HomeMy WebLinkAboutCanterbury commons Sub AZ
AZ 06-013
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT America West Homes, LLC
June 1, 2006
ITEM NO.
7
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: Annexation and Zoning of
21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision - south side of
Pine Avenue east of Ten Mile Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
See attached Staff Report
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SAN IT ARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS'IRRIGATlON:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
0(om~
~vuj
-rot~
Contacted: Date:
Emailed: ~..< ; c.O (p@ LJ eJ1DO ~CO"" Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
&.one:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 4 of 88
Rohm: Oh, there you go. And that's one of the two that will be continued and at this
time I'd entertain a motion to continue these two items to the regularly scheduled
meeting of May 18th.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007, both
relating to Cedarcreek Subdivision to our regularly scheduled meeting of May 18th,
2006.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007 to
the regularly scheduled meeting of May 18th, 2006. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6:
Item 7:
Item 8:
Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: AZ 06.013 Request
for An nexation and Zon i ng of 21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for
Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -
south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road:
Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: PP 06-011 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72
townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15
zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes,
LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road:
Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: CUP 06-006 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi-family development
consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes) on 50 lots and 72
townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for
Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -
south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings on continued AZ 06-013
related to Canterbury Commons Subdivision and PP 06-011 and CUP 06-006, all
related to Canterbury Commons Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, this is, as you said, the
Canterbury Commons project. It's located on Pine east of Ten Mile, as shown on your
vicinity map there. The project includes several applications. There is annexation and
zoning, preliminary plat, Conditional Use Permit, and a private street application and it
also includes a variance application and, as you know, you won't be acting on that
variance tonight, but we will give you an idea of what that is as we go along. To give
you a little highlight of the development -- just a second. The site plan doesn't read very
well, so I will just explain what's going on. There is a number of four-plex units that front
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 5 of 88
a private street system. The private streets come -- try not to blind that man. There we
go. They come through here and around and, then, there is a public street system loop
also and they have townhouses proposed along the public street system. So, the
application includes the annexation and zoning of 21.77 acres. They are requesting R-
15 zoning on this property. The preliminary plat has a total of 122 residential lots. Now,
50 of those are four-plex lots and, then, 72 are townhouse dwellings. So, it's a total of
272 dwellings proposed. And they have ten common lots. The Conditional Use Permit
is to construct the multi-family development, which, again, is the 200 dwelling units, 50
four-plexes. And the private street is for the multi-family, so that we can get addressing
for those properties. And, finally, the variance request is to allow reduced lot sizes in
the R-15 for the -- for the townhouse units. We have a minimum of 2,400 square feet
for each of them. They are asking for a variance to go down to 1,900 square feet and
they are also asking for a reduction to the standard 12-foot rear setback in the R-15
zone. They are asking for an 11 foot rear setback. I do have some elevations of the
units tonight. Point out a couple of features. There is a drain on the northeast portion of
the site and also the western boundary is another drain. These are the townhouse
units. This is what would face the street, because they are front loaded. And, then,
these are a couple of the different apartment elevations. That would be the smaller unit
and that's the larger unit, I believe. The staff report has quite a lengthy analysis of this
project. As it's presented, it doesn't appear to comply with either the UDC or the
Comprehensive Plan, but staff has been reluctant to give you a recommendation on this
project. They would like to give the applicant an opportunity to address some of these
concerns. We did -- since the staff report has been prepared, we have gotten back a
revised site plan and I'll try and tell you which concerns that revised site plan has met
and which still seem to be some of the outstanding concerns. Just as a general one,
there was some landscaping notes that Mr. Hood had made that I don't believe have
been fully addressed yet. There is a question of the private usable open space and the
applicant should clarify how that private usable open space is being met. We don't have
the floor plans for the units, so we can't tell if they are providing that. So, we ask that
the applicant clarify that. Regarding parking, the submitted site plan does not show the
required covered parking spaces for the multi-family unit. It also doesn't show -- or not
all the units are able to meet the 20-by-20 parking pad required for the townhouse units.
So, again, the applicant should clarify how they intend to meet that requirement of the
UDC. With regard to amenities, there is a sliding scale in the UDC. For example, for 75
units you need to have four quality-of-life amenities and those would be one from each
category. So, that's quality of life, open space, recreation. At least one from each of
those categories. After a hundred, it's up to the Commission to decide what the
appropriate number of amenities are. So, in this case you have got 200 units and we
will need some clarification from you as to what you feel are the appropriate amount of
amenities. Right now this project has a 3,000 square foot community clubhouse and
fitness facility. All the amenities are kind of centralized in this -- this central triangle
here. That would be a quality of life amenity. There is property management office and
maintenance storage area and a directory for the area and a pool. The pool would be a
recreation amenity. There is a tot lot, another recreation amenity. As well as walking
trails. And there is some additional open space. So, staff recommends that the
Commission determine if the proposed amenities are sufficient for development of this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 6 of 88
site and give the applicant direction regarding that. There are a number of internal
pedestrian paths. Staff had recommended some additional pathways. These pathways
have been depicted on the revised plat. Further, the applicant is showing a pathway
along the Ten Mile stub drain. It appears that the pathway, though, is within the
adjacent build-able lots, rather than on a separate common lot. So, we would like to
see that still addressed. This is the Ten Mile drain. This -- the one in the northeast is
the Eight Mile drain. And we would like to see those enhanced by leaving them open. I
don't believe that we have specific details on how they are going to be developed just
yet. Just as a note, because it's not addressed specifically, but the existing residences
and buildings do cross proposed lot lines, so those would need to be removed. The
multi-family setbacks -- the UDC doesn't have a specific requirement for setbacks from
a private street. The applicant is proposing five feet in some cases from the edge of
sidewalk. Staff is a little concerned that joint trench may not be able to get in that five
feet. Typically, they like to see ten feet. So, we would -- the applicant either needs to
describe where they are going to get joint trench or they need to increase that if it's not
going to be at the front of the building to ten feet. Refuse areas -- SSC had commented
on the proposed dumpster locations. They have revised it and they have -- they are
showing new dumpster locations. We are not sure if SSC has approved those new
locations or not just yet. The Pine Avenue street buffer was raised in the staff report.
The revised preliminary plat does depict the required street buffer within a common lot,
rather than on the build-able lots. So, that one has been addressed. With regard to
open space, the applicant states that there is 12.6 percent of the site is set aside for
common open space. By staff calculations we are only getting to about 8.8 percent.
So, the applicant needs to clarify how they are -- how they are calculating common
open space and how that common outdoor open space is -- complies with the UDC. I
guess the revised preliminary plat does show revised calculations and, then, they added
some open space on the northwest corner, as well as the southwest corner of the site.
But Mr. Hood notes that the applicant should explain where and how the open space
requirements are being met. Let's see. There was some discrepancy between the
preliminary plat site plan and landscape plan, but I think those have been addressed
with the new revised plat. There was a question about the parking area on the
northwest side of the development. That has been shortened to meet the fire
department requirements, so that one has been addressed. Regarding the density, the
revised preliminary plat shows 269 dwelling units, instead of 272. However, staff is still
concerned with just the design of this, not necessarily the development. There have
been some funny -- there was concern with -- let's see if I have the right -- there was
concern with a unit at this end of the project. They have relocated it to this end in the
middle of a four-plex unit in the middle of the townhouse project. So, there are definitely
some issues still with the layout of the multi-family. I think I already mentioned the
setbacks. And the final kind of design area that staff was concerned about is down
here. It's very hard to see. There is one unit that's kind of surrounded by all this
parking and asphalt and it's separated from the other ones. There is also -- the big
stumbling block with the design from staff's perspective is that you have a public street
here and you have the townhouses fronting this way and, then, you have the back side
of the apartments right along that street, but, then, they have a private street. So, it's a
very inefficient layout and would seem to have a lot more asphalt than perhaps it needs
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 7 of 88
to. With regard to the variance, staff is not recommending approval for that. We could
not find that we could meet the findings for the variance. There is no special hardship
on this property that would warrant having those reductions in the lot area or the rear
setback. So, what staff would recommend tonight -- because there is so many
outstanding issues, there is no way the Planning Commission could get through all the
design issues in any reasonable amount of time, but we would suggest that you take
public comment from those individuals that are here and, then, ask the applicant to
redesign the site and bring it back, addressing all the public and staff concerns and any
other concerns that the Commission may want to enumerate for them. With that I'll
answer any questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Okay. At this time would the applicant like
to come forward, please?
Wardle: Commission Members, my name is Geoffery Wardle. I am an attorney with
Hawley, Troxell, Ennis & Hawley. We are counsel for the applicant American West
Homes. And we have -- I'll go ahead and provide those to you.
Rohm: Could we get you to state an address, too, please?
Wardle: Yes. My address is 877 Main, Boise, Idaho. 83702. Suite 1000. In reviewing
the staff report we are -- we are in general agreement with the comments that have
been made by staff with respect to this project. The staff report that you received
tonight, however, the oral report we don't think necessarily represents what were the
comments that were provided to us in the written staff report. To note, first of all, this is
a multi-family townhouse project with the intention of condominiumizing and coming
forward with a final plat, a condominium plat, for the multi-family component. In looking
at this site and looking at the zoning and looking at the surroundings, to the west you
have higher density use and more commercial use heading towards Ten Mile. To the
south you have the Union Pacific Railroad right of way. And along the southwest side
you have the Ten Mile Drain. To the east you have a -- I believe an R-8 development.
To better coordinate and better harmonize and make the transition from that, the
proposals has come forward with townhouses on the east side of the property and with
the multi-family condominium units to the west. Tonight we have here with us the
applicant Joe Reesey and Matt Gordon of American West Homes, as well as Lance
Warnick, who has handled the engineering on this project. And Mark Sanders has
handled the architecture. And to the extent you have any technical questions, I would
defer them to them. Like I said, we are in general agreement with staff's comments on
this site. We have gone back and attempted to address the issues that have been
raised. It's important to note that, obviously, we recognize that we must comply and
come forward with an application which is consistent with the UDC. It is your code. It is
our intention to do that. In doing that we do recognize that there was an omission in the
submissions and that the covered parking was not included. We are not contending
that we are not going to do covered parking as required by the UDC, rather, the plan
that you have in front of you does depict where the parking is, it's just a matter of
including that in later schematics. Additionally, with respect to amenities, we recognize
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 8 of 88
that it's discretionary on the part of the Commission to determine what amenities are
required for this type of project. The applicant has attempted to come forward with a
wide range of amenities from each of the categories required under the UDC and to
provide the variety and necessity to address the needs of this project. We do
appreciate the comments that Mr. Hood has provided previously and as you can see
from the revised site plan, many of the concerns and issues that were raised with
respect to the amenities were addressed. To the extent that there was concern in the
south portion of the property with connectivity, through the multi-family component, that
has been addressed with additional pathways. One comment that staff did raise is that,
yes, along that Ten Mile Drain, as you can see, there is a pathway and it is not within a
common lot. The reason it's not within a common lot is because it's impossible to meet
the setbacks along there and the easement requirements if they were to be placed
within a common lot. That will be included as a dedicated easement pursuant to either
the plat, if that's what you choose to require, or as part of the condominium association
declarations. Additionally, the revised preliminary plat and site plan, we believe, has
addressed all of the issues with respect to the 20-by-20 parking pad requirement for the
townhouses. We did take that back, we did attempt to comply with that. To the extent
that there aren't -- or staff has found that there aren't 20-by-20 parking pads, that's
certainly not an intention, it was an omission on our part and we do intend to comply
with that. Additionally, when we deal with the interface between doing town -- a mixed
component of product here with townhouses on the eastern portion, to better harmonize
with the existing residential development to the east, and the multi-family condominium
complex to the west, it does raise the issue that staff cites, namely, that you do have
that row of townhouses there in the center, which does have frontage on a public road
and parking on a private. As set forth in our comments, we recognize staff's concern,
but as staff notes that it is appropriate and proper to use private roads in these type of
multi-family projects. Typically, when you do a multi-family project like this, the multi-
family units will take up the exterior of the property with the amenities, parking, and
common area to the center. Where you attempt to mix it, like you have here, this is -- is
something that is unavoidable, yet we believe that adequate conditions can be imposed
and address the concerns that staff has, because, in reality, through landscaping and
through the use of those amenity -- or whatever requirements you have on that eastern
side of the property and across from the townhouses, it's not necessarily like that's the
back of the building. As you can see over here, we have elevations depicting what has
been proposed and what we intend to do with your approval, that these are units which
do have significant architectural features and we committed to staff that multiple
materials would be utilized and that there would be variation in product and design. We
think that those go to address many of staff's concerns. Ultimately, this issue of double
frontage can only be addressed with -- with a complete redesign of the development,
because it is an issue that rises from the fact that you have a townhouse component
and a multi-family condominium component. We don't think it's fatal. We don't think
that the UDC prohibits it. And we do think that it's the best use of the property to
provide the transition that staff has encouraged us to do. With respect to the open
space calculation, we believe that there is adequate open space that's been set forth in
the preliminary plat and the revised site plan and certainly our architectural and
engineering staff can address how that's calculated and where it's located. Now, with
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 9 of 88
respect to staff comments, we appreciate their support for the product that's been
proposed here. Our client has come forward with a product that they intend to offer for
sale. This is not an apartment complex. This is intended to be owner-occupied housing
and it's designed in this way to provide housing that is readily affordable for working
families. These are not small one bedroom units. The townhouses are three bedroom
units and the multi-family condominium units are two to three bedroom units, which
provide private common space as required under the UDC in the form of balconies, in
the form of porches, in the form of the types of amenities that individuals are looking for
when they move into these types of units. It is also important to note that as we look at
the design and we look at the issues here, we are only requesting one variance. In
meeting with Mr. Hood and going over the UDC, the variance request with respect to
rear setbacks in the townhouse component has been withdrawn. Mr. Hood pointed out
to us how we could meet those setback requirements and what we could do with
respect to the redesign that you have in front of you to address that. So, that variance
is off the table. As for the other variance, we do recognize staffs concern. There has
been a request on the townhouse lots, because 28 of the lots do not comply with the
2,400 square foot lot -- minimum lot size and the reason for that is simple. When you're
dealing with interior units on these townhouses, if you don't have a lot that's at least 90
feet deep, you can't get 2,400 square feet. Now, the footprint for each and everyone of
these townhouses is exactly the same, it's just the fact those interior lots in certain areas
don't -- aren't deep enough to be able to let you get to 28 feet -- to get to the 88 to 90
feet like you need to have 2,400 square feet. Now, that's largely a function of the
setback requirements, the amount of right of way that has to be dedicated for the public
-- for the public -- for ACHD for the public roads and it has to do with preserving the
integrity of the common area in the center of the project. Now, we certainly think that it
would be appropriate for you tonight to approve this project with conditions to address
the staffs concerns. We believe that we have attempted to do that and we believe that,
actually, Mr. Hood in his revised staff report, which came out earlier this week,
recognized that and pointed that out. Additionally, when we look at this project, we
recognize that this is an enclave within the City of Meridian, that the property to the
north, south, east and west has all been annexed. And we recognize that we do have
to come forward with a project which is in harmony with the surrounding uses. The
proposed -- the proposal you have in front of you tonight we believe does that. It
provides a mixture of uses, it provides a mixture of product type and a mixture of price
points, but most importantly it provides both single-family and multi-family use, which we
believe is consistent with your Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, has indicated, we
certainly are amenable to whatever conditions you think need to be addressed and
imposed to address the concerns that staff has tonight. We have worked diligently with
staff over the course of the last year to come up with a product type here at this site that
is acceptable to the city and conforms with your codes. And with that I'd stand for any
questions and I would be more than happy to bring up a member of our design team to
have them address any concerns you may have.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions of the applicant?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 10 of 88
Moe: Mr. Chairman. Just a couple things. As far as SSC, did you guys discuss the
trash location and whatnot with them on your -- is this the revised plan here?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, yes, this here is the revised plan and we
did take staff's -- staff's recommendation to address the trash. I don't necessarily know
if engineering staff discussed it with SSC, but we certainly did attempt to come up and
utilize the design that staff required. So, to the extent I need to refer to our engineering
staff to answer that --
Moe: Let me ask another question first.
Wardle: Okay.
Moe: In regards to the public street where the -- that would be condominiums back up
to the street; is that correct?
Wardle: That is correct.
Moe: And town homes are in front? Do you have a rear elevation of those
condominiums, then, that would face that street? I was just curious to see what that
would be.
Wardle: I believe in the packet there is rear elevation. That's the townhouse rear
elevation. That's the rear elevation of the multi-family component with the elevations
and materials depicted down here below.
Moe: Okay. That's it for me right now.
Rohm: I have a question for you. On the pathways along the west line of the property,
you said -- and maybe I didn't get this right, so I'd like you to talk about that pathway a
little bit more. You say the pathway lies within the lots themselves and there is an
easement back to -- who is the easement granted to?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, as depicted on the revised site plan, you can see the pathway
along the Ten Mile Drain. Staff is correct. That path is located within the lots located to
the north of that. We believe that -- well, first of all, we are not counting that. That
pathway is not being counted towards the common open space requirements. So, we
are not offering that as an amenity to meet that requirement, because, obviously, it's
located within the lot and it can't be counted towards that. But we do believe that
through the use of an easement, either on the plat or in a separate instrument or in the
condominium declaration in favor of the residence and if there is connectivity and you
seek to impose the condition that it's open to the public, it certainly can be. That's the
way we propose to address that, because we think that it provides an excellent amenity.
We have no intention of tiling either the Eight Mile Canal -- Eight Mile Lateral or the Ten
Mile Drain. We do believe, as depicted on the northeast side of the property, that the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 11 of 88
pathways located there are appropriate under your code and that's what we attempted
to do.
Rohm: I don't remember ever seeing a pathway presented that way before and I just __
in my mind it really seems like it's something that would be part of your CC&Rs or
something, but it wouldn't be something that would be part of this package, in my mind,
because it's not a dedicated pathway to the city or it's not on a common lot and it just
seems like it's kind of an agreement between neighbors that we can cross this --
Wardle: And, Mr. Chairman, that's the way it would be prepared and preserved,
because if it were created on a common lot, then, obviously, there are setback issues
there that have to be met and, in fact, can't be met, because of the existing easement
for maintenance of the Ten Mile Drain and with those. So, we felt that while it's not
counted towards the common area -- the public common area or the private -- or the
private common area, because it's on individual lots, that it certainly provides
connectivity through the project and it can be handled via an easement either on the
condominium plat or via a declaration or separate instrument.
Rohm: Okay. I think we need to talk about the common area percentage a little bit
more, but before we go to that, if any other Commissioners have any questions of this
applicant before we ask your engineer to come forward --
Newton-Huckabay: I have one, Mr. Chair. I was just curious. How large are the town --
or not the townhomes, the multi-family units?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, the multi-family units are two or three bedroom
units, anywhere from, I believe, 900 to 1,300 square feet. I'd have to ask my client to
come up and confirm that, but that's my understanding.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Would you go ahead --
Wardle: Sure.
Rohm: -- and ask your engineer to come up and --
Wardle: Yeah. We'll have Mr. Warnick come up and discuss the common area
calculation.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Oh. Go ahead.
Newton-Huckabay: Maybe we could take public testimony first, do you think?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 12 of 88
Rohm: Well, I'd like -- no, let's go ahead and --
Warnick: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. For the record, my
name is Lance Warnick. My address is 1204 6th Street North, Nampa, Idaho. 83687.
To answer your questions about common area, I think the best way to do it is to identify
the specific common lots and their associated areas and they do correspond with the
revised plan that you have in front of you.
Rohm: Before you do that, did you and Mr. Hood communicate on this issue?
Because it seems to be a disconnect here and I need to know that staff is aware of your
calculations, just --
Warnick: I personally did not. The gentleman from my office, Greg Anderson, did meet
with the city and came back and has revised the plan to show the new areas here. It's
my understanding it's based in the staff report that Mr. Hood did not have a lot of time
to review that prior to completing the application and that's why I think they have made
that statement that they want us to explain it to you tonight.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Warnick: The common area calculations are composed of six lots. Starting over here in
the upper northwest corner -- see if I can get this turned on. This is common Lot 2.
There we go. Common Lot 2 in Block 1 has an area of 26,815 feet and in that lot there
is a pathway and there is also a green open space to provide some recreational
opportunities. The second common lot that we are including is, actually, Common Lot
40, which is the large area in the center of the site that includes the pool, the clubhouse,
and also additional grassed areas for recreation. That has an area of -- that has an
area of 60,265 feet. The next lot that's included is this grassy area located down here.
You're running out of batteries on this thing. Excuse me. Lot 31 -- Lot 31 has an area
of 4,540 feet in this location. The fourth area is in the northeast corner. It also has a
pathway and also the water feature on that side. The area of that lot has 17,223 feet. If
you would like, I can give you a copy of this little sheet afterwards, so you can see the
map, if that's helpful for you.
Rohm: That's -- okay. Thank you.
Warnick: Okay. The fifth area is, actually, Lot 34 of Block 2, down in the southwest
corner. Has an area 6,822 feet. Again, it's a green open area, more of some
interspersed recreational area. And the final lot is this lot that is in the middle of the
townhouse area. We have green space on the north, green space on the south, and a
connecting pedestrian path between them and that area has 18,840 feet. As you sum
those areas, you get 134,505 feet, which is approximately 3.09 acres, which is that
same common area depicted on the plat down in the development table. You take that,
divide it by the total area that does not include the road adjacent to Pine Street, 20.32
and it gives you a total percent open space of 15.2 percent.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 13 of 88
Rohm: Thank you.
Moe: Excuse me. You said minus the area on Pine?
Warnick: Yeah. The one difference that I do, as opposed to the annexation, when we
annex we have to annex to the center of the roadway. Currently there is a portion of the
roadway that's already dedicated to ACHD, so I'm not including that portion that's
already dedicated in my area, even though it is included in this annexation request.
Rohm: Thank you.
Warnick: Thank you.
Rohm: Any additional questions of the applicant before we move onto public
testimony?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, one thing that -- and you may be able to answer this -- I'm a little
bit concerned about is the variance and as you spoke earlier you were basically
concerned on lot size, as well as setbacks and everything else. My concern is did you
guys, basically, get designed out and, then, realize that we might have a problem and,
therefore, you weren't sure how you were going to get you more open space? I'm
concerned that there was a problem after the fact this was drawn out and now the
variance needs to be done to basically be in compliance and I was just kind of
wondering why we didn't maybe reduce some of these buildings and put some more
open space at that point?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Mae, as indicated we are not asking for a
variance on setbacks. That has been addressed by staff. They painted out how we had
miscalculated some distances and that's been cured. The variance has to do with the
size of those interior townhome lots and they are 27 feet wide, because that's the width
of the town home. And on 28 of those 72 townhouse lots they are less than 89 feet deep
and the issue with depth is why the variance is needed. Now, we have requested the
variance not because of any difficulty with setbacks, not because of any difficulty with
compliance, our client made a decision in evaluating this project, recognized that the
Comprehensive Plan could have permitted at this site a much denser zone, which would
not have had these lot minimums. The C-40 zone -- I mean the R-40 zone under the
UDC does not have a lot minimum. But rather than come in with that high of density,
where, ultimately, the density would have been built the same at 15 units to the acre as
proposed, our client came forward and made the variance request just because of the
nature of building townhomes. Now, that is, obviously, an issue that will have to be
addressed pursuant to that variance. I can assure you, though, it wasn't an issue where
we designed it and, then, came back and said, oh, we have a problem, it's an issue that
when you design a townhome that you can't make it all fit. Yes.
Rohm: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 14 of 88
Wardle: And one last -- if I may respond to one last issue, which I failed to. Staff did
raise the issue of five foot setbacks along some of the four-plex condominium units and
in coming forward with the revised site plan you have in front of you tonight, Treasure
Valley Engineering did come forward, did reevaluate that and has proposed an eight
foot setback. Now, it's important to note that we have complied with the setbacks
required under the UDC and we certainly recognize Public Works' concern about the
joint trench and where you put the water meters. So, we think it's workable in light of
the spacing between the units, to the extent that you may have to put some of those
facilities to the side of the units, as opposed to necessarily right in front of it, but we
have expanded that to eight feet from five. So, we believe that should address most of
the concerns articulated by staff.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Mark Sanders.
Sanders: Mark Sanders. 499 Main Street, Boise, Idaho. 83702. We are the architects
for the project. I don't think I have anymore to add than Mr. Wardle did. Other than Mr.
Reesey came in to see us last summer and was interested in buying this site and
wanted to put a building -- some buildings on here that we had had previous success
with and all three of these building types have been built across Idaho. Several of the
four-plex style condos have been built here in the valley in several communities and the
townhouses we have done up in Coeur d'Alene and as far as I know they have both
typically been pretty successful where ever they are built and we are sold out very
quickly before they are built.
Rohm: I didn't realize that you were part of the development team, so --
Sanders: Oh. Excuse me.
Rohm: For all intents and purposes that was just additional testimony that's not
necessarily required. Thank you.
Sanders: Yeah. I don't have much to add to what Mr. Wardle said. I think he covered
all the issues from our side. Thank you.
Rohm: You bet. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this
application? Okay. Thank you. Before we move on, I'd like to just kind of take a poll of
the Commission and get some thoughts and I'd like to start with Commissioner Moe.
This is the first time.
Moe: You bet. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, after going through a review of the
staff report and whatnot, I -- number one, I am in agreement to at least go back and get
quite a few of these things cleaned up. As I hear tonight, I know that the applicant has,
again, met with staff and have taken care of some of these items, but I think we are well
along to needing additional information to staff to take care of that. In regards to the
amenities after the engineer has kind of gone through where the open space is, I'm not
sure where you would put any other amenities. I, quite frankly, would like to see a little
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 15 of 88
bit additional amenities, you know, per the square footage of the area we are
discussing, but I'm not just sure what that would be at the present time.
Rohm: I agree with that.
Moe: So, therefore, I guess my point would be at some point I'd like to find out from the
applicant when they could possibly be ready to go back to staff and get this reviewed,
so that we could, then, set a date certain for another hearing.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you
have a comment?
Newton-Huckabay: Do you have a pointer? Okay. My comments are generally -- I
think -- it's -- when I do anything with my right hand it never works. This four-plex -- this
lot here I find a little awkward. I don't think it flows with the townhomes very well. I tend
to agree with the director, I -- as I envision how this would look when it's done, I think it
would be one of those situations where you drive down it and go, well, who was on the
Planning and Zoning Commission when they approved that and I don't really like the
way that flows. I think I would like to see maybe townhomes or something would be
nice there fronting with the town -- the back of the town homes fronting the development.
Lot 30 down here, again, I think that's awkward placement there and I just create it -- we
have a whole -- a whole lot of asphalt going on in here that I just don't really care for.
And, then, the only other thing I think would be - amenity wise maybe something like a
basketball court or something like that. If you have -- I calculate about 1,000 people
that would be living, approximately, in this area, I think -- and there may have been one
on there and I just didn't see it. I think something like that might be a nice amenity to
have -- there is plenty of green space. I think one could be added in. But I do think
that something like a basketball court would be a nice addition. And that is the end of
my comments.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba?
Zaremba: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Similar comments to those that the previous
Commissioners have expressed. I think I'm satisfied with the open space calculation,
but within those open spaces I could see the addition of a half court basketball court or
volleyball courts or maybe a tot lot one place or another or a barbecue area on the ones
that are farther away from the clubhouse, but still visible in such a way that children
would not be playing in a place that's not visible. And if it is a half court -- basketball
court or volleyball court, that it would not be lit at night. But I think those additions would
be a good idea. I agree with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. In this middle section
that has a front and the back on a private street one side and a public street on the
other, it would make sense to me to have it be the same product that is across the
street on the other side and just move that transition half a block to the west, essentially.
Most of the other issues that staff has raised I agree with. As for the variance on the
size of the lots, my comment would be that the development of the new Unified
Development Code took about three years from the acceptance of the Comprehensive
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 16 of 88
Plan with very intense work during the last year and a half. Sizes in all of the different
zones were discussed very thoroughly. There was a lot of public input. A lot of
developer input. The sizes of the lots for each of the zones was picked with the thought
that we would stop having these variance applications and stick to them. It was
extremely common before the adoption of the new Unified Development Code, probably
two out of three applications requested a variance in lot size or multiple variances in lot
sizes and we had that very much in mind when we redesigned the Unified Development
Code. I'm satisfied that the Unified Development Code got it correct. And I don't think
we should have the same attitude about the variances on lot sizes that we had before
the new UDC. The requirement is that there must be some extreme hardship, which
would mean that, you know, the Ten Mile Drain or whatever it is runs square through
the middle of the property or there is Table Rock right in the middle of the property.
Those would be hardships. Just trying to get a couple extra lots in is not a hardship as
far as the UDC is concerned. So, I would support staffs request that the lots comply
with the zone. The only other issue I would raise is I believe we still do not have the
Ada County Highway District report or approval and for that reason I would continue it
also.
Rohm: Okay. I think to summarize the comments of the Commission, basically, there is
still work to be done and I think that if we were to act on this project tonight we'd have to
either make a motion to forward it on recommending either denial or passage with a
whole slough of changes to the design and, quite honestly, I don't believe that we
should be in the design business. I think that that's part of the work that is to be done
by the applicant. So, I think at this point in time what I would like to do is have the
applicant come back up and we will ask if there is a date certain that they'd like to
continue to and if that's not acceptable, then, we will act based upon the information we
have currently got before us. Just one of you. I just need one.
Reesey: Good evening, folks. My name is Joe Reesey and I'm the president of
American West Homes. Address is 295 Front Street, Suite 250, Boise. I have been a
developer for 31 years. We are just -- we bought a house and we are just moving here
after school let's out. I started my company in Nevada and, then, moved to Arizona.
Been developing in central California for about three years and we fell in love with the
Treasure Valley and we are moving here. And we have already bought our house and
built our office downtown in Boise. This design is born of a year's worth redesigns and
largely due to about a two hour meeting I had with Mayor Tammy de Weerd in terms of
what the City of Meridian really needs, what she thought it really needed and the
biggest concern was the lack of affordable housing for the critical workforce and we
have been in-fill builders now for 31 years and it's been our sincere desire to be able to
provide housing that in a critical workforce, people like teachers and -- you know, and --
Rohm: And thank you, sir. We -- what I -- all I need from you is whether or not you
want us to continue or act on this based upon the testimony received.
Reesey: Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 17 of 88
Rohm: And that's all we need.
Reesey: We would be happy to redesign or address any issues that are brought up as
concerns and bring it back. We think we could have that work done within 30 days.
Rohm: Fair enough. Thank you.
Reecey: Thank you all for all the time that you have given us tonight.
Rohm: Thank you. Okay. All right. So, we are --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I just would want to -- can I make one request that -- when we get
the elevations with the redesign, I would just like a copy that I could see that's colored, if
that would be possible when they come back.
Rohm: Absolutely.
Newton-Huckabay: It's a little hard for me to see the elevations over there.
Rohm: And one of the things that we tried to encourage all applicants -- when you
make a presentation, if you will submit to staff jpegs or bit map on a CD or a jump stick
or some method for them to present those and display them up above, it makes it a lot
easier for us to depict that for the audience as a whole. So, when you come back bring
them as jpegs or on a CD if you would, please. Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Considering the applicant's offer that it would be roughly 30 days or a month
to complete their meeting with staff and doing their own redesign, my question to
Director Canning would be to establish the date to continue this meeting to, do we need
an additional ten days for staff that -- the hearing should be ten days after they are
through with that 30 days.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Zaremba, my concern is that for that hearing
Caleb has already taken on two huge projects and he's effectively our only planner until
we can get our planner trained. So, I'm just concerned that the 18th would not be an
appropriate date. We may need to put it to the first hearing in June just because I know
he's got two huge projects for the 18th already.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 18 of 88
Zaremba: That's, actually, what I was aiming for. If we went 30 days from now and,
then, added ten days, we would be at--
Canning: The first hearing in June.
Zaremba: -- a few days one side or the other of the first meeting in June.
Rohm: Well, it's of little value to continue it without having an opportunity come to a
consensus, so I think what I'm hearing is June 1 is a date certain and I'd certainly
entertain a motion to that effect.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would make the motion to continue Items AZ 06-013, PP 06-
011, and CUP 06-006, all relating to Canterbury Commons, to our regularly scheduled
meeting of January 1 st, 2006.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Item AZ 06-013, PP 06-011,
and CUP 06-006, to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission on June 1, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9:
Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: AZ 06.008 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to C-C for South
Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation by the
South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance - east side of
South Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road:
Rohm: And thank you all for your testimony. It was much appreciated. At this time I'd
like to reopen the continued Public Hearing of AZ 06-008 relating to South Eagle and
Victory Road Property Owners Alliance annexation and begin with the staff report
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, this is the Eagle -- South
Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Project and, surprisingly enough it's
located on South Eagle and Victory Road. There we go. And it does extend south of
Victory Road as shown. I did want to remind the Commission before we get started that
this had been on your agenda before and it got to be very late on your last agenda and
you did go ahead and open up the hearing. Some of the folks that are here tonight may
have left thinking that you wouldn't have heard that hearing, so we just want to make it
clear to everyone tonight that although the applicant made a presentation and there was
one member of the public that spoke that night, that we were -- we are starting over
again tonight. So, staff will make their presentation, the applicant will remake their
presentation, and we would ask that the one member of the public that testified, please,
do testify again. We consider this as a brand new Public Hearing for this and no
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
STAFF REPORT
Planning & Zoning Commission
SUBJECT:
1".
oU;;;idl1,; \
"~\RE'CElY~D
."~"~"'1~Ih'l..J,,~I,:~l .~/ ~!-.~,',...,".. f "Jir
,- n.. 6 2u68
~TY OF MERIDIAN
Canterbury Commons Subdivision CITY CLERK OFFICF
AZ-06-013 - Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres to R-15 (Medium Highw
Density Residential)
PP-06..0U- Preliminary Plat of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72
townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 20.32 acres NOTE: Revised plat
proposes 116 residential lots (49 4-plex lots and 67 townhouse lots)
CUP-06.006 - Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi-family development
consisting of200 multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes) on 50 lots and 72
townhouse dwelling units NOTE: Revised site plan proposes 196 multi-family
dwelling units on 49 lots and 67 townhouse dwelling units
PS-06-005 - Private Street adjacent to the proposed multi-family lots within
Canterbury Commons Subdivision
V AR-06-005 - Variance requests to allow lot sizes in the R-15 zone to go below
the 2,400 square-foot minimum (down to 1,900 square-feet) AND to allow a
reduction to the standard 12-foot rear setback ofthe R-15 zone (11-foot rear
setback requested) NOTE: With the revisions made, staff believes that the
applicant no longer needs a variance for lot size and setbacks.
Hearing Date: June 1,2006
TO:
FROM:
Planning & Zoning Commission
C. Caleb Hood, Current Planning Manager
Meridian Planning Department
208-884-5533
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, America West Homes, LLC, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) to R-15
(Medium High-Density Residential), Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of 122 residential building lots and
10 common lots, and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval of a multi-family developmen! consisting
of 50 4-plexes and 72 attached townhouse units on 21.77 acres of property currently zoned RJJT in Ada
County. The applicant is also requesting approval to construct private streets adjacent to the 4-plex units
and variance approval to have substandard lots and reduced rear setbacks in the R-15 zone. The site is
located on the south side of Pine Avenue, approximately 400 feet east ofTen Mile Road. Currently, there
are three single-family homes and associated outbuildings on this site. The site has not been previously
platted. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. NOTE: This proiect was
originally scheduled to be heard during the March 16th Plannin~ & Zoning Commission hearing. The
subiect applications were continued from the March 16th meeting so the applicant could adequately post
the site. Staff met with the applicant on March 22nd to discuss concerns staff had about the proposed
development. During the April 20th hearing the proiect was continued to June 1 st, so the applicant could
meet with Planning Staff and make revisions to the plan. Staff has updated the Staff Report to reflect
the changes made. Some of the changes made include: a reduction in buildable lots from 122 to 116,
adding amenities (basketball court, picnic area, tot lot area), increasing the lot size so all lots have at
least 2,400 square feet. and increasing the amount of open space (please see Section 10 below for
analvsis of all changes made). The comments below are based on the revised Preliminary Plat prepared
by Treasure Valley Engineers, last revised on May 19, 2006 and the revised Landscape Plan prepared
by Jensen Belts dated 5-25-06.
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-01I1CUP-05-006/PS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGE 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARlNG DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The subject applications were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Generally, the
Planning & Zoning Commission is the final decision making body on a Conditional Use Permit and the
Director is the final decision maker on a Private Street application. However, because the City Council is
the [mal decision making body on the Annexation, Variance and Preliminary Plat applications, all of the
subject applications are being combined into one staff report. The Conunission should make
recommendations to the Council on all of the subject applications. After detailed review of the subiect
applications. staff has provided detailed analvsis and is recommendinll approval with the conditions listed
in Exhibit B.
3. 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-06-013, PP-06-011, CUP-06-006, and PS-06-005 as presented
in staff report for the hearing date of June 1, 2006 with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications.)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the
City Council of File Numbers AZ-06-013, PP-06-01l, CUP-06-006, PS-06-005 and V AR-06-005
as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of June 1, 2006, for the following reasons:
(you should state specific reasons for denial of the alUlexation and you must state specific reasons
for denial of the plat and conditional use permit.)
Continuance
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Numbers AZ-
06-013, PP-06-011, CUP-06-006, PS-06-005 and V AR-06-005 to the hearing date of (insert
continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for
continuance. )
4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location: 2735 -2985 Pine Avenue; South side of Pine Avenue, east ofTen Mile
Road, in Section II, Township 3 North, Range 1 West.
b. Owners:
J.S. Risi Revocable Family Trust
27 W. Anapamu #350
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
&
Risi Family Limited Partnership
27 W. Anapamu Street #350
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
c. Applicant:
American West Homes, LLC
404 S. 8th Street
Boise, ill 83702
d. Representative: Joseph S. Risi
e. Present Zoning: RUT. Ada County
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use - Community
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-0 13/PP-06-0 ll1CUP-05-006/PS-06-005/V AR-06-005
PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting approval of Annexation
and Zoning (AZ) to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential), Preliminary Plat (PP) approval
of 122 residential building lots and 10 common lots, and Conditional Use Pennit (CUP)
approval of a multi-family development consisting of 50 4-plexes and 72 attached townhouse
units on 21.77 acres of property currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The applicant is also
requesting approval to construct private streets adjacent to the 4-plex units and variance
approval to have substandard lots and reduced rear setbacks in the R-15 zone. The applicant is
requesting an II-foot rear setback for a block of the townhouse lots. Forty-two of the seventy-
two proposed townhouse lots are below the 2,400 square-foot minimum lot size; thirty of the
townhouse lots meet or exceed the minimum lot size. The average lot size in the proposed
development is 4,781 square feet. The gross density of Canterbury Commons is 12.5 dwelling
units per acre. Approximately 12.6% ofthe area being developed is being set aside for open
space. The applicant is proposing to construct a clubhouse, pool, tot-lot, and pathway system
on Lot 42, Block 1. The applicant is also proposing some open space on the townhouse
common lots, Lot 1, Block 3 and Lot 14, Block 2. Staff is not supportive of the applicant's
proposal.
1. Date of preliminary plat (attached in Exhibit A):
2. Date of landscape plan (attached in Exhibit A):
3. Date of site plan (attached in Exhibit A):
12/14/05 (revised 5/19/06)
10/19/05
10/10/05
h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The City of Meridian's Master Plan for this site is
mapped at a density up to 15 dwelling units per acre. The project that we are proposing has a
D.U. of 13 units to the acre with a total of272 homes and condominiums. The condominiums
(4-plexes) will have stucco exteriors. There will be two different condominium building types
and two different elevations for each type of condominium building equaling a total of four
unique condominium elevations. The town houses will have siding exteriors. Various different
colors, windows and bays will be incorporated into the town home designs to maximize
variety in elevation. The covenants will be governed through formation of three separate
property/homeowner associations. There will be two separate associations to govern the town
houses and the condominiums. This project is designed to supply critical affordable housing to
the many employees working for local area businesses (see Applicant's Submittal Letter for
more.)
5. 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, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
b. The subject application will in fact constitute a preliminary plat asdetennined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a
public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
c. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as detennined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11
Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
d. The subject application will in fact constitute a private street as detennined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11,
Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
e. The subject application will in fact constitute a variance as detennined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11,
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-0 111CUP-05-006/PS-06-005/V AR-06-005
PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
f.
Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
Newspaper notifications published on: February 27,2006 and March 13,2006
Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 22,2006
Applicant posted notice on site by: April! 0, 2006
g.
h.
6. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): There are three single~family residences along Pine Avenue. The
existing homes and the outbuilding will be removed.
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Across Pine Avenue are the recently
approved Lyndhurst Grove Subdivision and Sommersby Subdivision. These developments
included future multi-family and single-family dwellings. To the west is higher density
residential in The Courtyards at Ten Mile. To the east is a single-family R-8 subdivision,
Morning Glory. To the south are the railroad tracks and industrially zoned property.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
1. North: Single-family homes, zoned R-4, Kelsie Park Subdivision; approved
Lyndhurst Grove Subdivision, zoned R-8; approved Sommersby
Subdivision, zoned R-15 and L-O
2. West Multi-family dwellings, zoned R-15, The Courtyards; Church, zoned L-O
3. South: Agricultural, zoned I-L
4. East: Single-family homes, zoned R-8, Morning Glory Subdivision No.2
d. History of Previous Actions: None.
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities
1. Public Works
Location of sewer: There are existing mains in W. Pine Avenue that currently
flow to the private Mashers Farm Lift Station.
Location of water: There are existing water mains in W. Pine Avenue.
Issues or concerns: 1.) Depending on the size of water services used, a five-
foot setback from the sidewalk to the four-plexes does not
allow for enough room.
2.) Staff is concerned about the location of the joint
utility trench.
2. Floodplain: N/A
3. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Ten Mile Drain traverses along the south side of this
property and the Eight Mile Lateral bisects this property in the northeast comer. These
waterways should be protected. All other open ditches or laterals that cross the subject
site should be tiled in accordance with the UDC.
4. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards associated with this property.
5. Proposed and Existing Zoning: These properties are currently zoned RUT in
Ada County. The applicant is proposing to zone all ofthe subject property to R-l5
(Medium High-Density Residential).
6. Size of Property: 21.77 acres
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-0 13!PP~06-0 II/CUP -05-006/PS-06-005N AR -06-005
PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
f. REVISED Subdivision Plat Information:
1. Residential Lots: 116 (49 multi-family lots and 67 townhouse lots)
2. Non-residential Lots: 0
3. Total Building Lots: 116
4. Common Lots: 10 (9 common open space lots, and 1 private street lot)
5. Other Lots: 0
6. Total Lots: 126
7. Gross Density: 12 units per acre (net 19 d.u.lacre)
g. Landscaping
1. Width of street buffer(s): A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along Pine
Avenue, a collector street (UDC 11-2A-6). UDC 11-3B-7C2a requires all residential
subdivision street buffers to be located on a common lot maintained by a home-
owners association. Street buffers are not required adjacent to the other, internal
streets.
2. Width ofbuffer(s) between land uses: N/A
3. Percentage of site as open space: The applicant states that 19% (3.89 acres) of the
site is being set aside for common open space.
4. Other landscaping standards: Landscaping adjacent to micro-paths and'pathways
should comply with UDC 11-3B-12.
h. Amenities: For multi-family developments with more than 100 units, the decision making
body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the development (UDC
11-4-3.27D-2d). As a reference for multi-family developments with 75 units or more, 4
amenities are required, with at least one from each category (Quality of Life, Open Space, and
Recreation). The applicant is providing amenities as follows: 3,000 square-foot community
club house and fitness facility (Quality of Life), property management office, maintenance
storage area, development map/directory, pool (Recreation), tot-lots (Recreation), walking
trails (Recreation), half basketball court (Recreation), picnic area (Quality of Life) and open
space (Open Space).
1. Off-Street Parking: UDC 11-3C-6.A requires townhouse dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms
to have a two-car garage and a 20' x 20' parking pad in front of each garage. ODC 11-3C-6A
requires multi-family dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms to have a two-car covered carport or
garage for each unit. The submitted site layout does not propose any covered parking spaces
forthe multi-family (4-plex) dwellings and does not contain the necessary 20' x 20' parking
pad in front of all ofthe townhouse garages. The applicant should be required to comply with
the off-street parking requirements ofthe UDC.
J. Conditional Use Information:
1. Non.residential square footage: 3,000 square feet (Community Clubhouse) &
maintenance storage
2. Proposed building height: Varies; R-15 allows 40 feet
3. Percentage of site devoted to building coverage: 24%
4. Percentage of site devoted to landscaping: 31 %
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-0l3/PP-06-011/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGE 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
5. Percentage of site devoted to paving: 45%
6. Percentage of site devoted to other uses: 0%
7. Number of Residential units: 263
k. Proposed and Required Residential Standards - The applicant was originally requesting
variances to some ofthe R-15 bulk standards as found in UDC ll-2A. Specifically, the
applicant was requesting a variance to the minimum 2,400 square-foot lot size. The applicant
was proposing to plat 42 of the 72 townhouse lots below the standard lot size (down to 1,900
square-feet). The revised oreliminarv plat depicts at least 2.400 square foot lots. The applicant
was also requesting approval for an ll.foot rear setback variance for the townhouses in Block
3 (12 feet is the standard rear setback). Staff does not believe that there is any hardship that
exists where granting the requested variances is warranted (please see Findings in Exhibit D).
Further, the proposed development only depicts a 5-foot front setback for some of the 4-plex
units. City Staff is concerned about providing j oint utility services and easements to the 4-plex
units with such a shallow setback (see Public Works Department comments). Staff continues
to recommend that a lO.foot front setback to the 4-Dlex units be provided so that ioint
trench and citv water meters can be installed and accessed near the units.
R-15 Standards
Setbacks (measured to sidewalk)Proposed Required
Front Living Area (townhouse) 10 10
Front Living Area to street (4-plex) 5 0
Front Accessed Garage (townhouse)20 20
Front Accessed Garage (4-plex) NA 20
Street side (townhouse and 4-plex) 10 10
Side (townhouse) 0 0
Side (4-plex) 5 4
Rear (townhouse and 4-plex) 12 12
Frontage 0 0
Lot Size 2,400 2,400
Maximum building height 27 40
1. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The
applicant is proposing one public street connection to Pine Avenue and one private street
connection to Pine Avenue. The public street system provides access for the townhouse units
and the private street system provides access for the 4-plex units. Both the private and public
street connections to Pine Avenue align with existing public streets on the north side of Pine
Avenue. The public and private streets are interconnected and provide a looping circulation
system throughout the development. Please see Exhibit B for ACHD' s comments and
conditions regarding this development.
7. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING On February 24,2006, 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 B.
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-011/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGE 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject site is designated 'Mixed
Use - Community' on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. According to the
Comprehensive Plan, the purpose of this designation is to identify key areas which are either infill
in nature or situated in higWy visible or transitioning areas of the city where innovative and
flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The following standards will serve as general
guidelines for development in these Mixed Use areas:
· All development within this designation will occur only under the Conditional Use Permit
process, except the Mixed Use- Regional;
· Where feasible, multi-family residential uses will be encouraged, especially for projects with
the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to
State Highways 20-26 , 55 or 69;
· Where mixed use developments are phased, a conceptual site plan for the entire mixed use
area is encouraged with the development application or, depending on the scope of the
development, prior to a formal development application being submitted;
· Where the project is developed adjacent to low or medium density residential uses, a
transitional use is encouraged.
Mixed Use - Community. The following standards will apply to this category:
· Up to 25 acres of non-residential uses permitted within the Mixed Use - Community
areas as shown on the Future Land Use Map. In Mixed Use - Community areas that are
not Neighborhood Centers, over 25 acres of non-residential uses shall be permitted
(through the CUP process).
· Up to 200,000 sq. ft. of non-residential building area
· Residential density of 3 to 15 units/acre
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 he 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.
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-0l3/PP-06-0 1l/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGE 7
CITY OF MERlDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
· 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 IV, Objective D, Action 2: Restrict curb cuts and access points on
collectors and arterial streets.
Pine Avenue is classified as a collector roadway in this area. The proposed access points to
Pine Avenue should comply with ACHD 's standards.
· Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1: Protect existing residential properties from
incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.
This is an infill parcel with the properties adjacent to the subject site varying in density and
housing type. North of the site are existing and proposed single-jamily and multi-family
dwellings. East of the site is a single-jamily subdivision. West of the site is a mixed-use
development with multi-jamily dwellings (attached duplexes). The subject project is denser
than any of the adjacent projects, but does provide a transition from the less dense Morning
Glory Subdivision, with the townhouses to the proposed multi-jamily. Although staff believes
that attached single-jamily and detached single-jamily are compatible land uses, staff
believes that the lot sizes proposed along the eastern boundary should be increased to
provide a better transition in lot size.
· Chapter V, Goal 1 , Objective A, Action 11: Improve and protect creeks (Five Mile, Eight
Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough, and Jackson and Evans drainages) throughout
commercial, industrial and residential areas.
The Eight Mile Lateral and the Ten Mile Drain course through or adjacent to this site. Staff'
believes that the Eight Mile and the Ten Mile should be protected and enhanced by leaving
them open and constructing a pathway adjacent to the Eight Mile (see Exhibit B).
· Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 5: Require appropriate landscape and buffers
along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.).
The applicant is proposing to construct a 20-joot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Pine
Avenue. By ordinance, the Pine Avenue landscape buffer is required in a common lot.
· Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 3: Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and
Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach" from the National Center for Bicycling and
Walking in all land-use decisions.
This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkway facilities in new
construction and reconstruction projects, in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient.
Staff believes that the subject applications generally comply with the policies listed in the
literature noted above.
· Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6: Require street connections between subdivisions
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-0 13/PP-06-0 1l/CUP-OS-006/PS-06-00S/V AR-06-00S
PAGE 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow.
The adjacent projects have not provided opportunities jor the subject site to provide
vehicular connectivity (no stub streets). The applicant is proposing a loop street system
within this development. Two new connections to Pine Avenue are proposed.
· Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj ective A, Action 5: Require pedestrian access connectors in all new
development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a
community pathway system.
The adjacent projects have not provided opportunities for pedestrian connections with this
property. The applicant is proposing to construct 5-foot wide attached sidewalks adjacent to
the internal streets (private and public). The applicant is also proposing to construct an
internal pathway system. To enhance the community pathway system, staJJ recommends that a
pathway be provided through Lot 9, Block 2, connecting the sidewalk on Jay ton Drive with
the sidewalk on Pine Avenue. StaJJfurther recommends that Lot 29, Block 1, be designated as
a common lot and a pathway be constructed through this lot.
· Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 6: Require pedestrian access in all new
development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity.
See analysis above.
· Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 9: Require new residential development to provide
permanent perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown
debris from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties.
Prior to construction of any buildings, fencing should be constructed around the perimeter of
this site.
StaJJ recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any verbal or written testimony that
may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's zoning and
development request is appropriate for this property.
9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
a. Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts: UDC Table 11-2A.2 lists multi-family
development uses as conditional uses in the R-15 zoning district; townhouses are principally
pennitted in the R-15 zone.
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 corresponding housing types that can be
accommodated within the density range. Residential land uses are also allowed within the O-T,
TN-C, and TN.R districts as set forth in Chapter 3 Article D.
c. 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,
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-0 I I/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGE 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
Architectural Character, Landscaping, and Maintenance.
Site desil!n (UDC ll-4-3.27m:
A minimum of 80 square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This
requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping,
entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement.
For the purposes of this Section, vehicular circulation areas, parking areas, and private useable
open space shall not be considered common open space.
The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 3 of this Title.
Developments with 20 units or more shall provide the following: a property management office, a
maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location, a directory and map of the development at
an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development.
Common ooen space desil!n requirements (unc ll-4-3.27C):
A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a) 150 square feet
for each unit containing 500 or less square feet of living area; b) 250 square feet for each unit
containing more than 500 square feet and up to 1,200 square feet of living area; and c) 350 square
feet for each unit containing more than 1,200 square feet of living area.
Common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated
from the street by a constructed barrier at least 4 feet in height.
Site develooment amenities (UDC ll-4-3.27D):
All multifamily developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation
amenities to met the particular needs of the residents as follows: a) Quality of Life (clubhouse,
fitness facility, enclosed bike storage, and public are such as a statue); b) Open Space (open
grassy area of at least 50 by 100 feet in size, community garden, ponds or water features, and
plazas); and c) Recreation (pool, walking trails, children's play structures, and sports courts).
The number of amenities shall depend on the size of the multifamily development as follows: For
multifamily developments with 75 units or more, 4 amenities shall be provided, with at least 1
from each category. For multifamily developments with more than 100 units, the decision-making
body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development.
Architectural Character (onc ll-4-3.27.E):
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 feet; recessed entrances;
and changes in material types. Changes in material types shall have a minimum dimension of two
feet and minimum area of 25 square feet.
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.
Entrances shall be adequately covered, recessed, or treated with a permanent architectural feature
in such a way that weather protection is provided.
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-011/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGE 10
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
Roof forms 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.
Exterior building materials and finishes shall convey an impression of permanence and durability.
Materials such as masonry, stone, stucco, wood, terra cotta, and tile are encouraged.
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.
All roof and wall-mounted mechanical, electrical, communications, and service equipment should
be screened from public view from the adj acent public streets and properties by the use of
parapets, walls, fences, enclosures, or by other suitable means.
Landscapim! (UDe l1A.3.27.F):
Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with Chapter 3 of this
Title.
All street-facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation
landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: The landscaped area shall be at least
three feet wide; for every three lineal feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum
mature height of twenty-four inches shall be planted; and groundcover plants shall be planted in the
remainder of the landscaped area.
UDC 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.
Outdoor storage/refuse areas (UDC ll-3A.12):
Outdoor utility meters, HV AC equipment, trash dumpsters, trash compaction and other service
functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the
visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent
properties and public streets.
10. ANALYSIS
Analysis Leading to Staff Recommendation
As submitted, the subject applications appear to substantially comply with the Unified
Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. In each section below, staff has provided
analysis regarding the proposed development.
1. AZ Application: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan
staff believes that this is a good location for a higher density development and the
proposed R-15 zoning. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of the required facts
and findings for a Zoning Amendment.
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-011/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGE 11
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARlNG DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped on
12/1/2005 by Walter L. Neitz, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing
corporate boundary of the City of Meridian.
UDC 11-5B-3D2 and Idaho Code ~ 65-671lA provides the City the authority to
require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City
that may require some written commitment for all future uses. Staff believes that a DA
is necessary to ensure that this property is developed in a fashion that is consistent
with the comprehensive plan designations and does not negatively impact nearby
properties.
Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be
entered into between the City of Meridian, property owner(s) (at the time of
annexation ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the
City Attornev. Bill Nary. at 888A433 to initiate this process. Staff recommends that
the Commission and Council direct the City's Legal Department to draft a
development agreement for Canterbury Commons Subdivision as follows:
1. That all future development shall not involve uses, activities, processes,
materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to
any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive
production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
2. That all future development of the subject property shall be consistent with
the applicant's approved preliminary plat and site plan unless otherwise
modified by other provisions of the DA, or in the future by the City Council.
3. That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in
accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of
development.
4. That the future uses and lots on this site shall conform to the District
Regulations contained in the Unified Development Code (ODe), in effect at
the time of development.
5. That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer
and water service extension.
6. That any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project
will have to be removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance
Section 5-7-517, when services are available from the City of Meridian.
Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
7. That prior to issuance of any building pemrit, the subject property be
subdivided (a recorded final plat) in accordance with the City of Meridian
Unified Development Code.
8. That all landscape street buffers and land use buffers will be constructed in
accordance with the UDC provisions in effect at the time of development.
9. That the applicant agrees to provide amenities on this site as depicted on the
revised preliminary plat dated May 19, 2006.
10. That no more than 116 buildable lots and 263 dwelling units may be
constructed on this site.
2. PP/CUP/PS Applications:
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-0 13/PP-06-0 II/CUP-05-006/PS.06-005N AR-06-005
PAGE 12
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
Landscapinl!: The landscape plan prepared by Jensen Belts, stamped revised on 5-25-
06, should substantially comply with the UDC if the following modifications/notes are
made:
· Provide a 20-foot wide landscape buffer along Pine Avenue that is in a
separate common lot. The landscape buffer along Pine Avenue shall be
designed in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7.
· Match the location and design of the clubhouse, pool and tot-lot areas with the
preliminary plat.
· Provide landscaping in compliance with UDC 11-3B-12, adjacent to the
micro-paths.
· All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such
nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved
open space are subject to UDC 11-3B-ll and shall be fully vegetated with
grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not
be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B-l1. If the
stonnwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open
space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-11, then the applicant shall
relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable
area.
· 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 11-3B-14.
Submit 10 full size copies and one 8.5" x 11" copy of the revised landscape plan,
reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, to the Planning Department at least
10 days prior to the next public hearing. On Mav 25th Planning Staff received a
revised landscape plan from Jensen Belts. This landscape plan is not stamped with
a revision date. but does reflect the changes mentioned within the Staff Report.
Multi-familv Standards: The UDC has several specific standards that apply to multi-
family developments (See UDC Section 9 above for a complete list.) These standards
apply to Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities, Architectural Character,
Landscaping, and Maintenance. The applicant should be required to comply with all
standards listed in UDC 11-4-3.27.
Private Useable Open Space: UDC 11-4-3.27B requires a minimum of 80 square feet
of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be
satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway
and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement.
Parking: UDC 11-3C~6.A requires townhouse dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms to
have a two-car garage and a 20' x 20' parking pad in front of each garage. UDC 11-
3C-6A requires multi-family dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms to have a two-car
covered carport or garage for each unit. The submitted site layout still does not
propose any covered parkin!!: spaces for the multi-family (4-plex) dwellin!!:s. All
townhouse dwellin!!:s should contain the necessary 20' x 20' parkin!!: pad in front
of the !!:ara!!:e. The applicant should be required to comply with the off-street
parkin!!: requirements of the UDC.
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-0 13/PP-06-0 11/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGE 13
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
Amenities: The applicant is required to provide amenities for the multifamily
development. For multi-family developments with more than 100 units, the decision
making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the
development (UDC 11-4.3.27D-2d). As a reference, the UDC requires multi-family
developments containing 75 units or more to provide 4 amenities, with at least one
from each category (Quality of Life, Open Space, and Recreation). The applicant is
providing amenities as follows: 3,000 square-foot community club house and fitness
facility (Quality of Life), property management office, maintenance storage area,
development map/directory, pool (Recreation), tot-lots, half basketball court
(Recreation), walking trails (Recreation), picnic tables (Quality of Life), and open
space (Open Space). Staff recommends that the Commission determine if the proposed
amenities are sufficient for a development of this size.
Elevations: The applicant has submitted building elevations for the proposed 4-plex
structures (see Exhibit A). UDC 11-4.3 requires multifamily structures to comply with
the design standards listed in this section. Staff believes that the elevations submitted
with the CUP significantly meet the requirements of the design standards listed in
UDC 11-3A-19. Staff will ensure that when CZC applications are submitted for
construction of the 4-plex buildings in the future, that the elevations comply with the
UDC requirements.
Internal Pedestrian Paths: To allow for the pedestrian pathways in this development to
flow better, staff is recommending that additiona11egs to the system be added through
Lot 29, Block 1, Lot 9, Block 2, and Lot 1, Block 3. The micro-paths/pathways shall
be constructed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-8 (construction) and UDC 11-3B
(landscaping). These pathways have been deoicted on the revised plat. Further. the
applicant is showimr a pathway alom! the Ten Mile Stub Drain. The proposed
pathway alone: the Ten Mile Stub Drain is within the adiacent buildable lots. and
not on a common lot. Ideallv this pathway should be in a common lot. However.
if the Commission believes that access to said pathway for all of the 4-plex lots
can be allowed as shown. either a note on the face of the final plat. or in a
document such as CCR's should be provided by the applicant. Further. this
pathway dead-ends at the south end of the property. makine access to the
pathwav difficult for most of the future residents of this development. Staff
recommends that an additional lee of the oathway be provided throue:h Lot 26.
Block 1. that connects with the sidewalk on Lot 6. Block 1.
In 1996, CaMP ASS adopted the pathway recommendations laid out in the Ridge-to-
Rivers Pathway Plan (1996). The goals of the plan include developing a bikeway and
pathway system that encourages non-motorized transportation and enhances
recreational opportunities. The Union Pacific Railroad corridor abutting the south
property line is shown as a proposed multi-use pathway in Figure VI-3 (Off-Street
Multiple-Use Pathways) in the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
In the past, the City has not required the construction of a pathway within the Union
Pacific Railroad corridor, but has required developers that abut the future pathway to
provide a minimum of 5-feet of landscaping. Consistent with previous Council action,
the applicant should not be required to construct a multi-use pathway adjacent to the
southern boundary, but should be required to provide a minimum of 5-feet of
landscaping along the south property line. At a minimum, the applicant should be
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-01 3/PP-06-0 Il/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGE 14
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
required to plant trees in accordance with MCC (1 tree per every 35-lineal feet) on the
south side ofthe buildings adjacent to the south property line.
Eight Mile Lateral and Ten Mile Drain: The Eight Mile Lateral and the Ten Mile
Drain course through or are adjacent to this site. Staff believes that the Eight Mile and
the Ten Mile should be protected and enhanced by leaving them open and constructing
pathways adjacent to them. The annlicant is orooosinl! to construct chain link fencing
adiacent to the Eil!ht Mile Lateral. between the oathwav and the lateral. and solid
fencinl! alonl! the Ten Mile Stub Drain. UDC 11-3A-6B3 requires ooen ditches.
laterals. canals. and drains to be fenced with a chain-link fence (see Fencinl! below).
Existinl! Residences/Buildinl!s: The site currently contains multiple buildings.
Because the existing structures span across proposed lot lines, all buildings shall be
removed or relocated, prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer.
Multi-familv Setbacks: The UDC does not have a specific setback between internal
multi-family units. However, there may be a problem with not providing a fulll0-foot
front setback to the 4-plex units; utilities may need a wider easement. Depending on
the size of water services used, a setback from the sidewalk of less than 10 feet to the
four-plexes (which is being proposed for several of the units) does not allow for
enough room for water meters and joint utility service lines. Staff is still concerned
about the orooosed substandard ioint utilitv trench area. and reQuests that the
aoolicant orovide a full lO-foot wide setback between the 4-olexes and the
adiacent sidewalk. Coordination and approval by joint trench and the Public Works
Department should be required for any setbacks less than 10 feet.
Refuse Areas: The Sanitary Services Company (SSe) has commented that the
proposed dumpster locations may not be adequately designed. Further, none of the
submitted plans call-out how or if the refuse areas will be screened from the street.
UDC 11-3A-12 requires the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully
contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. The revised
oreliminarv plat has new dumoster locations and desilffi oroposed.
Pine Avenue Street Buffer: A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along Pine
Avenue, a collector street (UDC 11-2A~6). UDC 11- 3B-7C2a requires all residential
subdivision street buffers to be located on a common lot maintained by a home-
owners association. Street buffers are not required adjacent to the other, internal
streets. The submitted olans should be revised bv nIacin!! the 20-foot wide street
buffer for Pine Avenue within a common lot. The revised oreliminarv olat deoicts the
required street buffer alonl! Pine Avenue within a common lot.
Ooen Soace: Open space is defmed as an area substantially open to the sky that may
be on the same property with a structure. The areas may include, along with the
natural environment features, parks, playgrounds, trees, water areas, swimming pools,
tennis courts, community centers or other recreational facilities. The term shall not
include streets, parking areas, or structures of habitation (UDC 11-IA). ODC 11-4-
3.27C requires a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as
follows: a) 150 square feet for each unit containing 500 or less square feet of living
area; b) 250 square feet for each unit containing more than 500 square feet and up to
1,200 square feet of living area; and c) 350 square feet for each unit containing more
than 1,200 square feet of living area. Common open space areas shall not be adjacent
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-01l/CUP-OS-006/PS-06-00SN AR-06-00S
PAGElS
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006
to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a constructed barrier
at least 4 feet in height.
The applicant states that 19% (3.89 acres) of the site is being set aside for common
open space. Vehicular circulation areas, parking areas, and private useable open space
shall not be considered common open space. Maintenance of all common areas shall
be the responsibility of the Canterbury Commons Home Owners' Association(s). The
revised oreliminary olat does show revised calculations for open space. Ooen space
has been added to the northwest comer or the site. as well as the southeast comer of
the site. Some smaller ooen space areas have also been added internally. Staff believes
that the open soace mooosed complies with the UDC.
Fencing: The applicant has proposed a 6-foot tall solid fence along the west, south and
east boundaries of the development. Adjacent to the Eight Mile Lateral a chain-link
fence is proposed. Chain-link fencing should be installed along both the Ten Mile Stub
Drain and Eight Mile Lateral. A detailed fencing plan should be submitted upon
application of the final plat. If permanent fencing is not provided before issuance of a
building pennit, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed
around the perimeter. Perimeter, common open space, and micro-path fencing shall be
designed according to UDC 11-3A.7.
Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems
be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to use
any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is
not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required.
If a single.point connection is used, the developer will be responsible for the payment
of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the [mal plat by the City
Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all
landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-
15 and MCC 9-1-28.
Private Streets: The applicant is proposing to use private streets to provide access to
Pine Avenue. 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. Staff is generally
supportive of private streets for multi-family developments. This project is no
exception. However, staff has some concerns with the layout of the private streets, as
they do not provide an efficient pedestrian and vehicular street system. There are
several of the proposed multi-family units that are double-fronted, or sandwiched,
between a public street and a private street. This is not an efficient site layout. The
applicant should design and construct the private streets in compliance with the
standards listed for Private Streets in UDC 11-3F and as mentioned in the Staff
Report. Please see Exhibit D below for the required findings for private streets. The
applicant has not addressed the double fronted 4-olex units.
Parkin!! area on west end of Lot 5. Block I: Originally, the parking area on the
northwest side ofthe development exceeded the maximum 150-feet length allowed by
the Fire Department. The lemrth of Lot 5. Block 1. (revised as Lot 6. Block 1) has
been shortened on the revised preliminary plat.
Site Lavout/Densitv: The revised preliminary plat shows 263 dwellim! units where
272 units were orie:inallv proposed. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan Policies
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-0 13/PP-06-0 II /CUP-OS-006/PS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGE 16
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
and Goals Section, this area is designated mixed use. This designation anticipates
higher densities in this area. However, staff believes that there are some design
problems with the way the development is currently laid out. Lot 29, Block 1, sticks
out into the private street drive lanes and prohibits pedestrians and vehicles from
efficiently maneuvering in the development. Staff recommends that this lot become a
common lot. On the revised preliminary plat. the pathway that was shown on the
back side of the townhouses in Block 3. has been removed. Staff is supportive of
this. as pedestrians can use the nearby sidewalk. However. Lot 29. Block 1 and
the desien of the private street drive lanes have not been amended.
Staff is also concerned about the street system proposed. There is a full block of 4-
plex units that have frontage on both the public street and the private street. This
design is not efficient for services and is not desirable for future tenants and they will
be sandwiched between two streets. Further, there is no variation in buildings or
setbacks in this area; all of the units have the same street setbacks. The revised
preliminary plat does show a variation of buildine setbacks. but does not address
the double fronta2e lot issue.
Staff believes that the applicant has substantially complied with the changes requested
and staff is recommending approval of the revised site plan/preliminary plat with the
conditions listed in Exhibit B.
3. V AR Application:
The applicant is requesting variances to some of the R-I5 bulk standards as found in
UDC ll-2A. Specifically, the applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum 2,400
square-foot lot size. The applicant is proposing to plat 42 of the 72 townhouse lots
below the standard lot size (down to 1,900 square-feet). The applicant is also
requesting approval for an II-foot rear setback variance for the townhouses in Block 3
(12 feet is the standard rear setback). The table on the revised preliminary plat does
state that the units in Blocks 2 and 3 will have a l2-foot rear setback. which is the
standard for the zone. Staff reouests that the applicant clarify at the public hearine
if any variances are currently hein2 reouested. To grant a variance, the Council
needs to make the following findings:
1. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise
allowed in the district;
2. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site;
3. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Staff [mds that granting the subject variances should not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare. Further, staff recognizes that this is an unusually shaped lot.
However, if the City grants the variance it would allow a right or privilege not usually
allowed in the R-15 zone. Therefore, staff does not believe that that having an
irregularly shaped lot is enough reason to grant the requested variances. This site is
large enough that full compliance with the UDC standards can be met without causing
an undue hardship. Staff is recommending; denial of the Variance application. Staff
further recommends that this development be required to comply with all dimensional
standards of the une.
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-011/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGE 17
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
Staff Recommendation: Based on the facts provided in this report, staff recommends
approval of File Numbers AZ-06-013, PP-06-011, CUP-06-006, and PS-06-005 and denial of
V AR-06-005.
11. EXHffiITS
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 12-14-05 REVISED 5-19-06)
2. Landscape Plan (dated: 10-19-05 REVISED but undated (stamped "revised" on 5-
25-06 by the Meridian Planning Department)
3. Site Plan (dated: 10-10-05)
4. Elevations
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department
2. Public Works Department
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Parks Department
6. Sanitary Service Company
7. Ada County Highway District
8. Central District Health Department
C. Legal Descriptions
D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-0 13/PP-06-0 Il/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005/V AR-06-005
PAGE 18
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 12-14-05 REVISED 5-19-06)
~
c ~
t;) .;
S: ..
~lia
I:Q~:::
;::, i! I
C',tJ9 ..
~ ~.i
mCl)I~E
~~5!~~
~I~i
~I><
:::) ~ I!l
I:Q;"=
~ I
~
t-.j
~ ~
u
"J
. ,
~.- j. i~
__ I
.
Exhibit A - Page 1
jl,P-
.- -'. fl
-..;-:-~;'
/
.tI!I..:.,~. -. e
j. -e:
, 'I
'I
. II ~
u lit
. ..
l'IOj
. ~ .'!
,~ "I'
~ ! t
"I
: '!__"I -~
lIr""I'l'i.i--1
I
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
~ ~
-. .:; ,?fllIlf?!':!": l-;t,.t.- ' H" -:J'.: :;rr;k ~tI!H , J..~:t'L"7'G:m'lt
, I,' '"i'fie \ ,: 1 1. 1[ ~~;;. ....j ,
I,: ,"'X ":'. .. ..."" , , ,..n ... ~. ./; !
(, :Y!/'I"~ "~ - ,...., .."......,," .~. f"' ,,'
"/f/l '. r. D\ . .. '\11' "".....{I,'". , ,
()~. ~ ~fl. .t, . . ,i I' 18 ___", ~
.. . '. "'::t ' ,. ~ "
,;~. ;jl-"J:; @~ :"!)'~' '-"r: l ~>T' ''1: ,'F.!', '1:"':;- ~ ~
U ,,,,rt1 :";..::+.~:~ ~~; ~:;j..,~';;"';k';; !----- '"
ti ~ ~ h I ~H.'H.j lUl:U J:t':-J C".I fa , "11:!;1. ,l;.:
:'~~ f ~ ~'lt''''';' " T'" .,' ;,\, 'T' ~ ~~~~
(', ,...~ I~'h" .,.. 1'/- 2-.~ -. :11 fro -:-11.' , "., :~: r::r.,~,.
. '. !6~.' 1111...., ~
f .' "'-',m " .. T.M' ", ..,~ ~',,":; ,
rtIF .' ~ ~'~, " : " :~r j' .- ., ,~~,.-.:., jj~ f
I clfr ' .' I :'. .: + ,:~...,:;: ::.,"~:I" '/~'>, . ... " ~1
(~',?II ,'-: . i: " ,,'i:," (',:;: " ),.;:J . I ' \.~.. k,,~_
," ~ --. -- v' " ....,. ,{ JlN!" , .~
:a ,. ~ -:: '..' .-', .,'" . ,,/ /-
. , . h ., ..,'/ '"
( '~N" .;: ,:~' / / ..I
r (. 'l~l:' -- ';:, " " :,/:: , ~! 1 I ~
!(-~l'~~":. :''-111.. y/:.~ ." x1d
( "~ : . b ' ~, /. r;'gL 'I 'II i ~,~
I ""'-. m '". ~ i m' ,~olC
, l ~.. ' . I' . h !;idhl <ih ~ i f
" '!Yi ~ ~', r ~ !"l'~, 1 ~L r ~ I! ~
1(': .- i ~ :,.' ~ ~ i,!: i ,I ~
. ._-= ~i .Ji1!! ~ f ~ I
. ',',. -. "I mum nmu m
( "il"l : .... ~., .1 ~ mmu ~mm m !!m!~HmH >- :
;11": . ~i' 19 'II 1,1 i d II B. ~ ! Ii I ~ '
( ~,: ~,~. ~ if ~ f U,M!! U!i~},f Ji' fl~"~li'!I!:fi , IH.. ~
I(~l"( ~ ~ :.1 ! Illilj~ IlllM ~, Illnlll!I~I! !! In w ~
.; ~.J :.,' , ~ !I ~ .' .1It~1 ~~ irad I L 1111fll~ ,1.11 !! II il .... ·
, ~ lll! II!L1 ~ !~~nfl ~ i U 1111
2. Landscape Plan (dated 10-19.05 REVISED stamped 5-25-06)
Exhibit A - Page 2
.'jl~
I ~liU
~
~
5
~
J'~ ~
~i:p
~H
" ~d$
tin
-II
':ill
Z ~
-< ~
~
0,:
I
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
3. Site Plan - (dated 10-10-05 NOT APPROVED)
".:-.~'r.:T;:': .
.~I...I":..r.:.
-.-... .
""b~wbI ..
OHVQ ~
3Fl'faA Of aNId I
SNON'lOO At:I1SlSJ.NYO
/1
IGJ
II~
~ ~ ~.. ~
~i : II!
~ ~I~ if
<!"
~ II
~! III
I
II <.
I ",~~
Exhibit A - Page 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
4. Elevations
..,.
~I;
.i,
Exhibit A - Page 4
1l\IIIlI~
IHlia 8l.I.I
auowwoo AmqJ8WllO
~
I,
"
~j
..,'
5
ir
!i~
"If
J,!.5'
!!1I11 r9
i!U~ If.
~!!I~lii~!
II ,g If h i!
III ill O;;lill \!;l
J: ,j if ' .
1,1(1: ~ II ,':: if
'I' jl, 'h;ll~i '
i.' ! :~ I : hi fI, : ill : ! !J f
0$eee E'>€)0 i!l (OIl!! @(!I(~ (OJ
..
~
~)
e
'Ii
i
!i1
Iff
.J
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
~'l
Ii
II
l!:1t
11i..
0Il"PI ""I>I'"I'l
l-.s IM4d I
, sUCllWJo::> lUJqJe~uD:> I
'1'
~
I.
"
~l
r
I~
~t
-.:t
I' '. I I (I I I
~ i' " J'J . C
~ I J : fl. l~ U dl~i I '. ~ n :. ~
i , [11i~ I ii' i! WI I . J I, Q i"" ~
r.; I i ~ 1 ::, I ; Jli II' ; ill : ,~ :1. H e! ~ I ~ n
Si!eee",e 'MX~ 2l @,!j :N',0 @~ If) ;1l ~1IlI il;1
~ it,f'
If '1. ~
. . I if
I '1"'11';; "'>,j--~,
" T .\ I,"~ ':'
I \, ,:' "if~/
I . ~if .
, . 7 -,'~ B
I ~n?" mil 'mlt
I ~\' I \.' , :
'. i~~' -::, ~,
, :.~~ I-~ s' Jl'
:~ ~~t~~~ "".
.~. - '~J.;"
" ,- , I :
'-.\;1: iT-
Exhibit A - Page 5
+
,.J
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
~~I
,),
~"
Exhibit A - Page 6
0lIBPl 'u1JlllJOri
l'lOi"S~
suo~ ,(JnqJell.Rl::!
,-- , I
r~I-T~'-"J
I II I
i ...-,13jl m3 I
" ~ - -, -
, - '
,. II I
1m IlE
.' Imll 13 I .
~J ~
r ~'(I~II ~ I t
.TI'I~i
I '.. --~JL~ ~
I I
!1. !I.
wi- J;;
II! Ii!
-.-
1
"J
I t! I . I
If II '- if '-
clli ~i I !dj
If lIB fa
~ '.J Ei!l'!~ '!l
S' i " I
Ij i. I !'J "
i I q q: ~. P ni: i j
d ! h I J I~ j1 . ,!! " ',1
HG~~" ~JJ.!f ~fll!"1~,i' ~
"'- t!;L
~
.
....-. "l ~
m.
. ~'-"'J'.' l;
-~_~l:::I~) ~-
t-
-~
nJ
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
~1 ~~; .- T """"'....- ] I _. Jill!; - ~ 1
'u,~~...
- jI -"~I.A 1~'1l8 ~
, ... ..j' Jl .SUClU.IlUOO ~Jf14l9.UIlO _J i ~;
--
· rr"IF
" 1~li []
~ -I ~
,m3 II IE
113_~mJJi
(ifp 1100 II,
____ _ t1~:I" -~ ~
+__--J
l" II ~l II ,11
"'II. ~.. ,,~ \I~
I,l- -<!' 'i'-.
6= II:
f-: ~- 11-"-
-'~ - -~
. 1111 -I II-
.' Y I !!
V /~ ~-- '1
! (7HB~ fH
~ ~~ ---
I \ ~".~ I~l
,- 1- 'I :
~ (, ,
'-J\.' ' i
\ ~" (Jf I ~i
\\, /, --..L-- ~
;, (. I I' ; - ~
~~~~.._ ~~:rc>~~
~ - \ --I.r~- -- -- : $; I
~_w! !
'" ....
.. :tl
!. ....
.. -+
iO
,.
Exhibit A - Page 7
,II! il I i,
~ '! '. I...
'. ~I ~l' ,dl
II !!! Ii I i! Ii
b: I. 1.1.
~~ @J",!l>@
I" ~.l!I t
i ~ R ,., ~
!IPI!~ !~!l ili: i l
~ h1!~llivyi Ed lj~l Hill
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
Exhibit A - Page 8
"'llIIl1'lloP\lllli\l
18$llfl ""ld
lluolWlOQ ~aweo
I I ·
I: i. I
; j I' ,11
l' III ii' I
. r " . I.;
, LtJ .. gJ!li
I ~lL~~
~~!~;!!~!I
~
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
Ii '"~~ I
~~ -~-...'" .
~_ . ""=~I~
Exhibit A - Page 9
....
~~I'l
lMJ18 M4d
slIOIWlO:) Amq./8IUBO
~
I
~
~
!iii
~l
T""
z
o
~
~~
~" ~
~;~!l
C\J
'f
". ~
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
lll$ 17~'~ I "'PPI """""" r 11In~_~)
~-""' .
.'-~I ... ~'1S II40l I
-.--- SUOUAUOO ,(.-,q~&<U9~
! !
l
~ !
.,... ('.,l
~
I ~ ~
,I I~
'f
(I')
.~ !
. I ~. I'
!!l J I ill ,j
j::: ii" t':
! · 'f~ li!1 .1
, lit! U.; .;
I I 'ill t' Ii !i
iii iStk 1.1 " r,1 i,
~ ic:i u I l:ll
.., :iti~.i; ~d:ii
m "~lnii:IiUUI
'''u ..~ ~ ...,.. !'I~!.fl.J!
Exhibit A - Page 10
Ii)
I
I
I
~:
~
"I:t
~
I
.~
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department
SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP-06-011)
1.1
1.1.1
The preliminary plat/site plan labeled Sheet PI, prepared by Treasure Valley Engineers, dated
May 19, 2006, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments/conditions of the
accompanying Rezone (AZ-06-013) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP-06-006) shall also be
considered conditions ofthe Preliminary Plat (PP-06-011).
1.1.2 The landscape plan prepared by Jensen Belts, revised on 5-25-06, is approved with the following
modifications/notes:
. Provide a 20-foot wide landscape buffer along Pine Avenue that is in a separate common lot.
The landscape buffer along Pine Avenue shall be designed in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7.
. Match the location and design of the clubhouse, pool, basketball court, tot-lots, and picnic
areas with the preliminary plat.
. Provide landscaping in compliance with UDC 11.3B-12, adjacent to the micro-paths.
. Provide a minimum 5-foot wide landscape buffer and trees along the southern boundary of
the development.
. All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All
stonnwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC
11-3B-11 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-
vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under
UDC 11-3B-ll. If the stonnwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved
open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-11, then the applicant shall relocate
the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area.
. 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 11-3B-
14.
The applicant shall submit revised landscape plans with the final plat application(s).
1.1.3 Provide private streets within the 4-plex portion of this development. Said private streets shall
comply with the standards listed for Private Streets in UDC 11-3F. Provide a cross parking/cross
access easement for all of the lots in Block 1 to use common Lot 6 (private streets) as access to
Pine Avenue. Prior to the signature of the fmal plat by the City Engineer, provide a copy of a
recorded cross-access/ingress-egress and parking maintenance agreement for Lot 6.
1.1.4 Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, all buildings shall be removed or
relocated, prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer.
1.1.5 Provide solid fencing along the south and east sides of the project. Provide chain-link fencing
along the Eight Mile Lateral and the Ten Mile Stub Drain. Perimeter, common open space, and
micro-path fencing shall be designed according to UDC 11-3A-7.
1.1.6 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Canterbury Commons
Subdivision Homeowners' Association.
Exhibit B - Page 1
CiTY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
1.1.7 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways (Ten Mile Stub Drain and
Eight Mile Lateral), intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being
subdivided shall be tiled per MCC 12-4-13, unless otherwise approved by the Irrigation
District(s). Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or
lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the
Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate
plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat signature.
1.1.8 Other than the two access points approved by ACHD, direct lot access to W. Pine Avenue is
prohibited. A note shall be placed on the fmal plat restricting access to W. Pine Avenue.
1.1.9 Underground vear-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this
development. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a
year-round source of water. The applicant shall be required to use any existing surface or well
water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point
connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is used, 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. An underground, pressurized irrigation system
should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with
UDC 11-3A-15 andMCC 9-1-28.
1.1.10 All internal sidewalks shall be constructed as submitted and in accordance with MCC 12-5-2.K.
1.1.11 No building or other structure shall be erected, moved, added to or structurally altered, nor shall
any building structure or land be established or change in use on this site without first obtaining a
Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit from the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Department (MCC 11-19-1). NOTE: Multiple 4-plex and or townhouse units may be contained in
a single CZC permit.
1.1.12 Prior to obtaining certificate(s) of occupancy, all development improvements, including perimeter
fencing, irrigation, and landscaping shall be installed. Prior to signature of the fmal plate s) by the
City Engineer, a letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all
fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, amenities, sewer, water, etc.
1.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP-06-0l1)
1.2.1 A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision ordinance and as
noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the final plat application(s).
1.2.2 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision
pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17.
1.2.3 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All
stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11-
3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated
surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as pennitted under UDC 11-3B.
Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed
such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as
proposed by staff. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved
open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-18, then the applicant shall relocate the
facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
the developer to comply with ACHD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at
the time of final construction.
1.2.4 Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
1.2.5 Staffs failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or tenus of the approved annexation and
conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
1.2.6 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11~6B-7.
1.3 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP-06-006)
1.3.1 Comply with all of the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3.27 regarding multi-family developments,
including Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities, Architectural Character,
Landscaping, and Maintenance.
1.3.2 All townhouse dwellings shall contain a 20' x 20' parking pad in front of a two-car garage.
Provide at least 392 covered parking spaces for the 4-plex units.
1.3.3 Provide at least 80 square feet of private, usable open space for each 4-plex unit, such as a patio
or deck.
1.3.4 All elevations of the 4-plex buildings shall conform to the elevations in Exhibit A of the Staff
Report. All roof and wall-mounted mechanical, electrical, communications, and service
equipment shall be screened from public streets and properties by the use of parapets, walls,
fences, enclosures, or by other suitable means.
1.3.5 Providing the following amenities: 3.89 acres of common open space, a 3,000 square-foot
community club house and fitness facility, a property management office, a maintenance storage
area, a development map/directory, a pool, two tot-lots, a half basketball court, walking trails
along the Ten Mile Stub Drain and Eight Mile Lateral and throughout the project, and picnic
tables on Lot 9, Block 2.
1.3.6 Construct an additional leg of the pathway along the Ten Mile Stub Drain north through Lot 26,
Block 1, that connects with the sidewalk on Lot 6, Block 1. Provide either a note on the face of
the fmal plat, or in a document such as CCR's , an access easement for all of the lots within this
development to use the pathway that runs along the Ten Mile Stub Drain.
1.3.7 Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department, provide a fulllO-feet between the
front of the 4-plex units and the back of the adjacent sidewalk. Provide a 5-foot wide side setback
(lO-feet between buildings) between buildings.
1.3.8 Provide open-vision (chain link) fence along Eight Mile Lateral and the Ten Mile Stub Drain.
1.3.9 All conunents and conditions of the accompanying Annexation (AZ-06-013) application and
Preliminary Plat (PP-06-011) application shall also be considered conditions of the Conditional
Use Permit (CUP-06-006).
2. Public Works Department
Exhibit B - Page 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains in W. Pine
Avenue. Those mains currently flow to the Moshers Farm lift station. There is currently a City
of Meridian proj ect underway to decommission that lift station and allow for these mains to
gravity flow. If this city project is not completed prior to final plat application of this project, the
applicant shall be responsible to submit written pennission from the owner ofthe Mosher Farms
lift station to discharge to it, as well as be responsible for any upgrades that may be required.
2.2 The proposed five foot setback from the sidewalk to the four-plexes may not be adequate to
install larger diameter water services that are often used in these types of buildings. If the larger
diameter water meters are used then the applicant shall increase the amount of setback to ensure
adequate room to install the water services.
2.3 Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall meet with Vic Steelman of Idaho Power
(388-6320) to discuss routing of the common trench through the multi-family portion of this
project.
2.4 The applicant shall install all sewer mains necessary to provide service; applicant shall coordinate
main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms 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 conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
2.5 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in W. Pine Avenue. The
applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate
main size and routing with Public Works, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains
that are required to provide service.
2.6 All sewer and water mains not in the right-of-way shall be centered in a 20-foot wide easement.
2.7 The applicant has indicated Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District will own and operate the
pressure irrigation system in this proposed development therefore a letter of plan approval shall
be submitted prior to scheduling of a pre-construction meeting.
2.8 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation 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
connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,
the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to
signature on the final plat by the City Engineer.
2.9 All existing structures shall be removed prior to signature on the fmal plat by the City Engineer.
2.10 Meridian Public Works specifications do not allow any large landscaping within a five foot radius
of water meters. The applicant shall make the necessary adjustments to achieve this separation
requirement and comply with all landscape requirements.
2.11 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.
2.12 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 final plat signature.
Exhibit B - Page 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
2.13 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
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
Inj ection Wells.
2.14 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed,
drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final
Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits.
2.15 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to
signature on the final plat.
2.16 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.
2.17 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 fmal plat
per Resolution 02.374.
2.18 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.
2.19 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
2.20 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
2.21 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
2.22 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.
2.23 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of
3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom
elevation ofthe crawl spaces of homes is at least I-foot above.
2.24 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by
the Public Works Department. Ail 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
commencing installations.
3. Fire Department
3.1 One and two family dwellings will require a fire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for
duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 500'
apart. International Fire Code Appendix C
Exhibit B - Page 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNiNG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE i, 2006
3.2 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and
water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing.
3.3 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 11" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec.
d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the
hydrant location.
e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers when spacing permits.
f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
g. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade.
h. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5.
1. Fire sprinklers required for four-plexes.
3.4 All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of28' inside and 48' outside radius.
3.5 For all Fire Lanes, paint the curb red and provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane".
3.6 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all
weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site.
3.7 The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards cross section requirements and
shall have a clear driving surface, available at all times, which is 20' wide. Streets with less than
a 29' street width shall have no parking. Streets with less than 33' shall have parking only on one
side. These measurements shall be based on the face of curb dimension.
3.8 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dwnpster enclosure.
3.9 The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level.
3.10 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices
shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code.
3.11 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes.
3.12 The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the
development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient
response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be
borne by the developer.
3.13 The Fire Department requires that any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided
with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. Revise the western terminus of
Lot 5, Block 1 to either be less than ISO-feet, or provide a turnaround.
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 ofthe facility or building, on-site fire hydrants
and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped
Exhibit B - Page 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section
903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183).
For Group R.3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m).
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 All R-2 occupancies with 3 or more units or with 3 floors shall be required to be fIre sprinklered.
3.16 Pool chemicals shall be stored in compliance with the International Fire Code.
3.17 Side yard fences shall not be allowed.
4. Police Department
4.1 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 Department. All parking spaces shall be
assigned to a specifIc dwelling unit or for guest use. The parkin\! space identification shall use a
different numbering: svstem than the dwelling: units.
4.2 The fayades of the multi-family buildings shall include windows that look onto the parking areas
and/or other public areas.
4.3 The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that uses walkwavs and landscaping to direct
visitors to the main entrance and away from private areas.
4.4 The pedestrian access to the proposed clubhouse/community entrance is not well-defined. The
applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that uses walkwav paving materials and
landscaping to alert motorists to the pedestrian traffic
4.5 Lot 1 of Block 1 creates residences that will be isolated from their surrounding neig:hbors. Such
areas have an increased crime potential. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall work
with the Police Chief and/or Planning Staff to revise the plat/site plan such that the
houses/dwelling: units in the \!eneral area are oriented toward one another and encourage
interaction between more neig:hbors. The plat/site plan shall be revised in accord with those
discussions.
5. Parks Department
5.1 Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape
Ordinance (MCC 12-13-13-6) will be followed.
5.2 Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in
the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance (MCC 12-13-13) will be followed.
6. Sanitary Service Company
6.1 Waste enclosure locations: There is a concern that the enclosures are not located to minimize
service vehicle backing-up requirements. Large waste vehicles have blind spots when backing up
is required. 98% of waste vehicle accidents occur when backing-up. Please contact Bill Gregory
at SSC (888-3999) to discuss this matter prior to the next public hearing.
Exhibit B - Page 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAfF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
7. Ada County Highway District
Site Svecific Conditions of Avvroval
7.1 Construct West Pine Avenue as one half of a 46.foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and
5-foot sidewalks within 70-feet of right-of-way (35-feet from centerline). Widen the bridge on
the northwest and northeast property lines to accommodate the proposed pavement widening
along West Pine Avenue. Locate the improvements to West Pine Street approximately 346-feet
east of the northwest property line to provide a consistent street section for the Capital
Improvements Plans widening of the intersection ofTen Mile Road and West Pine Street.
7.2 Construct internal roadways as 33-foot street sections.
7.3 Access on West Pine Avenue must align with northern access in the two proposed places: West
Jayton Drive, a proposed public street, located 497-feet west of the northeast property line and
North Lyndhurst Lane, a proposed private street, located 476-feet east ofthe northwest property
line. ACHD requires Fire Department approval for these street sections.
7.4 Construct the intersection of North Glen Oaks Avenue and West Jayton Drive to a minimum
intersection measurement of 75-degrees.
7.5 Construct West Jayton Lane in alignment with West Jayton Drive at the intersection of West Pine
Avenue.
7.6 Construct West Snyder Lane in alignment with West Snyder Street at the intersection of North
Glen Oaks Avenue.
7.7 Other than the access specifically approved with this application, direct lot access to West Pine
Avenue is prohibited and shall be noted on the final plat.
7.8 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
Standard Conditions of Avvroval
7.1 b Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
7.2b Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or
right-of-way.
7.3b All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be
borne by the developer.
7.4b 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.
7.5b Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy.
Exhibit B - Page 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
7.6b 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 387M6258 (with file numbers) for
details.
7.7b All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy
Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all
applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the
State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
7.8b 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.
7.9b Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements ofthe Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
7.10b Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance
with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road hnpact Fee Ordinance.
7.11b 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.
7.12b No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing
and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized
representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to
obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
7.13b 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 subj ect property unless
a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect
at the time the change in use is sought.
8. Central District Health Department
8.1 After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for
central sewage and central water.
8.2 The following plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health &
Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage and central water.
8.3 Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
8.4 It is recommended that storm water be pre-treated prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent
impact to ground water and surface water quality. The engineers and architects involved with the
design of this project should obtain current best management practices for storm water disposal
Exhibit B ~ Page 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
and design a storm water management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water
degradation.
Exhibit B - Page 10
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
C. Legal Description
~
UNliMITED BOUNDARIES, INC. DBA
Associated Land Surveyors
1103 W. Main St.
Middleton, Idaho 83644
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR
AMERICA WEST HOfV!ES
The following dttScri~ll a parcel of real property bGing a po!;t.ion of
the Southwest Qua!;ter of Section 11, Township 3 North, Range t w.st,
8.M., City of Meridian. Ad4 County. Idaho, and beinq more particula.rly
de/lcdbed all follow~J;
Connencing lit the Center Quarter Cornel; otsaid Section U, thence
along th", eaat-weat cent.t;iin. of said Section 11, "89010' 4S"W, 512.46
teet to the PODI'l' 0.. 8&QlNIfnIQ;
Thence, leaving said centerline, SOOoSO'18HW, 925.48 feet to the
northerly Right-ot-Way of the. Union Pacific R.aih:oad;
Thence, along said Right-of-Way, N88"21'40HW, 634.81 feet to the
centerline ot the Ten Mile Stub Drain;
Thence, along aaid centerline, N020S6'15ffE, .1.88 teet
Thence, conti.nuin<;l alanq said centerline, N20'.S'4S"W, ~B.a:2
faet;
Thence, continuinq along said centerline, N41'18'4S"W, 515.84
feet;
Thence, cont1nu1nq along ./laid centerline, NS9026' 4S"W, 645.83-
felit;
Thence, leavlnq SAid centerline, NOOoS2'lSffE. 74.93 feet to the
east-weilL centerline of sRid Se.ctlon 11;
Thence, alon9 said centerline, S89010'4S"E, 1516.47. feet to the
POlft 0.. aGDIMDfO.
The above described parcel of real ptOpeIty contains 21.17 acres, JIIOrfl
or les' and ill subject to the Ri9hts-of-Way of the Eiqht Mile Lateral
being SiKty-feet(60') 1n wlath, West Pine Avenue beinq Twenty-five teij,
(50' I 1n width and an euelll6nt for the 'I'lln Mile Stub Drl'lln beinl] Sixty-
feet 160') in width.
REIIP~an~ -.J
B~
I. '1:4 \\
ME:~~~ ~~~f\C
. '\,....~.,' .
!o'~()'\i L ."
~.... d';o
k 15 A~....~'f:;.,/
l~ ~b~~'"
797 _
rP ::
V1- '-? 1:: $
~ f.-"~OF \t)'i-.. /.
-'If) -,.fI: . . 'ttt
..~ :f'( .........~~.~:\. i'
" 'fR l "s.' ,..
'~I, 4- ~~,'t.':
't"uu'ptt..
Exhibit C - Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 1,2006
Exhibit C - Page 2
" ---__,__~II'Io..:a 101.81.0<;.005
------------.-1
I I
i i
I 1
i i~
I ~
I '~
I ~~ ~
I ~lli I~
I ~ I
I ~~ ,
:;?...:
...
I 1
, I
~I ~
~I ,~:i~~
, pia
~ ~~~ ~~
b' /.1">
r-I ~'-
~I ~fi.,
ft
I
" /" 0'2
:;: ~,
Ia.II ,;;;
:I, ' ~~
~I /, ~~
~. ' ... :~i
w, ~~
~, /v
" /l
J-/
"'J T'
j ~l;)
,~lj;!
~ ~
;.. ~. a"l
~. !~' ',L<
'J",
1- ~ l'~ (":\
~'- - I \:;~
.:-l~ .
'C'U ') 7,
.I ~t: J~ W, 0-%
~" Z~ ./'t.
<5'" Irit
~I ,,~ fI-,
~' 1,1
~E;
6A"
,,,
.;tjr,
iv.z
t..;
~~
l,;;
.',
,,~
",
~~ ~.~
"
U
.
e.
,..7-
1.'\ ~~
"fIll
'l
g~j
,. ~
;:1
ro.iiiOOf
'l. 0 -C;;
~ s~~;
B;~!a
~~~
i~e
qYO~L~l!VII__N:3..l 'N
,9t';l<n A\.GI.I:SooS --
~.
~.
J
--',
rr. r.
;.) ~
[Le.
~\.I~
-q;~'
6iL
-0
Hi;:
;l!
I -
"" =
U ~
""J
0-
'" l!5
n.
~
.F~ :g
!; ij
z I
fi ~
i 00 -
8
,
~ .. g
~........
;= ~ ~
~_.
o
<(
o
It,
I
z'
J
'1:1
z
~I
-C.
,~
;::
~
~.
"
:: !
vi vi
6'.'-;'"'"
~ ;
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006
D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Annexation Findings:
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation
and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation
and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings:
A. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
Staff finds that the proposed zoning is in general conformance with the comprehensive
plan (please see Section 8 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;
Staff fmds that there are several uses that are allowed and conditionally allowed within
the requested zoning districts of R-15. Specifically, multi-family uses are conditionally
allowed and townhouses are principally permitted. Staff fmds that the development of
this property should be required to comply with the established regulations and purpose
statements of the requested zone. See Section 10, Analysis above for information on the
regulations that need to be complied with.
e. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare;
Staff finds that the proposed aIlllexation and zoning, and subsequent development of this
property shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety and/or welfare. The
Commission and Council should rely on any oral or written testimony that may be
provided when determining this finding.
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,
Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact
upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site.
E. The annexation is in the best ofinterest ofthe City (UDC 11-5B-3.E).
Staff fmds that all essential services are available or will be provided by the developer to
the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. lfthe
Commission and determines the annexation is in the best interest of the City. staff
recommends that the applicant enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the Citv.
2. Preliminary Plat Findings:
In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,
the decision-making body shall make the following findings:
A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Exhibit D - Page I
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006
Staff fmds that the proposed zoning is in general conformance with the comprehensive
plan (please see Section 8 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific
comprehensive plan action items that apply to this development).
B. Public services are available or cau be made available and are adequate to
accommodate the proposed development;
Staff finds that services can be made available to accommodate the proposed
development.
C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the
City's capital improvement program;
Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their
cost, staff fmds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
D, There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development;
TCommission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e.,
police, fire, ACHD, etc.) to detennine this finding. (See finding Items 3 and 4 above
under Annexation Findings above, and the Agency Comments and Conditions in Exhibit
B for more detail.)
E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare; and
Staff is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the
development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Councilor Commission's
attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. The Commission and
Council should reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine
whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental
problems of which staff is unaware.
F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
Staff fmds that the Eight Mile Lateral and Ten Mile Stub Drain are features that should
be preserved. Staff is unaware of any other natural, scenic or historic features on this site.
Therefore, staff finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction,
loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance, if the
Ten Mile Drain and Eight Mile Lateral are preserved and protected. Staff recommends
that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented
to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural
or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware.
3. CUP Findings:
The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon
the following:
A. 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.
Exhibit D - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006
Staff finds that the site is large enough to accommodate all required parking, landscaping,
loading and other standard regulations required by the UDC. However, the applicant has
applied for a variance to the standard lot size and rear building setbacks. See Section 10
of the Staff Report for detailed analysis.
B. 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 zoning is in general conformance with the comprehensive
plan (please see Section 8 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific
comprehensive plan action items that apply to this development).
C. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with
other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential
character of the same area.
Staff finds that the general design (as amended), construction, operation and maintenance
of the townhouse and multi-family uses will be compatible with other uses in the general
neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the vicinity as to not
adversely change the character of the area. Staff finds that a higher density residential use
on this site should be compatible with the neighborhood (provided the applicant complies
with all UDC provisions.) The Commission and Council should reference any public
testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal will adversely
affect the other properties in the area.
D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,
will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
Staff finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in
the vicinity if the applicant complies with all Preliminary Plat, Development Agreement
and CUP conditions and constructs all improvements and operates the use in accordance
with the UDC standards.
E. 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.
Please refer to the comments and conditions prepared by the Meridian Fire Department,
Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Company and ACIID in Exhibit
B.
F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities
and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
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 finds that the applicant should be required to 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.
Staff finds that the proposed uses should not create excessive additional costs for
facilities or services and should not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
Exhibit D - Page 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006
G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare or odors.
Staff finds that the proposed development will not involve uses that will create nuisances
that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. Staff does not
believe that the amount of traffic or noise generated will be detrimental to the general
welfare of the public. The Commission and Council should reference any public
testimony that may be presented to detennine whether or not the proposal may cause
health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware.
H. 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.
Staff finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or
damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that the
Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to
detennine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or
scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware.
4. Private Street Findings:
A. The Design of the private street meets the requirements of this Article;
The applicant will have to certify that the Ada County Street Naming Committee has
accepted the private street names. The design ofthe streets meets the standards as set
forth in UDC 11-3FA; no gates are allowed. Roadway and storm drainage shall be
contained on site.
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 constructed 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.
The location of the private streets does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and/or
the regional transportation plan.
5. Variance Findings:
A. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed
in the district;
The UDC requires a minimum 1,900 square foot lot for all lots in the R-15 zone. The
UDC also requires all structures within the R-15 zone to have at least a 12 foot rear
setback. Therefore, if the City grants the variance it would allow a right or privilege not
usually allowed in the R-15 zone. Therefore, staff does not believe that that having an
irregularly shaped lot is enough reason to grant the requested variances. This site is large
enough that full compliance with the UDC standards can be met without causing an
undue hardship.
Exhibit D - Page 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006
B. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site;
Staff finds that this is an irregularly shaped lot. Further there are two water laterals that
are adjacent to or bisect the property. However, theses unusual characteristics of the site
are not directly tied to the requested variances and would not relieve any undue hardship.
By reducing the number of dwellings on this site, all dimensional standards of the R-15
can be complied with.
C. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Staff [mds that granting the subject variances should not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare. Further, staff recognizes that this is an unusually shaped lot.
However, if the City grants the variance it would allow a right or privilege not usually
allowed in the R-15 zone. Therefore, staff does not believe that that having an irregularly
shaped lot is enough reason to grant the requested variances. This site is large enough that
full compliance with the UDC standards can be met without causing an undue hardship.
Staff is recommendinl! denial of the Variance aoolication. Staff further recommends that
this development be required to comp1v with all dimensional standards of the UDC.
Exhibit D - Page 5
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
REC~IVED
MAY U 1 2006
c;;,jTY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICE
STATE OF IDAHO
COUNTY OF ADA
)
) ~
)
I, CartAr Little 910 E Franklin Rd I SUitA 102 (208) 887-8696
(name) (address) (phone)
Meridian Idaho , being first duly sworn upon
(city) (state) oath, depose and say:
I personally posted the subject property with the hearing notice sign 10 days prior to the public
hearing for the Annexatinn & Conditional LJse Pennit..canterblll:Y CommonA Subdivision
Prelimina-:y Plat.20 acreAr 200 cnndominiums and 72 single family dwelling lots with
incn~porAtAd open space.
Dated this 29th. day of
April , 2006
t!drUV'
(Signature)
KAREN SOVE
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF IDAHO
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written.
~/h_ ~m02-
No ublic for Idaho .. \ .. ']--, r I
Residing at rrt er I 0 ( 0 f'l I J--"c\a h 0
My Commission Expires: 6...- 5 -- 0c-3
,
.....
Master\affid-posting
1
'''<toJlj
"';, <~
\ , ";~
.~'fp
~
mdHAwLEYTRoXELL
ENNIS%~~LlP
GEOFFREY M WARDLE
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW IN IDAHO AND OHIO
EMAIL: GMW@HTEH.COM
DIRECT DIAL: (208) 388-4894
877 Main Street, Suite 1000
P,O. Box 1617
Boise, Idaho 83701-1617
(208) 344-6000 Fax (208) 342-3829
WINW .hteh .com
May 31, 2006
RECEIVED
JUN 0 1 2006
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
C, Caleb Hood
Meridian Planning Department
660 E.. Watertower, Suite 202
Meridian, 10 83642
Re: Canterbury Commons Subdivision Applications AZ-06-013, PP-06-011,
CUP-06006, PS-05-005, VAR-06-005
Dear Caleb:
American West Homes, LLC has asked me to respond to some of the issues
raised in the staff 'report for Canterbury Commons Subdivision. We appreciate staffs
. diligent . work in this matter. - Moreover, we appreciate staffs recommendation for
approval of our client's applications subject, of course, to the conditions of approval,
We now offer the following to clarify issues raised in the revised staff report:
1" The site plan and preliminary plat have been revised to address the
design elements necessitating variances. The applicant is no longer
seeking any variances, As such, any objection that staff had to such a
request should no longer be an issue" More importantly, all lots located in
Blocks 2 and 3 now range in area from 2,411 square feet to 3,472 square
feet, eliminating the need for any variance and meeting the requirements
of both the UDC and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan in terms of lot size
and density,
2. Treasure Valley Engineers revised the preliminary plat to reflect covered
parking spaces on Block 1 as required under UDC 11-3C-6A There are a
total of 399 spaces that will be covered in Block 1 as required by the UDC.
The covered parking is depicted by the shaded outline over each parking
space depicted on Block 1 on the preliminary plat as well as on the
revised landscape plan as the rust shaded area over the parking stalls in
the multi-family component. If this is not correctly depicted, a depiction
42974:0001 8728921
C" Caleb Hood
May 31,2006
Page 2
satisfactory to Meridian can be required as a condition of approval and
requirement for fi'nal plat submission"
3" American West Homes has confirmed with its engineer that all of the
townhouse lots have a 20' x 20' parking pad as required by UDC 11-3C-
6..A and that all parking pads are correctly depicted on the preliminary plat..
4. All of the multifamily unit lots have a set back of 10' for utilities with the
exception of Slock 1, Lots 14-26 that have a 7' utility set back. Treasure
Valley Engineers has met and discussed this issue with Idaho Power and
Public Works and believes that based upon those discussions the 7' set
back is feasible. The applicant agrees that coordination and approval of
the joint trench by the Public Works Department should be required for a
setback of less than 10' and will continue working with Public Works on
this issue"
5.. In compliance with UDC 11-4-3,,27D-2d, American West Homes revised
the preliminary plat to add additional amenities to the site" To comply with
the amenity provisions of the UDC, the applicant has included the
following amenities at the site: 3,000 square-foot community club house
and fitness facility (Quality of Life), property management office,
maintenance storage area, development .map/directory, pool (Recreation),.
totwlots' (Recreation), walking-trails (Recreation), half basketball court
(Recreation), picnic area (Quality of Life) and open space (Open Space).
The half basketball court located on Block 2, Lot 34, the Tot Lot located on
Slock 3, Lot 1, the path located entirely on Block 1, Lot 2, and the picnic
area located on Block 2, Lot 9 have all been included to address the
concerns raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission"
6" As for staff's request that as a condition of approval the applicant
construct an additional leg of the pathway along the Ten Mile Stub Drain
north through Lot 26, Block 1, that connects with the sidewalk on Lot 6,
Block 1, the applicant has no objection to that condition of approval, The
applicant also does not Object to including a pathway through Lot 9, Block
2, connecting the sidewalk on Jay ton Drive with the sidewalk on Pine
Avenue, The applicant proposes that those be required as conditions of
approval and requirements for final plat submission..
7" With respect to staffs request that Lot 29, Block 1, be designated as a
common lot and that a pathway be constructed through this lot, the
applicant is somewhat confused by this request as the Planning and
Zoning Commission seemed to object to the inclusion of a public path
429740001 R7?Rl1? 1
J
'"
C. Caleb Hood
May 31,2006
Page 3
across the individual lots, which precipitated the applicant revising the plan
to locate the path along the Ten Mile Stub Drain entirely within Lot 2,
Block 1.. The applicant does not necessarily object to placement of an
additional path on Lot 29, Block 1 J but needs direction as to what staff
envisions, . especially in light of the Police Department's concerns over
paths that lead to private areas.. The applicant proposes that these
additional paths be required as conditions of approval and requirements
for final plat submission.
8. The applicant will construct all dumpster locations in compliance with UDC
11-3A-12. The dumpster locations have been redesigned as depicted on
the revised preliminary plat to address the issues raised by staff. If staff
believes that the dumpster locations have not been correctly depicted, a
depiction satisfactory to Meridian can be required as a condition of
approval and requirement for final plat submission. Treasure Valley
Engineering has contacted SSC to follow up on this issue.
9.. The applicant is confused by the Police Department's concerns regarding
Lot 1, Block 1. Lot 1, Block 1 has been included as a common lot
developed in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7 to provided a landscaped
buffer to Pine Avenue.. Moreover, Lot 2, Block 2, has been revised to
expand the common area on the northwest side of the property.. Pursuant
to the prior direction from staff, structures have been removed from that
location to address the Police Department's prior concerns with isolated
improvements,
10" While the applicant recognizes the conCern that staff has raised with
respect to the configuration and orientation of Lots 30, 32-39 of Block 1, it
is important to note that the geographical constraints of the site caused by
its irregular shape and the desire of the applicant to provide a diversity of
housing types as well as diverse amenities, necessitates this design., The
private road system is largely constrained by the unique shape of the site"
The applicant has attempted to address staffs concerns through
enhanced landscaping along the eastern side of those Lots and through
the variation of setbacks for the various units.. In reality the concerns staff
has raised with respect to these lots is no different than the circumstances
in which the owners of the multifamily units on the north side of the
property will find themselves with their units backing up to Pine Avenue..
This design is further necessitated by the desire to transition from the
lower density single-family development on the east with the higher
density multifamily development on the west.
429740001 872692 1
,'"'-
C.. Caleb Hood
May 31, 2006
Page 4
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I will attend the
hearing together with my client and my client's consultants.
Sincerely,
OXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY LLP
fJ1J
GMW
Geoffrey M.. Wardle
42974 0001 .872892 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN..UP SHEET
DATE
June 1, 2006
ITEM #
7,8,9
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, CUP 06-006
PROJECT NAME
Canterbury Commons Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL
Ge u4rU/ I~ fYlI,A \ e ../
~.e... :<, c;; V
6$b6t .4Nour~~ v
RECEIVED
JUN 0 1 2006
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
AZ 06-013
April 20, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT America West Homes, LLC
ITEM NO.
6
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: Annexation and Zoning of
21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision - south side of
Pine Avenue east of Ten Mile Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMP A MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
contacted:0~ ~\~ 1
Emailed:
See Previous Item Packet
See attached Staff Report
oi
y~
t~~~
Date0t.JZ /QLR
Staff Initials:
Phone: 0 -;>q ~<{)o'701f!'v
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
STAFF REPORT
Planning & Zoning Commission
Hearing Date: April 20, 2006
Planning & Zoning Commission
C. Caleb Hood, Current Planning Manager
Meridian Planning Department
208-884w5533
."'~"
f''' '" ~
c{;G;;;"~n .,;
'.,
"
,,,
:1 IIJ,\,.,~~) .. "-'" f17
,~. ~1l .,' ,.... .~,-_.--
,,:,t'-~~~t,~ ,_ ;).~<J ".,/}.' . I r.{
.,,'t~J ,.,,,,..,.1it,~ .J. "::::: ',IL".,'
. "."""..--". '9, ~
\ ,:,''"t:{, 't""'"
m.," ~,
.."._M...... . ,"
TO:
FROM:
!: .'.." I
I' ! .
,",I"' ,
I ~ I. I
.,:;.,~:':t~,f~
;......,..l;
SUBJECT:
Canterbury Commons Subdivision
~'. .
AZ-06-013 - Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres to R-15 (Medium Hi~ii~;"
Density Residential)
PP-06-011 - Preliminary Plat of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72
townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 20.32 acres
CUP-06-006 - Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi-family development
consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units (4-p1exes) on 50 lots and 72
townhouse dwelling units
_._,-
':"'-
.......c:
PS-05-005 ~ Private Street adjacent to the proposed multi-family lots within
Canterbury Commons Subdivision
V AR-06-005 - Variance requests to allow lot sizes in the R-15 zone to go below
the 2,400 square~foot minimum (down to 1,900 square-feet) AND to allow a
reduction to the standard 12-foot rear setback of the R-15 zone (II-foot rear
setback requested)
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, America West Homes, LLC, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) to R-15
(Medium High.Density Residential), Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of 122 residential building lots and
10 common lots, and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval of a multi-family development consisting
of 50 4-plexes and 72 attached townhouse units on 21.77 acres of property currently zoned RUT in Ada
County. The applicant is also requesting approval to construct private streets adjacent to the 4wplex units
and variance approval to have substandard lots and reduced rear setbacks in the R-15 zone. The site is
located on the south side of Pine Avenue, approximately 400 feet east ofTen Mile Road. Currently, there
are three singlewfamily homes and associated outbuildings on this site. The site has not been previously
platted. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The subject applications were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Generally, the
Planning & Zoning Commission is the final decision making body on a Conditional Use Permit and the
Director is the final decision maker on a Private Street application. However, because the City Council is
the final decision making body on the Annexation, Variance and Preliminary Plat applications, all of the
subj ect applications are being combined into one staff report. The Commission should make
recommendations to the Council on all of the subject applications. After detailed review of the subiect
applications. staff finds that there are several aspects of the proposal that do not comply with the UDC.
Rather than recommending denial at this point. staff is recommending that the applicant redesign the
proiect. After redesign, staff will re.evaluate the proposal and make a recommendation to the
Commission. Below. staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions for redesign of
the proiect. Staff is recommending that the Commission continue the subiect applications to allow the
applicant time to redesign the proiect. incorporating the conditions noted in the Analysis. Section 10. and
Canterbury Commons SubdivisiDn AZ-06-013/PP-06-0 11/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGEl
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
Exhibit B. NOTE: This item was originallv scheduled to be heard on the March 16th Planning & Zoning
Commission hearing. The subiect applications were continued from the March 16th meeting so the
applicant could adequatelv post the site. Staff met with the applicant on March 22ud to discuss concerns
staff had about the proposed development. On April 1 ih. the print deadline for this report. staff was
provided with a reduced copy of a revised preliminary plat. Staff believes that the applicant's engineer
has addressed some of the concerns mentioned in the staff report. Unfortunately. staff does not have
enoul!h time to fully review the revised plat and provide detailed comments. Therefore. the following
staff report reflects comments and conditions regarding the oril!inal submittal. with items that appear to
have been addressed on the revised plat in bold and underlined in Section 10.
3. PROPOSED MOTIONS (to be considered after the public hearing)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the
City Council of File Numbers AZ-06-013, PP-06-0ll, CUP-06-006, PS-06-005 and V AR-06~005
as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of April 20, 2006, for the following reasons:
(you should state specific reasons for denial of the annexation and you must state specific reasons
for denial of the plat and conditional use pennit.)
Continuance
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Numbers AZ-
06-013, PP-06-0 11, CUP~06-006, PS-06-005 and V AR-06-005 to the hearing date of (insert
continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for
continuance.)
4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location: 2735 -2985 Pine Avenue; South side of Pine Avenue, east ofTen Mile
Road, in Section 11, Township 3 North, Range 1 West.
b. Owners:
J.S. Risi Revocable Family Trust
27 W. Anapamu #350
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
&
Risi Family Limited Partnership
27 W. Anapamu Street #350
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
c. Applicant:
American West Homes, LLC
404 S. 8th Street
Boise, ill 83702
d. Representative: Joseph S. Risi
e. Present Zoning: RUT-Ada County
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use. Community
g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting approval of Annexation
and Zoning (AZ) to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential), Preliminary Plat (PP) approval
of 122 residential building lots and 10 common lots, and Conditional Use Pennit (CUP)
approval of a multi-family development consisting of 50 4-plexes and 72 attached townhouse
units on 21.77 acres of property currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The applicant is also
requesting approval to construct private streets adjacent to the 4-plex units and variance
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-0l 1/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20,2006
approval to have substandard lots and reduced rear setbacks in the R-15 zone. The applicant is
requesting an II-foot rear setback for a block of the townhouse lots. Forty-two of the seventy-
two proposed townhouse lots are below the 2,400 square-foot minimum lot size; thirty of the
townhouse lots meet or exceed the minimum lot size. The average lot size in the proposed
development is 4,781 square feet. The gross density of Canterbury Commons is 12.5 dwelling
units per acre. Approximately 12.6% of the area being developed is being set aside for open
space. The applicant is proposing to construct a clubhouse, pool, tot-lot, and pathway system
on Lot 42, Block 1. The applicant is also proposing some open space on the townhouse
common lots, Lot 1, Block 3 and Lot 14, Block 2. Staff is not supportive of the applicant's
proposal.
1. Date of preliminary plat (attached in Exhibit A): 12/14/05
2. Date oflandscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): 10/19/05
3. Date of site plan (attached in Exhibit A): 10110/05
h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The City of Meridian's Master Plan for this site is
mapped at a density up to 15 dwelling units per acre. The project that we are proposing has a
D.U. of 13 units to the acre with a total of272 homes and condominiums. The condominiums
(4-plexes) will have stucco exteriors. There will be two different condominium building types
and two different elevations for each type of condominium building equaling a total of four
unique condominium elevations. The town houses will have siding exteriors. Various different
colors, windows and bays will be incorporated into the town home designs to maximize
variety in elevation. The covenants will be governed through formation of three separate
property/homeowner associations. There will be two separate associations to govern the town
houses and the condominiums. This project is designed to supply critical affordable housing to
the many employees working for local area businesses (see Applicant's Submittal Letter for
more. )
5. 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, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
b. The subject application will in fact constitute a preliminary plat as detennined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions ofthe Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a
public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
c. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11
Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
d. The subject application will in fact constitute a private street as detennined by City
Ordinance. By reason ofthe provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11,
Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
e. The subject application will in fact constitute a variance as determined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11,
Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
f. Newspaper notifications published on: February 27,2006 and March 13,2006
g. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 22,2006
h. Applicant posted notice on site by: April 1 0, 2006
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-011/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005/V AR-06-005
PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
6. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): There are three single-family residences along Pine Avenue. The
existing homes and the outbuilding will be removed.
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Across Pine Avenue are the recently
approved Lyndhurst Grove Subdivision and Sommersby Subdivision. These developments
included future multi-family and single-family dwellings. To the west is higher density
residential in The Courtyards at Ten Mile. To the east is a single-family R-8 subdivision,
Morning Glory. To the south are the railroad tracks and industrially zoned property.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
1. North: Single-family homes, zoned R-4, Kelsie Park Subdivision; approved
Lyndhurst Grove Subdivision, zoned R-8; approved Sommersby
Subdivision, zoned R-15 and L-O
2. West: Multi-family dwellings, zoned R-15, The Courtyards; Church, zoned L-O
3. South: Agricultural, zoned I-L
4. East: Single-family homes, zoned R-8, Morning Glory Subdivision No.2
d. History of Previous Actions: None.
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities
1. Public Works
Location of sewer: There are existing mains in W. Pine Avenue that currently
flow to the private Moshers Farm Lift Station.
Location of water: There are existing water mains in W. Pine Avenue.
Issues or concerns: 1.) Depending on the size of water services used, a five-
foot setback from the sidewalk to the four-plexes does not
allow for enough room.
2.) Staff is concerned about the location of the joint
utility trench.
2. Floodplain: N/ A
3. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Ten Mile Drain traverses along the south side of this
property and the Eight Mile Lateral bisects this property in the northeast comer. These
waterways should be protected. All other open ditches or laterals that cross the subj ect
site should be tiled in accordance with the UDC.
4. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards associated with this property.
5. Proposed and Existing Zoning: These properties are currently zoned RUT in
Ada County. The applicant is proposing to zone all ofthe subject property to R-15
(Medium High-Density Residential).
6. Size of Property: 21.77 acres
f. Subdivision Plat Information:
1. Residential Lots: 122 (50 multi-family lots and 72 townhouse lots)
2. Non-residential Lots: 0
3. Total Building Lots: 122
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-011/CUP-OS-006/PS-06-00S/V AR-06-00S
PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARlNG DATE OF APRlL 20, 2006
4. Common Lots: 6 (5 common open space lots, and 1 private street lot)
5. Other Lots: 0
6. Total Lots: 128
7. Gross Density: 12.5 units per acre (net 19.6 d.u./acre)
g. Landscaping
1. Width of street buffer(s): A 20~foot wide street buffer is required along Pine
Avenue, a collector street (UDC 11-2A-6). UDC 11-3B-7C2a requires all residential
subdivision street buffers to be located on a common lot maintained by a home-
owners association. Street buffers are not required adjacent to the other, internal
streets.
2. Width ofbuffer(s) between land uses: N/A
3. Percentage of site as open space: The applicant states that 12.6% (2.57 acres) of
the site is being set aside for common open space. However staff only calculates that
8.8% (1.8 acres) (excluding street buffers) of the subject 20.32 acres is being set aside
for open space.
4. Other landscaping standards: Landscaping adjacent to micro~paths and pathways
should comply with UDC 11-3B-12.
h. Amenities: For multi~family developments with more than 100 units, the decision making
body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the development (UDC
11-4-3.27D-2d). As a reference for multi-family developments with 75 units or more, 4
amenities are required, with at least one from each category (Quality of Life, Open Space, and
Recreation). The applicant is providing amenities as follows: 3,000 square-foot community
club house and fitness facility (Quality of Life), property management office, maintenance
storage area, development map/directory, pool (Recreation), tot-lot (Recreation), walking trails
(Recreation), and open space (Open Space).
1. Off-Street Parking: UDC 11-3C-6.A requires townhouse dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms
to have a two-car garage and a 20' x 20' parking pad in front of each garage. UDC 11-3C-6A
requires multi-family dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms to have a two-car covered carport or
garage for each unit. The submitted site layout does not propose any covered parking spaces
for the multi-family (4-plex) dwellings and does not contain the necessary 20' x 20' parking
pad in front of the townhouse garages. The applicant should be required to comply with the
off-street parking requirements of the UDC.
J. Conditional Use Information:
1. Non-residential square footage: 3,000 square feet (Community Clubhouse) &
maintenance storage
2. Proposed building height: Varies; R-15 allows 40 feet
3. Percentage of site devoted to building coverage: 24%
4. Percentage of site devoted to landscaping: 31 %
5. Percentage of site devoted to paving: 45%
6. Percentage of site devoted to other uses: 0%
7. Number of Residential units: 272
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-01I/CUP-05-006fPS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGE 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
k. Proposed and Required Residential Standards - The applicant is requesting variances to some
of the R-15 bulk standards as found in UDC ll-2A. Specifically, the applicant is requesting a
variance to the minimum 2,400 square-foot lot size. The applicant is proposing to plat 42 of
the 72 townhouse lots below the standard lot size (down to 1,900 square.feet). The applicant is
also requesting approval for an II-foot rear setback variance for the townhouses in Block 3
(12 feet is the standard rear setback). Staff does not believe that there is any hardship that
exists where granting the requested variances is warranted (please see Findings in Exhibit D).
Further, the proposed development only depicts a 5~foot front setback for some of the 4-plex
units. City Staff is concerned about providing joint utility services and easements to the 4-plex
units with such a shallow setback (see Public Works Department comments). Staff
recommends that the aoolicant clarify. at the oublic hearing, how ioint trench and city water
meters can be installed and accessed with only a 5-foot setback to the 4-olex units.
R-15 Standards
Setbacks (measured to sidewalk)Proposed Required
Front Living Area (townhouse) 10 10
Front Living Area to street (4-plex) 5 0
Front Accessed Garage (townhouse)20 20
Front Accessed Garage (4-plex) NA 20
Street side (townhouse and 4-plex) 10 10
Side (townhouse) 0 0
Side (4-plex) 5 4
Rear (townhouse and 4-plex) 11 12
Frontage 0 0
Lot Size 1,904 2,400
Maximum building height 27 40
1. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The
applicant is proposing one public street connection to Pine Avenue and one private street
connection to Pine Avenue. The public street system provides access for the townhouse units
and the private street system provides access for the 4-plex units. Both the private and public
street connections to Pine Avenue align with existing public streets on the north side of Pine
Avenue. The public and private streets are interconnected and provide a looping circulation
system throughout the development. Please see Exhibit B for ACHD' s comments and
conditions regarding this development.
7. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING On February 24,2006, 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 B.
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject site is designated 'Mixed
Use - Community' on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. According to the
Comprehensive Plan, the purpose of this designation is to identify key areas which are either infill
in nature or situated in highly visible or transitioning areas of the city where innovative and
flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The following standards will serve as general
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-011/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005/V AR-06-00S
PAGE 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20,2006
guidelines for development in these Mixed Use areas:
· All development within this designation will occur only under the Conditional Use Permit
process, except the Mixed Use- Regional;
· Where feasible, multi-family residential uses will be encouraged, especially for projects with
the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to
State Highways 20-26 , 55 or 69;
· Where mixed use developments are phased, a conceptual. site plan for the entire mixed use
area is encouraged with the development application or, depending on the scope of the
development, prior to a formal development application being submitted;
· Where the project is developed adjacent to low or medium density residential uses, a
transitional use is encouraged.
Mixed Use - Community. The following standards will apply to this category:
· Up to 25 acres of non-residential uses permitted within the Mixed Use - Community
areas as shown on the Future Land Use Map. In Mixed Use - Community areas that are
not Neighborhood Centers, over 25 acres of non-residential uses shall be permitted
(through the CUP process).
. Up to 200,000 sq. ft. of non-residential building area
· Residential density of 3 to 15 units/acre
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 thefollowing manner:
· The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire
District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian
City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the
Meridian Rural Fire Department.
· The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's
Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police
Department (MPD).
· The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained
by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change.
· The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This
service will not change.
· The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This
service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no
revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation.
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.
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-0 11/GUP-05-006/PS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGE 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
. Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2: Restrict curb cuts and access points on
collectors and arterial streets.
Pine Avenue is classified as a collector roadway in this area. The proposed access points to
Pine Avenue should comply with ACHD 's standards. However, as of the print deadline, staff
has not received comments from ACHD on this vro;ect.
. Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1: Protect existing residential properties from
incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.
This is an infill parcel with the properties adjacent to the subject site varying in density and
housing type. North of the site are existing and proposed single1"amily and multi1"amily
dwellings. East of the site is a single-family subdivision. West of the site is a mixed-use
development with multi-family dwellings (attached duplexes). The subject project is denser
than any of the adjacent projects, but does provide a transition from the less dense Morning
Glory Subdivision, with the townhouses to the proposed multi-family. Although staff believes
that attached single-family and detached single-family are compatible land uses, staff
believes that the lot sizes proposed along the eastern boundary should be increased to
provide a better transition in lot size.
. Chapter V, Goal 1, Objective A, Action 11: Improve and protect creeks (Five Mile, Eight
Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough, and Jackson and Evans drainages) throughout
commercial, industrial and residential areas.
The Eight Mile Lateral and the Ten Mile Drain course through or adjacent to this site. Stafl
believes that the Eight Mile and the Ten Mile should be protected and enhanced by leaving
them open and constructing a pathway adjacent to the Eight Mile (see Exhibit B).
. Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 5: Require appropriate landscape and buffers
along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.).
The applicant is proposing to construct a 20-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Pine
Avenue. By ordinance, the Pine Avenue landscape bufler is required in a common lot.
. Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 3: Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and
Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach" from the National Center for Bicycling and
Walking in all land-use decisions.
This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walk--way facilities in new
construction and reconstruction projects, in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient.
Staff believes that the subject applications generally comply with the policies listed in the
literature noted above.
. Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6: Require street connections between subdivisions
at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow.
The adjacent projects have not provided opportunities for the subject site to provide
vehicular connectivity (no stub street!>). The applicant is proposing a loop street system
within this development. Two new connections to Pine Avenue are proposed.
. Chapter VI, Goal il, Objective A, Action 5: Require pedestrian access connectors in all new
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06~O 11/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005/V AR-06-005
PAGE 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20,2006
development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a
community pathway system.
The adjacent projects have not provided opportunities for pedestrian connections with this
property. The applicant is proposing to construct 5-foot wide attached sidewalks adjacent to
the internal streets (private and public). The applicant is also proposing to constrnct an
internal pathway system. To enhance the community pathway system, staff recommends that a
pathway be provided through Lot 9, Block 2, connecting the sidewalk on Jay ton Drive with
the sidewalk on Pine Avenue. Stafffurther recommends that Lot 29, Block 1, be designated as
a common lot and a pathway be constrncted through this lot.
· Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 6: Require pedestrian access in all new
development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity.
See analysis above.
. Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 9: Require new residential development to provide
permanent perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown
debris from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties.
Prior to construction of any buildings, fencing should be constrncted around the perimeter of
this site.
Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any verbal or written testimony that
may be provided at the public hearing when determining ~f the applicant's zoning and
development request is appropriatefor this property.
9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
a. Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts: UDC Table 11-2A-2 lists multi-family
development uses as conditional uses in the R -15 zoning district; townhouses are principally
permitted in the R-15 zone.
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 corresponding housing types that can be
accommodated within the density range. Residential land uses are also allowed within the O-T,
TN-C, and TN-R districts as set forth in Chapter 3 Article D.
c. 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.
Site desi!nl (UDC 11-4-3.27B):
A minimum of 80 square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This
requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping,
entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement.
For the purposes of this Section, vehicular circulation areas, parking areas, and private useable
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-0 1 3/PP-06-0 1 I /CUP-05-006/PS-06-005/V AR-06-005
PAGE 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
open space shall not be considered common open space.
The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 3 of this Title.
Developments with 20 units or more shall provide the following: a property management office, a
maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location, a directory and map of the development at
an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development.
Common open space desilffi requirements (UDC 11-4-3.27C):
A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a) 150 square feet
for each unit containing 500 or less square feet of living area; b) 250 square feet for each unit
containing more than 500 square feet and up to 1,200 square feet ofliving area; and c) 350 square
feet for each unit containing more than 1,200 square feet of living area.
Common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated
from the street by a constructed barrier at least 4 feet in height.
Site development amenities (UDC 11-4w3.27D):
All multifamily developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation
amenities to met the particular needs of the residents as follows: a) Quality of Life (clubhouse,
fitness facility, enclosed bike storage, and public are such as a statue); b) Open Space (open
grassy area of at least 50 by 100 feet in size, community garden, ponds or water features, and
plazas); and c) Recreation (pool, walking trails, children's play structures, and sports courts).
The number of amenities shall depend on the size of the multifamily development as follows: For
multifamily developments with 75 units or more, 4 amenities shall be provided, with at least I
from each category. For multifamily developments with more than 100 units, the decision.making
body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development.
Architectural Character (ODC 11-4-3.27.E):
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 feet; recessed entrances;
and changes in material types. Changes in material types shall have a minimum dimension of two
feet and minimum area of 25 square feet.
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.
Entrances shall be adequately covered, recessed, or treated with a permanent architectural feature
in such a way that weather protection is provided.
Roof forms 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.
Exterior building materials and finishes shall convey an impression of permanence and durability.
Materials such as masonry, stone, stucco, wood, terra cotta, and tile are encouraged.
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-0 13/PP-06-0 lIlCUP-05-006/PS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGE 10
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
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.
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.
Landscaping (UDC IIA~3.27.F):
Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with Chapter 3 of this
Title.
All street-facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation
landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: The landscaped area shall be at least
three feet wide; for every three lineal feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum
mature height of twenty-four inches shall be planted; and groundcover plants shall be planted in the
remainder of the landscaped area.
UDC 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.
Outdoor storage/refuse areas (UDC 11- 3A-I2):
Outdoor utility meters, HV AC equipment, trash dumpsters, trash compaction and other service
functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the
visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent
properties and public streets.
10. ANALYSIS
Analysis Leading to Staff Recommendation
As submitted, the subject applications do not appear to substantially comply with the Unified
Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. However, there are several areas of clarification
and some proposed modifications to the site plan, the preliminary plat, and the landscape plan
that staff would like to see prior to making a fmaI recommendation to the Commission. In each
section below, staff has listed the items that staff would like to see amended and additional
information provided for by the applicant.
1. AZ Application: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan
staff believes that this is a good location for a higher density development and the
proposed R-15 zoning. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of the required facts
and [mdings for a Zoning Amendment.
The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped on
12/1/2005 by Walter L. Neitz, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing
corporate boundary of the City of Meridian.
Canterbuty Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013!PP-06-011lCUP-05-006!PS-06-005/V AR-06-005
PAGE 11
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
UDC 11-5B-3D2 and Idaho Code ~ 65-6711A provides the City the authority to
require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City
that may require some written commitment for all future uses. Staff believes that a DA
is necessary to ensure that this property is developed in a fashion that is consistent
with the comprehensive plan designations and does not negatively impact nearby
properties.
Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be
entered into between the City of Meridian, property owner(s) (at the time of
annexation ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the
Citv Attorney. Bill Nary. at 888-4433 to initiate this process. Staff recommends that
the Commission and Council direct the City's Legal Department to draft a
development agreement for Canterbury Commons Subdivision as follows:
1. That all future development shall not involve uses, activities, processes,
materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to
any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive
production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
2. That all future development of the subject property shall be consistent with
the applicant's approved preliminary plat and site plan unless otherwise
modified by other provisions of the DA, or in the future by the City Council.
3. That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in
accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of
development.
4. That the future uses and lots on this site shall conform to the District
Regulations contained in the Unified Development Code (ODe), in effect at
the time of development.
5. That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer
and water service extension.
6. That any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project
will have to be removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance
Section 5-7-517, when services are available from the City of Meridian.
Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
7. That prior to issuance of any building permit, the subj ect property be
subdivided (a recorded final plat) in accordance with the City of Meridian
Unified Development Code.
8. That all landscape street buffers and land use buffers will be constructed in
accordance with the UDC provisions in effect at the time of development.
2. PP/CUPIPS Applications:
LandscapinQ:: The landscape plan prepared by Jensen Belts, on 10-19-05, labeled
Sheet L1.0 should substantially comply with the UDC if the following
modifications/notes are made:
· Provide a 20-foot wide landscape buffer along Pine Avenue that is in a
separate common lot. The landscape buffer along Pine Avenue shall be
designed in accordance with UDC ll-3B-7.
· Match the location and design of the clubhouse, pool and tot-lot areas with the
preliminary plat.
· Provide landscaping in compliance with UDC 11-3B-12, adjacent to the
micro-paths.
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-011/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGE 12
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
· All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such
nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved
open space are subject to UDC 11-3B-11 and shall be fully vegetated with
grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not
be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B-ll. If the
stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open
space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-11, then the applicant shall
relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable
area.
· 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 11-3B-14.
Submit 10 full size copies and one 8.5" x 11" copy of the revised landscape plan,
reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, to the Planning Department at least
10 days prior to the next public hearing.
Multi-family Standards: The UDC has several specific standards that apply to multi-
family developments (See UDC Section 9 above for a complete list.) These standards
apply to Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities, Architectural Character,
Landscaping, and Maintenance. Below are some of the standards that the applicant
should be required to comply with, that staff does not believe have been addressed:
Private Useable Open Space: UDC ll-4-3.27B requires a minimum of 80 square feet
of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be
satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway
and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. The applicant should
clarify how the private useable open space requirement will be met.
Parking: UDC ll-3C-6.A requires townhouse dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms to
have a two-car garage and a 20' x 20' parking pad in front of each garage. UDC 11-
3C-6A requires multi-family dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms to have a two-car
covered carport or garage for each unit. The submitted site lavout does not propose
any covered parking spaces for the multi-familv (4-plex) dwellings and does not
contain the necessary 20' x 20' parking pad in front of the townhouse garages. The
applicant should be required to comply with the off-street parking requirements of the
UDC.
Amenities: The applicant is required to provide amenities for the multifamily
development. For multi-family developments with more than 100 units, the decision
making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the
development (UDC ll-4-3.27D-2d). As a reference, the UDC requires multi-family
developments containing 75 units or more to provide 4 amenities, with at least one
from each category (Quality of Life, Open Space, and Recreation). The applicant is
providing amenities as follows: 3,000 square-foot community club house and fitness
facility (Quality of Life), property management office, maintenance storage area,
development map/directory, pool (Recreation), tot-lot (Recreation), walking trails
(Recreation), and open space (Open Space). Staff recommends that the Commission
determine ifthe proposed amenities are sufficient for a development of this size.
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-01 3/PP-06-01 lICUP-05-006/PS-06-005/V AR-06-005
PAGE 13
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20,2006
Elevations: The applicant has submitted building elevations for the proposed 4~plex
structures. UDC 11-4.3 requires multifamily structures to comply with the design
standards listed in this section. Staff believes that the elevations submitted with the
CUP significantly meet the requirements of the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-
19. Staff will ensure that when CZC applications are submitted for construction of the
4-plex buildings in the future, that the elevations comply with the UDC requirements.
Internal Pedestrian Paths: To allow for the pedestrian pathways in this development to
flow better, staff is recommending that additional legs to the system be added through
Lot 29, Block 1, Lot 9, Block 2, and Lot 1, Block 3. The micro-paths/pathways shall
be constructed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-8 (construction) and UDC 11-3B
(landscaping). These pathways have been depicted on the revised plat. Further.
the applicant is showin!! a pathway alan!! the Ten Mile Stub Drain. It appears
that the pathwav alan!! the Ten Mile Stub Drain is within the adiacent buildable
lots. and not on a common lot.
Eight Mile Lateral and Ten Mile Drain: The Eight Mile Lateral and the Ten Mile
Drain course through or are adjacent to this site. Staff believes that the Eight Mile and
the Ten Mile should be protected and enhanced by leaving them open and constructing
a pathway adjacent to the Eight Mile that connects with the sidewalk on Pine Avenue.
Existing Residences/Buildim!s: The site currently contains multiple buildings.
Because the existing structures span across proposed lot lines, all buildings shall be
removed or relocated, prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer.
Multi-familv Setbacks: The UDC does not have a specific setback between internal
multi-family units. However, there may be a problem with not providing a fulllO-foot
front setback to the 4-plex units; utilities may need a wider easement. Depending on
the size of water services used, a five-foot setback from the sidewalk to the four-
plexes (which is being proposed for several of the units) does not allow for enough
room for water meters and joint utility service lines. Staff is concerned about the
location of the ioint utilitv trench. and requests that the applicant clarify how utilities
can be provided with the requested setbacks. Coordination and approval by joint
trench and the Public Works Department should be required for 5-foot setbacks to the
4-plex units.
Refuse Areas: The Sanitary Services Company (SSC) has commented that the
proposed dumpster locations may not be adequately designed. Further, none of the
submitted plans call-out how or if the refuse areas will be screened from the street.
UDC 11-3A-12 requires the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully
contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. Staff
recommends that the applicant. at the public hearing and/or on revised plans. clarify
how the dumpsters for this development will be constructed and located in accordance
with the UDC and the requirements of SSC. The revised preliminary plat has new
dum oster locations and desi!!n oroPosed.
Pine Avenue Street Buffer: A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along Pine
Avenue, a collector street (UDC 11-2A~6). UDC 11-3B-7C2a requires all residential
subdivision street buffers to be located on a common lot maintained by a home-
owners association. Street buffers are not required adjacent to the other, internal
streets. The submitted plans should be revised bv placing the 20-foot wide street
Canterbury CommDns Subdivision AZ-06-0 13/PP-06-0 11/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005/V AR-06-005
PAGE 14
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
buffer for Pine Avenue within a common lot. The revised preliminary plat depicts
the required street buffer alone: Pine Avenue within a common lot.
Open Space: Open space is defmed as an area substantially open to the sky that may
be on the same property with a structure. The areas may include, along with the
natural environment features, parks, playgrounds, trees, water areas, swimming pools,
tennis courts, community centers or other recreational facilities. The term shall not
include streets, parking areas, or structures of habitation (DDC l1-lA). UDC 11-4-
3.27C requires a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as
follows: a) 150 square feet for each unit containing 500 or less square feet ofliving
area; b) 250 square feet for each unit containing more than 500 square feet and up to
1,200 square feet ofliving area; and c) 350 square feet for each unit containing more
than 1,200 square feet of living area. Common open space areas shall not be adjacent
to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a constructed barrier
at least 4 feet in height.
The applicant states that 12.6% (2.57 acres) of the site is being set aside for common
open space. However staff only sees that 8.8% (1.8 acres) (excluding street buffers) of
the subject 20.32 acres is being set aside for common open space. Vehicular
circulation areas, parking areas, and private useable open space shall not be considered
common open space. The applicant should clarify how the common open space
calculation was obtained. how outdoor common open space is being provided for that
is compliant with UDC 11-4.3.27. and what the common useable open space is for the
development. exclusive of: street buffers. parkinlZ areas and open space on lots with
dwelling units (private useable ooen space). Maintenance of all common areas shall be
the responsibility of the Canterbury Commons Home Owners' Association(s). The
revised preliminarv plat does show revised calculations for open space. Open
space has been added to the northwest corner or the site. as well as the southeast
corner of the site. Some smaller open space areas have also been added
internally. The applicant should explain where and how the open space
requirements mentioned above are beine met.
FencinlZ: The applicant has proposed a 6-foot tall solid fence along the west, south and
east boundaries of the development. A detailed fencing plan should be submitted upon
application of the final plat. If permanent fencing is not provided before issuance of a
building permit, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed
around the perimeter. Perimeter, common open space, and micro-path fencing shall be
designed according to ODC 11- 3A-7.
Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems
be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to use
any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is
not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required.
If a single-point connection is used, 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. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all
landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11 ~3A-
15 and MCC 9-1-28.
Preliminary Plat. Site Plan. Landscape Plan: The open space, club house, pool, tot lot,
and buildable lots are not consistent throughout the plans. Although additional
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-011/CUP-05-006/PS-06-00S/V AR-06-00S
PAGElS
ClTY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
changes are recommended, staff generally prefers the common area layout for Lot 42,
Block I, as shown on the site and landscape plan, not the preliminary plat. Revised
plans should be submitted that reflect a consistent site layout.
Private Streets: The applicant is proposing to use private streets to provide access to
Pine Avenue. 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. Staff is generally
supportive of private streets for multi-family developments. This project is no
exception. However, staff has some concerns with the layout of the private streets, as
they do not provide an efficient pedestrian and vehicular street system. There are
several of the proposed multi-family units that are double-fronted, or sandwiched,
between a public street and a private street. This is not an efficient site layout. The
applicant shall design and construct the private streets in compliance with the
standards listed for Private Streets in ODC 11-3F and as mentioned in the Staff
Report. Please see Exhibit D below for the required [mdings for private streets.
Parkin!! area on west end of Lot 5, Block 1: The parking area on the northwest side of
the development exceeds the maximum 150-feet length allowed by the Fire
Department. This area must be shortened or a turnaround must be provided. Further,
staff has concerns with how far away the parking areas are from Lot 1, Block 1. See
Site LayoutlDensity below. The leneth of Lot 5. Block 1. (revised as Lot 6. Block 1)
has been shortened on the revised preliminary plat.
Site LayoutlDensitv: The revised preliminary plat shows 269 dwelline: units where
272 units were orie:inallv proposed. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan Policies
and Goals Section, this area is designated mixed use. This designation anticipates
higher densities in this area. However, staff believes that there are some design
problems with the way the development is currently laid out. Lot 1, Block 1, which is
located in the northwest comer of the development has no parking in front of the
building and is fairly isolated from the rest of the development. This 4-plex unit has
been relocated to the east side of the plat. Staff is supportive of not have an
isolated 4-plex in the northwest side of this development. but is not supportive of
the revised location of the 4-plex unit. The proposed Lot 15. Block 2. prOPoses a
4-plex unit in the middle of the townhouses. in an area that was orie:inally
proposed for open space. This 4-plex is not bein!! proposed with any parkin!! and
is !!enerally out of place, Lot 29, Block 1, sticks out into the private street drive lanes
and prohibits pedestrians and vehicles from efficiently maneuvering in the
development. Staff recommends that both of these lots become common lots, and that
a pedestrian connection be made through Lot 29 (providing a more direct route to the
community center area and the pathway between the townhouse lots in block 3). ~
revised preliminary plat does depict a new common area and pedestrian
connection in this area: the unit location and street drive lanes have not been
amended.
Staff is also concerned about the street system proposed. There is a full block of 4-
plex units that have frontage on both the public street and the private street. This
design is not efficient for services and is not desirable for future tenants and they will
be sandwiched between two streets. Further, there is no variation in buildings or
setbacks in this area; all of the units have the same street setbacks. The revised
preliminary plat does show a variation of buildine: setbacks. but does not address
the double fronta!!e lot issue.
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-011/CUP-05-006/PS-06-005/V AR-06-005
PAGE 16
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
Staff is also unsupportive of the proposed lot size and setback variances (please see
V AR section below). Staff recommends that the site plan/preliminary plat be re-
designed to comply with all provisions of the UDC and incorporate the site changes
noted above.
3. V AR Application:
The applicant is requesting variances to some of the R ~ 15 bulk standards as found in
UDC .11-2A. Specifically, the applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum 2,400
square-foot lot size. The applicant is proposing to plat 42 of the 72 townhouse lots
below the standard lot size (down to 1,900 square-feet). The applicant is also
requesting approval for an II-foot rear setback variance for the townhouses in Block 3
(12 feet is the standard rear setback). The table on the revised preliminarv plat does
state that the units in Blocks 2 and 3 will have a 12-foot rear setback. which is the
standard for the zone. To grant a variance, the Council needs to make the following
findings:
1. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise
allowed in the district;
2. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site;
3. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Staff finds that granting the subject variances should not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare. Further, staff recognizes that this is an unusually shaped lot.
However, ifthe City grants the variance it would allow a right or privilege not usually
allowed in the R-15 zone. Therefore, staff does not believe that that having an
irregularly shaped lot is enough reason to grant the requested variances. This site is
large enough that full compliance with the UDC standards can be met without causing
an undue hardship. Staff is recommendinll denial of the Variance application. Staff
further recommends that this development be reauired to comply with all dimensional
standards ofthe UDC.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the facts provided in this report, staff recommends
continuance of File Numbers AZ-06-013, PP-06-011, CUP-06-006, PS-06-005 and V AR-06-005.
11. EXHffiITS
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 12-14-05)
2. Landscape Plan (dated: 10-19-05)
3. Site Plan (dated: 10-10-05)
4. Elevations
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department (forthcoming)
2. Public Works Department
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-0 lllCUP-05-006/PS-06-005/V AR-06-005
PAGE 17
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Parks Department
6. Sanitary Service Company
7. Ada County Highway District
8. Central District Health Department
C. Legal Descriptions
D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Canterbury Commons Subdivision AZ-06-013/PP-06-011!CUP-05-006/PS-06-005N AR-06-005
PAGElS
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20,2006
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 12-14-05)
~
<::) :.I
~ '"
""-I ..
~~;
~~~
~~!i~i
fl~~~i
~o~-a:!!
! ~I~il
~~;t
~I~
~.cl!;
~ I
~ ..
~
---<......."- - i~' ;;
.1
. .
Exhibit A - Page 1
I~;t=~'~
~~~===-.~
.. , -.I.QlI-
.....
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
2. Landscape Plan (dated 10-19-05)
Exhibit A - Page 2
.".~,-, --..-
._,~~_.. . "'"' ..,.,,,
OHYll ~
l'33WS ~
~OWI<<>O A~'=B.LN'o':)
.... '
.. -~- . . ....'
. , !W
'I"
~
'" I. ~ : t1... i- -
~~:;~:'~!
r. ~r~~.':~~1
,I
I
".:..,i,
~i~tH~ i.a
!. <. IN 1. ~ l ~.ii: jIi
{~~:.~~li ~~:
~l'i "..
11~ ;N.
In. ::,M
~:~,{g~:.~: ~:.r";:'~.
i t.; ., ..
iJ ; t . i,;:~ II
i~ :g~!;, i I: ;.' t (W .~
:' h :'h~f !~Lli! l~ i! j;~;~;L~~
III rl~~1!fi 'Wj~~! ; 'I'!, ~~;%n!,I::~;;;
,~i i~",l:~~ f (h~J.! c ~j{'..~~~t~:'JH~.j:
.~ :;:...,,~.'.:, ~. ~I~ .~~ ll~ ~tl~J~L.t~
~"i ~~H;~~i~ gh::~ ~;~ ~~~,t;~~irJ:t.
;1 Iii " ; ;';< " ~';" ~j "';' ':';i
': ,ii' ;'. /.'II', ,"<'ll ~'f J,,; 11':'
G . B "j r;' .~l 'f I, .1 ~ i "1,'.( i' . "."." .
, I' f".~ ~ "HIli I': *I",;,':i~'u~t
~ I H lm~m ~~~fWI ~ W i f!~l:~Wmw
':'tR, );~, .:
;r'
'"
'..1
t
(I .~
"Ii' I: ,
~:; .
'~t ' ~:
,ji~.. ~
}IL
\>1,11'
L.'{<
~l :~: ~:
" .
~Ij,i
'"
J.I
~i
~I
U_j
~~.
;".J ~ !
~i I 1
l.!~! ~ >
:I~j ~ :-
"J:
Iii
Z!
Itl!
,.
.; ~ ]
;,;,:
ji
~i
!<
I ~~ :! .
.:,: 'i :/ il
~j~~'. .~ ,.':1
.'1"
~: III
!lljli I l:
" JI:
" 4'.
hi.:
.~ p~ L:
~ ;'O~
.~ ~ tt ~
~ ."
,i;F P-
o ~ ~ ~ ~'+
~j
~.
~ ~
~,J
.....
, '
1 t
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20,2006
3. Site Plan - (dated 10-10-05)
"';.~':"I-'i:;: I
;:::~~.
.- -- .
~DjnWb" ..
OHYO ~
~'f~
SNOmoo At:I'l8I:aLNV::l
Exhibit A - Page 3
~ ilji
&~13
~~ i:;:
tH .,!t.,E"
T"" ",I
.,:
: i
~iBI
Oji ["" !
..... i~f
:J 1~.1i
E .t~ t" ii
O n_ ;,
F.a :O-~;:i
, ~f:i~
~.... iii~
!
t
o
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRlL 20,2006
4. Elevations
'lli~h r ^ " -. 1
:'~I"~I'::' .
..,." 0
,
;!~
Exhibit A - Page 4
"'lIPl~
IMIIS 'llJd
llI.IOWwoO AJnqIe~1l0
:1
...
~
'(>
~
~I
I:
.J I' E'
id;~111
'lll !;.!! lj
'lIlt r. II ,.
I If. iH I.iI!
~ oil ~~;!) <;l
, I
~t
!
i~
9.
I
I
...
" ;' I
~ ;. ~ l'l ."
Illl! .. I' . .
It Il!i !i.1 l u~ f
tlflli I ill'III~1 .
.;; I "t . Ir., i'lI
I , . , "Ill III Ill, III. . J
:ac'oe(7H;e ~0~ e I!')~ @t~<~~.
..
l'.
~).
rf
.if
II~
..
!1J:
.I
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
,
illl
1,Ii
!'it
1':11
.~"
~
:~
~l
'ft..
, . I l
'f I ,\ "T{I:' ';\ '",,;:""' .
,. ..
'f , .~ 1"lL~"1
II I," r~;,.~~/
c .. .~.-
". ~'_d ~
)?/ III~
r/ . ? i
II. -] "
'.. Ii '1 ;;
~\' . (\\ I? I! IfIll I ~:
'\ ~p-. .~- ~lli ~l
.~ ~1'---''''<1
: \. ~
, , .. .-- I [if
" '. . 1J=:1'
:':1~ \ "--~(r. I!
,.',' 1.
.. -,.." I
\ ~~1EdJ I . . ~
I ",",. ..,......
...... :.^:.
I
Exhibit A - Page 5
COfIIll~
1- II4d I
SUOWWCO AIlqJe~uilO . ,i
l)I
~
Jl
'I
~:
r
it
~~
'It'
lrT.' -
J'itJ : .0 j
'1I".lJLl.<
J' i " I I' I I'
! J 'ui :; II I i~: '; f li :1 I ~
H 'Iii i :1) ~ nli t 'If ~ liI!!~.
uh~1 !llii ~f!~J H.Ill~ j~! ~ ll! B
~:Jrnl'll Tiifll'l
i ~lJ.~.Jdlij i
i'll'lllili'ilh
f il'I,4,ill,illll i
dH ,1111.. f i
1
~
f" ~. -- t, ~
r ~,il!~" JI .t
':, : " I T ';J
" 1'..1.-_u.-.
/f r '~-I
I ~ lJ
1/[q2j I
'tie;
.. ."~\ rWll
, ,1$ [~~ ,
,~flYlnJ
~ 'ID ~_
~+~~ ,.~ ~ :.
.. L=o:.J1 ~.
j'i
.1;
Il,
.J
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
0lMlI ~
19<iq ellId
~ ~~qJe.lue,:1
~~;:
~>.;
1'-
Exhibit A - Page 6
" i' I
; i ,; h' .
I Ii Ii, ,; 'I .If': f S
1I n: I. i,qs : H n IJl
n!~J:J(!~Jli ,ll' II, l~'1 b,~,J' l~'
..1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
,,; :i ~~
,~~ "l~
~r 'f 'u~ ~,- ~i
~'\ I ,I I ~ ~
, ('C '., f I F= I
\11!:\:::;",~'~Ij .>~r~. OCI,J'
\'\ ",- "'.. ~,
Nl . _. :
''-v.,Bi;' '-1 ',!i;,
'''I 'u. 'I" -, "" -. ~
~. 11\
:I ;.., 1;;
1\t .~ l'
Exhibit A - Page 7
--- 1
IQeIl8 """ I
.llUCIt1.JUlOO ,{JnqJ8lullq . ; I
;l:
+
Ii i! il I il
d! J, II'_
"'I ~l." ~l
fl'il ,. I " "
If. I! In!
:~ 4!: I~ f!)I!> 0
I: .j ',1 1
i I, j'l:
m,qil} till I ii: j i
~ · I , II~ i) il! II l!!III'r!
i:i ", t :;1 11111 Illl UI , . : J ;
~";'=J'::-)t::,:=}~ ".~)~>r6) ~~ '.~I.h I~~~ff.::tl 41,
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
I "'l~' ~ irJ,~n .. i" l'
'r ~ rr.:ft~-- iii
\.c'...~~~
Exhibit A - Page 8
-~
lee.QS IIIJld
.. 8U~OO ~.IFlqJEIW~O
I j ,
. Ii b j
~ j I' .' I
" III itj I.
~ J ,i .," I,:
i I ~ LII ~ ~!~ii
11~~I~~!hI~'II'
s~ hlt,ntl~!.1
~......_ ....~ li~fI'J'II",.
.. f
II
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
--
-"..,......,
1""'-'lG""'ld
8UCJu.t.uoo A.nqJ~IJ&O
Exhibit A - Page 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20,2006
, '1 .';.6'. ,.
...., --"'\ I
I ..,.,-
; '''-1 ·
"" ~
, Ie! i'
~ :d ~!i!
~ . .If I" :t
~ II; !!. Ii: ~
"I "I!i .'
~ I~~ m~i~;M
~ iil'M""iltl~1
~ nl~I!~~'~!'!~!
,:
.'
~!
,j
'f
Exhibit A - Page 10
.l
f
"'C"I'l """"""
,....IlS ....
suouauoO ^.I'lqJe~ull::l
- ...,,--- -'.
!
~
.....
~
r
I
"?, '{:,
, ?) \::
~
~...cq
~
J
'!'
~; ~; \
\ '
!
c'
;"
::(,
~~
(J')
~ ~!,
'r 'f
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20,2006
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department
1.1 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP-06-011)
FORTHCOMING. . . As recommended by the Commission at the public hearing. See
Section 10 above for staff-requested changes to the submitted plat.
1.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP-06~0 11)
1.2.1 A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision ordinance and as
noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the fmal plat application(s).
1.2.2 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision
pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17.
1.2.3 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All
stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11-
3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated
surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B.
Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed
such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as
proposed by staff. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved
open space and still meet the standards of ODC 11.3A-18, then the applicant shall relocate the
facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of
the developer to comply with ACHD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at
the time of final construction.
1.2.4 Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
1.2.5 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation and
conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
1.2.6 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11.6B-7.
1.3 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP-06-006)
1.3.1 Prior to the next public hearing, submit 10 full size copies and one 8.5" x 11" copy of a revised
site plan.
1.3.2 All comments and conditions of the accompanying Annexation and Zoning (AZ-06-013)
application and Preliminary Plat (PP-06-011) application, shall also be considered conditions of
the Conditional Use Permit (CUP-06-006).
2, Public Works Department
2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains in W. Pine
Avenue. Those mains currently flow to the Moshers Fann lift station. There is currently a City
of Meridian project underway to decommission that lift station and allow for these mains to
gravity flow. If this city project is not completed prior to final plat application of this project, the
Exhibit B - Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
applicant shall be responsible to submit written pennission from the owner of the Mosher Farms
lift station to discharge to it, as well as be responsible for any upgrades that may be required.
2.2 The proposed five foot setback from the sidewalk to the four~plexes may not be adequate to
install larger diameter water services that are often used in these types of buildings. If the larger
diameter water meters are used then the applicant shall increase the amount of setback to ensure
adequate room to install the water services.
2.3 Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall meet with Vic Steelman of Idaho Power
(388-6320) to discuss routing of the common trench through the multi-family portion of this
project,
2.4 The applicant shall install all sewer mains necessary to provide service; applicant shall coordinate
main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms 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 conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
2.5 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in W. Pine Avenue. The
applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate
main size and routing with Public Works, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains
that are required to provide service.
2.6 All sewer and water mains not in the right-of-way shall be centered in a 20-foot wide easement.
2.7 The applicant has indicated Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District will own and operate the
pressure irrigation system in this proposed development therefore a letter of plan approval shall
be submitted prior to scheduling of a pre-construction meeting.
2.8 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water (UDC ll-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
connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,
the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to
signature on the final plat by the City Engineer.
2.9 All existing structures shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer.
2.10 Meridian Public Works specifications do not allow any large landscaping within a five foot radius
of water meters. The applicant shall make the necessary adjustments to achieve this separation
requirement and comply with all landscape requirements.
2.11 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 pwposes such as landscape irrigation.
2.12 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 [mal plat signature.
2.13 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
treatment and disposal shall be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20,2006
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.
2.14 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed,
drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final
Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building pennits.
2.15 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to
signature on the final plat.
2.16 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.
2.17 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as detennined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat
per Resolution 02-374.
2.18 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.
2.19 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Pennitting that
may be required by the Envirorunental Protection Agency.
2.20 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Pennitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
2.21 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
2.22 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.
2.23 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of
3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom
elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least I-foot above.
2.24 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
detennined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light
contractor shall obtain design and pennit from the Public Works Department prior to
commencing installations.
3. Fire Department
3.1 One and two family dwellings will require a fire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for
duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 500'
apart. International Fire Code Appendix C
3.2 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.
Exhibit B - Page 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
3.3 Final Approval of the fIre hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 W' outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec.
d. Locations with fIre hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the
hydrant location.
e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers when spacing pennits.
f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
g. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade.
h. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5.
i. Fire sprinklers required for four-plexes.
3.4 All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of28' inside and 48' outside radius.
3.5 For all Fire Lanes, paint the curb red and provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane".
3.6 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all
weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site.
3.7 The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards cross section requirements and
shall have a clear driving surface, available at all times, which is 20' wide. Streets with less than
a 29' street width shall have no parking. Streets with less than 33' shall have parking only on one
side. These measurements shall be based on the face of curb dimension.
3.8 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure.
3.9 The fIrst digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level.
3.10 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices
shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code.
3.11 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the futemational Building & Fire Codes.
3.12 The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the
development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and effIcient
response by fIre and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be
borne by the developer.
3.13 The Fire Department requires that any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided
with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. Revise the western terminus of
Lot 5, Block 1 to either be less than ISO-feet, or provide a turnaround.
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 fire hydrants
and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. F or buildings equipped
throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section
903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183).
For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m).
Exhibit B - Page 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006
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 All R -2 occupancies with 3 or more units or with 3 floors shall be required to be fIre sprinklered.
3.16 Pool chemicals shall be stored in compliance with the International Fire Code.
3.17 Side yard fences shall not be allowed.
4. Police Department
4.1 Prior to release of buildine: pennits. the applicant shall submit a parkine: plan for all off-street
parkine: in the multi-family development to the Plannine: Department. All parkine: spaces shall be
assie:ned to a specifIc dwelline: unit or for lWest use. The parking space identifIcation shall use a
different numberine: system than the dwelling units.
4.2 The fa9ades of the multi-family buildings shall include windows that look onto the parking areas
and/or other public areas.
4.3 The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that uses walkwavs and landscaping to direct
visitors to the main entrance and away from private areas.
4.4 The pedestrian access to the proposed clubhouse/communitv entrance is not well-defIned. The
applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that uses walkwav paving materials and
landscaping to alert motorists to the pedestrian traffIc
4.5 Lot I of Block 1 creates residences that will be isolated from their surrounding neighbors. Such
areas have an increased crime potential. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall work
with the Police Chief andlor Planning Staff to revise the plat/site plan such that the
houses/dwelline: units in the general area are oriented toward one another and encourage
interaction between more neighbors. The plat/site plan shall be revised in accord with those
discussions.
5. Parks Department
5.1 Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape
Ordinance (MCC 12-13-13-6) will be followed.
5.2 Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in
the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance (MCC 12-13-13) will be followed.
6. Sanitary Service Company
6.1 Waste enclosure locations: There is a concern that the enclosures are not located to minimize
selVice vehicle backing-up requirements. Large waste vehicles have blind spots when backing up
is required. 98% of waste vehicle accidents occur when backing-up. Please contact Bill Gregory
at SSC (888-3999) to discuss this matter prior to the next public hearing.
7. Ada County Highway District
Exhibit B - Page 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20,2006
Site Svecific Conditions of Avvroval
7.1 Construct West Pine Avenue as one half of a 46-foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and
5-foot sidewalks within 70-feet of right-of-way (35-feet from centerline). Widen the bridge on
the northwest and northeast property lines to accommodate the proposed pavement widening
along West Pine Avenue. Locate the improvements to West Pine Street approximately 346-feet
east of the northwest property line to provide a consistent street section for the Capital
hnprovements Plans widening of the intersection ofTen Mile Road and West Pine Street.
7.2 Construct internal roadways as 33-foot street sections.
7.3 Access on West Pine Avenue must align with northern access in the two proposed places: West
Jayton Drive, a proposed public street, located 497-feet west ofthe northeast property line and
North Lyndhurst Lane, a proposed private street, located 476-feet east ofthe northwest property
line. ACHD requires Fire Department approval for these street sections.
7.4 Construct the intersection of North Glen Oaks Avenue and West Jayton Drive to a minimum
intersection measurement of 75-degrees.
7.5 Construct West Jayton Lane in alignment with West Jayton Drive at the intersection of West Pine
Avenue.
7.6 Construct West Snyder Lane in alignment with West Snyder Street at the intersection of North
Glen Oaks Avenue.
7.7 Other than the access specifically approved with this application, direct lot access to West Pine
Avenue is prohibited and shall be noted on the final plat.
7.8 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
Standard Conditions of Avvroval
7.1 b Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
7.2b Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or
right-of-way.
7.3b All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be
borne by the developer.
7.4b 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.
7.5b Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy.
7.6b 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.
Exhibit B - Page 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20,2006
7.7b All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy
Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all
applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the
State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
7.8b 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.
7.9b 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.
7.10b Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance
with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
7.11 b 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.
7.12b No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing
and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized
representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to
obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
7.13b 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.
8. Central District Health Department
8.1 After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for
central sewage and central water.
8.2 The following plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health &
Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage and central water.
8.3 Run-oft'is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
8.4 It is recommended that storm water be pre-treated prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent
impact to ground water and surface water quality. The engineers and architects involved with the
design of this project should obtain current best management practices for storm water disposal
and design a storm water management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water
degradation.
Exhibit B - Page 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE Of APRIL 20, 2006
C. Legal Description
~
UNLIMITED BOUNDARIES, INC. OM
Associated Land Surveyors
1103 W. Main St
Middleton, Idaho 83644
LEGAL DESCRlPTION FOR
AMERICA WEST HO~S
The following describes G parcel of real property baing a portion of
the Southwest Oue..:t.er of Section 11, townshIp) Nonn, Range 1 West,
B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and being more particu14rly
described as tollowa:
Commencing at the Cltnter QUaJ:"ter COtn"'t of ,;aid Section II, thence
alonq th.. east-Wl$!'lIt cllnterl1ne of sai.d Sp.ction 11, N$9010' 45"W, :'12.46
teet to the POXNT OF 8BQrMN~:
Thence, leaving said cenlerline, SDOD5D'lB"W, 925.48 teet to tho
northerly Right-of-Way of the Union Pacific Railroad;
Thence, along uld Right-of-W.ay, N8S"2?'40"W, 634.81 feet to tha
centerline of the Ten Hile StWb Drain;
Thence, along ~aid centerline, N02.S6'i5"E, 41.88 feet
Thenr;", continuinq a_long said centerline, N20"45'45"W, 98.82
feet;
Thence, continuinq along said centerlIne, N4Io18'45"W, 515.84
feet;
Thence, continuinQ aion9 :laid centfl.line, N59D2S'4S"W, 645.83
feet;
Thence, leaving said centerline, NQO"S2'15"E, 74.93 feet to the
/lalit-West centerline of sllid SeGtiul1 11;
Thence, along 9ald centerline, S89010'45"F., 1576.47. feet to the
POmT or B&OnGfDfG,
The above described parcel of real property contains 21.71 acres, more
Oil: less and is lIubject to thll Ri9ht:s-of-Way ot UIB Eiqht Mile Lateral
beinq Slxty-feet(60'1 in width, Wellt Pine Avenue being Twenty".l\Jll teo:lt
150') in width and an &a!ltlll\8nt fOI: the Ten Mile stub Drain beinq Sixt:r
feet (60'1 in width.
tI.
llE~~"~~
B~-.
N PUl'lLIC
wo~hl)~~s o"fPi
Exhibit C - Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20,2006
Exhibit C - Page 2
r------- ,8'lo'<;;1:"6 M.lll,os..OOS
I -----------------------,
I I
i i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
~I
~I
~j
~I
~'
I
I
I
I
wi
::II
~I
I
WI
~,
l: ~
, I
l-t/
"'l'"'
:d :".
cn~ r~
... ~...
l;.{
~
o ~.
a'l
...1 b~
~. ~~
"'I 3'1$
~ -.' ~'\
~;c
1:~ l~1
? ~.
;:;"l<
I.J"'
;~ tr; .
\i j,"
..1.11.",-:
~~
~. ;;
.',
;:;1;
'1'-
".
~
..
I,,'
I;.~
~~
~~:
I
I
/ ~
I
,q~
,
I
~~
~~
....'"
i!<D
c;>":
,..-
N
-',
.":;:.
1 -
~.,~
I
1
~~
~ .."
it' ~~
~'''P ~
~
ft'<'
~
/' --
~:~
~1I"8
,..;~
,=0.
. Ii:;
~ S~~=
BZ:iS
!~L
O~O
~~E
t
o
...
'. aVO!;l_::3I1V\1..N~ 'N
,<;;~'Ql>ll1:" IIISI.I:SOOS -- --
"
ii,S
.,-
~';
,~
:~;
~..
.":)1_
If'r.,
:"'1
0_ I
~~,
~X,I 8~~
llis:
:::
,
Ii
I
1";-
I~
l~
1:0,
I~
IZ
I
I
._. vJ.~...
o ~
; ;;
<J
~
, ~
I~ii'~ ~
~~~~!~ ~
~ti-rf!~ ..
I ~ ~ 'C~. j
". ,:
Q~I~
~~~~
~ I~
;z;
I -
"-' =-
("., ~
\'1
C> -
1'1: ~
Q,
.
~ 00
. :;.:
II i;i ~
2: I
~ ~
~ "" -
I ~
..........
~ ,,8
~..........
~ ~ ~
~-'
"
~^' ...~
~
o
CI:
i
Z
::-,
~I
z
~I
8
'"
~ Ii
-<:
<.J
.!::
"
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006
D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Annexation Findings:
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation
and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation
and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings:
A. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
Staff finds that the proposed zoning is in general conformance with the comprehensive
plan (please see Section 8 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;
Staff fmds that there are several uses that are allowed and conditionally allowed within
the requested zoning districts of R-15. Specifically, multi-family uses are conditionally
allowed and townhouses are principally pennitted. Staff finds that the development of
this property should be required to comply with the established regulations and putpose
statements of the requested zone. See Section 10, Analyis above for information on the
regulations that need to be complied with.
C. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare;
Staff finds that the proposed annexation and zoning, and subsequent development of this
property shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety and/or welfare. Staff
reconunends that the Commission and Council rely on any oral or written testimony that
may be provided when determining this finding.
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,
Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact
upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site.
E. The annexation is in the best of interest ofthe City (UDC 11-5B-3.E).
Staff finds that all essential services are available or will he provided by the developer to
the suhj ect property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. Staff
recommends that the Commission detennine whether the proposed Annexation and
Zoninll of this property will be in the best interest of the City. If the Commission and
determines the annexation is in the best interest of the Citv. staff recommends that the
applicant enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City.
2. Preliminary Plat Findings:
In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,
the decision-making body shall make the following findings:
A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Exhibit D - Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006
Staff finds that the proposed zoning is in general conformance with the comprehensive
plan (please see Section 8 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific
comprehensive plan action items that apply to this development).
B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to
accommodate the proposed development;
Staff finds that services can be made available to accommodate the proposed
development.
C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the
City's capital improvement program;
Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their
cost, staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development;
Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public
service providers (i.e., police, fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See finding
Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings above, and the Agency Comments and
Conditions in Exhibit B for more detail.)
E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare; and
Staff is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated with. the
development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Councilor Commission's
attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the
Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to
determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or
environmental problems of which staff is unaware.
F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
Staff finds that the Eight Mile Lateral and Ten Mile Drain are features that should be
preserved. Staff is unaware of any other natural, scenic or historic features on this site.
Therefore, staff finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction,
loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance, if the
Ten Mile Drain and Eight Mile Lateral are preserved and protected. Staff recommends
that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented
to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural
or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware.
3. CUP Findings:
The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon
the following:
A. 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.
Exhibit D - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN1NG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006
Staff [mds that the site is large enough to accommodate all required parking, landscaping,
loading and other standard regulations required by the UDC. However, the applicant has
applied for a variance to the standard lot size and rear building setbacks. See Section 10
of the Staff Report for detailed analysis.
B. 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 zoning is in general conformance with the comprehensive
plan (please see Section 8 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific
comprehensive plan action items that apply to this development).
C. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with
other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential
character of the same area,
Staff finds that the general design (as amended), construction, operation and maintenance
of the townhouse and multi-family uses will be compatible with other uses in the general
neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the vicinity as to not
adversely change the character of the area. Staff finds that a higher density residential use
on this site should be compatible with the neighborhood (provided the applicant complies
with all UDC provisions.) Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference
any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal will
adversely affect the other properties in the area.
D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,
will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
Staff finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in
the vicinity if the applicant complies with all Preliminary Plat, Development Agreement
and CUP conditions and constructs all improvements and operates the use in accordance
with the UDC standards.
E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities aud
services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and tire protection,
drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer.
Please refer to the comments and conditions prepared by the Meridian Fire Department,
Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Company and ACHD in Exhibit
B.
F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities
and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare ofthe community.
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 finds that the applicant should be required to 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.
Staff finds that the proposed uses should not create excessive additional costs for
facilities or services and should not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
Exhibit D - Page 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH ]6,2006
G. 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 fmds that the proposed development will not involve uses that will create nuisances
that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. Staff does not
believe that the amount of traffic or noise generated will be detrimental to the general
welfare of the public. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any
public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal may
cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware.
H. 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.
Staff finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or
damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that the
Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to
determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or
scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware.
4. Private Street Findings:
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 storm drainage shall be
contained on site.
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 constructed 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.
The location of the private streets do not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and/or the
regional transportation plan.
5. Variance Findings:
A. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed
in the district;
The UDC requires a minimum 1,900 square foot lot for all lots in the R-15 zone. The
UDC also requires all structures within the R~15 zone to have at least a 12 foot rear
setback. Therefore, if the City grants the variance it would allow a right or privilege not
usually allowed in the R-15 zone. Therefore, staff does not believe that that having an
irregularly shaped lot is enough reason to grant the requested variances. This site is large
enough that full compliance with the UDC standards can be met without causing an
undue hardship.
Exhibit D - Page 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006
B. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site;
Staff finds that this is an irregularly shaped lot. Further there are two water laterals that
are adjacent to or bisect the property. However, theses unusual characteristics of the site
are not directly tied to the requested variances and would not relieve any undue hardship.
By reducing the number of dwellings on this site, all dimensional standards of the R-15
can be complied with.
C. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare,
Staff [mds that granting the subject variances should not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare. Further, staff recognizes that this is an unusually shaped lot.
However, if the City grants the variance it would allow a right or privilege not usually
allowed in the R-15 zone. Therefore, staff does not believe that that having an irregularly
shaped lot is enough reason to grant the requested variances. This site is large enough that
full compliance with the UDC standards can be met without causing an undue hardship.
Staff is recommendinll denial of the Variance application. Staff further recommends that
this development be required to complv with all dimensional standards of the UDC.
Exhibit D - Page 5
,
mEII HAWLEY TRoXELL
. . ENNIS&HAWLEYm
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
877 Main Street, Suite 1000
P.O. Box 1617
Boise, Idaho 83701-1617
(208) 344-6000 Fax (208) 342-3829
www.hteh.com
GEOFFREY M. WARDLE
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW IN IDAHO AND OHIO
EMAIL: GMW@HTEH.COM
DIRECT DIAL: (208) 388-4894
April 20,2006
RECEIVED
APR 2 0 2006
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
City of Meridian Planning & Zoning
Commission
660 E. Watertower, Suite 202
Meridian, 10 83642
Re: Canterbury Commons Subdivision Applications AZ-06-013, PP-06-011,
CUP-06006, PS-05-005, VAR-06-005
Dear Planning & Zoning Commission Members:
Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley is counsel for the applicant, American West
Homes, LLC regarding the foregoing applications. I am Geoffrey Wardle an attorney
with Hawley Troxell and my address is 877 Main Street, Suite 1000, Boise, Idaho
83702.
1. Introduction
We are here tonight to request your approval and/or recommendation of approval
of the following applications:
AZ-06-013 - Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres to R-15 (Medium
High-Density Residential);
PP-06-011 - Preliminary Plat of 122 residential lots (50 four-plex
condominium lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 20.32
acres;
CUP-06-006 - Conditional Use Permit to construct a multifamily
development consisting of 200 multifamily condominium units on 50 lots
and 72 townhouse dwelling units;
PS-05-005 - Private Street adjacent to the proposed multifamily
condominium lots within Canterbury Commons Subdivision;
42974.0001.872892.1
City of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2006
Page 2
VAR-06-005 - Variance request to allow lot sizes in the R-15 zone of less
than the 2,400 square-foot minimum (down to 1,900 square-feet).
2. Background on Site and Application
This site is 21.77 acres bounded on the north by Pine Avenue, the south by the
Union Pacific Railroad's right of way, the east by the Morning Glory Subdivision and on
the west, Courtyard at Ten Mile. The southwesterly border of the property is adjacent to
the Ten Mile Drain and the Eight Mile Lateral runs across the northeast corner of the
property. This site is surrounded by properties previously annexed by the City of
Meridian and is currently zoned RUT by Ada County. The property is irregularly shaped
and has been assembled from several different owners.
American West Homes initiated meetings with the City of Meridian approximately
one year ago to develop a design that would be satisfactory to the city. In doing so,
Meridian Planning Staff ("Staff") has been particularly helpful in reaching the current
design. The applicant recognizes the concerns the City of Meridian has had with certain
types of multifamily development as articulated by Staff. The applicant has sought to
come forward with a product that provides a variety of housing product that is neither
entirely single family nor entirely multifamily. Moreover, American West Homes is
committed to developing a project with an emphasis on homeownership and owner
occupancy.
Recognizing the City of Meridian's desire to transition between lower density
development to the east and higher density residential development to the west,
together with the future commercial development that will take place along Ten Mile
Road, American West Homes is proposing a mixture of townhouses on the eastern
portion of the property and multifamily condominium units on the western portion of the
property. Furthermore, American West Homes desires to allay the concerns of the City
of Meridian over poorly executed multifamily developments that have occurred in the
past by designing its multifamily as a condominium development that will result in owner
occupancy and by further utilizing a variety of designs, materials and facades to provide
a reasonable level of diversity in style and appearance.
3. Specific Application Issues Arising From Staff Report
As the applicant, American West Homes, generally concurs with the provisions
set forth in the Staff Report and appreciates the efforts of Staff in reviewing and
commenting on its application. That said, American West Homes believes that the
various applications are ripe for decision and approval and to the extent that Staff has
articulated issues that it believes need to be addressed, that those issues can be best
resolved through conditions of approval established by the Commission, not by
42974.0001.872892.1
City of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2006
Page 3
continuing the application for further redesign. In order to address the specific issues
that Staff has articulated of concern, we will address them individually.
a. Variance Requests
The first issue to be addressed is American West Homes' request for a variance.
It is important to note that American West Homes had initially submitted a variance
application requesting two variances, one related to rear lot setbacks and the second
related to minimum lot size. As a result of the meeting with Staff on March 22, 2006,
the issue regarding rear lot set backs has been fully addressed through the redesigned
preliminary plat and site plan before you tonight. Therefore, no variance is now sought
from the setback requirements.
The second variance request relates to the minimum lot size for the townhouse
component of Canterbury Commons Subdivision. American West Homes has sought a
variance as to the minimum lot size required in the R-15 zone of 2,400 square feet.
With the revised site plan and preliminary plat submitted to the City of Meridian, forty-
four of the seventy-two proposed townhouse lots exceed the 2,400 square foot
requirement and only twenty-eight are less than that size. The need for the variance is
necessitated by the fact that although the proposed townhouses units have the same
size footprints, many of the interior townhouses units do not meet the lot size
requirement due to the depth of the proposed townhouse lots. The depth of the lots is a
function of the property's unique shape, the required road sections and the provision of
open space.
American West Homes is not seeking a variance solely to permit it to develop
more townhouses. A variance is sought because it is impossible to keep the interior
townhouse lots sized consistently in light of the depth of the individual lots. The
nonconforming lots will have townhouses that are the same dimension and area as
those on conforming lots. The only issue is the required depth of the lot. To satisfy the
City of Meridian's minimum lot size and to be able to develop this townhouse product
and style, American West Homes is merely asking that twenty-eight interior townhouse
lots out of the seventy-two total townhouse lots be permitted to be less than 2,400
square feet. This will not affect the density of the project and it is important to note that
American West Homes elected not to seek other zoning designations consistent with
the comprehensive plan, Le. R-40, which would have permitted smaller sized lots for the
interior townhouse parcels.
b. Staff's Concerns Over Double Frontage On Lots 32-38, Block 1
In the Staffs report, concern was expressed over the multifamily condominium
units proposed for Lots 32-38, Block 1 having "double frontage." Those multifamily
42974.0001.872892.1
'!... .~
City of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2006
Page 4
condominium units are located on a public street with the private street and parking
area located to the west. The private street functions more like a common parking lot
than it does a street and on the east by a public street separating it from the
westernmost townhouse units. As noted by Staff in its report, Staff is generally
supportive of private streets for multi-family developments.
Generally, a legitimate concern exists where double frontage is proposed.
However, this is not really an instance of double frontage. While most multi-family
developments typically consume all of the periphery of a site, with parking, private
streets and common amenities located on the interior of the site, American West
Homes' proposed site design provides transition from the lower density single family
residential development to the east by locating the townhouse lots on the east of the
site and the multifamily condominiums on the west. The multifamily condominiums here
front a public road and have parking in the rear. This represents as efficient an attempt
to integrate townhouses and multifamily condominiums as can be expected under the
circumstances. It will be virtually impossible to design the type of separation Staff
seems to envision and maintain the reasonable transition in density and style. To the
extent that Staff is concerned with the design and appearance of the multifamily
condominiums adjacent to the townhouses, those issues can be addressed with specific
landscaping requirements and or additional conditions regarding the design of the
multifamily condominiums.
c. Concerns Over Joint Trench And Water Meters
Staff has expressed concerns over how the joint trench and city water meters
can be installed and accessed within a five-foot setback for some of the multifamily
condominiums. We believe that issue has been addressed by increasing the set back
at issue to eight feet in the revised site design and preliminary plat. It is important to
note that this is only an issue for some of the multifamily condominium lots; it is not an
issue for all. Moreover, it is important to further note that American West Homes has
designed this site to comply with existing City of Meridian requirements and that
American West Homes believes that it has complied with existing set back
requirements. As such, this is not so much an issue with the design of this project but
rather with the requirements of Meridian Public Works and the Unified Development
Code. Treasure Valley Engineers is available to address these issues at the hearing if
there are any additional questions.
d. Connectivity And Open Space
American West Homes has modified the proposed preliminary plat and site plan
to address concerns and to incorporate recommendations of Staff regarding
connectivity within the project and the calculation of open space required under the
42974.0001.872892.1
~
City of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2006
Page 5
Unified Development Code. Treasure Valley Engineers is available to address
whatever questions the Commission may have regarding these issues in depth.
e. Parking Requirements
Pursuant to the comments and recommendations of Staff, the revised preliminary
plat and site plan reflects the required 20' x' 20' parking pad for the townhouse garages.
Additionally, American West Homes will comply with the requirement for covered
parking for the multifamily condominium component of the project. The covered parking
is not currently shown but will be included as required by the Unified Development
Code.
4. Conclusion
As noted above, American West Homes is generally satisfied with the proposed
conditions of approval. Discussions have been initiated with the Meridian City Attorney
regarding preparation of a development agreement as a prerequisite to approval of the
annexation ordinance. The proposed conditions of approval are generally acceptable
as are the proposed requirements for the development agreement.
Moreover, based upon American West Homes general agreement with the Staff's
report and the proposed conditions of approval, as set forth above, the specific
concerns cited by Staff addressed above do not necessitate the continuance or
redesign of this matter. Instead all can be addressed by means of the conditions of
approval that the Commission can recommend or impose.
We therefore respectfully request your approval and/or recommendation of
approval for the applications identified above.
Sincerely,
I & HAWLEY LLP
GMW
42974.0001.872892.1
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
April 20, 2006
ITEM #
6,7,8
DATE
AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, CUP 06-006
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
Canterbury Commons Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL
/A/IId N'Ap/v1 a:::. ~
f
G d u C"'I.:.?{ LJ ,A-v AI L V
---::)' v V
..... O~ ~\ s.~
f'Il c;{( t< $t:1f1&.S V
v
** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT **
AS OF MAR 28 '06 14:28 PAGE. 01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
DATE TIME TO/FROM
05 03/28 14:26 P-AND-Z
MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD~ STATUS
EC--S 01' 38" 002 091 OK
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
RECE IVEI)
MAR 2 8 2006
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY Cl ERl< 0FFlrr
STATE OF IDAHO
)
) 9
)
COUNlY OF ADA
I, CartP-f I ittlA
910 E Franklin Rd ~uite 102
(:;>08) 887 -RAgA
(name)
(address)
(phone)
Mp-ridian
(city)
-'
Idaho
(state)
, being first duly sworn upon
oath, depose and say:
I personally posted the subject property with the hearing notice sign 10 days prior to the public
hearing for the AnnA.ation & Conditional Usa PArmit-Canmrhul:)' Commo"" Subdivision
Pmliminar:y Plat-2n ::ar.I'AA, 200 r.nnrlnminiums and 72 si.-.gle bmily dwelling lo~ with
inr.m:pnrAtAd "pan ~par..p
Dated this ?4th day of
March. 2006
{! ~:zfsl;A
( ignature)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written.
rft2JttfAC{ ~ bVL-
Notary Public ~hO
Residing at '/I.{ rip 1,(
My Commission Expires: Of ./J; -2-0 I 0
Master\affid-posting
1
STATE OF IDAHO
)
) 9
)
COUNTY OF ADA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
RECEIVED
1'1 Aft 2 8 2006
crr'f OF MERIDIAN
'~\TV CLEp\<, ('CCI('~
'.- -
I, Carter little 910 E Franklin Rd I Suite 10? (208) 887-8696
(name) (address) (phone)
Meridian Idaho , being first duly sworn upon
(city) (state) oath, depose and say:
I personally posted the subject property with the hearing notice sign 10 days prior to the public
hearing for the :~~e::::n & Conditional LJKe Permit..l"'JlntRrblllY Cnmmnns Subdivision.
Prelimin:u:y Pia _ ~J 200 cnndominillms And 72 Aingh!! family dwelling lok with
incnrpnratAd npAn ApACA.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written.
dt2A/lACl ~ 01VL-
Notary Public fqr 19aho ,jJ
Residing at f.::::J..Lj-l {lj If A-
me- ~ (2- ~ 2-D I 0
My Commission Expires: CJ"'L ' .J
Dated this 24th day of
Master\affid-posting
March . 2006
e#~~
( ignature)
1
)
'"((1: r.
~;;dl~n "-~\ TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON
1~1 DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
tv
/
a' To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by
) (~~NCf
'903 the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission please submit your
comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall
IDAHO
-0
<:"(;,,,.,,,,,," . l'-{
V fll~ fnC:,.\SUHI=: V I'l.\.. .
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
CITY COONCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
Joseph w. Borton
Charles M. Rountree
Shaun Wardle
CITY DUARTMENTS
City Attorney/HR
703 Main Street
898-5506 (City Attorney)
898-5503 (fll{)
Fax 884-8723
Fire
540 E. Franklin Road
888-1234 / fax 895-0390
Parks & Recreation
11 W. Bower Street
888-3579 / fax 898-5501
Planning
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 202
884-5533 / fax 888-6844
Police
1401 E. Watertower Lane
888-6678/ fax 846-7366
Public Works
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 200
898-5500/ fax 895-9551
- Building
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 150
887-2211 / fax 887-1297
- Wastewater
3401 N. Ten Mile Road
888-2i91 / fax 884-0744
- Water
2235 N.W. 8th Street
888-5242 / fax 884-1159
Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: March 9, 2006
Transmittal Date: February 22, 2006 File No.: AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, CUP 06-006
Hearing Date: March 16, 2006
Request: Annexation & Zoning of 21.77 acres to R-15 zone, Preliminary Plat
of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots & 72 townhouse lots) & 10 common lots, and
CUP to construct multi-family dev. consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units
on 50 lots & 72 townhouse dwelling units for Canterbury Commons Subdivision
By: American West Homes, LLC
Location of Property or Project: south of Pine Avenue and east of Ten
Mile Road
David Zaremba (no FP) Meridian School District (No FP)
David Moe (no FP) Meridian Post Office(FP/PP only)
Wendy Newton-Huckabay (No FP) == Ada County Highway District
Michael Rohm (No FP) Ada County Development Services
- Keith Borup (No FP) - Central District Health
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Nampa Meridian Img. District
Charlie Rountree, C/C Settlers Irrig. District
Christine Donnell, C/C Idaho Power CO. (FP,PP.CUP)
Keith Bird, C/C Owest (FPIPPonly)
Shaun Wardle, C/C Intermountain Gas (FPlPP only)
---Y"ater Department == Bureau of Reclamation (FPIPP only)
4 Sewer Department ~CD r portation Dept. (No FP)
_ Sanitary ServiceS(No VAR, v, '~a q t Ass. Land Records
_ Building Department I Ric e _ Menl1ia D velopment Corp.
_ Fire Department FEB 2.+-::~orical reservation Comm.
_ Police Department .
_City Attomey (;1'1"'\: , . _ ,:P,UH1\N "\ .
_City Engineer "-'. "'~"lt.q^"'-~",~ I)EPT ...,~c~.
City Planner \V....,,-,:) lD \U-s...LLJLL · \'"
- Parks Department ~. : "
.....:., .J.---
Your Concise Remarks:
'RECEIVED
FEB 2 7 2006
CITY HALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208x.~-~eri=
CITY CLERK- FAX 888-42[8 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING - FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE - FAx@ltwIClerk 0
P,inted on recycled paper
AZ 06-013
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT America West Homes, LLC
March 16, 2006
ITEM NO.
16
REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury
Commons Subdivision - south side of Pine Avenue east of Ten Mile Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
See attached Memo from Staff
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
0~ P)r\-
1t> 1"\'2.0
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
No Comment
See attached Comments
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
See attached Comments
See attached Comments
SETTLERS'IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See letter from Joseph Risi I
contacted~~6a..L Date:3.I{'f~ Phone (/ZR-tg)'/
Emailed: (I S'I cor p..iIYtaiMtlL(~)(v) Staff Initials: J.f?-
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
fiHt~",-
"i "
, '"..
" .J C ht t.... , -. _
fir: :~, ..Ii....I ~ VJj)7' )...',
_. " ',( ) ., ,
~ ., '. ~. ....
I /"'-' '. U .Inra "'". .
...... / 1/' O. t..Ul o'
~'- j '-.
1-\ 1-11'1"-
"-~' I " / ,. I v, J--R
.,., I..... II')
'-e' ,~__t::..'.o ,/, I"" ^ I
-....- .:-". ~ f1/1
_.' ,,.........., .f
'.~ - ,-:!!' r-.
Memo
To: Planning & Zoning Commissioners
From: C. Caleb Hood, Current Planning Manager
cc: Applicant, Anna Canning, Ted Baird, Clerk's Office, Project File
Date: March 10, 2006
Re: Canterbury Commons Subdivision
(AZ -06-013 / PP-06-011 / CUP-06-006 / PS-06-005 / V AR-06-005)
Staff has been made aware that the applicant for Canterbury Commons Subdivision
failed to post notice of the public hearing on the property for the March 16, 2006,
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Staff is requesting the Commission
open and continue the public hearing for Canterbury Commons Subdivision
(AZ-06-013, PP-06-011, CUP-06-006, PS-06-005, and V AR-06-005) to the next
available hearing, so the applicant can place public notice on the property.
Joint School District No.2
911 Meridian Road · Meridian, Idaho 83642 · (208) 855-4500 · Fax (208) 888-6700
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr. Linda Clark
, ___' ~,u~_ _'.'_ ,__,_CiJ}LQ(M_eridi:m
660 E.W atertower Lane
Suite 202
Meridian, ill 83642
l{EC-EIVED
:;j\.1b
. . .- '.'IOIA'"
i", ,-ni (j;: l\it \": b~ I -
.. - -~-- ---~ ----~~i-~, i~' ;-:~-t:: p 2/ .c.:-. ==- c, C ~,
March 8, 2006
Dear Planners:
The Meridian School District has experienced phenomenal student growth the last ten
years. The high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools throughout the district
are operating over capacity.
Approval of the Canterbury Commons Subdivision will have a significant impact on
school enrollments at Peregrine Elementary. Meridian Middle and Meridian High School.
We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house eighty-three (83)
elementary aged children, seventy-five (75) middle school aged children, and fifty-seven
(57) senior high aged students. Additional students will further compound the current
overcrowded situation. Residents cannot be assured of attending the neighborhood
school, as it may be necessary to bus students to other schools across the district.
School capacity is addressed in Idaho Code 67-6508. The Meridian School District is
currently operating beyond capacity. Future development will continue to have an impact
on the district's capacity. If you have any questions, please contact me at 855-4500.
Sincerely,
~/
Building & Construction Manager
Mar. 10. 2006 3:39PM
No. 3897 p, 1
AMERICAN WEST HOMES LLC
&, RISI COMPANIES
398 S. glh St. #250
Boise, ID 83702
Phone:208-639-9S07
Fax: 208~639-9508
March 10, 2006
RECEIVED
1\i;AF,~ i' (1 2006
_CITY OF MERIOJAf\J
."IT./
_J . " Cf_ERf( 0r-r.:::/r--;r-'
Meridian City Planning & Zoning Commission
ATT: Chairperson
660 E. Watertower, Suite 202
Meridian, 10 83642
REi: Canterbury Commone Hearing Application
I am the president of American West Homes, LLC. Our company is the applicant for the
Canterbury Commons Subdivision: AZ-06-013 I pp..Oe.011 J CUP-DB-OOS I ps-Oe..005 J
V AR..oe.005)
Due to unfortunate clrcuml5tances the property was not properly posted within the
required ttmeframes established in the city code. The posting error has since been
rectified.
I am writing to request that the Commission reschedule the Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing to the next available hearing date (April 6, 2006).
Please phone with any questions 208.639-9507.
Sincerely,
III
3/10/2006 1:08 PM
C:\l)o~uments and Sl.'Jtting.\Matt Ciordon\My Docum.nt;\LETTERS (RISI)\Jeuer meridian city p<. 031 006.doc
~e 39~d
MRR 10 '06 16:04
ISHI
9tt9899;08 LS:Sr gee~/0t/€e
PRGE.01
.> //{~
Gt C~DEEI~~TATR~~T~Ml-JN~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
-... L Environmental Health Division
p F 0 (, - 0 L I I c v P 01., - 0 D to
~VVlVI1 Ov1 .5 )I./i) clivI'S I 'Olr\
Return to:
o Boise
o Eagle
o Garden City
~ridian
o Kuna
OACZ
o Star
Rezone #
Conditional Use #
Preliminary / Final/Short Plat
Co.-vd'-e,r h v,- 1
A'Z.. o(P-O/>
o 1. We have No Objections to this Proposal.
o 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal.
o 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal.
o 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
o 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of:
o high seasonal ground water 0 waste flow characteristics
o or bedrock from original grade 0 other
--.
o 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or
surface waters.
07. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and
~ /ater availability.
;a: 8. After wri~~n 3Pproval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
~central sewage . Qp;lmmunity sewage system 0 community water well
o interim sewage >Q central water
o individual sewage 0 individual water
~
~.
011.
The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division ~onmental Quality:
ASJ central sewage . g ~munity sewage system 0 community water
o sewage dry lines )d'Central water
- .
Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
o 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State
Sewage Regulations.
o 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
o food establishment 0 swimming pools or spas
o beverage establishment 0 grocery store
o child care center
o 14. Please see attached stormwater management recommendations
015.
Date:
Reviewed By:
~
Review Sheet
15726.001 EH0904
~&~'7~'D~
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651 -4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
1 March 2006
phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
SHOP: Nompa 466.0663
Will Berg, City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Menaian, ID ' 83'642
'"~) E ('~; '~~'i "{"'/" "LTr'::
"1 \1 J _LI.~,. J2J ~I,
RE: AZ06-013; PP 06-011; CUP 06-006/Canterbury Commons
MAR '. G-:lUOO-- -
CiTY OF MERiDiAN
::::\T\' CLEP;{ ccciCF
Dear Will:
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires that a Land Use Change Application be filed, for
review, prior to final platting. Please contact Donna Moore at 466M7861 for further information.
All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The District's Eight Mile Lateral (across the northeast
comer) and Ten Mile Stub Drain (through the center) course through this proposed project. These
easements must be protected and any encroachment without a signed License Agreement and
approved plan, before any construction is started, is unacceptable.
All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any municipal surface drainage leaves the
site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. The developer must
comply with Idaho Code 31-3805, It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all
developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District.
ALL WORK WITHIN NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT FACILITIES MUST
BE COMPLETED BY MARCH 15,2006.
Sincerely,
/J-i& ~~
Bill Henson
Asst. Water Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
BH/dbg
C: Crew Foreman
File - Office/Shop
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS. 40,000
~&~1~O~~
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
2 March 2006
phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-786'
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
Joseph S. Risi
American West Homes, LLC
404 S. 8th Street
Boise, 10 83702
RE: Land Use Change Applitatidn~CanterburvCommons------ - -"--- ---
Please note the District now reauires three (3) sets of plans
Dear Mr. Risi:
Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation
District for its review on the above-referenced development. If this development is under a
"rush" to be finalized, I would recommend that you submit a cashier's check, money order or
cash as payment of the fees in order to speed the process up. If you submit a company or
personal check, it must clear the bank before processing the application.
Should this development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be owned,
operated and maintained by the Irrigation District, I strongly urge you to coordinate with John P.
Anderson, Water Superintendent for the Irrigation District, concerning the installation of the
pressure system. Enclosed is a questionnaire that you must fill out and return in order to initiate
the process of contractual agreements between the owner or developer and the Irrigation
District for the ownership, operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call on me at the District's
office, or John P. Anderson, at the District's shop.
Sincerely,
~ &--IULL-~ . 7r) ~
Donna N. Moore, Asst. SecretaryfTreasurer
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
DNM/smc
cc: File
Water Superintendent
Will Berg, City Clerk, Meridian City
J.S. Risi Revocable Living Trust and Risi Family Ltd. Partnership, 314 s. 9'~ St, Boise, ID 83702
enc.
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS. 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS, 40,000
STATE OF IDAHO
)
) 9
)
COUNTY OF ADA
I, Carter Little, Sians Etc. inc.
(name)
Meridian Idaho
(city) (state)
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I{E; () E I -\l~E~ry
iV i~~ t: _.;; ~"PI1E;
1'11\ '_' CJ,_.,
c;rry 01= MERIOIAr:
~~; r('/ (': L E P ;.( ,... r::~r::' :"~ (
910 E. Franklin Rd. Suite 102,
(address)
887-8696
(phone)
, being first duly sworn upon
oath, depose and say:
I personally posted the subject property with the hearing notice sign 10 days prior to the public
hearing for the PURPOSE: Annexation & Conditional Use Permit-Canterburv
Commons Subdivision Preliminary Plat-20 acres. 200
condominiums and 72 sinale familv dwellina lots with incorDorated
ODen SDace.
Dated this 3rd. day of
JanualV
,2006
~<k-L~
(Signa ure)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written.
Master\affid-posting
~fd1t1 4b~
Notary Public ~ah6 --1" "'.
Residing at L/L.t {)t{tlJl
My Commission Expires:Oe -1-3 - LVI ()
1
STATE OF IDAHO
)
) 9
)
COUNTY OF ADA
I, Carter Little. Signs Etc. inc.
(name)
Meridian
(city)
Idaho
(state)
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
.RE CEIVEJ)
MAR - 3 2006
CITY OF MERIDIAN
"......'l..V r'L .
'-' , , \.-, ERK OF,-rCF
910 E. Franklin Rd. Suite 102.
(address)
887-8696
(phone)
, being first duly sworn upon
oath, depose and say:
I personally posted the subject property with the hearing notice sign 10 days prior to the public
hearing for the PURPOSE: Annexation & Conditional Use Permit-Canterbury
Commons Subdivision Preliminary Plat-20 acres. 200
condominiums and 72 sinale familv dwellina lots with incorporated
open space.
Dated this 3rd. day of
January
,2006
~~L:b LlIu
(Signa ure)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written.
Master\affid-posting
~(d41l LJ b~
Notary Public ~ahO ~ A "-
Residing at .e/U ();{c::L/1
My Commission Expires:O? -1-3 - Lvt ()
1
. .
-
>("
, .t!..",.,
;:'" .
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
THE CITY OF MERIDIAN will hold a public hearing on
March 16, at 7:00 pm, at the Meridian City Hall
(33 E. Idaho).
PURPOSE: Annexation & Conditional Use Permit-Canterbury
Commons Subdivision Preliminary Plat-20 acres, 200
condominiums and 72 single family dwelling lots with incorporated
open space.
PROPERTY LOCATION: Approximately 400 feet east of Ten Mile
Road on the South side of Pine Street.
APPLICATION BY: American Homes West LLC.
Contact a City Planner at 884-5533 with any questions
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE
March 16, 2006
ITEM #
16, 17 & 18
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 06-013, PP 06-011 & CUP 06-006
PROJECT NAME
Canterbury Commons Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL
S-+'L \J .p_ Met" A t'f' vi )(
.~.uv\ -e Cj~ lk IA IJ. \ X
Sb,~ 0000_ Cl ~
~ ,