCcupancy. 7,17 Payment of applicable road impact fees will be required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Impact Fee Ordinance. 7.18 It is the responsibili1y of the applicant to verifY al] existing utilities within the right -of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shaIl 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 groond witbin ACHD right-of-way. The applicant ,ball contact ACHD Traffic Opermions 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall he 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 shaIl be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change &om the Ada County Highway District. Any change by the applicant in the planned Use of the property which is the subject of this application, shaIl 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 subj ect property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in Use is sought. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 Exhibit D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance UDC 11-5B-3E, Nll1exation/Rezone Findings: The commission and council shall review the Particular facts and circumstances of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment: A. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; In Olap'er vn of the Comprehensive Plan, 'Mixed Use Regional' is defined as areas including COmmercial and residential development consistent with anto and service oriented uses. Stiff finds that the requested General Commercial (C-G) zoning designation is in accmd with the Comprehensive Plan's Fnture Land Use Map, which delineates the subject property as "Mixed Use-Regional". The purpose of the C-G district is '10 provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercia] USes which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arteria! streets; tu fulfill the need of travel.related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public." Staff finds that the proposed zoning is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan (please see Section 7 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific comprehensive plan action items that apply to this development). ß. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement;; ConcUlTent with the annexation and zoning application, the applicant has submitted a preliminary that proposes commercial products for the subject site (PP-O5-059/ CuP-O5- 052). Staff does not anticipate that the applicant plans to rezone the subject property in the future i[the accompanying PP application is approved. Staff finds that the various proposed commercial Uses would be allowed (permitted) within the requested C-G Zone. The site is being proposed as three portions of commercial, high density residential and medium low density residential and upon build out staff would not anticipate changes of usage for this site. C, The map amendment ,hall not he materially detrimental to the puhlie health. ,afety, and welfare; The applicant has submitted elevations for the proposed commercial and residential units and has agreed to use the design guidelines for COIDD1ercial P'"jecls along gateway coITidors when designing building facades. Staff finds that the proposed C-G zone with the proposed retail, office and restaurant uses, if designed, constructed and operated in accordance with adopted city ordinances, should be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the intended character of the vicinity. The site is intended for commercial Uses which, based on the Comprehensive Plan description, will have such Uses as retail, wholesale, service and office uses, as well as appropriate public uses such as government offices. Staff finds that the R-15 zoning designation along a C.G General Commercial will be an appropriate Use buffer, Furthermore the R-8 proposed zoning designation along the western boundary of the site further transitions these Uses from the low density residential Uses west of the site. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 Staff finds that the proposed development will change the existing character of the area, which is still largely rural. However, the proposed development is generally ham10nious with the intended character envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff does not find that the proposed zoning/uses will adversely change the essential character of area. The Commission and COlmcil ,hould æ]y on public te'timony (oral and written) to determine whether or not the proposed Use will be disturbing or hazardous to the existing or future neighboring uses. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed uses will be disturbing to future or existing neighbors, as long as landscaping, fencing and other recOmmended conditions are exercised. Further, staff does not anticipate that the proposed Uses will be hazardous as long as the applicant complies with the conditions contained in Exhibit C and all City Code Provisions. D. 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 applicant will be responsible for the extension of all utilities necessalY to serve this proposed development. Pennanent sanitary- sewer service to this development is to be provided ,by the extension of Sewer in Us tick Road and extended south through Sadie Creek Avenue to be looped with extensions in Eagle Road. The applicant will be responsible for the extension of utilities to and through this proposed development. Sizing and routing shall be coordinated with the Public Works Department. Other urban services, such as water, are near to this site and the applicant should be able to extend such services to the site. Staff finds that the subject site is proposed for development in a fashion similar to other properties in the area. The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay park and highway impact fees. ACHD had not submitted a staff report with site specific and standard conditions which will be attached as Exhibit C prior to the hearing date of November 17, 2005. On December 13, 2005, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with representatives of key service providers to this property. Based on the joint agency/department meeting and other comments received from agencies/departments, staff finds that except for sanitary sewer, the public services listed above can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. The Commission and Council should reference any written and/or verbal testimony submitted by any public service provider, regarding their ability to adequately service this project. If approved, the developer will be financing 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. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed zoning and subsequent development will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 2. . Preliminary Plat Findings: UDC 1l-6B-6 In detennining the acceptance of a proposed subdivision, the CofiUnission shall consider the objectives of this Title and at least the following: A. The plat is in conformance with tbe Comprehensive Plan; Please see Annexation Findings Item A above. B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate accommodate the proposed development; Please see Annexation Findings Items C and D above C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord the City's capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Please see Exhibit B for comments and conditions from other agencies and departments. E. The development will not be detrimental to the public heath, safety or general welfare; and Staff is not aware of any health, safety or general welfare problems associated with the development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis, Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is not aware of any natural, scenic or historic features which require preservation. The applicant will be required to maintain, fence, and improve the waterways which are existing on this site. Furthenuore the applicant shall define with the Parks Department the location of a multiuse pathway which will further enhance the natural features of the Finch Lateral as well as providing an additional use buffer. 3. Conditional Use Findings UDC 1l-5B-6E The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use in tenus ofthe following, and may approve a conditional use permit if they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the site is 27.3 acres and is large enough to accommodate all required parking, landscaping, loading and other standard regulations required by the UDC. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02/02/06 2. That the proposed use wiIJ be harmonious with the MeJ"idian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the proposed residential/retaiVrestauranUoffice uses meets the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as listed in Section 7 oftbis report. Some of the standards of the UDC are not cun-ently being shown by the applicant's site plan and building elevations. Specifically, the site plan needs to reflect the elimination of access to Eagle Road and building elevations need to be submitted in compliance with the entryway corridor design standards. If the applicant makes these changes, or an access variance is granted, this finding will be met. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds that the proposed retail uses complies with the uses pennitted in the C-G zone and those uses allowed under the Development Agreement. The bUilding height, parking layout, landscape buffer widths and other dimensional standards shown in the application generally comply with the UDC. The property adjacent to the west boundary to approximately 320 feet south of Us tick -Road is zoned R-2 and is proposed as low density residential uses. The applicant will be required to construct the proposed buffer between land uses to address this less intensive use where commercial lots abut. The multifamily proposal is an appropriate transition ITom the Commercial uses to the lower density residential uses which sun-ound the site. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with aU conditions of the approval imposed, wiJJ not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that the proposed development will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity if the applicant complies with all CUP/PP/AZ IRZ conditions and constructs all improvements and operates the use in accordance with the UDC standards. Traffic volumes will significantly increase. However, both ACHD and ITD have reviewed the application and placed special conditions on the applicant. These standards may include lighting, screening, landscaping and other areas intended to mitigate potentially hannful effects. 5. That the proposed use wiIJ be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water and in-igation are available to the subject property. A recently completed public~private partnership to improve Ustick Road to five lanes and ACHD includes planning to install a traffic signal at the west boundary of the site shown at Sadie Creek Avenue. The commercial land use should not have any impact on the school system. Please refer to other comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department. 6. That the proposed use wiIJ not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFP REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 02102106 Staff finds that the applicant will pay to extend the sanitary seWer and water mains into the site. No additional capital facility costs are expected from the City. The additional commercial structures will improve the tax base for the City of Meridian, The applicant and/or Últure property OWners will be required to pay highway impact fees, - 7. Tbat tbe proposed Use will uot involve activities or processes, materials, equipment aud conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds that the proposed development will not involve nses that will create nnisances thaI would be detrimental to the general welfare of the SUITounding area. Staff recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision; however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Staff [lids the future buffer between land Uses along the property boundary and the use and Eagle Road buffers will help to mitigate noise, fumes and glare created by the additional traffic. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The applicant will be required to comply with all state and local ordinances regarding conveyance of water and maintaining historic points of access. The Ada County Historic Preservation Council's Site Inventory does not show any structures or places listed for the subj ect property. We are unaware of any other scenic or historic features. 4. Private Street- UDC 11-3F-S A. The Design of the private street meets the requirements of this Article; The applicant will have to certifY that the Ada County Street Naming Committee has accepted the private street names. The design of the streets meets the standards as set forth in ODC 11- 3F-4, no gates are allowed or proposed. Roadway and stonn drainage shall be contained on site. The street width shall be a minimum of 26 feet of paved surface for all private streets other than alleys, B. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons property, or uses in the vicinity; and Staff does not anticipate any hazard, nuisance or other detriment from the private streets if they are installed and maintained as designed. C. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. Staff does not anticipate any conflict with the comprehensive plan. See findings above for comprehensive analysis. STATE OF IDAHO ) ) § ) COUNTY OF ADA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING R~~ (~~ E~ IìtVI~r) , JJ~N 2 G 20m::; GITY OF MERIDIAN "'.¡-'"",¡ r¡ ERI/ ()t'r-;"""ç {/'jj\,,--,-' !".," ,-,""1(,,-' I, Mike Arnold Premier Si ns Inc 2100 E. Fairview Avenue Suite 7 855-0380 (name) (address) (phone) Meridian Idaho being first duly Sworn Upon (city) (state) oath, depose and say: I personally posted the subject property with the hearing notice sign 10 days prior to the public hearing for the Annexation of 17.25 acres to CG' Rezonin of 11,10 acres to R -8' 9.04 acres to R"15 & 7.22 acres to CG' Variance A. . ,for access to Ea Ie Rd, Private Rd. A ,and a Preliminary Plat ADD. ~Quare Su~ Dated this 24rd. day of SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. ""tlIIII"'1 """ t.. FLEa !IIII; ....~' ~ """"""" ~'~);;.... ~ ""'1 A¡;""'" '-.- .. -' '" ~ .. "0 ~' ~ :: ,~ !~ \. ~ §"{~ oj ~ - 'O#'-' \',;.- ~ ~ \, lJ~\,;. .,/ /) ; ~ -', \J .,- . . , ~ "/"."""""""""'~"'.'...:.':' "'" 4~ c"" \ ,\\ IIII 'I.; . \", 11111111111" Mas ter \a ffi d ~po sting ...' ) Notary PubJi or Idaho, , Residing a /~l/ /7/LÚ Cb-Z~ ~ My Commission Expires: 7.,2 ¿¡'Þ() 7 1 ,- -----'-~~,-----, -,-- '-:----1 , I ¡ ...-.. ..- ., CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET DATE February 2, 2006 ITEM # 6,7,8,9 PROJECT NUMBER AZ. 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, CUP 05-052 PROJECT NAME Bienville Square Subdivision FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL ,- /' / J V "" ,/ l/ ~.- v' -..---- P P 05-059 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT Red Cliff Development, LLC January 5, 2006 ITEM NO. 24 REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision - 2935 North Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See memo for continuance in Al packet CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: See attached Comments ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See comments in Al packet See comments in Al packet 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. i-l) RED CLIFF DEVELOPMENT No, 3090 p, TO: Meridian City Council Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission 660 E. Watertower Ln.. Ste. 202 Meridian. Idaho 83642 RECEIVED DEe 2 0 2005 CITY Of: MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE DATE: December 19. 2005 RE: Bienville Square SUbdivision We have recently met with the developers of the proposed Sadie Creek Promenade to coorWnate street alignments and cross accesses. It 'pp""," that both projects will reqlrire changes to accomplish a coorttinated development witJrin !he combined properties. As such, w. "'. requesting that the hearing for Our project (Bienvüle Square) be POstponed for 30 days to allow us sufficient time to make and review these changes with your staff and the neighborhood. We feel thaI the cbanges win improve the OVerall development of this area and address the concerns of the neighbors. We thank you in advance for your consideration and look forward to working with your slaff in these rev;sjons to the project. If you have any questions or concerns please feel fte. to contact me. ~ Z~ C, Unger VPlProject Manager' '---.. RED ClIFF DEVELOPJIŒNr. 787 E. SlATE SnuœT, Surrn 125 . EAGLE, IDAHO 83616 (208) 472-9219 . REDCuFFDBV.COM DEe 20 '05 13;40 C""'r- ""'. ,\~ ~&~1~Z'~ 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651.4395 FAX # 208-463.0092 22 November 2005 phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Anna Canning, Planning Director City of Meridian 660 E. Watertower Lane Meridian, ID 83642 RE: AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019 & PP 05-059, Bienvi1le Square Subdivision Dear Anna: Nampa & Meridian Inigation District has no comment on the above referenced applications for Annexation & Zoning and Rezone, However, Nan1pa & Meridian lITigation District requires that a Land Use Change Application be filed before comments can be submitted for the Preliminary Plat. Please contact Donna Moore at 466~ 7861 for further infonnation. Al1laterals and waste ways must be protected. The District's Finch Lateral courses along the south boundary of this proposed project. The District's Milk: Lateral also Courses along the east boundary of this proposed project. These easements must be protected and any encroaclunent without a signed License Agreement and approved plan, before any construction is started, is unacceptable. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any municipal surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that ini.gation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Inigation District. Sincerely, f)&/}1 ~ Bill He1í'so~, Asst. Water Superintendent Nampa & Meridian lITigation District BH/dbg C: Water Superintendent Crew Foreman Rider File - Office/Shop APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS. 40,000 ~OP~ ~&~~ "'. ?'~ ' 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 23 November 2005 Ashley B. Ford, Planner WRG Design, Inc. 453 S. Fitness Place Eagle, 10 83616 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 RE: Land Use Change Application - Bienville Sauâre Subdivision Please note the District now requires three (3)~s of pl!!!! Dear Ms. Ford: Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation District for its review on the above-referenced development. If this development is under a "rush" to be finalized, I would recommend that you submit a cashier's check, money order or cash as payment of the fees in order to speed the process up. If you submit a company or personal check, it must clear the bank before processing the application. Should this development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be owned, operated and maintained by the Irrigation District, I strongly urge you to coordinate with John P. Anderson, Water Superintendent for the Irrigation District, concerning the installation of the pressure system. Enclosed is a questionnaire that you must fill out and return in order to initiate the process of contractual agreements between the owner or developer and the Irrigation District for the ownership, operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call on me at the District's office, or John P. Anderson, at the District's shop. Sincerely, Dictãted by Ms. Moore and mailed without signature In her absence to avoid delay Donna N. Moore, Asst. Secretary/Treasurer NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT DNM/smc CC: File Water Superintendent Anna Canning, Planning Director, City of Meridian Red Cliff Development, Inc., 2060 S. Eagle Road, Meridian, 10 83642 enc. APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER flOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 (ir'.rl:. ~~~TTR~~~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT ~HEAlTH Environmental Health Division - - - DEPARTMENT - Return to: 0 Boise 0 Eagle 0 Garden City ~eridian 0 Kuna OACZ 0 Star Rezone # AI;:- ó ç-~ ()j-7./'£Z 6.s.--0IC¡ Conditional Use # CIA ¡;J ð s- ----ð.J2.. Preliminary / Final/Short Plat .P J? -ó'J~-c)j-"L- . 0 1, We have No Objections to this Proposal. 0 2, We recommend Denial of this Proposal. 0 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. 0 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. 05, Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: 0 high seasonal ground water 0 waste flow characteristics 0 or bedrock from original grade 0 other 0 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or surface waters. 0 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability, Ms. After wri~pproval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: ~ ....eJ-eentral sewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water well 0 interim sewage ~ntral water 0 individual sewage 0 individual water %-The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: ~I sewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water 0 sewage dry lines ~central water ~un-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 0 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. 0 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. 0 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: 0 food establishment 0 swimming pools or spas 0 beverage establishment 0 grocery store 0 child care center 0 14. Please see attached stormwater management recommendations 015. Date: ÆJ2..; þj- Reviewed By: /-- ~~ 15726-o01EHO904 Review Sheet '\<:7 Joint School District No.2 911 Meridian Road. Meridian, Idaho 83642 . (208) 855-4500 . Fax (208) 888-6700 SUPERINTENDENT Dr, Linda Clark November 22, 2005 City of Meridian 660 E. Watertower Lane Meridian, ill 83642 Dear Planners: The Meridian School District has experienced phenomenal student growth the last ten years. The high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools throughout the district are operating over capacity. . Approval of the Bienville SQuare Subdivision will have an impact on school enrollments at River Valley Elementary. Lewis & Clark Middle and Meridian High School. We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house forty-five (45) elementary aged children, thirty-six (36) middle school aged children, and twenty-five (25) senior high aged students. Additional students will further compound the current overcrowded situation. Residents cannot be assured of attending the neighborhood school, as it may be necessary to bus students to other schools across the district. School capacity is addressed in Idaho Code 67-6508. The Meridian School District is currently operating beyond capacity. Future development will continue to have an impact on the district's capacity. If you have any questions, please contact me at 855-4500. s~ ~~7'?-- Building & Construction Manager