HomeMy WebLinkAboutCasa Meridiana CUP
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Insight Architects
CUP 05-060
March 16, 2006
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006 - Conditional Use Permit for
032 unil mulli-family develapmenl in a proposed R- J 5 Zone for Coso Meridiana - J 777
Victory Road
~GENCY
ITEM NO.
5
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
See Previous Item Packet / Minutes in Al Packet
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
See Staff Comments in Al Packet / Memo
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
~ t)\.°
~~-I'\~
«>(\) ~
/
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'IRRIGATlON:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
See attached REVISED Site Plan
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
--
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE
March 2,2006
ITEM #
6,7
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 05-067, CUP 05-060
PROJECT NAME
NAME (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL
Casa Meridiana
Meridian Planning
Department
Memo
To:
Planning and Zoning Commission
.. ...w,", -." ----
l{}j:~ \._~~
...._-, ""i'-' \?
"I "~ ~
_i_,.j ~ i
From: Anna Canning, AICP
Planning Director
cc: Joe Guenther, Associate City Planner
Date:
Re:
March 13,2006
Casa Meridiana Private 5teets
;"jrJ.
,'- , ;ii,)ji~J';
~_ì,i, i ¡ ~-,': ~~-:: Ç), "~:~ '",. ': r: ' ,,",: r::
--" .
As the rasa Meridiana project has progressed through the review process, I am increasingly
concerned about the proposed private streets. The purpose of this memo is to document my
concerns related to: 1) The intent of the current private street provisions; 2) The previous
(prior to UDC) private street provisions; 3) The interconnected street system; and 4) The
applicant's stated desire to have gated streets.
The intent of the current private street provisions
As the UDC was being developed, we recognized the need for a means to address
apartment complexes and commercial projects that did not have internal street systems. For
example, it is very difficult for emergency responders to quickly identify an apartment unit that
may have a Franklin address, but is actually tucked at the back of a complex that may have a
hundred units. You'll notice that the standards for private streets are essentially the same as
a parking lot drive aisle. In apartment complexes you would typically have a drive aisle with
90 degree parking off the drive aisle. This was the original intent of the Provisions. We later
expanded the private street provisions to accommodate mews developments. In that
instance it essentially allowed homes to take access from an alley. Again, private streets
were allowed 50 that we could get addresses on those homes.
Casa Meridiana is being processed as a multi-family development because there are multiple
attached and detached homes and townhomes on a single lot. The intent of the developer is
to submit a condominium plat to create homes for individual sale.
I am very concerned about the precedent this project may set regarding the use of private
streets for (essentially) single family homes.
The previous private street provisions
Prior to the UDC, the zoning code did allow for private streets. Private streets standards
mimicked the ACHD requirements for a reduced right-of-way street: 29 feet back-of-curb to
back-of-curb with sidewalks on both sides in a residential district. (This allowed parking on
one-side of the street.) The standards were purposefully based on ACHD requirements 50
that you did not have developers choosing private streets in order to avoid the higher
construction standards. Most developers opted to use public streets. The rasa Meridian
design has a 24 foot back-of-curb to back-of-curb with sidewalk on one side for a portion of
the project.
am very concerned about the precedent this project may set regarding the use of private
streets in order to have reduced construction and development standards.
The interconnected street system
As you know, the comprehensive plan strongly encourages an interconnected street system
so that people can travel within a section without having to get onto the section line road
system. Generally those section line roads are arterials roadways. In this case they are
currently classified as collectors, but we anticipate that as more land gets developed to the
south, both Victory and Locust Grove will likely be upgraded to arterial roadways. The
applicant's original proposal was for an L-shaped circulation pattern that connected to both
collector streets and did not stub to either of the adjoining undeveloped properties to the
south and to the east. ACHD has pointed out that this is very similar to the Sageland
Subdivision circulation pattern that we struggled with for months trying to devise traffic
calming solutions to discourage cut-through traffic. (I would also like to point out that with
Sageland, there were not opportunities for other circulation patterns. The surrounding area
had been developed without stub streets across a large irrigation feature.)
The applicant has presented a revised site design that now addresses the interconnectivity
issues, but now we have new issues. We have had two pre-application meetings with the
property owners to the south of rasa Meridiana, and we anticipate they will submit an
application soon. For a homeowner in that subdivision that is headed east, the shortest path
will be to use the Casa Meridiana private street and then turn right onto Victory. Clearly tht
homeowner should be traveling on a public, not private roadway.
I am very concerned about the precedent this project may set regarding a private street that
connects two different public streets.
The applicants stated desire to have gated streets
Although gates are not specifically noted on the current plans, the vision of the applicant for
this project includes gated streets. Staff acknowledges that the gates will address staff
concerns about cut-through traffic and about a private street connecting two public streets.
However, gates are not an acceptable solution. The UDC specifically prohibits gated streets.
The applicants have not submitted a text amendment. The amendment to allow gated streets
would not comply with the Comprehensive Plans emphasis on an interconnected street and
circulation pattern within each mile section.
Because the only way this project "works" is with private streets is to have gates on them, I
am very concerned about the precedent this project may set regarding gated streets within
the City of Meridian.
. Page 2
CITY OF MERlDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
STAFF REPORT
Planning & Zoning Commission
Hearing Date: February 16, 2006
Continued to: March 2, 2006
Continued to: March 16, 2006
P&Z Commission
î: J -- 1
. " liw' "1""
~'" '~"--;,.i
~ p /'" I,'", ;:'fii "~\:.:
\...-/Vlt:J7il¡âJl .\;'\~
\" II},\H~' t:'
, , j!'
-\¿~;:,'~, ?-j)J~;'"'\: :i<':(', "i"--",,
"'-- '::t J: i:~,'&'1 ,,~ I ." 1;- "",
, ,........,,""-l;c_--. ,£'" ,~, I V'I II
""', --"""'-"""-L_,f N
,,',:;
Joseph Guenther, Associate City Planner" ,:-;:' :?Da[
Casa Meridiana--".. :i, <' ,"" tvfn~-=' Fd Ü ¡ [\ J
AZ-OS-067 - Annexation and Zoning of6.9 acres from RUT to R-15T~~à¡--~ni~' '-:-'~:- i~--:
high Density Residential)
CUP-OS-060 - Conditional Use Pennit for Multifamily development
PS-05-003 - Private Street for providing frontage to multifamily site.
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The applicant, Insight Architects, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Pennit (CUP) to construct
multifanùly development on 6.9 acres within the future Casa Meridiana condominium development
located at the southeast comer of Victory Road and Locust Grove Road.
The site design is showing thirty one (31) multifamily units and one clubhouse/activity center on one
parcel which requires a conditional use pennit in an R-15 district. The applicant has requested all
internal circulation to be designed as private streets, and the site plan shows one access to Victory Road
as an entry point.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
On February 16, 2006, the Commission continued the Casa Meridiana project to the March 2,2006
hearing due to over-scheduling of the agenda and with the applicant's consent. The applicant's initial
request included gated streets which are prohibited with the Meridian Unified Development Code.
ACHD has commented on the report and has made a special notice including a recommendation that the
streets be public roadways, provide stub streets east and south, and will promote cut-through traffic.
ACHD has not commented on the revised drawing dated March 6, 2006.
Staff has reviewed the design dated March 6, 2006 and all comments have been incorporated into this
report. Staff still holds concerns that the overall design of the site would exceed the capacity of the
private streets as designed. The applicant has reduced the street sections from a 26'interal roadway to a
24' wide section for the entire site. The multifamily development will receive detailed approval with this
application; however there are still several items to be addressed through conditioning. Staff would
support moving the application to the City Council for approval with a redesign that would show
compliance with all requirements of the UDC as detailed in this report.
Staff is recommending approval with a redesign of the subject applications (AZ-05-067, PS-05-003 and
CUP-05-060) subject to the conditions noted in this report.
PROPOSED MOTIONS (to be considered after the public hearing)
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the
City Council of File Numbers AZ-05-067 and CUP-05-060 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of March 16, 2006, with the following modifications to the proposed development
agreement: (add any proposed modifications.)
Casa Meridiana
AZ-OS-067PS-OS-OO3/CUP.OS-060 Page I
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP AR TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DA TE OF 03/16/06
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the
City Council of File Numbers AZ-05-067 and CUP-05-060 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of March 16, 2006, for the following reasons: (you should state specific reasons for
denial of the annexation request.)
Continuance
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Numbers
AZ-O5-067 and CUP-O5-060 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the
following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
3. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location:
SE comer of Victory Road and Locust Grove Road
Township 3N, Range lB, Section 29
b. Owners
Oaas Laney, LLC
519 W. Front Street
Boise Id, 83702
c. Applicant:
Insight Architects
2238 Broadway Ave
Boise Id 83706
d. Representative: Russ Phillips, Insight Architects
e. Present Zoning: RUT-Ada County
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Medium Density Residential- 2002 Comprehensive Future Land Use Map
g. Description of Applicant's Request:
1. See Exhibit Al (prepared by Insight Architects) for a copy of the site plan which
depicts the lot layout, building, parking and access locations with adjoining subdivisions,
Exhibit A2 shows the proposed landscape plan, and Exhibit A3 shows detailed
elevations.
h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The application notes that the Medium Density
Residential designation provides for the overall site to be developed in a unique configuration
that attracts a new market of customers to this area. The applicant notes that the site is an
ideal location for a condominium/multifamily complex and will provide the additional
landscaping along drive aisles, the design review for structures, and develop the new private
streets to limit traffic movement in the area.
4. PROCESS FACTS
a.
The subject 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 this
matter.
The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use I multifamily development
as detennined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified
b.
Casa Meridiana
AZ-05-067PS~O5-003/CUP-O5-060 Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING-DATE OF 03/16/06
c.
Development Code Title 11 Chapter 5 Article B Section 6, a public hearing is required
before the City Council on this matter.
Newspaper notifications published on: February 13 and February 27, 2006
Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 8, 2006
Applicant posted notice on site by: January 17, 2006
d.
e.
5. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): Bare land, single family residence along Victory Road.
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Large lot residential to the south, infill
residential north of the site and agricultural east and west of the site.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
1. North: Sageland Subdivision, Zoned R-8 with a Planned Development
2. West: Undeveloped small lot agricultural, Ada County RUT
3. South: Tuscany Lakes Subdivision zoned Meridian City R-4 and undeveloped Ada
County RUT
4. East: Undeveloped Ada County RUT
d. History of Previous Actions: The Commission heard this item on March 2,2006. At that
hearing they directed to applicant to redesign the site to meet the following concerns: provide
one stub street to the south, elinùnate the Locust Grove access, and consider making the
streets public.
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities
1. Public Works
Location of sewer:
of this property.
Location of water: Water is located in the full frontage of both S. Locust
Grove Road and Victory Road.
Issues or concerns: High ground water and wetlands. Stonn drain disposal will
be problematic with the high groundwater.
2. Vegetation: AgriculturallIrrigated
There is sewer in Victory Road near the northwest comer
3. Flood plain: N/ A
4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: Several ditches/canals cross the site. These laterals
appear to be for drainage as well as local user groups.
5. Hazards: High groundwater
6. Size of Property: 6.9 acres
7. Description of Use: Attached townhouse and associated residential amenities, front
accessed products with no internal fencing.
f. Landscaping
I. Width of street buffer(s): per the Future Land Use Map, both Victory Road and
Locust Grove Road are designated as "Collector Roadways." As such, the UDC
(Table 11-2B-3) requires a 20-foot wide street buffer adjacent to both roadways. The
Casa Meridiana
AZ-OS-O67PS-OS.OO3/CUP-OS-O60 Page 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING-DATE OF 03/16/06
landscape plan (Sheet L~ 1) proposes a 20-foot wide buffer along these roadways.
2. Percentage of site as open space: The open space contained in the residential uses is
not calculated on the site/landscape plan. UDC Il-3G~3A requires a minimum of 5%
open space, the site plan includes several water features and internal open spaces
which would appear to be consistent with the required 5% open space. The
calculation should be reduced to not include any landscape buffers and would be
required if approved. The applicant shall clarify these calculations to be consistent
with the amenity standards found in ODC Chapter 3, Article G.
3. Other landscaping standards: The landscape buffer along Locust Grove Road and
Victory Road should be constructed in accordance with UDC Chapter 3, Article B.
This would include the modification of the evergreen trees shown on the landscape
plan, UDC Il-3B- 7C~3c as evergreen trees shall be used sparingly and in clusters.
4. Fencing - The applicant is proposing a solid block (stucco) fence around the site with
limited access points which will be controlled by iron gates. The walking paths to
connecting multi~use pathways are also proposed as gated. The applicant is not
proposing internal fencing with the exception of limited three foot stucco fences will
enclose the private open spaces and four or six foot iron fences will enclose the pool
and activity center uses.
g.
Conditional Use Infonnation:
1. Non-residential square footage: To be detennined, 3,128 square feet shown for the
activity Center
2. Proposed building height: 23.5 feet (Sheet A.30) R~15 allows 40 feet
3. Percentage of site devoted to building coverage: Not defined
4. Percentage of site devoted to landscaping: required IIÙnimum of 5%
5. Percentage of site devoted to paving: Not derIDed
6. Percentage of site devoted to other uses:
Not defined
7. Number of Residential units:
32
h. Amenities - The applicant is providing a clubhouse, recreational facilities behind the activity
center and additional open space for the residential amenities with multiple water features and
internal pathways.
UDC 11 ~4~3.27D-2b requires three onsite amenities with one from each category.
UDC 11~4-3.27D - ~ a. Quality of life amenity- Clubhouse (activity center)
~ b. Open Space - Water Amenity
- c. Recreation ~ Walking trails and Sports courts
i. Off-Street Parking (residential uses) - provided within the R~15, to meet the mu1ti~family
standards set forth in UDC II~4-3.27. The conceptual design appears to meet these standards
which will be certified through the certificate of zoning compliance process. The site layout
provides for two garage stalls for each dwelling unit which at maximum will be designed for
2,400 square-foot units with a 20~foot x 20~foot parking pad. Fifteen ofthe thirty~one parking
pads currently do not meet the 20~foot x 20~foot standard as required by Table 11 ~3C~2. The
applicant shall certify that a 20-foot x 20~foot parking pad has been planned for each unit in
front of the required two enclosed spaces.
Casa Meridiana
AZ-05-067PS-05-003/CUP-05-060 Page 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING_DATE OF 03116/06
The applicant is also proposing ten parking stalls (one handicap) for the activity center.
Standard gathering places require one space per 500 square feet and of the approximate 3,128
sq/ft activity center; this would require six parking stalls. The applicant has met the minimum
standard for the most restrictive district.
j. Proposed and Required Residential Standards - R-15 and R-15 bulk standards apply as found
in UDC 11-2A.
R-15 (Standards)
Setbacks (*all streets private) Proposed
Street Setback to Living Area ** 0
Street Setback to Garage** 15
Side 4
Rear (unit 19) 6
Frontage 0
Lot Size 0
Maximum building height 23.5
Required
10
20
4
12
0
2,400
40
** As measured :fi-om back of sidewalk
Staff has concerns that the applicant, by using a private street system for essentially attached
single residential, that they do not meet the intent of the district or the associated setback
standards.
n. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.):
The applicant is proposing all streets, public connections and internal circulation to be private
streets.
The applicant is proposing one new access point to Victory Road to serve the Casa Meridiana
project at approximately 520' east of the Victory/Locust Grove Intersection.
This request is not supported by UDC 11-3F-4.4 Standards for Private streets: Gates: Gates
or other obstacles shall not be allowed. A variance may not be granted to this standard.
Variances can only be applied toward relief from a dimension standard. Variances may not be
used to approve a use, such as a gated street, which is otherwise prohibited. The applicant has
been infonned that the only mechanism to allow gated streets would be to request a zoning
ordinance text amendment. They have not submitted such an amendment. If the gates are not
approved, as recommended, staff is concerned that the applicant is creating a competing street
network with these private streets.
ACHD has issued the following statement:
Special Notice to the City of Meridian
. The applicant is proposing to construct the transportation network within the subdivision
as private streets. By constructing these roadways as private streets, the District and the
City of Meridian lose any chance of obtaining connectivity in this area. Essentially, this
comer would be an enclave that is completely separated from all of the sulTounding
neighborhoods. District staff strongly recommends that the internal streets be required to
be public roadways that can provide stub streets to the east and to the south to provide
Casa Meridiana
AZ-OS-067PS-OS-003/CUP-OS-060 Page S
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
interconnectivity. The connectivity to the surrounding parcels would provide additional
access for emergency services, eliminate multiple access points to major roadways
(collector and arterial roadways), reduce vehicle miles traveled, connect neighborhoods
and have the ability to increase the sense of community in the area.
The "L-shaped" roadway that the applicant is proposing is similar to what was proposed
with Sageland Subdivision. When Sageland Subdivision proposed a similar roadway
network, the City of Meridian was very concerned with potential cut through traffic and
required the installation of landscape islands. This proposal may promote cut through
traffic on a private roadway network.
For a detailed report on ACHD's actions and comments, please see the letters/reports
submitted with the application materials
Staff is recommending the applicant consider eliminating the access to Locust Grove Road
and providing a public road to Amity Road with a public stub street to the property south of
the site. The internal roadways may be allowed as private streets if approved.
.
6. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING On January 27,2006, staff held an agency comments
meeting. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian
Police, 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 'Medium
Density Residential' on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and the
applicant has generally drawn the annexation request for the R-15 district to follow the Medium
Density Residential District. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, medium density is
defined as areas including single-family homes at densities ofthree to eight dwelling units per
acre. The proposed density (4.6 d.u./acre) is within minimum target density on to 8 d.u./acre for
Medium Density Residential, staff finds that the proposal conforms to this stated purpose and
intent.
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.
.
.
.
Casa Meridiana
AZ-OS-067PS-OS-003/CUP-OS-060 Page 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
.
The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This
service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no
revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation.
Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department,
the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian
Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing
Services, and Sanitary Services Company.
.
Chapter VII, Goal N, Objective D: Encourage appropriate land uses along transportation
corridors.
Staff believes that the proposed residential land uses are appropriate along the adjoining
transportation corridors
.
Chapter VII, Goal N, Objective D, Action 2: Restrict curb cuts and access points on
collectors and arterial streets.
The A CHD evaluates access points in their analysis; no direct access is allowed to any of the
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. Locust Grove and Victory Roads are classified as collector roadways. The applicant
is proposing access from both public roadways with internal circulation being private.
Public connection to adjacent residential developments is proposed from gated micro paths
and sidewalks which will provide future connection to residential areas west and south of the
site. Staff believes that the design as shown limits the existing and planned residential areas
in the vicinity by constraining adjacent properties to extend sewer and water services in the
rights of way, requires future development to obtain the offset access points, and does not
facilitate interconnectivity between parcels.
Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent
parcels (Chapter VII, Goal N, Objective C, Action 1)
.
The properties adjacent to the subject site are designated for residential uses. North of the
site is existing medium high residential uses at approximately 5.5 dwelling units to the acre,
east of the site is vacant, and west and south of the site are medium density residential uses
and expected to continue these uses as per the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
The project provides a transition from the less dense Tuscany development to higher density
R-15 District which would be compatible with the smaller parcel development occurring
closer to the intersection of Locust Grove and Victory. The applicants have included
residential to residential fencing along the south and east boundaries as well as by providing
amenities and open space connections. .
.
Chapter VII, Goal N, Objective D, Action 5: Require appropriate landscape and buffers
along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, benns, etc.).
The applicant is proposing to construct appropriate buffers along all of the adjacent collector
roads. By ordinance, a minimum 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to
collector roadways. The landscape plan shows the appropriate landscape buffers.
Staff also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this
application:
Casa Meridiana
AZ-05-067PS-05-003/CUP-05-060 Page 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
.
"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 ACHD 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 AClID to minimize access
points on arterial. . .roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page
72)
"Develop methods, such as crosswaccess 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 N, Obj. D,
#5, page 107)
.
.
.
.
.
8. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
a. Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts: UDC Table 11-2A-2lists multifamily development
uses as conditional uses in the R-15 zoning district.
b. Purpose Statement of Zone:
MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-15) the purpose of the residential
districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a
requirement for all residential districts. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable
density of dwelling units per acre and colTesponding housing types that can be accommodated
within the density range. Residential land uses are also allowed within the a-T, TN-C, and TN-R
districts as set forth in Chapter 3 Article D.
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 2fOSS floor area. Although the use is not in a commercial district the general standard for
non-residential uses may be applied. The applicant has provided adequate off street parkingfor
the amenity.
d. Multifamily Development (UDC 11-4-3.27) The following standards shall apply for the
multifamily units, including standards for Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities,
Architectural Character, Landscaping, and Maintenance.
Architectural Character-Multifamily Development (11-4-3.27.E): All structures in Multifamily
Development are subject to the design standards listed in this section. The overall elevation shall
be reviewed by staff and shall be approved prior to issuance of a Certificate of Zoning
Compliance.
Landscaping (1l-4-3.27.F) Additional landscaping standards for street facing elevations apply to
this site.
Casa Meridiana
AZ-OS-067PS-OS-003/CUP-OS-O60 Page 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
11-4-3.27.G All multifamily developments shall record legally binding documents that state the
maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including
but not limited to structures, parking, common areas, and other development features.
e. Outdoor storagelrefuse 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 trom adjacent properties and public streets.
9. ANALYSIS
9a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation
The AZ/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, and public road design prior to a recommendation of approval. 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-05.067): 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
11/28/2005 by Delson Brown, 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 trom their domestic service when services are
available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes
such as landscape irrigation.
All future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with
City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. All future uses shall
not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by
reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
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 existin¡z and future residential uses and the submission of a
conditional use reQuest. staff believes that a Development Agreement is not necessary
to ensure that this property is developed in a fashion that is consistent with the
comprehensive plan desie:nation and does not ne¡zatively impact nearby properties.
Casa Meridiana
AZ-O5-067PS-O5-003/CUP-O5-060 Page 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
Staff believes that a Development Agreement should not be required with this
application as the applicant has submitted a conditional use request which would
address all the implications of the annexation.
Special Considerations:
Sidewalks: The applicant is proposing to construct 5-foot wide attached sidewalks on
the internal streets/drive aisles. The applicant is proposing to plant trees on the back
side of the sidewalks, but staff believes that additional trees should be planted at the
driveway cuts and closer to the curb to provide the pedestrians with cover and to
make the streetscape more attractive.
Land Use Buffers: UDC requires landscape buffers between different land uses. Per
UDC 11-3B-9, a 20-foot wide landscape buffer along collector streets. The applicant
is showing a IS-foot wide setback buffer between the condominium homes and the
future potentially detached single family residential lots. Staff feels that the
perimeter landscaping serves as a buffer and shall contain materials in accordance
with UDC 11-3B-9 and not include impervious surfaces such as parking areas or
driveways. The proposed pathway connections east and south shall be landscaped in
accordance with UDC 11-3B~12. See Exhibit B below.
ACHD: The ACHD staff report submitted for this application specifically requests
the Planning Commission and Council to consider amending the design to provide
for interconnectivity between the other three parcels in the near vicinity to the comer
of Locust Grove and Victory Roads. Staff supports ACHD's request but would add
that the access point to Locust Grove Road had potential to be moved to the parcel
south of this site with a stub street from this property to the south. The parcel to the
south would then be required to stub services and a public street to the east. These
changes would meet ACHD's concerns for interconnectivity. Lastly, the Planning
Commission and Council should consider that ACHD would prefer these streets to be
public.
Private Streets: The design dated March 6, 2006 shows the private streets to connect
from Victory Road and stubbing to the property south of the site. Staff feels that
either design stretches the intent of the private street standards for providing access to
multifamily units.
Staff would recommend that the applicant consider eliminating the Victory Road
access after construction is completed in the following fashion: 1.) The Victory Road
access point would become an emergency drive similar as to the approval for
Sageland subdivision on the north side of Victory Road, these emergency accesses
would align and provide an escape route recommended by Emergency Services. 2.)
Staff anticipates the property south of the site to have access to Locust Grove Road
and would prefer the private street connection to a local road and not a
collector/section line road. This design would accomplish the applicant's goal of
achieving exclusiveness and seclusion on the comer as well as meet ACHD's
requirements that the private streets not be a competing road system. 3.) Staff would
also request the applicant eliminate the cuI-de-sac turnarounds and loop the private
streets to increase the area around the perimeter of the site as to allow more common
open space and less paved surfaces, only if the access point to Victory Road is
restrained to emergency services only.
Casa Meridiana
AZ-05.067PS-05-003/CUP-05-060 Page 10
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
CUP Application (CUP-O5-060): 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 11-4.3
requires multifamily structures to comply with the design standards listed in this section.
Staff feels the elevations submitted with the CUP significantly meet the requirements of
the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19.
The elevations will need to be reviewed prior to issuance of CZC to comply with the
following ordinance standards:
a.
All building elevations shall have a minimum portion of the elevation devoted to
architectural features designed to provide articulation and variety. These features shall
include, but are not limited to windows, bays and offsetting walls that extend at least two
(2) feet; recessed entrances; and changes in material types. Changes in material types
shall have a minimum dimension of two feet (2 ') and minimum area of twenty-five (25)
square feet.
b. Main entrances, which are the primary point(s) of entry where the majority of building
users will enter and leave, shall be designed as an obvious entrance and focal point of the
building through architectural treatment, lighting, and address identification.
c. Entrances shall be adequately covered, recessed, or treated with a pennanent architectural
feature in such a way that weather protection is provided.
d. Roof fonns shall be distinctive and include variety and detail when viewed from the
street. Sloped roofs shall have a significant pitch. Flat roofs should include distinctive
cornice treatments.
e. Exterior building materials and finishes shall convey an impression of pennanence and
durability. Materials such as masonry, stone, stucco, wood, terra cotta, and tile are
encouraged.
f.
Windows are required to allow views to exterior activity areas or vistas. Windows shall
be provided on any building facing any common area used for children's recreation.
g. All roof and wall-mounted mechanical, electrical, communications, and service
equipment should be screened from public view from the adjacent public streets and
properties by the use of parapets, walls, fences, enclosures, or by other suitable means.
2. Refuse/Service Area Screen: Neither the Site Plan nor Landscape Plan call-out how or if
the refuse/service area on the north side ofthe activity center building will be screened.
UDC 11-3A-12 requires the visual and acoustic impacts ofthese 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.
Casa Meridiana
AZ-05-067PS-05-003/CUP-O5-060 Page 11
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFFREPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
3. Cross Access: The property to the south will be providing a point of access to Locust
Grove Road and an access is also proposed from this site. The applicant has provided a
revised design with the access point to the south as a private street.
4. Private Streets: The applicant is proposing to use private streets to provide future access
to Locust Grove and Victory Roads. The applicant has submitted a Private Street
application as required by UDC 11-3F-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 if allowed. See Exhibit
B. The Meridian Fire and Police Departments are requesting a minimum of 24' paved
sections for the private streets. These standards would not allow on street parking which
the Meridian Police Department has considered inadequate for this size of development.
5. Conunon/Open Space: The applicant has a qualified application meeting the
requirements of UDC 11-3G and UDC 11-4.3.27c. The proposal is showing centrally
located open space which appears to be a minimum of 5%. The applicant shall certified
that qualified open space in the residential district which meets the requirements of a
minimum of 5% open space has been provided with the final approval of the Certificate
of Zoning Compliance. See condition of approval!.1.3
6. Multi~Use Pathway: The applicant is required to install a micro pathway connection into
the site to the east as shown. The pathway along the Ten-Mile Creek is the major
pedestrian connection to sites west and north of the site.
7. Amenities: The applicant is required to provide three amenities for multifamily
developments with 20 to 75 units. The applicant is showing qualified site amenities as
follows:
11-3G-3C-I - Quality oflife amenities - Clubhouse
11~3G-3C-2 - Open Space amenities - Open grassy area, ponds/water features
11-3G-3C-3 - Recreation amenities - Pool, walking trails, sports courts
Amenities are generally located in centrally accessible locations. These conunon areas
shall be maintained by the Casa Meridiana (Home or Users) Owners Association. The
landscape architect shall certify that one tree per 8,000 square feet of lawn has been
provided on the landscape plan.
PS~O5-003 Private Street
Design Standards: The private streets shall be placed in a permanent easement as the site
is not projected to be platted. ACHD shall approve all points of access. If the private
streets are denied then the applicant shall contact ACHD to determine the method of
transfer of any public streets. The private street shall provide sufficient maneuvering area
for emergency vehicles as detennined and approved by the Meridian Fire Department.
The Meridian Fire has conunented below. Gates or other obstacles shall not be allowed.
Street Names: The private streets shall have street names as determined by the Ada
County Street Naming Committee. The street names shall be approved prior to issuance
of a Czc.
Casa Meridiana
AZ-OS-067PS-OS-OO3/CUP-O5-060 Page 12
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
Fire Lanes: The revised 24' roadway shall be defined and signed as a fire lane with no
parking allowed.
9b. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, staff fmds the AZ/CUPIPS
applications may confonn with the Comprehensive Plan policies and UDC standards. As noted
under "Special Considerations," we recommend the Commission consider requiring the applicant
to make certain concessions to make the private streets safer for internal traffic. Staff
recommends approval of the AZCUP/PS application subject to the conditions of approval listed
in Exhibit B. Staff has provided findings consistent with a recommendation for approval.
10. EXHŒITS
A.
Drawings
1. Site Plan (AS.!, REVISED dated March 6, 2006)
2. Landscape Plan (L-1, stamped REVISED dated March 6, 2005)
3. Elevations (A3.0, dated November 23, 2005)
B. Legal Descriptions
C. Conditions
1. Planning Department
2. Public Works
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Parks Department
6. Sanitary Services
7. ACHD
D. Required Findings from UDC -
1. Annexation
2. Conditional Use Permit
3. Private Street
Casa Meridiana
AZ-OS-067PS-OS-OO3/CUP-OS-O60 Page 13
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
Exhibit AI: SitePlan (AS.!, REVISED dated March 6,2006)
",'.',"";:r'::¡""'~;':"'H'
'"
:¡,
,',:,
" \
. ( :
'::
..' "
" "
",;: ,1
~
I,
"
¡~
",
,,'
=
,
, ,
:-- ,
,
",*'
ti:f
'"
':~'
,J; ¡;:j,
'~ ¡
,
"
"
:-
','
:ii~, .-
" ,",
..,
'.
~,
!r -
().
,',"
--c'
~ ¡¡
Ì\.
, , I
'" '
"Ii'!
~
i¡'j
,~
""
;-<
'~
'>-
i'"
¡;
~)
:" -'\"\.
J'
~
I,
t, I "
i I
, J
,01
Î
';',:,
,:,j -fi:)'J
in
, '
'" ,
':i
" ,
/:
;¡,
; I: .~~ ,
: i! ':J
",..
"'"
,.' ,{,
\,
c---
'"
:~~ , ,
:1
'1:\
,-
--..
,-,-, , ----- -,--, "
'1",' ,
"
, ,
" ",I ~> ¡
,,: " i
, - -,~' ~o ~T\-...r~~: , '
<"~I:)
')""~n
,-,<\ '
, "
I'
'"
, 'i"i
~ \
¡ ",'"
\ 1 '
"
~ '
¡f'
I'
, - -, ,- - - - - --
',',-, ,', ; "E':, :" "-¡C.'
",,1-""
i\ "
i
"
c:
'. "'--'\ '
, >.""
\,V'
~ D~::";";'~-'tiO""", ",'
'--"""-'
,;[::":"" !,INSIGHT".,
:i, "I, '" ,-".
Casa Meridiana
Exhibit A Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
Exhibit A2: Landscape Plan (L~l, stamped REVISED dated March 6,2005)
._,-- --_. ~-"
~=W~ð9:~'i~J(D:~~~=; --zè,J ,
~.-' '",-10)-<1' ,.i ~. ',-:_1",,--'0:\;,
U' "(J~"-" (:.. iI"
0':;-- ';~'.; >,,[ jJ ¡'¡, ."£~
pJr ~-,~ ',L, . r)J':~/: ¡¡ ',"~; .), ~,,{ ,]1'.. J:
t' . /ti I'Vø~ /'( Qt"',(J%,;.: "I ¡
I., ad,- =, ¡<}/";,, ",iO'\~\:"('¡ I'
I'll, ':¡;¡ \7\ C8,' ~', ,~tj¿;¿5/ {)IJJ'q, :1 ~ ¡
< @ ¡ ,', {J:J¡ IlC¡~\j/ ',' '(,'!<"~,I ¡' j
~~l-~l:: I!~ ¡ if.~?71c6\ / ~ I:' :1: : j
! "1 t6' (~-) 0"""",,, ._'---"IIõ1
. "[':AlitL'L 1...:.1' ,"'1-"-'/,,,
j '---I fl" jC'"I., ¿:-'Á l~"'~-?-) \ 'lX)¡i' ;~
¡' ( """'~'-~/"'~"'\(~}: ;:-li!'-~ '-\8ì !
í' f'-. " CCJ~('} '~ìIJ(r '-". " : \, ,>'---~ 1 I' ;
t ~'--"':P\, . '~"",, (i) Tr-:- ",i{:'; ;IÒf~QgQ\-)¡},. ,
I ':~"r-~ \-',,: i ,',." .r' ",~"t_,~;-:~~:/ <,,:,-~;~,:; '~-'-,:.¡~~~,. I ¡;
, ";,, " ' E":) I" r-':"::~-"- i~~j :¡::~~('F'i~;I' .:-_~. i-
",,:~ ~l}~";~ld l~'l:q -'><]tl
V !¡I II!¡Ü"-~'Y' \~"l;~~" .,..J
Ii . I, ,¡' II 'i .
'I ~ j:_~WbJ
i ,:: ~~"~.~
:1 ¡!' II ;!I
ß', ,i I ii'
,l, \! ij 1/1
I
'I:
", 1,1
- : ¡:
/~.
i "" ",.
¡¡! ¡ \ 1/
,¡ i;
;)
in!
.1"
~"l~
~,;;;
'j }
ò, C,-.I",;;, GRün. ""Å"
,u... .- - ---- - - ---, , - ,-_..,
..",,- ,- .--.--- - ---
¡
/
"~¡i¡~I-~-~--i.i¡1 J¡îiinIW;t¡mj::~;
. H II . '11' In ¡jo ! I 'iJlfeJ ili ~I¡!I! ':
'¡¡;ìJI, I¡ ,I:I ¡If!lhll'!::~'
t : ¡. I" ,.I! II' I.'~!!, b ,. ë
.j 'I I ..i' I "t,. '
!i ,:I'!'II' ~ !¡IJ¡!¡:n
. ¡ I i ¡ ¡ I ~ ~I! ~.
I I I ¡ ! ¡'I¡ ~: Ii
..! 1 I ,:
. I f .1 , l'
0 Q r.:.' .1
,- ~ .i;! .
. .. ( : ""i,I' ii,
¡1Ufl~ !jà~ '¡I"h'i; i'i ¡I:
11,1~!lJ / "a i¡lllfL ".,
¡II/~r i'~ ¡¡tn' ¡;:
I r I . t.,
,,'
s-rJ..
r;-
"I ¡II ;":",~~;.."w~,,'. "" --1--
'II_P~~~~,~~"::':' ,.1'
Casa Meridiana
Exhibit A Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
ExhibitA3: Elevations (A3.0, dated November 23,2005)
'", f
:
I'i~;, ';;ii'
,"'=, 'il ...
i'i ,..ill "
w I: '-:¡~ !
¡;i1l ; r --,Ii'\ ¡,
;¡~~ ¡~::j)1 \ '1,\1/\
I;': Iii "ø, (JII/I
.;: ¡filþ 1 ,1 Ii I[
I j~ II! ~l ~ I'
1b'1f 0 ,
1~1!1 '\ I
t: U}!,
"r:-::;:-: '" "'i "', i
r ~~ ! I ! I
/I I î
q I I
I i
.¡:..
:i~
"
~
~
1"~j'II!IIT~ILOCUsT(3ROve-"'-- '~'O_-J"--~J' ~'--f~'F"'- """~-"'--~"'-~"""~--'--~"-""""--,
, l'; II i.II' , , i I, , COMIllUNITYDEVELOPIllENT I II ~-:;::'~'INSIGH"¡'Irj~Hf",,(;~ ,-','¿¿, ,
6 I'¡I',' II ' '~) "', -'- ;' i r~'- '.f...;~:,,;:;;.:',r;;!::;.i:.",;~;,;;
J ~4 """"" ~""'-"""?' ,- ~ 1- --In_. ": "'-C' " ----~ ",,'" :0:"":..1
Casa Meridiana
Exhibit A Page 3
..~
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
Exhibit B: Legal Description-
Annexation
I ".J,".'
U...¡".
11",;,1"
I':
, lib-.." "", "h I"
"<':"-': .
HtH¡NUAH'iHUXTor'l ()N
A pared oi /:¡nd si!uated in a'.: lJür(¡'v,,~::1. :'~ of1h(: nùrHl\\'u:o, ~" of ~n;tia/J 29, Tmynshi["
:.\ North, R'\1I!,\-' I t:,¡¡i;l, Bobe Merid¡'m, A.!¡¡ C ,un!y, J..1üI10, IIH:>rC partklllarly described
it;; tallows:
ßI~GINNrN(; at the nactbwc$( camel' of said Seclian 29. from which carner, the \1.;
()01ll(;1' COmmon to Sections 29 anrJ ;:10 bcar~, S.OooOO'24"E., 2645,69 feel; thcuc:o, along
the nor!h IiI!() of said Section 2<),
I)
l)
S.89"49' I I"E" 620.22 fee!; !lienee, ¡¡long a line parallel with the westerly (¡Ill!
of said sL-'Ction.,
S.OooOO'24"E., 532.61 ft:el; thcllœ, along a fine parallel with the 1100therJy
line of said section,
N.89"49'II"W" 620.22 fect (0 a p"int olllhe westerly line of said section;
(hence, along sHid westerly line,
N.OO"OO'24"W., 532.61 £cello the POINT OF BE(~INNING.
3)
4)
SAn) PARCJi;L containing 7.58 acres, 1H()rc ur ("55.
SUBJECT TO, all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way, Ea.~emen!s of Record, and
Encllrnbrallctls,
EXffi8IT "8" attached, and by this reference, lI1ade a part hcreo(
r::'c'llR\O,UÜ91!)""".¡.,,, r",;" d",
Casa Meridiana
Exhibit B Page 1
tT1(l
&B;
-,'"'
g:~
t¡;¡' ~,
'"Oe;
~ ~
n '"'
tV
EXHIBIT
::3
>-J
-<
0
"1'j
$;
tT1
~
S!
>-
Z
'"0
"
>-
Z
Z
Z
0
0
tT1
'"0
>-
:::0
>-J
~
tT1
Z
>-J
"B"
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW1/4 OF THE NW1/4
OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST,
BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, IDAHO.
2005
19 20 VICTORY ROAD
~-____S!9'49'1!.E 1340.26' W 1/16 '~OR
ao I ~ - ~:=---=-=-+ w
J i - - e:
I I J
It I ~
~i ~
~ ~ I~
0" 7.58 ACRES 'I
Q:; I I w
. ~
~ ~I I>"
i *1 113
u lEI 8
~."'~ '"'
p~ I
Š g --Ñãi4'e'i1"'1 -6'2õ:22-----J
tóg
!
ao-L9
I
t
I
I
1
UJ
--3
>-
"1'j
"rj
:::0
tT1
'"0
0
:::0
>-J
"r'I
0
:::0
--3
::r::
tT1
::r::
t'I1
>-
:::0
Z
P
0
>-
--3
tT1
0
"rj
0
w
---
0 '00 200 400
,
600
BROKAW SURVEYING & lL'i.??l'G
11056 LQne Star, Rd., NOf;!pa. !D.
208-24S-D47P
~
,-.'UL'iR\~ \",-ò ÖO'"""r tnl'lo.o,q ù\TL:"-1'.-O,7 ""~.;ê,':",:
0\
---
0
0\
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/I6/06
\;'
.
Ejj/¡ (::j>:',', ::,UH'!\ j.liilyH; r:'I',i1i"
BOIL /:';,/¡;) P{¡¡M'¡ 1224 PI.'
¡¡<'hl,"t ~r:",h:i¡,'w('!I ¡r'
1Ift'flil¡'i'l.I;£:lil[~.¡ OF
'¡¡lit! Oil!.
1-; J.'¡/:'"
'. ,.
IIIIUlm¡lIf ml~IM¡¡WI 1 ~ ili
1.(6(";J-;'[<.<.
Order NI>,: AO5J66S')
WARRANTY 1)[1'0
POR V ALU£ IŒCFJVI;;U, tll" reNi )1 Rlld suff¡c.k (} ,:of whid. 'IW hereby a~kno\Vh:dgcd,
RUSSELL v. [ (DOELL, alllJrUXlarl'ied malt, de¡,lill~ "1(11 h;~ '.,e,k and separate pH'perry,
the "Grant-or," does hereby !'.l'iJnl, bargain self and C"'IVI':y unIt;
OAAS J..A~EY, LLC, an Iduho limited liability comp'ln)'.
whose current addrðS$ is 519 W F'o'lt Street. Boi<e. ill 83702.
Ihe "Grantee," the fúllilwing desc.ribed premi~~s, in Ad.t ColInl,-, Idaho, TO wn,
Beginni"g at the Northwe" com", of tho NorthwM' Quart,,!" of the Nolthwes! Quan~r of Se,~r"),,
29, Towns"j!, 3 North, Rø)\ge fEast, I'IOi9'" Meridian, Ada County, Idaho which palm will b.
known a. lli~ REAL rOINT OF BEGINNING; !honce
Soulh 89"49' ElIOt 61().22 fe~t a((lnE the Northern boundary of ><lid Northwest Quarter of ¡lIe
NOIthwesr Quarter of said Section 19 to a point; thence due
South 532.6] fc()t ülong a [in" paraflel to the We.!ody boundary of said Northwest QMncr of !h~
Northwest Qtll¡rt('f of s",id Section 29 to it point; thence
North &9°49' We5t 620 22 feer along II line pataUe! tn tho said Northern bound..,y to a point on
said Western boundary; thence.
Northerly 5J2.6( fçç¡ aloog said WeSten¡ bouodary III t'he REAL POINT OF BEGfNNING
EXCEPT the following parceL
Beginning at the No...hweat comer oflhe Northwest Qtlarkr of the Northwest Qnarter of Section
29, Township 3 NOI1h, Range 1 East, Bo;se Meridian, Ada Co"my, Idaho; thence
South 119"49' Ea!! 390.22 feet along the Northern bouodðry of s.jd NorthwesT Qualter onlle
Northwest Quarter of .aid Section 2.9 10 a poiut, which pOint will bel<.nown iIS the R(\i\L !'amT
OF BEGfNNlNG; thence
South 89°49' East 111& feet along tJ)c] Nor!hern boundary of said Northwest Quart...r onhe
Northwest Quarter of said SectÎoo 29 to a f¡oint; thence due
South 167 feet aJong a line parallel to the We.rerly l>o,whry of said Northwest Quaner ofthc
:-':orthwest Qnal1e, of said Section 29 to a point; thence
North 89°49' We5t 186 tì:et along a Ime paraJlellO the said Nonhem boundary to a point; thence
Northerly 167 feet along Jlline parallel to the WöSterly boundary of said Northwest Quarte! offhe
Northwest Quarter of said Section 29 to said N0I1hcm boundary of said Northwe~' Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of said Section 29 to [he REAL POINT or' VICTOR Y RESIDENCE
PROPERTY BEGINNING.
'r..
-""""-:1
,) 11 i ie:,' , ','i';:;)
',.',,>.'...', "I"
'c.:, . c r
.':" n
Casa Meridiana
Exhibit B Page 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
(:,<;r"i:C,~~:¡~:;~:_,r,,:i:~~:,.';(.; i~\'.r ';;',1,',; ,;;,~,',:;,:-~';,ì,','~\~,¡~j;:"!::¡"~J~;~::jlj",.',:;;;',;¡:;:':,;,,::;:¡:,;,iJ
'1J;mle"',t""th:-L'IJ""""":'I';hk'-';""I-,¡",'t,'"Údp'em;,-~""j";¡[¡"\ar.tl"'fI--,,,'il
r~"' ;rnbl~~,e," F_\CFI"J jfJl:""'- c-¡jc;¡J<"bran,'c,; ~;(" kif¡h "";'f~~,Ú~ iI ,,\ at;~~ h;-~¡-he~~1.-":"-.d ~hJt', ~
tall II,rl,:',:L t'J whIch till,' '-l>It""',I'<Hh':,C n ""p"'\<I..\ I'""d,- '",Ii,' ðCl :'",d th.-"", made- ~"'-l;'r"d or .Ic"wc
) th, ('''In'"'', tlJ ,1 ""I,I),,:-,t I.-, "II ~.\";IJI'" f'ltI,--", r<",'TI'3Ii',)n>. "'\(lllCni', rlgh¡(~) of "',II',
IJrotceu\'" rOVÇW'IU<, zCI"mg urJinauw", and iI J¡'hç'lIbk b"¡I,jin,,, cod~,;, 1a1\'51!tld re¡:ul;;¡i'}l'r.,
general u~~s "", """',"m~-llts, mduJi"g ¡"'¡1Mb... 'HId utiht} ,,,is,,,,,,,,,,,, (if ¡my) (;" 'íh" curr',:l11
}~al, "IH~,' """ rkt d<l~ and f"'y"hk ;m.- ¡h,,! 1¡,..;"lm' w-ill """Hili "lid defulld th" "11111", f"'lll ail
lawful dalm> "habn~'Cf-
J
(J~[e~~ \\;}If'(;>o<;. .
R!T..~~/
State ofJdaho
County of Ada
Or! this~-i~f FebJ'118ry, 2005. before me, tile Imdel'siglled. a Nolary Public, pt:rsollaU,Y appeared
Rus~ell [,lildt\lI. known to me or pr<.>vcn 10 mc 011 lire ¡a.>i.~ of satisfactory evidence to be the
p~rso" who.~ I ~ I~ lIb"cI'iÞ~d to Ih" ",¡¡hi,., iIlS"Ulllc"t and 'I<;know edged to m", Ihar he
eX(>Clltedjge ' mc-
_-1-6" ,,{,'" ;;~~N'K~;~~~
Notary Public ,l:;%::~"";'.. ~
Residing at: 4~ Ii"" ~ {~O~.':'~ \ i
My commission ~xp;r"¡¡: rD/S/ip ,J -I< \ \:~ i
:~:.. "I'u,&" ~
'c, <f'!" "......' ~""1
,..".,:,,~ T" O\' ,.,¿."
-, !""J-""'"
-,',
:",..
'-' I
,\ -;C"";!, ë;';c'C
:C";;,""':~,:'fJ'_'é-
,~'" ;:,"
<T,,:"<,"¡
Casa Meridiana
Exhibit B Page 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
C. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department
SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS- (Casa Meridiana)
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.104
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.1.7
1.1.8
The site plan labeled as AS.l prepared by Insight Architects, dated revised March 6, 2006, shall
be redesigned (if required) as detailed by the conditions listed herein and the conunents received
at the March 16, 2006 hearing.
The applicant shall complete conditions of approval 1.1.3 and 1.104 and submit the required
copies to the Planning Department a minimum of 10 days prior to the scheduled City Council
hearing.
The landscape plan prepared by Insight Architects, labeled Sheet L-I, is not approved with these
applications. A landscape plan consistent with UDC 1I-3B shall be submitted with the amended
site plan which reflects any redesign required of the subdivision consistent with the hearing date
of March 16, 2006. The following should be included in a revised landscape plan:
.
The applicant shall certify that one tree per 8,000 square feet of lawn has been provided,
exclusive of Rights of Way.
The applicant shall certify on the landscape plan that a minimum of 5% square footage of
the site is provided as open space, exclusive of required landscape buffers.
All interior private street landscape trees shall be Class IT trees, consistent with parkway
standards.
A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer,
or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to City
Council signature of the Final Plat. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in
UDC 1I-3B-I4.
.
.
.
The site design shall be amended to meet the following multiuse residential standards:
The applicant shall provide a 20x20 parking pad for all units. UDC 1I-3C-6
The fencing plan shall show all conunon space separated from Victory Road and Locust
Grove Road by a minimum of a four foot barrier. UDC II-4.3.27-Co4
All units, including overhangs shall be shown outside of required landscape buffers.
Units may encroach into setbacks as allowed by UDC 1I-2A-3D
The applicant shall contact ACHD to detennine that the private roads are not deemed a
competing road system. The applicant shall certify on ACHD letterhead that this finding can be
met prior to the City Council hearing.
The applicant shall detail the groundwater monitoring in this area. As high groundwater may
affect the required drainage and construction standards of the City of Meridian.
A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted consistent with the site plan dated January 18, 2006 for
clearer detrition of fencing along the perimeter of the subdivision. The applicant is not
proposing a fence along Locust Grove and Victory Roads, however all conunon open space may
require fencing to provide a barrier as required by UDC 11-4.3.27-Co4.
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 Casa
Meridiana.
.
.
.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
1.1.9
Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Casa Meridiana
BusinesslHome Owners Association(s).
1.1.10 The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11 for all
common areas and street lighting.
1.1.11
1.1.12
Comply with UDC ll-3A-12 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.
Provide cross access/cross parking agreement(s) for all lots in Casa Meridiana 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 ofthe [mal plat, AND/OR in a document such as CCR's.
Other than the points of access approved by ACHD, direct lot access to public roads are
prohibited.
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 Pennitting 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.
1.1.13
1.1.14
1.1.15
1.1.16
1.1.17
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
1.1.18
Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision
pursuant to City Code.
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 ODC 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 11-3A-18.
If the stonnwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still
meet the standards of ODC ll-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.
1.1.21 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.
1.1.22 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.
1.1.19
1.1.20
2.6
2.7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
1.1.23
All ilTigation 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
ilTigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or
non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. IfIateral users association approval can
not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final
plat signature.
1.1.24 Staffs failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved
annexation/conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
1.1.25 Conditional Use approval shall be subj ect to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-5.
2. Public Works Department
2.1
Sanitary sewer service to tills development is being proposed via extension mains in Victory
Road. 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 fonns of
easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains
is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials
shall be used in confonnance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
Water service to tills site is being proposed via extension of mains in S. Locust Grove road and
Victory Road. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through tills
development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works.
A second water connection in S. Locust Grove Road may be required to achîeve adequate fire
flows, decision will be made at the time of construction plan review.
No sewer manholes or water valves shall be allowed in the landscape islands in the cul-de-sacs.
If water or sewer mains are to be routed under the landscape islands then no tress shall be allowed
in the islands.
The applicant shall be responsible for confonnance with any and all regulations of the u.S. Anny
Corps of Engineers regarding developing in or near classified wetlands. The applicant shall
submit all approval letters to the Public Works Department for review.
ill discussions with the applicant's engineer they have indicated that they may employ ACHD's
road side swale design to dispose of stann drainage. If this is the case the applicant's engineer
shall be responsible for inspection of the facility, and shall be required to submit a stamped
signed document stating that the swale was installed per design prior to certificate of occupancy
for each building.
Due to relatively high existing groundwater levels, applicant shall submit a Master Grading and
Drainage plan as part of the development plans to be submitted with each phase of this
development. The Master Grading and Drainage plan shall include at a minimum the following:
a. Groundwater contours for this development at peak seasonal high depth.
b. Finish floor elevation for all houses in this development.
c. Elevation of crawl space for all houses in this development.
d. Finish grade elevation at each lot comer.
e. Drainage flow patterns on all lots.
If structural fill is to be placed on any lot, material specifications and compaction requirements
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 031I6/06
2.8
2.9
shall be detailed and submitted to Public Works and the Building Department.
If slab-on~grade construction is utilized in coIliunction with typical footings, builders of each lot
shall comply with all requirements contained in the futemational Building Code regarding slab-
on-grade construction. The builder of each lot shall provide fill material gradation certification
and a minimum of one compaction testing report per 500 square feet of fIrst floor area (including
garage) and provide such reports to the Meridian Building Department prior to commencement of
any framing.
The Master Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Public Works Department prior
to overall plan approval. Builders must provide finish floor and crawl space elevation
certification for each house prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.
Send updated groundwater report conCUITent with construction plan submittal.
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 be recorded as a
separate document using the City of Meridian's standard forms. Submit an executed easement
(supplied by Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement
(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 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.
2.10
Prior to building pennits the applicant shall submit a recorded document to the Public Works
Department, that details ownership and maintenance of the private streets.
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. The reason for this is to attempt
to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least l~foot above that
groundwater elevation.
The applicant has indicated the pressure inigation system in this proposed development is to be
an extension of the system in the Tuscany Development to the south. It shall be the responsibility
of the developer to acquire the necessary easements to extend the system to this development. A
letter of plan approval form Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District shall be submitted prior to
scheduling of a pre-construction meeting.
2.11
2.12
The City of Meridian requires that pressurized inigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water (UDC 11-3A-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or
well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single~point
cO1Ulection 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 fmal plat by the City Engineer.
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.
All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or
lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6.
Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association
(ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department.
If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits.
A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall
be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
2.17
treatment and disposal shall be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental
Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities
and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into 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.
Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed,
drainage lots constructed, and road base approved prior to applying for building permits.
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 construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat
per Resolution 02-374.
It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
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.
One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by
the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical
locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are
determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light
contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to
conunencing installations.
2.18
2.19
2.20
3. Meridian Fire Department
3.1
3.2
3.3
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.
One and two family dwellings will require a fire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for
duration of2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 500 feet
apart. International Fire Code Appendix C.
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 fITe hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' 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'.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
g. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade.
h. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements ofthe!FC Section 509.5.
1. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing
buildings within 1,000 feet of the project.
3.4 All cornman driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside and
shall have a clear driving surface which is 20' wide.
3.5 For all Fire Lanes, provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane"
3.6 Operational fITe hydrants, temporary- or pennanent street signs and access roads with an all weather
surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site.
3.7 The proposed 32-unit subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total
estimated population of 100 residents at build out.
3.8 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure.
3.9 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy.
3.10 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 at 898-5500 to
address this concern prior to the public hearing.
3.11 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall
be required to comply with the International Fire Code.
3.12 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as
measured around the perimeter of the building.
3.13
Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes.
3.14 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by
an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fITe hydrants and mains shall be
provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved
automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance
requirement shall be 600 feet (183).
a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m).
b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in
accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183
m).
3.15 This proj ect will be required to provide a 20' wide swing or rolling emergency access gate. The gate
shall be equipped with a Knox box Padlock which has to be ordered thru the Meridian Fire Department.
3.16
Emergency response routes and fITe lanes shall not be allowed to have speed bumps.
3.17
Pool chemicals shall be stored in compliance with the International Fire Code.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/]6/06
4.
4.1
Police Department
The Prior to release of building pennits, the applicant shall submit a parking plan for all off-street
parking in the multi-family development to the Planning and Zoning Department. All parking
spaces shall be assigned to a specific dwelling unit or for guest use. The parking space
identification shall use a different numbering system than the dwelling units
The proposed multi-family development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that
do not exceed three feet in height.
4.2
4.3
Any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if
solid fencing is used.
Parks Department
Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape
Ordinance ll-3B will be followed.
5.
5.1
5.2
Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in
the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance
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 -NOT REVISED based on the March 6, 2006 revised site plan. When received
ACHD amended conditions of approval shall also be considered conditions of approval for this
report.
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
Dedicate 3S-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Victory Road abutting the parcel by
means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a walTanty deed prior to issuance
of a building pennit (or other required pennits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business
days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will
not be compensated for this additional right-of-way because Victory Road is classified as a
collector roadway and is to be brought to adopted standards by the developers of abutting
properties.
Dedicate 3S-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel by
means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance
of a building pennit (or other required pennits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business
days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will
not be compensated for this additional right-of-way because Locust Grove Road is classified as a
collector roadway and is to be brought to adopted standards by the developers of abutting
properties
Construct Victory Road as one half of a 46.foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and a 5-
foot detached (or 7-foot attached) concrete sidewalk.
Construct Locust Grove Road as one half of a 46-foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and
a S-foot detached (or 7.foot attached) concrete sidewalk.
Construct a 26-foot wide private road that intersects Victory Road approximately 92-feet west of
the east property line, as proposed. Pave the private roadway a minimum of 20 to 24.feet wide
7.13
7.14
7.15
7.16
7.17
7.18
7.19
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Victory Road and install 15-foot
curb radii abutting the existing roadway edge.
7.6
Construct a 26-foot wide private road that intersects Locust Grove Road approximately 90.feet
north of the south property line, as proposed. Pave the private roadway a minimum of 20 to 24.
feet wide and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Locust Grove Road
and install15-foot curb radii abutting the existing roadway edge.
7.7
Provide a minimum of 50. feet of storage from the edge of pavement of Victory Road and Locust
Grove to the proposed gate.
7.8
Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
Standard Conditions of Approval
7.9
Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside ofthe right-of-way.
7.10
Private sewer or water systems are prohibited ftom being located within any ACHD roadway or
right-of-way.
7.11
All utility relocation costs associated with improving street ftontages abutting the site shall be
borne by the developer.
7.12
Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the
construction oftbe proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file
number) for details.
Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy.
Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing
by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for
details.
All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy
Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all
applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the
State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building pennit
(or other required pennits), 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.
Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance
with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Impact Fee Ordinance.
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
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during
any phase of construction.
7.20
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 confinuation of any change ITom the Ada County Highway District.
7.21
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 03/16/06
Exhibit D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance
UDC Ilw5B-3E. AnnexationlRezone 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;
The applicant is proposing to zone the subject property to R-15. Staff finds that the
proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the
comprehensive plan. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, 'medium density' is
derIDed as areas including single-family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling
units per acre. Staff finds that the requested residential zoning designation, R-15, is
harmonious with and in accordance with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land
Use Map, which designates the SE comer of Locust Grove and Victory Roads to be
"Medium Density Residential". The density proposed with the multifamily development
is consistent with previous Commission and Council actions and generally conforms to
the goals, objectives, and action items contained in the Comprehensive Plan for single
family residential developments in a medium density residential neighborhood. The
proposed density also is consistent with surrounding developments.
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).
B. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed
district, specifically the purpose statement;
Concurrent with the annexation and zoning application, the applicant has submitted a
preliminary that proposes single family residential products on a single lot for the subject
site (CUP-05-060) which qualifies as a multifamily development. Staff does not
anticipate that the applicant plans to rezone the subject property in the future if the
accompanying CUP application is approved.
Staff finds that the various proposed residential uses would be allowed (pennitted) within
the requested R.15 zone with conditional approval and subject to the specific use
multifamily standards. The site is being proposed as one product of medium 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 residential units and has agreed
to use the design guidelines for multifamily projects when designing building facades.
The submitted designs are consistent with the design criteria listed in the specific use
standards for multifamily developments. Staff finds that the proposed R w 15 zone with the
proposed residential 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 residential uses which, based
on the Comprehensive Plan description, includes multifamily/condominium
developments.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
Staff finds that the proposed development will change the existing character of the area;
which is largely urbanizing. ACHD has commented that thi~ proj ect may impede future
surrounding developments to the south and east of the site and the internal private street
system may not be in the best interests of the City of Meridian. Staff finds that the
applicant should consider redesigning the project to accommodate better
interconnectivity (allowing the adjacent parcels to have public road access to Locust
Grove and Victory Roads) of the four parcels lying in the south east comer of Locust
Grove and Victory Roads.
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 the presented design will severely limit the
interconnectivity to the east and south. Further, staff does not anticipate that the proposed
uses will be hazardous as long as the applicant complies with the conditions of revision
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. 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.
On February 10, 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 irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public
costs to serve the future residents will be fire, police and school facilities and services.
Staff [lids 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 of the City (UDC 11-SB-3E).
Staff finds that the annexation and zoninQ: of this property to R -15 with the Proposed
multifamily desÜm. subject to the conditions of approval. would be in the best interest of
the City.
Conditional Use Findings UDC 1l-SB-6E
CITY OF MERIDiAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/[6/06
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed
conditional use in tenus of the following, and may approve a conditional use Mnnit 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 6.9 acres and is large enough to accommodate all required parking,
landscaping, loading and other standard regulations required by the UDC.
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 uses meets the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as
listed in Section 7 of this report. Some of the standards of the ODC are not culTently being
shown by the applicant's site plan and building elevations. Specifically, the site plan needs to
reflect intercormectivity desired by ACHD and the City of Meridian. If the applicant makes
these changes, this finding will be met.
3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will he 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 residential uses complies with the uses pennitted in the R-15 zone
and those uses are consistent with the single family development of the general area. The
building height, parking layout, landscape buffer widths and other dimensional standards
shown in the application generally comply with the UDC. The applicant will be required to
construct the proposed landscape buffers on Locust Grove and Victory Roads.
4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not
adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
Staff fmds that the proposed development will not adversely affect other property in the
vicinity ifthe applicant complies with all CUP/ AZ conditions and constructs all improvements
and operates the use in accordance with the UDC standards. Traffic volumes will significantly
increase. However, ACHD has yet to review the amended application and staff anticipates
special conditions to be placed on the applicant. These standards may include lighting,
screening, landscaping and other areas intended to mitigate potentially hannful 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 irrigation are available to the subj ect
property. All other agencies have made comment that services are available to the proposed
use.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 03/16/06
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 t4e community.
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 applicant and/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 ofthe surrounding area.
Staff recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this
subdivision; however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to
the general welfare of the public.
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
subject property. We are unaware of any other scenic or historic features.
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 of the streets meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11-
3F-4, no gates are allowed. Roadway and stonn drainage shall be contained on site. The
street width shall be a minimum of 24 feet of paved surface for all private streets other than
alleys. The current request continues for a gated site which is not consistent with these
standards, however the applicants revised drawing of March 6, 2006 does not show gates on
the site plan as required.
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.
ACHD has made comment on the proposed interconnectivity. The applicant shall contact
ACHD to make the Eroding that this is not a competing road system to the public roads.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 15 of 90
property line. And another addition is that all perimeter fencing along the school
property line will be open vision. Did I capture everything?
Newton-Huckabay: Did you want to make the June 6 --
Borup: Yeah. Mr. Chairman. That was what 1-- was on that point 13. Was your
motion to delete the whole -- that whole -- whole section?
Zaremba: That's the way 1 noted it, but if that's not correct, what should it be? 1.2.13
you're talking about?
Borup: Mr. Wilson, you say you're acceptable with the applicant's wording of that?
Wilson: We were, with the one change that they had noted January 1 st, 2007, and --
Borup: Change it to June 1 st.
Wilson: June 1 st, 2006.
Zaremba: Okay. And, then, I'd change my motion that 1.2.13 accepts the applicant's
wording. Okay. That means the date is January 6th -- or I mean the date is July 2006.
Borup: June 1 st.
Zaremba: June 1 st. What did I say? June 1 st, 2006. Okay. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 05-058 and PP 05-060. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: AZ 05-067
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to
R-15 Medium-High Density Residential zone for Casa Meridiana by
Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road:
Item 7:
Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: CUP 05-060
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 32-unit multi-family
development in a proposed R-15 Medium-High Density Residential District
for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 16 of 90
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from February 16,
2006, for AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060. Both of these items relating to Casa Meridiana
or something like that. In any case -- and start with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is Casa
Meridiana Subdivision -- it is not a subdivision. Casa Meridiana multi-family request.
It's, actually, being requested as a 6.9 acre annexation. It is in the southeast corner of
Victory and Locust Grove. We lost a piece of our presentation tonight. North road
Victory. South -- north-south road is Locust Grove. This has a 32 unit single family
residential attached product that would be with this. This is relative of a condominium
plat, which we would see in the future. The second -- or the third request would be that
these are private streets; they are designed as a 26-foot wide road section. As your
staff report details, staff is in support of the multi-family type of units and the elevations
detailed with this as shown. However, ACHD and staff do agree there is a lack of
interconnectivity with this type of development, mainly because when the Locust Grove
Overpass goes in, Locust Grove will most likely be operating at an arterial/evel of
traffic, especially with the number of units that have yet to be developed in that north --
in that north-south corridor. It's currently listed as a collector road and staff does
anticipate that that level of traffic to increase significantly and, therefore, the access
point to Locust Grove is recommended to be eliminated and a stub street to the south
be provided in a location to be determined by ACHD. ACHD staff report does
recommend that the applicant provide an east-west connection, but if you look at the
overall -- let me go back to the presentation. There are only four parcels in this location
and what staff would anticipate would be that the parcel to the south would provide an
east-west connection and, then, there would only be one other future connection to
Victory Road in a north-south location. There is, as you can see, several water features
proposed on this -- actually, you probably can't see. It's pretty small. There is a pond
located in the northwest corner. A type of a stream. There are some existing wetland
features. They are not designated wetlands and are not going to be required for
mitigation on this site, but with those types of features you can anticipate high ground
water. We do have -- this is another area that we have high ground water issues and
staff is recommending that the Commission take those into consideration. Let me try
and get back to where I'm going. I guess it does not go as far south as I had hoped.
Just immediately south of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision is the Bellingham Park
Subdivision that had significant issues with ground water as well and the Commission
did institute some restrictions on building type due to the -- the lack of desirability of any
type of ground water to be occurring in crawl spaces for future development. So, that
would be a consideration that we would like the Public Works to make sure that the
drainage of these types of roadways would be adequate. Provided the applicant is
currently showing attached sidewalks on this site. This is proposed to change to a type
of detached sidewalk with a drainage swale, obviously, to further help address the high
ground water issues in this area. The applicant does have a very amenity laden product
where there is a pool and clubhouse in the southwest corner. There would be parking
provided for the pool and clubhouse. There is a pathway and many water features as
amenities to this site. A walking path would connect to the east and are shown to be
connecting to the south, but the north-south connection would be proposed as a public
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 17 of 90
street. Now, with the staff report the recommendation is for a redesign, but the staff is
asking this Commission in order to give better guidance as how you would like to
proceed. ACHD has made some special notices to the City of Meridian. Now, I will tell
you that the ACHD staff members have pretty much -- two of them, their major staff
members, have been -- have left ACHD and any type of recommendation and -- if you
do table this, we will want ACHD to look at it and it may slow this project down
significantly due to their lack of staff at ACHD to review these types of projects. The
applicant does -- is showing gates on these sites. Gates are not allowed on private
streets, which is a major concern, but is not -- it's not an option at this time. The
applicant has indicated that they would be proposing or possibly be coming forward in
front of this Commission with another request for a UDC text amendment. Staff is not
going to comment on that, because we do not have anything at this time to comment
on. That is up to the applicant to determine at a latter date. At this time staff has
presented Findings for a -- consistent with denial, but we are recommending that this
project be redesigned and reevaluated as to its -- being in the best interest of the City of
Meridian for the overall site design. And with that I will stand for questions, but most
likely your questions are for the applicant.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come
forward, please?
Phillips: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Russ Phillips with Insight Architects, 2238
Broadway Avenue, Boise, Idaho. We have got an exciting project here and we also
have a short PowerPoint presentation that we'd like to refer to at this point. It should be
under Casa Meridiana. And, please, don't get hung up on that name. It's -- we found it
a little difficult to run out smoothly, so right now we'd like to keep it filed under that
name, but we are reevaluating the name of the project. To start out with, while this
comes up, the -- you know, I moved to the Treasure Valley when I was 22 and Meridian
was a little blip on the radar screen and, obviously, it's grown a lot. We have all seen
what's happened and part of what the community has been very good at picking up is
that there is a chance of identity loss and through the Comprehensive Plan and many
other -- many other positive things; I think Meridian is taking care of a lot of these issues
and establishing its identity. One of the main things that we want to present tonight is a
community -- a very small community, but a community that will respond to the diversity
that is mentioned many times throughout the Comprehensive Plan. Diversity in
lifestyles, residential living environment. This is a project that really has been
thoughtfully looked out by Oaas Laney. Oaas Laney is a development -- a developer
that is local based and has promoted projects that have been beneficial to communities
in different ways and we have seen this community as a good example of how to create
and bring to Meridian some diversity and in its residential environment. The next slide,
please. This site was brought to us a year ago and it's taken a year of thoughtfulness to
look at what type of development makes the most sense here. It's a site that can stand
alone, we believe, with -- mainly because it's 6.9 acres. It has access on two collectors
and it can stand alone in this type of configuration. The market originally was looked at
to -- when we talk about diversity, is a -- was a market of say empty nesters, couples
that have reached the point where they would like to -- the kids are out of the house,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 18 of 90
their homes have appreciated beyond their imagination, so that they could, then, move
into a very high quality environment to live in and, then, in -- it would be secure in that
it's a small environment and also the gates we viewed as really key in providing
security, so that when the residents are gone on a trip that they maintain a sense of
security over their homes, not only with neighbors, but also with traffic flow. As we went
through many focus groups, we found that also dual income young professionals also
are looking for this type of housing alternative, where, essentially, the homeowners
association takes care of -- of the outdoor areas and, yet, you still have a home that's
roughly 22, 23 hundred square feet. The amenities that Joe mentioned include -- we
are working with -- due to the high ground water, trying to play with the water in some
different areas. We have got a plan we have been working with, our civil engineers, and
Meridian's public works as far as retaining the water. The ground water is somewhat
artificial in that the irrigation is affecting that, so we have been monitoring that and we
are trying to get some better analysis here during the next couple months. Other
amenities is this is built on a -- kind of a Mediterranean style of homes, which the next
slides will show. Hence, the name Casa, it will be a collection of casa homes. Some
are detached homes, single family, as in this -- a couple of these. Three of these.
Others are attached in pairs and some in threes. We are looking in keeping with a
Tuscany or a -- not to be confused with the subdivision, like with a Mediterranean feel.
The architecture, as you will see, reflects -- truly reflects this type of housing style with
clay tile roofs, stucco, simplistic, but undulations in the building to create shadows in its
massing. We are looking at the activity center besides the pool and courts and we are
even looking at landscaping as far as types of olive trees that will grow in this climate.
So, we are trying to look at this site all the way into the building. Each residential unit
will be a condominium. It will be owned outright. We have a standard downstairs plan,
which is 1,500 square feet, two bedroom, as planned upstairs, trying to look at custom --
from the customer point custom designs. We have got four different alternatives for
upstairs, including a rec room option with baths, master bedroom suite, and a library
and den type situation. A third bedroom. So, first time owners will have a variety of
really a pallet to look at as far as kind of customizing their own home. We also have
interior designs, one which will be traditional, kind of Old World in feel and the other will
be a metro feel, to appeal to different age groups or lifestyles. In addition, outdoors,
although we have got roughly 40 percent in open kind of common areas, each unit will
have a patio which is trellised, you will have an outdoor kitchen with an outdoor fireplace
and -- so that's another amenity there. The main concern -- there seems to be two
concerns. One is the private streets. We did meet with ACHD in the very beginning
and, then, again, during a tech review period and the initial -- the initial concept hasn't
changed much and ACHD really was kind of -- they didn't have an issue at that time
with private streets. They did bring up connectivity that that's something that Meridian
has been looking at. In meeting with Meridian city planners, connectivity was
discussed. We discussed vehicular connectivity and pedestrian connectivity. We opted
to go with pedestrian connectivity to the south and to the east and not consider the
vehicular connectivity. After reviewing the staff report and meeting with staff yesterday,
if there truly is a desire on the city's part for vehicular connectivity to the south, then, we
certainly would look at a redesign of this area in here. We certainly -- we've spent a
year thoughtfully going through the project and we would like to do what we can to work
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 19 of 90
with staff to continue through the process and not backtrack and I feel that we could
work with ACHD and staff to reach a solution, depending on what the Commission and
City Council looked at. Eric Oaas with Oaas Laney is also here tonight and I believe
he'd like to say a couple things after we show a quick slide. This is a rendering of what
the casa collection would look like from the street side. Next. And, then, we have a
series of slides, you can just go through, Joe, that shows the -- kind of the inspiration,
the catalyst for the design of this type. Clay tile roofs, stucco, simplistic design, but,
again, in this type of climate with lots of sun, the shadows and massing really provide
the buildings with their character. We do have a fence on -- which, if you can imagine
around the perimeter we have a six foot fence, which will be the same type of materials
as the buildings, they will be a concrete block wall with stucco and the detailing and,
then, the gates will be cast iron. It's a little hard to see, but this is perhaps the best slide
we could find in a hurry that conveys the type of wall we are looking at. The trellised
area over the patios and the gazebo would look something like the last slide right here.
So, do you have any questions before I have our client say a few words?
Rohm: I think not. Let's--
Phillips: Okay.
Oaas: Thank you, Russ. Commissioner Rohm and Planning and Zoning Commission.
I'm Eric Oaas with Oaas Laney, 519 West Front in Boise. And just a couple quick items.
I know you're very busy tonight, but just to give you an idea of the type of projects that
we have done here in the valley, we have built a number of class A office buildings over
in Nampa near the Idaho Center. We also are -- refurbished an old warehouse building
on front street in Boise and it's, actually, the first -- we are very proud to be the first Leed
certified commercial building in the state of Idaho. We were just granted our
certification by the U.S. Green Building Council here just last week, so we are -- we like
to think of ourselves as being sort of on the forefront of not only good development, but
progressive thinking. Another development we are working on in downtown Boise is the
Ada County Family Justice Center that will be a processing center for victims of sexual
abuse and child abuse. So, we are -- we try to focus on projects that we think are not
only valuable from a development standpoint, but also valuable to the community. Here
in the Meridian area our predecessor company developed the Generations Plaza
project. We are also in the process of finishing up the Double 0 site out on the corner
of Victory and Locust Grove and we are in the process of demolishing that ugly silo
building down on Main Street where Double D used to be located and we plan to put a
very nice -- probably a mixed use retail office development on that site. So, beginning
of next week we should see that coming down as well. We see the casa project here at
Ten Mile Creek as being a continuation of what we really like to do as -- in terms of high
quality projects that really are adding more to the community than taking away and we
respectfully request you to consider seriously, but also consider what we have done to
consider, really, what we are about. And if the Commission decides that there is
additional work by way of staff's recommendations with regard to access, we would
respectfully request approval with an understanding that we would go back and work
these out. We think that the staff has presented some very workable solutions and we
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 20 of 90
are quite willing to move forward, but we would prefer, because this has been in
process for well over a year, we would prefer to move forward with the project without
delay. Thank you very much. Any questions?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Based on what you just said, then, I would anticipate that the stub street to the
south would be okay for you, if, in fact, we were to require having the stub street to the
south, as well as removal of the gates? Basically, just noting what the UDC code and
whatnot is. Quite frankly, the UDC is not that old, so, therefore, we are not really -- I'm
not amenable, I should say, to changing rules out of the UDC when we just have really
adopted it and started working with it now. So, I'm just curious as far as those two
items. You say that you will work with staff and those would be items that you could
work with.
Gaas: Commissioner Moe, I guess I would like to sort of bifurcate those two issues
and, one, the stub street to the south we think staff has come up with some reasonable
suggestions for how we might be able to address that. We do, however, feel that -- that
the gates in this community, although it is a UDC requirement that's recently been
adopted, we feel that that's very very important to the look and feel and workings of this
development. I guess it's our -- it's our feeling that the UDC ordinance with regard to
gates was primarily focused on commercial developments and because -- and because
of that, it sort of got spilled over into the residential area as well and in doing so there is
a portion of the diversity that Russ Phillips spoke to, a diversity of the -- of the
environment and residential community here in Meridian that's being -- that's not being
addressed and people who are desirous of living in those communities are either going
to Boise or going elsewhere and Meridian, in some respects, is eliminating itself from
consideration of people who are interested in that -- in that type of living. We would
strongly encourage the Commission to reconsider that and we would be more than
willing to -- and, in fact, we plan to submit an application for modification to the
ordinance and spell out specifically why we think it's important from a residential
standpoint to adopt changes to the code to allow gates in certain circumstances,
because -- because of the fact that Meridian is driving that segment of the population
away.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Thank you. I picked up on your comment about the Leeds certified building.
Those are not part of our new UDC, so we can't require it, but we certainly encourage it.
Are you planning to apply any of those principals to these buildings?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 21 of 90
Oaas: Commissioner Zaremba, we have found that the Leeds concepts, being what we
consider to be on the forefront of this activity or this movement, has been very
enlightening for us. The project that we just -- that we completed and that's where our
offices are, the Front Five building down on Front Street, is the Leed certified building
and the first -- by the way, the first one in the state of Idaho, but -- but because we were
on the front end of that development, the Leeds -- adopting the Leeds concepts made it
more expensive and we think that, you know, that's understandable when you're on the
front end, because a lot of the materials that are required for Leeds buildings and
sustainable buildings are not readily accessible and available in the area. However, a
lot of the concepts of bringing daylighting into buildings and water conservation
measures and looking at -- at bringing fresh air into buildings when the CO2 levels rise
to the fact that -- or rise to the level where people are becoming more lethargic and the
fact of light pollution. You know, if you drove by our building downtown on Front Street
at night you would notice that there is very very little light that shines up into the air
that's causing, you know, light pollution. The lights that we have shine downward. So,
from our perspective it's easy to look at adopting a lot of these same ideas, even though
it may not be, quote, a Leeds certified project, we'd like to -- we'd like to bring these
ideas into our projects, because we think they make sense.
Zaremba: Good. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commission Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I think that we should probably move on with public testimony and
get this hearing going.
Rohm: Thank you.
Oaas: All right. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. There is no nobody else signed up to this, but at this point in time
we certainly are open to public testimony. Please come forward.
Walsh: Thank you. My name is Paul Walsh. My address is 2655 South Simsbury in
Boise. I live over in the Muirwood Subdivision, almost Meridian. Wish I was. I'm
working with the development group that has the parcel just to the south of this project.
Okay. We have a small parcel, 6.53 acres. We ended up getting two stub roads. We
got the one to the east requested and, then, also the one -- would be our north
boundary, their south boundary, okay? A couple comments that I have as far as, one,
the gates in there, I think lends real well to the subdivision and it would also avoid a cut-
through that we see in the subdivision I live in in Meridian -- or in Muirwoods. We have
that on the corner of Victory and Cloverdale. I have a friend that lives there, he had the
police come out, they issued 17 citations in a four hour period for cut-throughs in this
same configuration. So, I think the gates would alleviate some of that problem. Okay?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 22 of 90
Then, as far as the stub road coming in, in the event there was a gate there, it doesn't
lend to the exclusiveness of the project. Okay. Also, secondly, the linear footage that I
have along that north-south boundary there is limited and to add the dimension of an
additional road in there just isn't conducive to our project on the other end either. My
thought was is -- I understand for emergency access. There is plenty of access. I'm
only doing 26 lots. So, it's a small project. And with their 32 lots, the need for an
additional or an emergency access is limited and my thought was the pedestrian path
that was shown that's connecting the two projects, if emergency access was a concern,
if we turn that into an emergency entrance with breakaways, that would limit through
traffic, would maintain the exclusiveness of their project, and would reduce our footage
and, then, we could kill, basically, two birds with one stone, get the pedestrian cross-
through that we are looking for to get over to the regional pathway that we are installing
along Ten Mile Creek and I think it would just lend well to both projects where we are
working together, basically, so --
Rohm: Thank you. Interesting. I appreciate your comments. At least from an adjacent
property perspective, that kind of ties in with what they are saying. So, thank you very
much. Any questions?
Borup: Just clarification. Mr. Walsh, you support their project just as they have
designed it it sounds like.
Walsh: Yes.
Borup: Other than adding the pathway.
Walsh: Correct. I think that would be a good alternative for emergency access if that
was a concern.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: Just maybe one other question, Mr. Chairman. Did you say you had talked to
ACHD on a preliminary basis --
Walsh: I have not. We are just starting our drawings.
Borup: Okay. So, you are not planning a stub street to your north, then, at this point?
Walsh: I think my engineer is drafting one, because staff requested it. As I talk with her
-- I didn't make that meeting. As I talk with her I'd like to find an alternative solution to
that stub street.
Borup: Okay. But you're definitely planning to the east.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 23 of 90
Walsh: Yes. That's been requested.
Borup: Yeah.
Walsh: I didn't care for that one either, but --
Borup: Well--
Walsh: -- I understand -- I understand the purpose of that one, okay, and then -- so, we
are not going to battle with it and we can see -- you know, I want to try and design it to
where I don't create a cut-through, because that seems to be the big concern.
Borup: And you can do that with road designs easily.
Walsh: Right. And so we are working towards that.
Borup: Thank you.
Moe: One question. Are you anticipating, then, to take -- for a road to go out onto
Locust Grove as well -- into your property as well?
Walsh: Yes, sir.
Moe: Okay.
Walsh: For about -- we are that parcel just to the north of the canal, so we have -- I'm
not sure the frontage on there. We were going to bring one in off of Locust Grove,
meander it though, and, then, take the stub to the east. I got a real limited size there -- I
got about a hundred feet of frontage on that east boundary, so we are working through
that. I kind of felt that the small parcel owners got left with all the stubs. You know, we
had Tuscany was a large parcel, they could absorb some of their footage a little better
and the way it went in that the small parcels got left with all the stub roads. So, it really -
- with the way things are moving now, it leaves us with limited lots to make the project
feasible, but we are working through those. So, I just -- looking for my project along
with two stub streets on five acres and 26 lots, it eats you up pretty fast.
Moe: Well, I guess I'm not going to speak for staff and whatnot, but I would anticipate
that the reason, more or less, for the stub street to the south for this project that we are
hearing tonight is the fact that I'm not so sure they'd like to see any access onto Locust
Grove off that property to the south, because you're going have, you know, two streets
coming out of Locust Grove right in that same area right there. You don't have much
frontage along Locust Grove from our site that we are hearing tonight, so I think the
intent was that that stub street take care of your development with no access onto
Locust Grove.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 24 of 90
Walsh: In their defense, I think that, you know, we are looking six to eight thousand
square foot single families. Nice project, similar to Tuscany Village across the street
with Craftsman style homes, where their property is so exclusive as to the design, they
have put a lot of care into the design of the structures, the values that are going to be
there, to have a subdivision that I feel is on a lower -- you know, it's not built to those
type of price per square footages, it wouldn't -- if I had that project over there, I wouldn't
want another subdivision dumping in on mine and creating all that traffic through there,
because it's going to affect the marketing of their project.
Moe: I understand that. But the same point now we are dumping off a whole bunch
more traffic into Locust Grove in two access points. That's another concern I had.
Walsh: Right. Understood.
Moe: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this application?
Okay. Seeing none, discussion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: A couple of points that come to mind and almost all of them in support of the
staff report. I would confirm Commissioner Moe's instinct that both ACHD's idea and
the city's idea would be to have fewer accesses to Locust Grove. I think one of the
things we are going to discover, when the Locust Grove overpass is built and, therefore,
Locust Grove is connected, the two halves of Locust Grove connected north and south,
this is going to become the relief valve of choice for people who need to move north and
south in or through Meridian and don't want to be on Eagle Road or Meridian Road.
This -- I'm willing to bet that within hours of that bridge being open, that whole corridor,
the whole Locust Grove corridor, will exceed its 20 year design capacity. Probably
within minutes, maybe hours. Therefore, this is very likely -- Locust Grove is very likely
to be a very major thoroughfare. I'm sure it will need to be upgraded from a collector to
an arterial at some point. Probably not too far off. And, therefore, I very much support
the idea of not having the property we are talking about have an access to Locust
Grove, and also the two properties in combination with the gentleman that provided the
very good comments, that there should not be two accesses there. I think the access
should be done through the stub street, as staff has recommended, and precisely for
that reason. And I also would like to comment on the gate situation. I was on the
committee that helped write the UDC and gates were discussed at length. I'll have to
admit that my personal opinion is that they give a false sense of security. They slow fire
and police down more than they slow thieves down, who can get around them anyhow,
and I joined in the majority who wrote into the UDC the no gates and we did mean
residential subdivisions for that purpose. That being said, I can also understand the
applicant's discussion that it's the desire of Meridian to have a variety of housing types
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 25 of 90
and we usually interpret that to mean that we need to have more affordable housing.
But there are also people on the other end of the scale who, as the applicant points out
and other people have pointed out in other hearings, are well to do empty nesters, they
want to down size the house and maintenance that they are living, but they don't
necessarily want to cheapen how they live, and those people have the opinion that a
gate provides them with some security and I don't think it's in the best interest of
Meridian to force those people to go live in Eagle. We should make provision for them
also. The current ordinance does not allow us to approve a gate. So, there really isn't
any question about whether we can approve the gate, we can't. I would suggest to the
applicant if they wish to pursue a change to the ordinance, there are a couple of
elements that need to be included. The gate needs to be far enough from the major
road, either a collector or an arterial, that three or four cars could stack before getting to
the gate. There also needs to be a turnaround or an escape, so that somebody that
turns in and discovers there is a closed gate, doesn't have to back out onto the arterial
to escape. There needs to be a turnaround before the gate. And I would encourage
them, if they are going to apply for a change to the ordinance, include those elements.
The other issue is a very small one. I have lived in places that had decorative olive
trees and they are very pretty for part of the year, but I have not -- I'm not aware of a
fruitless olive tree and they make a terrible mess. They are not good for humans to eat
without being processed. Birds will eat them, but the fruit drops and stains and I would
urge them to reconsider that, unless they have found a fruitless olive tree. Those are
my points.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Anybody else have some comments on
this application?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I just have a couple of comments regarding access to Locust
Grove. There we go. We have access here. We are looking for access here. We are
going to have to have an access for this piece of property here. Probably access over
here off of these ones, but I think it's going to be critical that we limit -- limit the access
on Locust Grove for the reasons mentioned, but -- and if we don't, we are going to get --
we have all these pieces of property that would like to have access onto Locust Grove --
in my mind, the only one that can reasonably have it would be this parcel here. So, I
would be in support of -- one, I'm in support of the stub street to the south property and
the only access into the development from the Victory Road property. Victory Road.
North. Right there. Other than that, I think it's a nice development.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I, actually, have discovered I had a question that I would like
to ask of the applicant.
Rohm: By all means.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 26 of 90
Zaremba: And have staff listen in as well. Mr. Phillips, if you'd come back up. And that
is one of the new provisions of the UDC, which we are all trying to learn this new thing,
but I just want to make sure you're aware of it. In multi-family developments there is a
requirement to actually have a storage building for maintenance and landscaping
materials and equipment and stuff like that and I didn't see that on the drawing, but is
that something that knowing that there is a provision that that's required, can you add
that someplace? And I would ask that it be made of similar materials to the rest of the --
Phillips: Chairman Rohm and Commissioners, in lieu of having a separate storage
building, which, as you saw, was a very small site, what we have done is we have
oversized the garages and, hopefully, this will satisfy the requirements -- in our view it
did. These garages are approximately 28 feet long. Standard garages are normally 22,
maybe 24 feet. So, we have got, essentially, six feet all across the back and we have
also increased the width, so that we have an extra two feet on each side, so when car
doors open that there will still be two feet on each side, plus six feet all across the back.
So, we felt that this should more than accommodate storage. Exterior storage. Inside
the -- each of the residences we also have, essentially, a storage room and that's
roughly, I believe, maybe seven or eight by ten, but -- does that address your --
Zaremba: I appreciate the first part of your statement as increasing personal storage for
the people that would live there. My question was more directed to the second part of
your statement that came in at the end about the storage for what would be the
association or the maintenance of the common property and the point that was
discussed in the group that was writing the UDC was that in subdivisions of multi-family
dwellings that don't have a separate storage building, then, maintenance materials end
up being left out in a parking stall and, you know, if you have your own lawn mower, that
ends up sitting out in the parking stall. So, the requirement is more aimed at equipment
and supplies owned by the association or whoever is doing the maintenance.
Phillips: All right. I understand. No, we don't have a separate building at this time, but
we will definitely take a look at that.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Phillips: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I would request that we take a poll of the Commissioners in where
we are heading towards tabling this for redesign; I would prefer not to get into one of our
infamous redesign two hour public hearings if we could avoid it this evening. Not to be
blunt.
Rohm: Well, that -- the point is -- yeah, I don't have any problem with that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 27 of 90
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to lead off. I think it's an excellent project. I
think it would be a nice addition to Meridian. I do think it needs to have the changes
that are mentioned in the staff report and a few other things we have met. But I would
consider those tweaking to some extent, but I think being respectful to the applicant's
request to move it on, unfortunately, we have been burned by redesigns a few times
that didn't get to the City Council looking like what we thought we recommended. So,
this Commission is uncomfortable approving something that's going to be changed. At
least I personally am and I think I felt that from the others. So, my intention would be to
continue this with some specific changes that need to be made and hear it again, but
with the attitude that it will be approved at some point.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Point of clarification. Don't we still need to see a preliminary plat?
Guenther: Mr. Borup, with this -- again, I want to point out one major fact, is that ACHD
did recommend that this would be public streets. If this was public streets, then, we
would have a plat.
Borup: Okay.
Guenther: We are still -- staff is still recommending that these remain private streets
and meet ACHD's conditions. Now, ACHD is going to need to review this with the
redesign. However, by the redesign of the staff -- city staff's conditioning, that would still
be sent back to ACHD, but we are not going to get a new staff report or new staff
comments from ACHD for quite awhile as what we would anticipate. Now, if we brought
it in for a plat, it's only going to be for a condo plat. If we require those to be public
streets, that's going to require a plat in itself and this design is not going to be conducive
to public streets as it's currently shown. Even if you required the connections to be
public, we would still need to have some mechanism in order to transfer that property as
right of way to ACHD, which this site would not be conducive of.
Borup: So, Mr. Phillips, this is strictly a condo, so the ownership is of the building itself,
not of any of the property around it? There are not any deeded lots? Is that what you're
saying?
Phillips: That's correct.
Borup: Okay. Well, continuing on with the other comments, I agree with Commissioner
Zaremba, I like the diversity; I like to see something different like this. I mean we have
had gated communities in the past -- maybe that's another question. Have there been
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 28 of 90
serious problems with any of our other gated -- well, actually, I can only think of one, but
has there been problems with any other gated communities in Meridian?
Zaremba: The two that I know of are at the south end of Bear Creek and about one
block from where I live.
Borup: Off of Linder?
Zaremba: It's off of Talamore, which is the street -- it's not actually on the arterial, which
is Black Cat, it's maybe a quarter of a mile in on a collector street, if you're visualizing
the area --
Borup: The question was has there been problems?
Zaremba: That has not been a problem. It's not on an arterial, but that has been no
problem at all. When we discussed Bear Creek -- and I believe their gate was approved
-- it was with a requirement that there be enough stacking depth and that there be an
escape and I haven't heard anything from the fire or police.
Borup: ACHD did address the gates. They said that a minimum of 50 feet.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: But they didn't mention anything about the escape or turnaround or anything.
Zaremba: Then we had one other that was right next to the high school and we
recommended a disapproval of the gates and don't know what City Council did with that.
Borup: Well, the comment was made that, you know, it's a nice project and -- but it's
not going to be the same project if we change it. And I guess I'm not sure which
direction I'm going, but, again, you know, if we start adding the stub streets and
eliminate the gates, it's not the same project.
Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to see a redesign.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Pretty much just as I spoke earlier and I'm in agreement with Commissioner
Zaremba. Quite frankly, I would like to see a redesign in regards to the stub street, as
well as the gating.
Phillips: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, if I may go ahead and speak. You know,
again, we would -- we have met with staff yesterday and we believe that we discussed
the private street issue and it seemed to us that we have -- we are pretty close on -- we
are on the same wave length as far as how to resolve that issue. The gates we are
preparing a text amendment, which we will be presenting to City Council and the Mayor
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 29 of 90
and we feel like at this point that the feedback we have gotten from the neighborhood
meeting, from working with staff and ACHD and other folks, that Wß are really close and
what we really prefer, if you would go along with us, is to sit down and just work out,
really, a few details and that way we don't need to alter the entire development.
Rohm: And I think that echoed throughout the Commission here that we want to see
those before we move forward and even though you're close to coming to some sort of
an agreement with staff, before we make any recommendation onto City Council, we
want to see what you come up with and I don't think that we can -- we don't want to be
in a position to redesign your project and, like Commissioner Borup said, if, in fact, we
sat here and started talking about your private roads and your gates and things such as
that, that that's -- in essence, we would be redesigning your project. So, from our
perspective we think that it's best for you to take it back to staff and work with them with
the comments that you have heard from the Commission tonight and taking those into
consider, come back, and we will continue this to a later hearing and we will act on it at
that time and probably, if I had just one question of you, is how long do you think that it
will take you to come up with an alternative to the current configuration that will meet
staff's expectations and we will just continue this hearing to a date certain that you feel
that you can comply with staff's recommendations.
Phillips: Well, I believe we are close enough that we could turn that around within -- we
could be at your next hearing date, which is, what, two weeks?
Rohm: On the 16th that will -- let me ask staff if they concur with --
Borup: Review time.
Guenther: If we have the materials ten days prior to the hearing, we can, typically, turn
it around. With this type of a development, I -- we have got most of the staff report
already written, it would just be a modification, which doesn't take as much time. I feel
that if the conditions listed in the staff report were redesigned and we could have the
redesign within that ten days time limit, we should be able to do it at the next hearing. If
it goes over the ten days, we have got enough hearing items for the 16th that I wouldn't
recommend it at all.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, interpreting what staff just said, they would have to have final
drawings by next Monday in order to have ten days before the next hearing. So, my
question to both staff and applicant is can you finalize the changes that are being
requested and have it in a final form to staff by Monday?
Phillips: Yes, we can. But what we would like to do is just meet with staff one more
time and -- you know, we look to you as far as if you have any specific, you know,
conditions that you would like to be seen, then, we need to be sure to incorporate those.
With those, we can meet that time frame.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 30 of 90
Rohm: I think the one thing that Commissioner Zaremba brought up is we, as a
Commission, cannot move forward with a gated community, because it's not in
agreement with ordinance and so that, in and of itself, would have to be dropped from
any proposal that comes back to this board until such time that that ordinance changes.
Anyway, that's the way as I see it.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, my comment on that would be, though, that anticipating that
they are determined enough to have gates that they are going to take the step of
making an application to change the ordinance, they would need to design the roadway
to incorporate the elements, so that if and when they put in a gate, there was a wide
enough space to have a u-turn escape and that the gate would be located far enough
from the arterials and they could design those elements into what we see without the
gates --
Rohm: Fair enough. That's acceptable from my perspective. The gates, as far as this
application, just wouldn't be included. Okay.
Borup: One final comment, I guess, I'd have is -- and I think I feel as strong as anybody
about interconnectivity, except for I can see this as one development where I don't know
that it necessarily applies. You know, the emergency access through a pathway would
take care of any public safety concerns and beyond that I think it's taking away from the
project that they are proposing.
Rohm: Okay. The draft agenda for the 16th already has 17 items on it and I guess that
I'd ask that -- could you give us the next two weeks and move it to April 6th, so I -- I
don't know that we are going to be able to get through the agenda that we already have
set for March 16th. And the value to moving it to April 6th gives you and staff more time
to work out these details and we would have a project that we could move forward more
aggressively at the April 6th meeting. If you can live with that, we'd certainly appreciate
that.
Phillips: Just one moment.
Borup: Well, if not, they have got one day to meet with staff and one day to prepare the
drawings, if they have to have it Monday.
Rohm: Well -- and that's the point.
Borup: That's only two days.
Rohm: That doesn't give them much time for creativity.
Borup: Busy weekend.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 31 of 90
Zaremba: Well, I think the applicant has made the point we are only talking, really,
about redesign of a small southwest portion of this project. The rest of it wouldn't
change just because a stub road needs to go --
Rohm: It's your call.
Phillips: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. We would really
prefer a continuance to the next -- the next Public Hearing, at which time, you know, we
would meet the -- I'm certain we can meet the time frame.
Rohm: Fair enough. Thank you.
Phillips: All right.
Zaremba: Well -- and the issues are known, so it should be a short discussion when it
comes back. If they comply and work it out with staff it should be easy for us.
Rohm: Thank you very much.
Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we continue AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060 to our regularly scheduled
meeting of March 16th, 2006, to give applicant and staff time to work out issues that
have been raised, as well as those already presented in the staff report.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Items AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-
060 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 58.56
acres from RR to R-4 (32.86 acres), TN-C (14.54 acres) and C-C (11.16
acres) for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC -
northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road:
Item 9:
Public Hearing: PP 06-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 126
residential lots (22 townhouse lots and 102 detached single-family lots), 7
commercial lots and 26 common lots on 55.83 acres in a proposed R-4,
TN-C and C-C zones for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea,
LLC - northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road:
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE
March 16, 2006
4,5
ITEM #
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 05..067 and CUP 05-060
PROJECT NAME
Casa Meridiana
NAME; (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL
\/f/AÎt< ;1~~'J "Y)¿Î/éi;/JI} k:.'
C' +-
_J\LE8> "Z>oP
---- -----,-- ---
-~
~
CUP 05-060
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Insight Architects
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.
7
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from February 16,2006 - Conditional Use Permit for
a 32 unit multi-family development in a proposed R-15 zone for Coso Meridiana - 1777
Victory Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
See Previous Item Packet / Minutes in Al Packet
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
YL 'Sttt« fifo { + ; ~ A Z ß.6~
Cõ fl~-l ~ Pj-IJ --I-v
'J-l? -Db
D?-Ofl7
:::':-0
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTlERS'IRRIGATION:
- "
\ ,
'J
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall beçome property of the City of Meridian.
-,;;a.a.. Right-of-Way & Development Services
f.¿::f~i.\ Planning Review Division
.".. ~"-- .-
Committed to
This application does not require Commission action and is approved at the staff level on Tuesday January
31, 2006. Tech Review for this item was held with the applicant on January 27, 2006. Please refer to the
attachment for appeal guidelines. Staff contact: Andrea N. Tuning, 208-387-6177-phone, 208-387-6393-fax,
atunina@achd.ada.id.us
File Numbers:
MCUP-O5-060
REl e E IVE
FC'B2 8 .D
. J:'ø ':Jnnt'
CJ tv 0 ,cwo
err)!' CL~ rv:~RJDJA/\1
-Rn, O~,~fr'!--:
Owner:
1777 Victory Road
OAAS Laney, LLC
519 West Front Street
Boise, 1083702
Site address:
Applicant/Representative: Insight Architects
2238 Broadway Avenue
Boise, 10 83706
Application Information:
The applicant has submitted an application to the City of Meridian requesting annexation, rezone and
conditional use approval to construct a 32-unit townhouse subdivision. The 6.9-acre site is currently zoned
RUT and is proposed to be rezoned to R-15. The site is located on the southeast corner of Victory Road and
Locust Grove Road.
Acreage:
Current Zoning:
Proposed Zoning:
6.9-acres
RUT
R-15
II
/"
Y1l JhIj
3-~-()&
-S~ )JLJ.
Î
Vicinity Map
.'ISIT~' "',.,'.,
",!" "
'ÌJ ' , 7,62-BCr.'
'0: ;
"
Iii
§ 6,35-BCr..
'm/,' "",'",
...
1
A.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Findings of Fact
Trip Generation: This development is estimated to generate 188 vehicle trips per day based on the
Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual.
Impact Fees: There will be an impact fee that is assessed and due prior to issuance of a building
permit. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that
time.
Traffic Impact Study: A traffic impact study was not required with this application.
Site Information: The site has one existing single-family residential dwelling.
5.
Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area:
a. North: Sage land Subdivision
b. South: 6.35-acres zoned RUT
c. East: 7.62-acres zoned RUT
d. West: 1.0-acres and 6.69-acres zoned RUT
6.
Impacted Roadways
Locust Grove Road:
Frontage:
Functional Street Classification:
Traffic count:
532-feet
Collector
South of Victory Road was 1,490 on 12-10-03
North of Victory Road was 1,938 on 12-10-03
Level of Service: LOS C
Speed limit: 50 MPH
An acceptable Level of Service for this segment of roadway is a Level of Service 0 based on
COMPASS Planning Thresholds (up to 9,500 VTPD)
Victorv Road:
Frontage:
Functional Street Classification:
Traffic count:
619-feet
Collector
West of Eagle Road was 4,615 on 1-20-05
East of SH 69 was 3,745 on 1-20-05
Level of Service: LOS C
Speed limit: 50 MPH
An acceptable Level of Service for this segment of roadway is a Level of Service 0 based on
COMPASS Planning Thresholds (up to 9,500 VTPD)
7.
Roadway Improvements Adjacent To and Near the Site
Locust Grove Road
Victory Road
Existing Right-of-Way
Locust Grove Road
Victory Road
8.
9.
Existing Access to the Site
The existing single-family dwelling has a 20-foot wide driveway that intersect Victory Road in
alignment with the emergency drive for Sageland Subdivision.
10.
Site History
The District has not previously reviewed a development application on this site.
2
B.
1.
11.
Capital Improvements Plan/Five Year Work Program
There are currently no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity of the project that are
currently in the Five Year Work Program or in the Capital Improvements Plan.
Findings for Consideration
Victory Road
Right-at-Way
District policy requires 70-feet of right-of-way on collector roadways (Figure 72-F1 B). This right-of-
way width allows for the construction of a 3-lane roadway with curb, gutter, 5-foot wide detached
sidewalks and bike lanes.
. The applicant should dedicate a total of 35-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Victory
Road.
Street Section
District policy 72-F1 B requires collector roadways to be constructed as a 46-foot street section with
vertical curb, gutter and 5-foot detached (or 7-foot attached) concrete sidewalk within 70-feet of right-
of-way with parking prohibited on both sides.
. The applicant should construct Victory Road as one half of a 46-foot street section with
vertical curb, gutter and a 5-foot detached (or 7-foot attached) concrete sidewalk.
2.
Locust Grove Road
Right-ot-Way
District policy requires 70-feet of right-of-way on collector roadways (Figure 72-F1 B). This right-of-
way width allows for the construction of a 3-lane roadway with curb, gutter, 5-foot wide detached
sidewalks and bike lanes.
. The applicant should dedicate a total of 35-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Locust
Grove Road.
Street Section
District policy 72-F1 B requires collector roadways to be constructed as a 46-foot street section with
vertical curb, gutter and 5-foot detached (or 7-foot attached) concrete sidewalk within 70-feet of right-
of-way with parking prohibited on both sides.
. The applicant should construct Locust Grove Road as one half of a 46-foot street section with
vertical curb, gutter and a 5-foot detached (or 7-foot attached) concrete sidewalk.
3.
Roadway Offsets
Roadways Intersecting Victory Road
District policy 7205.6, other jurisdictions in Ada County establish the requirements for private streets.
The District retains authority and will review the proposed intersection of a private and public street
for compliance with District intersection policies and standards.
District policy 7204.11.6, requires local roadways to align or offset a minimum of 300-feet from an
arterial roadway (measured centerline to centerline).
If the City of Meridian approves the private road, the applicant shall be required to pave the private
roadway a minimum of 20 to 24-feet wide and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of
pavement of Victory Road and Locust Grove Road and install pavement tapers with 15-foot curb radii
abutting the existing roadway edge. The applicant should provide a plan showing how the private
3
road grade meets the public road. District Policy requires a design approach speed of 20 MPH and a
maximum intersection approach grade of 2% for at least 40.feet.
Street name and stop signs are required for the private road. The signs may be ordered through the
District. Verification of the correct, approved name of the road is required.
ACHD does not make any assurances that the private road, which is a part of this application, will be
accepted as a public road if such a request is made in the future. Substantial redesign and
reconstruction costs may be necessary in order to qualify this road for public ownership and
maintenance.
. The applicant is proposing to construct a 26-foot wide private road that intersects Victory
Road approximately 92-feet west of the east property line. This private road is proposed to be
located approximately 240-feet west of Siduri Street. The location of the private road does not
meet District policy. Staff is recommending a modification of policy to allow the private road to
be located in this location due to the fact that the private road will be located approximately
470.feet east of the Locust Grove RoadNictory Road intersection and will be in alignment with
the emergency access that was approved with Sageland Subdivision. If staff were to require
the private road to meet District policy the applicant would be required to shift the road
approximately 60.fee to the west. By shifting the roadway 60-feet to the west, the roadway
would be located closer to an intersection that is likely to be signalized in the future and would
place headlights directly on the single-family residence located on the north side of Victory
Road. The private road location requires a modification of policy that is approximately 20%.
This is within staff's ability to modify the dimensional standard of 300-feet. The applicant
should pave the private roadway a minimum of 20 to 24.feet wide and at least 30-feet into the
site beyond the edge of pavement of Victory Road and install 15-foot curb radii abutting the
existing roadway edge.
Roadways Intersecting Locust Grove Road
District policy 7205.6, other jurisdictions in Ada County establish the requirements for private streets.
The District retains authority and will review the proposed intersection of a private and public street
for compliance with District intersection policies and standards.
District policy 7204.11.6, requires local roadways to align or offset a minimum of 300-feet from an
arterial roadway (measured centerline to centerline).
If the City of Meridian approves the private road, the applicant shall be required to pave the private
roadway a minimum of 20 to 24-feet wide and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of
pavement of Locust Grove Road and install pavement tapers with 15-foot curb radii abutting the
existing roadway edge. The applicant should provide a plan showing how the private road grade
meets the public road. District Policy requires a design approach speed of 20 MPH and a maximum
intersection approach grade of 2% for at least 40-feet.
Street name and stop signs are required for the private road. The signs may be ordered through the
District. Verification of the correct, approved name of the road is required.
ACHD does not make any assurances that the private road, which is a part of this application, will be
accepted as a public road if such a request is made in the future. Substantial redesign and
reconstruction costs may be necessary in order to qualify this road for public ownership and
maintenance.
. The applicant is proposing to construct a 26-foot wide private road that intersects Locust
Grove Road approximately 90-feet north of the south property line. This private road location
meets District policy and should be approved with this application. The applicant should pave
the private roadway a minimum of 20 to 24-feet wide and at least 30-feet into the site beyond
4
4.
C.
the edge of pavement of Locust Grove Road and install 15-foot curb radii abutting the existing
roadway edge.
Gates
District policy 7207.9.2 requires gated driveways and roadways to provide a minimum 50-foot storage
distance. The storage area will be measured from the edge of pavement of the street.
. The applicant is proposing to gate both of the private roads. If the City allows the applicant to
gate the private roads, the applicant will be required to provide a minimum of 50-feet of
storage from the edge of pavement of Victory Road and Locust Grove to the proposed gate.
Special Notice to the City of Meridian
. The applicant is proposing to construct the transportation network within the
subdivision as private streets. By constructing these roadways as private streets, the
District and the City of Meridian lose any chance of obtaining connectivity in this area.
Essentially, this corner would be an enclave that is completely separated from all of the
surrounding neighborhoods. District staff strongly recommends that the internal
streets be required to be public roadways that can provide stub streets to the east and
to the south to provide interconnectivity. The connectivity to the surrounding parcels
would provide additional access for emergency services, eliminate multiple access
points to major roadways (collector and arterial roadways), reduce vehicle miles
traveled, connect neighborhoods and have the ability to increase the sense of
community in the area.
. The "L-shaped" roadway that the applicant is proposing is similar to what was
proposed with Sageland Subdivision. When Sageland Subdivision proposed a similar
roadway network, the City of Meridian was very concerned with potential cut through
traffic and required the installation of landscape islands. This proposal may promote
cut through traffic on a private roadway network.
D.
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.
Dedicate 35-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Victory Road abutting the parcel by means of
recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building
permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process
the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will not be compensated
for this additional right-of-way because Victory Road is classified as a collector roadway and is to be
brought to adopted standards by the developers of abutting properties.
2.
Dedicate 35-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel by
means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a
building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to
process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will not be
compensated for this additional right-of-way because Locust Grove Road is classified as a collector
roadway and is to be brought to adopted standards by the developers of abutting properties.
Construct Victory Road as one half of a 46-foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and a 5-foot
detached (or 7-foot attached) concrete sidewalk.
3.
4.
Construct Locust Grove Road as one half of a 46-foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and a 5-
foot detached (or 7-foot attached) concrete sidewalk.
5.
Construct a 26-foot wide private road that intersects Victory Road approximately 92-feet west of the
east property line, as proposed. Pave the private roadway a minimum of 20 to 24-feet wide and at
5
6.
7.
8.
least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Victory Road and install 15-foot curb radii
abutting the existing roadway edge.
Construct a 26-foot wide private road that intersects Locust Grove Road approximately 90-feet north
of the south property line, as proposed. Pave the private roadway a minimum of 20 to 24-feet wide
and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Locust Grove Road and install 15-
foot curb radii abutting the existing roadway edge.
Provide a minimum of 50-feet of storage from the edge of pavement of Victory Road and Locust
Grove to the proposed gate.
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.
Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy.
6.
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.
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.
8.
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.
9.
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.
10.
Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with
Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Impact Fee Ordinance.
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.
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
6
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.
13.
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.
Attachments
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan
3. Appeal Guidelines
7
_L
---^_J
"".."....,,--~,-~--"""'"
...._,.._--~..__.."
i'~'-'~I
I
I
~~1rljJJ)
! \j-~
8
! \ \-""""'---'\ \' \-.'-_"_.-\-""'_'_'-""'/,:'::~=':::~:-:::::j I (.. J.__....,L~-~::.,:=--=::~---'
I \ \ \ \ \ , '-T----"-"'>~~--<-""'-=::_"---"""-'--:~"--~'" I (~-
! \\ r.".'-'" ,,- \ \ \"..."-"-,,.."'\.....- ¡ ¡ I "-'T~-"'-T"'""'--r---- \ II
I! \-"-"',,./-\ \ \ ,/ . r"""'¡";1..-"..)_-........... / I \,......."j-----......\ \ ~~
\ \ '\ \ "" / í ! r-"""""'r'-'-~"'-r"" i \ '
i \ \ .><~:='::::::=:~:".._...,....".._-- j I I / -"~-"ì--~'~" ,,_J \ ~"-
1\\'/ ¡""'r"""""""',,,""""""-..l ¡ 'í r"!---..,..,
~~-~~~
i i i I Il,\-,......"_m_._~-J '-""'r"--"::~,\ (-----1 \ \ Im"'......'......_mm/ c+J -
I-~~~!~" ~1~ =1\ \ \ /~ I
\L=~~- ~ ~~"" =i~
'..'~~..,~_..-""_m
"-T..,....",..",..m,'m"~_"""__m'
I I
\
\
\,
,
,
\..
~
i,
, ,
\,
\
'\
\
'\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
,
,
\
\
"
,
\
\
\
\
7.62-acres
.'
, ,
) \\-------r- I
/ I """"¡--"'----. I
/ ;! t-"-....L
/""',j i ! ¡--....."!'-
'-""'" ([:~~
"""-"'" / "'..~ í / t-..:::::::~-..¡ ~I /
",. I I ' i "'.. I'
,. ~---,.._m'-i I I ¡ . ( l-----
-r"'-l-'l........_....j//" :::\"'/ _........~' \ t'.._------~;,-,-----\ ,\----'
II .....---"""-' \ \ \ ,--......,...-\ \ \ .~
" \. \ \ ......,----,..,-\ , \ Y
6.35-acres
ii
'i"",,-
I! """"'"
..
il
I
I L!-__....'~__m
" ( ,
i i ¡ "\
1.
Request for Appeal of Staff Decision
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.
9
II
II
Development Process Checkl ist
0Submit a development application to a City or to the County
0The City or the County will transmit the development application to ACHD
0The ACHD Planning Review Division will receive the development application to review
[gIThe 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 apply
to this development application.
0Write 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.
0The Planning Review Division will hold a Technical Review meeting for all Staff and Commission level reports.
DFor 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 Review
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, including,
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.
010 YOU REMEMBER:
Construction (Zone)
0 Driveway or Property Approach(s)
. Submit a "Driveway Approach Request" 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 IPca approved set of subdivision utility plans prior to Pre-Con being scheduled.
0 Final Approval from Development Services
. ACHD Construction - Subdivision must have received approval from Development Services prior to scheduling a Pre-Con.
10
THE PROCESS
,-
- ----- ------- -- ------- ----- -- ... -- ----- ---- j "... -..--. . ~~ ~- --.- .----- ------ ----.
The ðp¡>iGaot w+ _UW,,¡ 8 ffi:¡ve'Dp,ne,-,¡ "DPIiGat"'" 10 '" C"yOttD tho C""oiy
-----------,---, -,~.-~.--..~-~...-- - 1- ---- --,-.--_._._-_.~--~.--...
---_..~. .-- -- ----.1 ----- '--------~'~~-
The Crt)' Of !he: County w.lllflln....." !h<¡ ct,,'Æ>l<Jproen ap¡>liœúOn to ACHD-
. ,~ -- -~..._-
;'CHD, P"",oir\g Re~ Divi$bo ""I P""" th" app&a!i"" v<\ [t-,e ""Ai ,"",ek'.:'a.\l.",:~d"~~.œff "",gW 1
__1_- ------~-----'"
Staff ",i "",e..IM de\'elCpm"olsppliœi<on aM COO'\¡>ik> ar> o..ess""",¡ o!!.he
d~""lopmMr" pcKofl;;al 'mpads on Oh~ 1:far\SþoMl<on 5ysl$t'- and ~w>,.m!!>
th" de""_I>~ú' pmpçs;Il ier ':5 OOI1¡ormaoœ 10 Dis!ri!::t pt>IÌC)i.
(4 to 5wùrl>i"IJ ~;'SJ (\'wdsfthrough Frida'»)
---_._-----,.~_.~. -~.-,._'" -1 ------- .------------ - -,--'-
, -----------------------.---.....--.-.---"--- ._....ì ~-~----.
¡The ap¡¡fiCant will rooN witil staff 1m a ieclmi""i ffi'~ Th's ¡¡mooss is Open to ~"'Q p;;bl;; aM a~ a¡¡aodes
!
I ........ I . - - - -- I
, lithe ",,~""t ~s policy-and the ! ~ !t the ~ppj'conl feq\lO)st; a modification
i ðppl,C:OOI dœ$ ooi ~W""! '" ""1'Jes! a mOdof.-::a1;oo 01 i 0' ...aNe' 01 policy 0' .."pea..
; 1 thl> District's "'qU¡'èm"r\!.. a staff le",,1 spptO';81 " 0 staff leval ap¡>roVsI, me: eppW:a!kJn ",K be
: ' lot\e:rw'll bl> Sf!:"t 001. ¡TuesdaYì I i heard by !he: ACrID Commoss'oo-
: L..-.- u----., .--~ --' .---- .-,--_. -_._-,- -.--- .~---~ --" ----"----'--~T'-.- -- ----------
-- ...----..------------L----...--..---.--------.,',-.- -~--~~._~_J--- -------,----_. ----------,-----~
rr-'<! "p",,!ant mU$! .u",1\( a letter appe:a!irlg a SUlff I' 111(, appíIC8ftÍ mtJSl sub<r.¡¡ a ielte r 10 ,fa ff requesting a i
Ieve! apþfO\l1i1!)(¡Jor>;!he _al """"" ha;; B'P'ffid- i j modiOCabon orwa"'B' 01 poKey- i
(Tho 3ppc!an! has 1 G wo.mg <jays from \he date I j The - W'SI must 00 rede ved ...ithm 2 workin¡¡ days- i
of the staff tem! dwsl,:" '<<!is ,!fl8d¡,l~, ~ ! l~.u~llythiS ~~~'JGS<iay fuOOf,'inQ T Bd'I Rf!:,,;ew !_~..J
---- -.----,,-..'-'.' - r. - --. ---
Staff Level Review and Approval
-",-_.....",""'-
M ~ n ",,' -"""'"' " """.
1-- -
._------------,--------_....._-----_:J---_.--~-_.------ ------...
Commission level RevIeW and Approval
""~""-....."",._"""""",-,,,...~..,,
,,=---~""""W""."'---""""
i'~'
I
I
:.......--.......~, . .J...... ...... ...... ......
- f""" ""'1 Staff ~;¡~::::~~;:~::I;dð~¡~I~e;::::on ð~nde-
l........i bformatiof1 ìo <!af,.,ored;o ¡he Comm;"slon,
, (7 days prior 10 ¡he Com""ss;",,, meeiJr>¡¡)
," . :=:"'::"'-=._=-...:=].-:==
The CommissIon ,,;1 ht>ð' !he: "'c~ as they are
, ¡¡resented b-" st&!I 8f¡( lhe a ppI<cafft .
i The Comm!ssion 'M OhM tBl<e acl1oo on \t1I! opplícatkm :
, (\VeOOesday) ,
'----...----
.............m .... ................... '" ". ............, u'" ,....,............... ................. """" .,........."........ ..........¡
,--- .......L.~...----~----.-~- ~_.-..._-~- .--...-- ¡-------,------- -------- -.--,,~_.-
i thl>aþp~¿¡inta~1S tM District's fequi~"-\s I HI UmapPiain( does nolacœpt U,e CC<i1m15Sion's i
I a Commission ~¡ awn:,.,a! wØ bà...m OUt I i ad","" ~~e applkaol can request ~5ide"-'~'m. I
, (ThuWaY) I' m'ti wri~n retjUl!Sl "'US! 00 ,""","'° by!he
O!slf-d by !he: Ioim...ng lU.1!~d~y~! 3' C<} pm! -- - ;
1ft" ~h~J:;~~~':~d:¡
! swd"ted 00 l.;.,;, MAl i
¡"",,¡able agcooa, '
~----,-"......,~--- "
',,-- --- .,,----
~. -- -------- .-----..--------,-
i ,~""--' r:::::=:=-'
Subm[ a~ rua&...ay i ,.- i:me r.<¡'Je$! i5 der;e".,
Iffiprowmenl pians , , ,.. COO""",.,.".. ,""port",
1oR~~~:~;;P~ ¡".. 1" sem 00\
iThe:~~~is~';;'~ard"1
! - ..- ¡A¿;;:;-,~;~¡'~;!
..... no... U", ....... u U , u..................... .; - '
Imp?" '"':".nIDUl.!
'T
_.
(Jq
:::
-!
G
:/
---
CUP 05-060
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Insight Architects
February 16, 2006
ITEM NO.
23
REQUEST Conditional Use Permit for a 32 unit multi-family development in a proposed
R-15 zone for Coso Meridiana - 1777 Victory Road
---"---
--
COMMENTS
AGENCY-- -'----
--'-
P/H ID
3 ) ;,). ) (Xo
OZ/ £JrY)
5--0
----
----
c~o ^' f7 n fAR-
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
-------,
---
---------=----
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
----
..
----,--
- -
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
----
'-
---
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
See Comments in Al Packet
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
See Comments in Al Packet
See Comments in Al Packet
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Phone:
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
e~reb. ¡,. 2006: 9:37AM0833890S7
-----
--
INSIGHTARCHITECTS
No. 3628
¡P. 1 e2
RE C E IVEJ)
FEB t 4 2006
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICF
Re:
Casa Meridiana - Public Hearing Continuance
',-;" ,
February 14,2006
Mr. Joe Guenther, Planner
MeridIan Planning & Zoning
e60 E. Watertower Lane, Ste. 202
Meridian. ID 83642
Dear Joe,
Per our recent phone conven;ations it appears this project has been moved to the next public
hearing data of March 2, 2006. We understand the Planning Department workload volume Is
significant. Considering we submitted our application in early December, 2005 we request that
our application be heard at the March tld meeting and not be further deferred.
In the event you have any fur1her questions, please contact me immediately.
p;' Ø/IJIl-
Russ Phillips, AlA
INSIGHT architects. pa
.".-.--~..
2238 Broadway Avenue Boise, Idaho 208.338.9080 208.338.9067 fax
FEE 15 '06 10:02
PAGE. 01