HomeMy WebLinkAboutHarpe Subdivision
October 2, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
AZ 06-04 1
October 5,2006
APPLICANT Larry C. Harpe ITEM NO. 4
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from August 31, 2006 - Annexation and Zoning
of 8.95 acres from RUT to an R-B zone for Harpe Subdivision -
4715 N. Locust Grove Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
I'. CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
III
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
See Attached Letter from Oliver & Barbara Palmer
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Phone:
Staff Initials:
MatRrials prj~,~t~ at public meeti~ shall b4!comfJ prop:j!~ of th~ City of Mgridian.
...
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 13 of 59
Borup: Did that answer his question?
Nickel: Mr. Chairman, did staff just want that on the record or there -- okay.
Moe: Thank you very much. Staff have any other questions? Would staff have any
other questions? No? Okay. No other questions.
Newton-Huckabay: Do we have changes to -- we have no changes, then?
Moe: I see none.
Borup: Right. The only question is that one that -- yeah. There is no changes that I
could see.
Newton-Huckabay: Did we close the Public Hearing?
Mae: No, we have not.
:!:
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ
06-030 and PP 06-030.
Borup: Second.
Mae: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 06-030
and PP 06-030. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
passes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to ~
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 31 st, 2006, with no
modifications.
Borup: Second.
Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030, to include all staff comments for the hearing date
of August 31 st, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? fvlotion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
.
Item 8:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-041 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.95
acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision by Larry C. Harpe
- 4715 N. Locust Grove Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 14 of 59
Item 9:
Public Hearing: PP 06-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24
residential lots and 3 common lots on 8.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Harpe Subdivision by Larry C. Harpe - 4715 N. Locust Grove Road:
Moe: I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-041, request for annexation and
zoning of 8.95 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision and PP 06-042,
request for preliminary plat approval, 25 residential lots and three common lots on the
8.95 acres for Harpe Subdivision and start with the staff comments.
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Commissioners. The applicant has applied for
annexation and zoning of 8.95 acres located on the southeast corner of the intersection
of Locust Grove and McMillan Roads. To the north is some rural residential properties
zoned RUT in Ada County, along with a large parcel currently zoned R-4. To the east is
a future school site within the Settlement Bridge Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the south
is the Havasu Creek Subdivision, also zoned R-4. And to the west is some more rural
residential properties zoned RUT in Ada County. With that context, the applicant is
requesting an R-8 zoning designation on this property. All of the property is currently
zoned RUT in Ada County. I don't think the aerial helps us too much in this situation
with our protector, but this is just an aerial view of the site. We will move on to the
preliminary plat. Along with the annexation and zoning the applicant is also requesting
preliminary plat approval of 22 single family building lots and three common lots. As
you can see, one of the proposed lots is approximately 89,000 square feet. This lot has
been designed to retain an existing home and is, therefore, much larger than the other
proposed lots which range in size from approximately 7,500 to almost 9,000 square
feet. With the current configuration of lots, the total gross density of the project is 2.45
units per acre, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this
area of low density residential, allows for up to three units per acre. Although this
proposed density is consistent with the low density residential designation, it is
important to note that the applicant is requesting an R-8 zone, which is designed to
accommodate medium density developments. This zoning would allow the large lot that
contains the existing home to re-subdivide and develop lots in the future that are only
required to meet the R-8 standards. If in the future this large lot is subdivided and
developed with similar lots as proposed in the current subdivision, the gross density for
the entire area could reach up to four units per acre, which is above the low density
standard, which it has on the Comprehensive Plan. Even if this scenario I just
mentioned above played out, the potential gross density for this area is still in general
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan because of the step up provision. This ~
provision described on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map allows for the city
to consider other residential densities than those shown on the future land use map, as
long as the proposed density is within one step. For example, from low to medium of
the density shown on the map. Due to this flexibility, the Comprehensive Plan and the
applicant's attempt to include larger lots in this project, staff finds that the proposed
annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat are in general compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, but staff also recommends that the Commission consider that
situation of this -- this lot being able to redevelop in the future as an R-8 lot. Therefore,
they would be able to subdivide this lot in the R-8 standards, which is, indeed, a step up
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31. 2006
Page 15 of 59
for this area and it's something that could set a precedent as the rest of the lots in this
area, which are all five acre lots similar to these, develop. Now, we can take a look at
the landscape plan. Due to some -- some late changes that were basically imposed by
ACHD, the landscape plan shown is not the landscape plan it will end up being, but this
is just an example. You can see the difference. There is a small cul-de-sac that was
placed instead of this common driveway. But the plat is correct and this is just an
example just to show you the buffers along McMillan and I believe this is Linder Road
here.
5i
Borup: Locust Grove.
Lucas: Locust Grove. I apologize. You can also get a clearer view of where that
current house is located. This access will be vacated and the house will take access off
of a new driveway here. The applicant is also proposing parkway planters with trees, so
it would be an eight foot parkway with five foot detached sidewalks and it shows up
actually better here on the plat. There is going to be two micro pathways connecting to
McMillan and Locust Grove. One micro pathway right here connecting up to the
sidewalk and landscape buffer and another micro pathway right here connecting to the
one on Locust Grove. In total it's .85 acres of open space, which is approximately 9.9
percent of the -- of the total project. Other than the issue of density, which I already
mentioned, the only other issue that staff sees as a major issue or an issue for this
project is the design of this -- this cul-de-sac. After -- because of these late changes
that occurred, the fire department didn't have a chance to take a look at this necessarily
early on in the project and it's just a little bit under what the fire department would like to
see. So, staff did include a condition that -- that before submittal of the final plat that the
applicant work with the fire department to insure that this turnaround meets their
emergency vehicle turnaround requirements. The other issue is the requirement by
ACHD that this lot here remain a non-build lot until this stub street is able to move
through, due to the fact that, once again, there is a required turnaround there and rather
than put the turnaround and allow a house to be built there, ACHD decided to acquire a
non-build lot until that stub street moves through. But other than those issues, as stated
earlier, staff is -- generally approves the project and I stand for any questions,
Moe: Commissioners, any questions?
Borup: Just one. The fire department -- we didn't see that on -- no, they didn't have
comments earlier. Did they review the original plat and they didn't have any concerns
with that?
Lucas: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Borup, they did have -- this, actually, shows a
little bit of what the original plat was --
Borup: Right.
Lucas: -- before there was a -- they were using his driveway as an emergency vehicle
turnaround, but the distance, actually, from the end of this common drive all the way
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 16 of 59
down to this was -- still exceeded the distance that the fire department wanted. And so
that's why it originally went through a redesign. The issue is that the fire department
doesn't have a chance to make official comments on it. They have a chance to make
official comments on it at the comments meeting and after that it was more of an
informal comment from Joe Silva, the assistant fire chief, saying that he was just
concerned about that -- that proposed cul-de-sac. He just wanted to take a closer look
at it and that's why that comment is in there that, really, he needs to have a chance to
take a closer look at the --
Borup: Well, my observation was that without even driving around the cul-de-sac the
fire trucks would still be closer on the new design than on the previous one. Closer to
the houses and where they need to be.
Lucas: Yeah. It's not the issue of being close enough, it's the turning radius of that cul-
de-sac, being able to get that -- the 60 foot fire truck around the cul-de-sac.
Borup: Well, I mean don't even -- don't even drive in the cul-de-sac and they'd still be
as close as they were --
Lucas: The issue is of them being able to back up and turn around.
Borup: And can't they still back up in the same -- back up before? But that was too far
for them?
Lucas: It was too far.
Borup: All right. I understand. Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions? One question. I'm a little bit -- I just kind of want to get a
handle on this. You know, I -- the step up that we are going for it -- basically, the area
around it we are in R-4. Basically, these lot sizes here -- am I hearing you that if, in fact,
at a future date that they want to go ahead and develop the other lot, that is why the
density is going to go up, therefore, the step up was considered the thing to do at this
time?
Lucas: Chairman Mae, correct. Staff felt it was only logical to realize they are stubbing
to this large lot and in the future their -- the subdivision is set up for that stub street to go
through and to have lots there. It seems fairly clear on how they designed it and that's
why staff felt it was important to realize that while currently, including this 89,000 square
foot lot, they may meet the density requirement or density -- up to three units per acre
described in the low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan land use map or
future land use map. The staff felt it was important to look at a scenario where if this
were to develop in -- as R-8, because that is the zoning designation they are asking for.
If this is all zoned R-8, then, when this develops it can develop at the R-8 standard. In a
sense, staff loses its -- they don't have to meet a higher standard, because they already
have the zoning of R-8 to put as many lots as they can fit in there with the R-8 standard.
""eridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 17 of 59
And so there is options that the Commission can look at regarding how they want to
condition this project. One of those options may be to allow some of the project to be
zoned R-8 and maybe zone this large lot -- as this large lot to be zoned maybe an R-4
to insure that the lower density residential requirements are met in that area.
ii.t!
Borup: That now does raise a question for me, but go ahead.
Moe: Well, I think the main thing that I struggled on when I started reviewing this was
the simple fact that at the present time it is noted as low density area within the Comp
Plan at the present time and I know many of the folks that worked very hard to develop
the UDC the way it is at the present time and the main reason that was done was to
possibly try and curtail changes along the way, realizing that the step up does happen.
I think he did a very good job explaining the reasons for the step up and I just wanted to
make sure that everybody is aware that the low density and within the UDC, R-4 should
be within this area, but I don't really have a real problem with the step up either.
Borup: The question I had -- the project we approved two weeks ago a half mile to the
west of here, was that also an R-8?
Moe: Yes, it was.
Borup: And weren't they about similar lot sizes? And was the Comp Plan the same on
that one -- Camp Plan designation the same?
Mae: No. That was -- I do believe that was mixed use there and we had R-4 to the
south of that area, was it not?
Borup: Yes. Same as we do here. R-4 to the south. But mixed use?
Hood: The Comp Plan designation is the same. Itls the same lots, in the same
subdivision.
Borup: Yeah. They are all five acre lots. This is just opposite ends of the same
subdivision. And it's not -- I mean the subdivision was just five acre lots that was platted
along McMillan. The developer didn't do anything other than survey it.
Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may just real quick, I donlt know if Justin was at the pre-apps. I
just wanted to go on record and actually thank the applicant for providing the stub
street, if you will, over that -- the out -- it's being platted, but the existing home. We did
request that through out pre-apps. There is an existing access to McMillan. We wanted
to see them relinquish that access and actually take access internally here. So, that is
something that we, basically, pushed. I don't know that at this time they have any idea
of when that property may redevelop. Just to let you know, they are not doing this to
circumvent the system and trying to come back in next year and re-subdivide this and
have ten dwelling units per acre here. It is something that may happen in the future and
if you do look at these eight acres or nine acres all as one, you may end up with
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31 , 2006
Page 18 of 59
something above the three dwelling units that the Camp Plan calls for. Again, I just
wanted to point out that we were the ones -- staff was asking them to provide a stub
street to that property so access to the existing home could be provided internally,
rather than the driveway to McMillan. So, I just wanted to point that out. Thank you.
Borup: And that was kind of my -- along with that, I think we are being consistent with
what's developed at the other end, so -- and I assume the ones sandwiched in between
are probably going to want to do about the same.
Mae: Okay. Well, can we have the applicant come forward?
~T2
Elg: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Van Elg. I'm with the Land Group, 462
East Shore in Eagle. I'd like to thank staff for the great explanation. They did a good
job explaining this. And they have been good to work with. Justin, do you have that
PowerPoint? Will that go in?
Lucas: 11m attempting to load it right now.
Elg: Okay. Okay. This is Harpe Subdivision. It looks like Harpe, but it's Harpe. And
as Justin described, the southwest corner of McMillan and Locust Grove -- you can go
to slide two, Justin. This plat just -- and I'm not sure if this represents some more recent
tweaks to that cul-de-sac design or not from what you showed up there. It may not.
Maybe the same one. But we did talk to Joe Silva. I know I was concerned about the
cul-de-sac. And we thought that we had that worked out initially with the first design
that we showed, but through discussions with ACHD and with Joe Silva, we realized
that we better go back to the drawing boards and come up with something that was
more palatable for all. And in coming back to the cul-de-sac design like this, we did end
up giving up a -- what, two -- a couple of lots I think from the beginning -- from the initial
design. But I think this cul-de-sac design will meet Joe's standards, that meets ACHD
standards. We have gone to them in tech review already. So, I think -- I donlt think Joe
will have any problems with it. But as stated, Justin does have that condition of
approval and we are completely satisfied and comfortable with that condition. If it
doesn't, if it's a foot or two off or something, we have got a little bit of room to play with it
and make it work. One thing that you need to note here -- these lots right here are all
8,000 square foot plus, 8,500. Across the street I think this is zoned -- Justin, if I'm not
mistaken, unless my NGB thing is wrong, I think it's zoned R-8 across the street.
Borup: Settlers is. Right directly across the street.
Elg: Yeah. This whole area right here is zoned R-8 and down below Havasu, this area
down -- this is R-4 right here and, then, there is R-8 right here. But it's R-4, R-8 mix for
the most part. So, I think we are real compatible with what's there. The other thing is
you can't quite see it, but see there is a line right there, that's one of the lots for Havasu
Creek and I think those lots are at 65, 68 hundred square foot, somewhere around
there. These lots here are 8,000 plus, 84, 85 hundred. So, we think that we are being
very -- that this design is very compatible and sensitive to what's gone on in that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 19 of 59
development there. These lots right here are still larger than the Havasu lots, although
these lots right here in Havasu -- I believe the reason that they are larger in size is
simply because they are going around a bend and in order to get that they had to pay
for those lot lines. But, in general, these lots are all probably similar in size to every lot
that's around it. We tried to maintain some compatibility with the aligning the lot lines
there. I think there is four lots down here and there is six lots up here. So, it's a fairly
consistent ratio of lots. It's hard to line up lot to lot when you have lots going around a
corner down there along the south side of you. Again, this -- the new plat that we have
talked with ACHD and with the staff and this lot will ge designated a non-buildable lot
until this stub street is punched through or some other alternate means of connection or
turn around can be provided that satisfies ACHD and fire department's requirements.
Although that lot will be undeveloped -- of course, all the stubs and everything will be
there, but there will be a little area of asphalt that comes down here that meets Joe's
requirements for fire truck turnaround -- emergency vehicle turnaround. Again, we have
provided the stub street up here. This lot right here -- we have absolutely no intention to
develop that at R-8, we just needed the step up -- you know, we are talking on these
lots right here 60 foot frontage versus 57-foot frontage. So, you know, we are this far
and that's basically -- besides the step down in, you know, four or five hundred feet of
square footage, that's what we are looking for right there. That's where the step up
really occurs. Everything else will be designed according to an R-4, basically. So, we
have no problem if you wanted to place a condition of approval, a note on the plat for a
condition that requires a note on the plat or for -- if you see it necessary to enter into a
development agreement on this piece right here saying that we don't develop it at R-8
densities, it will maintain a similar density as this development here or similar lot sizes.
We are comfortable with that. That doesn't alarm us at all. You might note also that
part of the reason we had to go through a redesign wasn't just for the cul-de-sac here,
but ACHD had some -- and Justin can verify this. We went back and forth and back and
forth. They are trying hard -- they are trying to develop a plan right here for the
intersection, just not there yet, so we developed this with worst case scenario in mind
and I -- they have given us statements and -- written statements that if we design to this
-- they are adjusting the staff report now, but what we show here is what ACHD will
adopt and be satisfied with for that -- for t~at design of that intersection. So, we should
be -- I think we are fairly safe. If for some reason it requires a little bit of extra right of
way, which it shouldn't, we have discussed that thoroughly with them. These lots are a
little bit larger and they can absorb some of that if they had to increase the size of those
turning lanes right there. I have got lots of notes here, but I think Justin's covered the
bulk of those. The next slide, Justin, is the landscape plan and I do have those
revisements for you. I forgot to give them to you tonight. But this shows the -- a new
pathway or landscaped area here, common area, open area with the covered gazebo
structure for barbecue, picnic area. We have rotated it from up here, this narrow area,
to this larger, more usable area down here. And, again, we are maintaining 9.9 percent
open space versus the required five percent. Again, a meandering pathway connection
through the -- the landscaped areas up to McMillan and over to Locust Grove and, then,
of course, a circuitous connection there down into the subdivision. I believe we have
provided more than the required amenities in this and the open space requirement. The
other thing that we did in designing this -- we could have probably picked up another lot
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 20 of 59
right here, but we felt that with the changes in traffic that were going on right here, that
we ought to make these lots a little bit larger, rather than try to squeeze them in, and so
providing a larger buffer there to the traffic and what was going on in th.at corner and,
Justin, you can go to the next slide I think. This is a colored rendering of our landscape
plan where you can see some of the street trees treatment, the shrub beds, the shrub
beds along here. The planter areas along this street. And the pathway connections up
through to there. It's a -- with this piece being -- in essence, it's a part of the plat, but it's
not a part of the plat. You know, we have this large chunk that just didn't -- just didn't
come on board and so -- fully. So, we are left with this configuration of property and we
have tried to be very creative in how to come up with something that will work and still
blend with all the subdivisions in there and I think we have come up with a plan that's
very palatable. Justin, you can skip the next slide and we will just show you briefly a
couple of the -- several of the elevations that the builder plans on putting into this
project. They are not going to be whimpy little designs, they are pretty substantial
buildings. If we could show the floor plans -- I don't have them on this slide here, they
are pretty lovely homes. The stucco -- a treatment of stucco and stone, brick, and a
couple of modulation changes and color changes for each of the buildings. This is the
Spruce A and the Spruce B over here and you can see some of the modulation changes
on that, as in the next slide. We have the Aspen. you can see some modulation
change in the roof and colors there. And the next one. There is four slide variations
there. The Pine. And is there one more? Okay. We will just end with that one. ('II
open myself up for any questions.
Mae: Any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Borup: I have one -- or maybe a little bit of a question and a comment. I notice on the
setback and consistent with the R-8 zone it shows a side setback of four feet.
Elg: Oh, do we? On the plat?
Borup: No. On the note. On the zoning -- well, no, that -- it's stating that's a zoning
setback and that's correct, but on your plat note --
Elg: It's four feet. Yeah. That's a typo. "Ve will correct that.
Borup: No, I don't -- well, it's not a typo. No. I'm saying that is correct. Four feet is a
correct setback in an R-8, but you do have a note up there on -- note number three that
says you are creating a five foot permanent public easement -- public utility easement
along each lot line.
Freckleton: Chairman Moe?
tJ1eridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 3112006
Page 21 of 59
Borup: So, is that -- can they change the size of that easement? It's got to stay five.
So, is the city going to correct that some day? You're requiring a five foot -- you're
requiring a five foot easement with a four setback.
Freckleton: No. This isn't the first time this has come up.
Borup: I know, but --
Freckleton: We took this to the utility coordinating council and asked how they felt
about reducing their overall easement to eight feet versus the ten that they currently
have and we got a resounding not interested at all. Five is even too tight.
Borup: And which utility people are on that?
Freckleton: You have power, gas, telephone, cable companies.
Borup: How many of them have lines in those easements?
Freckleton: That's a good argument.
Borup: I mean have we seen any subdivisions in the last five years --
Freckleton: They actually utilize those side yard easements for the service lines to the
home.
Borup: Right. Exactly. That's it.
Freckleton: The power company -- with the exception of the power company. The
power company basically they go where they can get to the meter. But gas and
telephone, they typically use that side yard easement.
Borup: Just to get to the house.
Freckleton: Correct. And that's the intent for it and that's what it's there for.
Borup: So, why do we still have four foot on the books?
Freckleton: I'll let Caleb answer that question.
Hood: Commissioner Mae, Commissioners, I'm not exactly sure how that all came
about. I think we were optimistic in thinking that we could get the utilities to accept a
lesser easement. In effect, it takes your building setbacks to five. I mean if there is an
easement there -- you can't build to four if you have got a permanent easement there.
So, it's a little misleading in that -- I haven't talked to Anna in awhile about it, but we will
probably clean that up with our next UDC text amendment, which should be coming
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 22 of 59
here in the next month or two. So, it's something -- again, it will be something that's
cleaned up here in the near future.
Borup: That's what I was wondering. But I do agree that the utilities can get in -- I
mean they can get in -- they donlt have any machinery that wonlt fit in eight feet.
Mae: But what they have they will never give up. I do have a question for you. In the
presentation you discussed those lot sizes as being over 8,000 square feet. Am I
looking at the wrong plat?
Borup: Yeah. Just some of them were.
Elg: Just some -- just on the -- right here along Locust Grove.
Borup: And we do have the wrong plat. We donlt have a revised --
Moe: We have the wrong one, because I don't see an eight anywhere.
Borup: You don't have the cul-de-sac one, do you?
.
Elg: Yeah. If yours doesn't have the cul-de-sac, that's the open one.
Moe: Might help to get the right plan. Thank you.
Elg: If I could, I will pass these to Caleb -- or to Justin.
Borup: But I was wondering if it went all the way down and apparently it does. I was
wondering the same thing.
Moe: All right. We have one person -- Ollie. Mr. Palmer, come forward.
Palmer: I have some questions for the Council. Ollie Palmer.
Borup: Address?
Palmer: 1615 East McMillan.
Moe: Okay.
Palmer: The berm across McMillan where they shut the road off from my driveway
there, how did the city come to the conclusion that they could take an extra 13 feet of
easement to make this subdivision when I was only selling the back two and a half
acres. I wasn't selling nothing on this little short side here that you got for the walkway
that goes off to the side of the property and I didn't sell my driveway entrance and all of
a sudden it comes to the place where they have taken that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Speciallt1eeting
August31,2006
Page 23 of 59
I'
Borup: This is your property?
Palmer: This is my property. Yes, sir.
Borup: It's not Mr. Harpe's property?
Palmer: No. That's my property. And I called the board about that and told them that I
didn't want my driveway being gone, that I would --
Borup: Which is your driveway?
Palmer: Well, it would be right out front. Straight out front.
Borup: The large parcel?
Palmer: On the large parcel on McMillan.
Borup: Okay.
Palmer: And they said, well, they are going to have me come in the other end and we'd
have the same size driveway through the subdivision, which is real narrow, and with my
equipment and stuff that I bring in through there, it would be really hard getting in and
out of that street, because I have got a boat and motorhome and it's just -- you know,
it's just -- turning out into there is going to be difficult to get out of that on the new street
that they have got there and I called them and asked them and said, well, they were
going to do that, that's part of the requirements, the city said they was going to do it and
so that's why I'm here this evening to find out about that and, then, he said they are
going to have a real elaborate landscaping across Mcrvttllan and all I can see there is
some trees. I thought there was going to be a 25 foot big mound covering that, plus the
little point that comes out right up here -- this was never part of the property either,
somebody just put that in there and I just got rid of another parcel of land there and I'd
just like to have the clarification of all those points.
Mae: Well, we will have the applicant come up and clarify that.
Baird: Mr. Chair, before we hear from the applicant again, can I make sure we don't
have anybody else that wants to testify?
Mae: Yes. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this? Okay.
Elg: Well, I stand here with my jaw dropped, too. Mr. Palmer, I apologize. We have
worked with Larry Harpe on this project, who has a purchase agreement on the
property, as I understand, and to our knowledge the information that he has given us is
what he had negotiated with you. So, it sounds to me like Larry needs to probably
discuss some things with Mr. Palmer.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 24 of 59
Moe: Absolutely.
Elg: So, If possible, perhaps we can defer this or -- to the next hearing and gives us
some time to -- for Larry to discuss this with Mr. Palmer.
Borup: So, could you clarify the ownership of the -- Mr. Harpe has an option on the
entire parcel?
Elg: He has an option on this part and we -- Mr. Palmer is a co-applicant on it as well.
He will have to sign the plat as well.
Borup: So, I was --
Elg: Because he's maintained ownership of the large piece.
Borup: Okay. It looks like one of his questions was that that landscaping pathway
buffer -- so, is there a question on who owns that parcel of property -- that piece of
property?
Elg: You know, that discussion came up and to my knowledge that was part of the
purchase deal, so that's --
Borup: And that was the original configuration of the lot?
Elg: Uh-huh. So, that sounds like the applicant -- Mr. Harpe and Mr. Palmer need to sit
down again and discuss what those bounds might be or if there is any lot size -- lot
adjustments that we need to make on this plat still.
Moe: Okay. I probably would like to ask staff a question that the point was made that
the land owner made a statement that the city was the one that was requiring this berm
across McMillan. Was there any discussions with Mr. Harpe in regards to this berming
and taking that access off of McMillan away?
Lucas: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, I stated earlier, I believe -- I wasn't at this pre-
application meeting, but Caleb did state earlier that this was discussed at the pre-
application meeting, the need to relinquish that access to McMillan Road and the
landscape buffering, that's -- that's just -- the UDC requires the landscape buffer, the 25
foot landscape buffer along arterial streets, which both of these streets are. And so
that's straight out of the UDC, the buffer requirements.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Elg: Could I make one other suggestion?
Moe: Please do.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 25 of 59
~
Elg: If you're comfortable with this, we could move forward with the plat and make any
adjustments to that landscape lot, even if we had to skinny it over to the boundary line.
I guess the biggest question, then, would be --
~"
Moe: And I guess what I would tell you is I'm not comfortable with that at all. I think
there are some things to be resolved between the landowner and the developer in
regard to what's going on here. ~
Elg: I think that's fine.
Moe: There are some things that need to be resolved.
.
Borup: And I would have thought that a lot of that would have been covered in their
purchase agreement and --
Elg: Well, all I know is that when Mr. Harpe came to us and told us what -- where those
lines were --
Borup: Right. And that makes sense.
Elg: So, we assume that Mr. Palmer was well into --
~
Borup: Yeah. I think Mr. Harpe would have something in the agreement if -- if it wasn't
approved that the contract would be void and --
Elg: Yeah.
Borup: -- and Mr. Palmer gets his property back.
Elg: These two need to talk and, then, we will adjust as we need to, but if we could be
tabled for -- until the next meeting, I think that would work for us.
Moe: Well--
Elg: That won't work for you, probably.
Mae: It definitely will not be the next meeting, I can guarantee you that.
Borup: It shouldn't be something that takes a long time, though, should it?
Mae: Pardon me?
Borup: How much time do we need to spend on this in the next meeting? It would be a
one issue question, wouldn't it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31,2006
Page 26 of 59
Moe: The problem is is our next meeting we are already full. We probably won't get
through --
Borup: Right. On that one.
Mae: The earliest, basically, is going to be the 5th of October would be the earliest
meeting.
Borup: And I don't know if Mr. Palmer had another question. I don't know if you wanted
to --
Moe: Mr. Palmer, do you have another question? Please come forward.
Palmer: One of the big concerns that I forgot to mention is that they have got this piece
where the cul-de-sac is up here --
Moe: Please take the microphone right there.
Palmer: This piece right up here -- my house sits right here and there is no way that I
could keep the house there with that street coming in there.
Borup: Well, there is no street coming in there unless you put the street in there.
Palmer: Well, yeah, but if it was to be developed -- if I want to develop and keep my
house, I couldn't keep my house there, because I can just sell the land, because of the
way the street's coming in, and I was told by the city -- I called and talked to two or three
different people -- I didn't bring their names with me this evening -- and they said that
the berm had to be -- we had to cutoff and that's what they agreed to and this is the way
that I was told and that's why I'm here this evening to see what -- who made that
decision.
Borup: So, Mr. Palmer, you didn't have any type of agreement with Mr. Harpe on the lot
sizes or developing this or --
...
Palmer: None of the lot sizes was -- that I can recall. He was just going to buy the back
two and a half acres. I wasn't going to be doing anything to the front of the property,
anything to the side of the property, he was just buying two -- the back acres to connect
it with his four acres or three and a half on Locust Grove. And, then, when the plat
came back and I seen the picture of what this was, we initially had a conversation on it
and I said I don't want my driveway to be dismissed and not be able to have access on
McMillan and he says, well, it has to be, the City Council is saying it has to be and I
says, well, I'm going to call them and find out why it has to be and, then, I'm going to go
to the meetings and see if I can't get that changed, because I have got -- I have been
there for 30 years with that same entrance and I think it de-values my property, because
if they ever did change and rezone it or whatever for commercial down the road, they
III
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 31, 2006
Page 27 of 59
would have no access to that from the property anymore. So, all of that property has
been just eliminated.
Borup: The Camp Plan I don't think is allowing commercial there.
Palmer: At this point in time.
Borup: Yeah. You're going to be sandwiched on three sides with residential property
and you're only -- you're less than 200 feet from the intersection. I think that's a big part
of the -- of why that needs to be eliminated, because of the access to that intersection.
And you already know what that intersection is like at busy times.
~
Palmer: It's not a problem to us getting in and out of there with the intersection being
there. We haven't had any problems and traffic's thick, but people are courteous
enough to let you in and out of your driveway. You know, we don't have any problem
there. And the stop signal is 75 feet from --
Borup: But if you had a business there that couldn't get in and out, that wouldn't be
very --
Palmer: No. No. As commercial, yeah. But I just don't like the fact that I have to go
through a subdivision and make all kinds of turns with an 85-foot motor home and boat
with the trailers on them and trying to get in and out --
Borup: So, I assume you have something in the agreement that if that -- the property
revert back to your ownership if this is not approved?
Palmer: Not necessarily along --
Borup: It sounds like that's what you're saying; you'd just as soon not sell the property.
Palmer: I have already sold the property. It's already been sold and closed.
Borup: Okay.
Palmer: I just didn't -- and, then, another reason why I was here this evening, because I
didn't how my property -- this two acres that's left, which should be two and a half acres,
is part of this five acres or eight acres that we are talking about in this meeting, because
if those two and a half acres -- or two acres that's left out, they took the half acre for the
berm and that side piece is my property and is not part of this subdivision.
Borup: It sounds like there is some things to get worked out.
Mae: Absolutely. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Make a motion to continue?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special ~eting
August 31,2006
Page 28 of 59
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we continue AZ 06-041, PP 06-042, to the
regularly scheduled meeting on October 5th, 2006.
Borup: Second.
Moe: Itls been moved and seconded to continue this hearing on AZ 06-041 for
requesting annexation and zoning of the Harpe Subdivision and PP 06-042, request for
preliminary plat of Harpe Subdivision. All those in favor -- to the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Planning and Zoning of October 5th, 2006. All those in favor signify by
saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Borup: Just one comment. 11m surprised that 'Mr. Palmer didnlt ask Mr. Harpe about
this back when he was aware of it. That would be the time for that to come out, rather
than at this meeting.
Moe: 11m not sure how long he knew --
Borup: I don't know either, but --
Moe: Okay. Thank you very much.
Item 10:
Public Hearing: CUP 06-024 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of an 11 ,029 square foot multi-tenant retail building for
Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #2 by W.H. Moore Company -
NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road:
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, do we just --
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: -- recommend the acceptance of the request to withdraw. Is that
how the motion should go?
Moe: Pretty much. Can I get a second on that?
Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to open it?
Moe: Do we need to open it?
Borup: Yes. We need to open it.
Oliver D. & Barbara D. Palmer
;;;0::
IS15 E. McMillian Rd. Meridian, ID 83642
September 7, 2006
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, c/o Justin Lucas (planner}
660 Watertower Lane, Meridian, ill 83642
Re: Harpe Subdivision
)oh'
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission:
I would like to sincerely apologize for the confusion that occurred at the August 31 5t
public hearing regarding the Harpe Subdivision applications. As an owner and participant
in the platting process, I clearly should have discussed my confusion and/or resolved any
differences personally with Mr. Harpe, rather than trying to resolve these private issues at
the Planning and Zoning Commission level.
Since that public hearing, all concerns and any confusio~ have been completely resolved
between Mr. Harpe and me. Therefore, I would like to register my vote of strong support
for this project---as it has been submitted and presented in the public hearing.
.~~
As evidence that both~my wife and Lhave accepted the preliminary plat submitted for
approval by the Land Group, please find a copy attached that has been signed by us.
o~~
Oliver P~er
~r~
Barbara Palmer
tJo-rArZ,/ : cI~ Ck-e
L:J~ CDOI
shko{; lkhO
6.sJ'd/~ Ada Cb~
&tn. e:p &jJ%! Dr J
Sincerely,
cc: Mr. Van EIg, The Land Group
Mr. Larry Harpe
I~~
, .'i;ft~--
a"" .J!'~". ....
".. ....1 E .-#.'
~.." ~ ~:l.' C 0 f',#~
~ \J __......~ 0 ~ ~....
~~ ,_'!"". "-w:::..~.....~
! I '~OT Ai? }~ \~
:. ~'l.. ~
: *. . ~.~ ~jL ~.:
: : ... '",... :~f-t~1 jr
':. '= POBL\C ..' 2..
~ fP. · .... ~
~ '.?> ....~~: i-A---
'~~#~;~;i;.~~~'
t:'I., ."t. . ,""".,.:
. ^ "yl ,,~.:
August 28, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
AZ 06-041
August 31, 2006
APPLICANT Larry C. Harpe ITEM NO. 8
REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 8.95 acres from RUT to an R-8
zone for Harpe Subdivision - 4715 N. Locust Grove Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
See Attached Staff Report
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
#
,^~.f) \j
t\'>'\S '~~ ~ 0~
\\J\
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
No Comment
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
See Attached Comments
SAI'-lITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
No Comment
See Attached Comments
SETTLERS'IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTH ER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
f
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 31, 2006
FROM:
Justin Lucas
Associate City Planner
Meridian Planning Department
884-5533
\\'l.
STAFF REPORT
P & Z Commission Hearing
Hearing Date: 8/31/2006
Planning & Zoning Commission
TO:
- SJmJECT:
Harpe Subdivision
. AZ-06-041
Cfff OF MEHIOIAN
<~r'"Tv ('i t:RK n -
-'- , - -,"_.L ___,l=FfCf-::
-"----", "-------~- -
-AnnexatIon and Zoning of 8.95 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8
(Medium Density Residen6-al) zone
. PP-06-042
Preliminary Plat of22 single-family building lots and 3 common lots on 8.95
acres in a proposed R-8 zone
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Larry C. Harpe, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) of 8.95 acres from RUT
(Ada County) to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) and Preliminary Plat approval of 22 single family
residential lots and 3 common lots for Harpe Subdivision. The site is located on the south east comer of
the intersection of Locust Grove and McMillan Roads in Section 31, Township 4 North, Range 1 East,
and is currently referenced as Assessor's Parcel Numbers S0531110151 and R1608650180.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The subject applications (AZ-06-041 and PP-06-042) were submitted to the Planning Department for
concurrent review. Staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the
requested Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat applications.
3. PROPOSED MOTIONS
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the
City Council of File Numbers AZ~06-041 and PP-06-042 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of August 31, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval:
(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-06~041 and PP-06-042 as presented during the hearing on
August 31, 2006, for the following reasons: (State specific reasons for denial of the annexation
and/or preliminary plat request.)
Continuance
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Numbers
AZ-06-041 and PP-06-042 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the
following reason(s): (State specific reason(s) for a continuance.)
4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
Bitterbrush Point Subdivision AZ-06-041, PP-06-042
PAGE I
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 31, 2006
a. Site Address/Location:
4715 N. Locust Grove Road
Section 31, T4N, R1E
b. Applicant / Owner:
Larry C. Harpe
1092 W. Shearwater
Eagle, ill 83616
c. Representative: Van Elg, The Land Group, Inc.
d. Present Zoning: RUT (Ada County)
e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
f. Description of Applicant's Request:
1. Date of Preliminary Plat (attached in Exhibit A): August 23, 2006
2. Date of Landscape Plan (attached in Exhibit A): July 25,2006
g. Applicant's Statement/Justification: As discussed with planning staff, this property is being
submitted without a comprehensive map amendment because with the approval of the allowed
step up in zoning from low density to medium density zoning the property will remain in
conformance with the identified comprehensive plan density. In addition, the 22 proposed lots
will be considerably larger than the lots in adjacent developments.
5. PROCESS FACTS
a. The subject application will, in fact, constitute an annexation and/or rezone as detennined by
City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, 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 of the Meridian City Code Title 11, a public hearing is
required before the City Council on this matter.
c. Newspaper notifications published on: August 14, 2006, and August 2R, 2006
d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: August 4, 2006
e. Applicant posted notice on site by: August 21, 2006
6. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): Rural Single Family Residential
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: A mix of single family residential uses and
county land. This area is rapidly transitioning from rural to urban.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
1. North: Rural Residential, zoned RUT (Ada County).
2. East: Future School site with in Settlement Bridge Subdivision, zoned R-4.
3. South: Havasu Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4
4. West: Rural Residential, zoned RUT (Ada County).
Bitterbrush Point Subdivision AZ~06-041, PP-06-042
PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 31, 2006
d. History of Previous Actions: N/ A
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities:
1. Public Warks
Location of sewer: There is a sewer main stubbed to this property from Havasu
Subdivision to the south.
Location of water: There is a water main stubbed to this property from Havasu
Subdivision to the south.
Issues or concerns: None.
2. Vegetation: N/A
3. Floodplain: N/A
4. Canals/Ditches/Irrigation: The Lemp canal runs under the intersection of McMillan
and Locust Grove roads adjacent to this site.
5. Hazards: N/A
6. Proposed Zoning: R-8
7. Size of Property: 8.95 acres
f. Subdivision Plat Information:
1. Residential Lots: 22
2. Non~residentia1 Lots: 0
3. Total Building Lots: 22
4. Common Lots: 3
5. Other Lots: 0
6. Total Lots: 25
7. Open Lots: 0
8. Residential Area: 8.95 acres
9. Gross Density: 2.45 units per acre
10. Lot Sizes: Lot sizes range from approximately 7,532 square feet to 8,945 square feet
with one large lot of 89,833 square feet.
g. Landscaping:
1. Width of street buffer(s): 25 feet along Locust Grove and McMillan Roads.
2. Width ofbuffer(s) between land uses: N/A.
3. Percentage of site as open space: 0.85 acres (9.9%)
4. Other landscaping standards: Landscaping adjacent to micro-paths should comply
with UDC 11-3B-12.
h. Proposed and Required Non-Residential Setbacks: As per the R-8 zone for single family
dwellings.
1. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The sole
access to the development will be from an existing stub street, N. Bright Angel Ave, provided
Bitterbrush Point Subdivision AZ-06-041, PP-06-042
PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 31,2006
from Havasu Creek Subdivision. Havasu Creek currently has approved direct access from
Locust Grove Road. A stub street and driveway will be provided to the large lot that contains
the existing home. This lot will abandon its access to McMillan Road. Another stub street is
provided to the property to the west that includes an emergency vehicle turnaround. In general
staff is supportive of this roadway design.
7. COMMENTS MEETING
On August 11, 2006, Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments
present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department,
Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments
and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B.
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
This property is designated "Low Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
Low density residential areas are anticipated to contain single family residences at densities up to three
dwelling units per acre (see Page 95 of the Comprehensive Plan.) The proposed Preliminary Plat includes
22 residential building lots on 8.95 acres for a gross density of 2.45 dwelling units/acre.
Although this proposed density is consistent with the "Low Density Residential" designation it is
important to note that the applicant is requesting an R-8 zone which is designed to accommodate medium
density developments. This zoning would allow the large lot that contains the existing home to re-
subdivide and develop lots in the future that are only required to meet the R-8 standards. If in the future
this large lot is subdivided and developed with similar lots as proposed in the current subdivision the
gross density for the entire area could reach up to 3.7 units per acre.
Even if the scenario above played out the potential gross density is still in general compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan because of the "step up" provision. This pt;'ovision described on the Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map allows for the city to consider other residential densities than those shown on
the future land use map as long as the proposed density is with in one "step" (low to medium) of the
density shown on the map. Due to this flexibility staff finds that the proposed development is in general
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The following Comprehensive Plan policies apply to this
application:
. Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 - Require that development projects have
planned for the provision of all puhlic services.
When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the
subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands proposed
to be annexed in the following manner:
. Sanitary sewer and water sendee will be extended to the project at the developer's
expense.
· The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District.
Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire
Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire
Department.
. The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sher~ff'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.
Bitterbrush Point Subdivision AZ-06-041, PP-06-042
PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 31, 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 VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 3 - Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and
Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach" from the National Center for Bicycling and
Walking in all land-use decisions.
This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkway facilities in new
construction and reconstruction projects, in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient.
Staff believes that the subject applications comply with the policies listed in the literature noted
above.
. Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 5 - Require pedestrian access connectors in all new
development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a
community pathway system.
Staff is supportive of the proposed pedestrian connection to McMillan Road and Locust Grove
Road via the proposed micropaths, as well as the extension of the stub street provided from the
south which will provide for pedestrian connectivity with the Havasu Creak Subdivision.
. Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1 ~ Protect existing residential properties from
incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.
The applicant is proposing a residential zone. Staff finds that the surrounding developments are
compatible with the proposal.
. Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 10 - Support a variety of residential categories
(low-, medium-, and high-density single family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes,
apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of
affordable housing opportunities.
The subject application includes a request for the R-8 zoning designation. The subject property is
located adjacent to lands zoned R-4. Stafffinds that the requested zoning designation is generally
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this site considering that the applicant is
requesting a step up in density.
. Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6 - Require street connections between subdivisions
at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow.
Two stub streets will provide cross-access with the properties to the west when they develop.
9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2A~2 lists single-family developments as a
Bitterbrush Point Subdivision AZ~06-041, PP-06-042
PAGE 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE Of AUGUST 31, 2006
Permitted Use in the R-8 zone.
b. Purpose Statement of Zone: 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.
10. ANALYSIS
a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation
ANNEXATION AND ZONING ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the
Comprehensive Plan, staff believes that the requested R-8 zone is appropriate for this property.
Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of the required facts and findings for annexation.
The annexation legal description submitted with the application (prepared on June 15, 2006, by
Dennis Lewis, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the
City of Meridian.
PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the
Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposal with the Unified Development
Code, staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed single-family residential
development. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings for a preliminary
plat.
Lot Size: Ten of the proposed lots in this subdivision exceed 8,000 square feet. The
remaining 12 lots all exceed 7,500 square feet. These lot sizes are comparable to the
neighboring subdivisions which have lots that range from 7,500 to 9,500 square feet.
Landscaping: The landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, on 7-25-06, is approved
with the following modifications/notes:
. Per UDC 11-3G-3B5 parkways that are used as common open space shall be
a minimum of eight feet wide from street curb to edge of sidewalk and
contain one class two tree for every 35 linear feet of parkway.
. The proposed micro pathways that connect N. Bright Angel Avenue to
McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road shall be constructed in accordance
with UDC 11-3A-8. All landscaping adjacent to the pathway shall meet the
requirements outlined in ll-3B-12 including the requirement for one
deciduous tree per 35 linear feet of pathway.
. Per UDC 11-3G-3A, set aside at least 9.9% (0.85 acres) of the site for
useable open space, as proposed.
. Per UDC 11-3B-10, the applicant should work with the City Arborist, Elroy
Huff, on designing, adopting, and implementing a protection and mitigation
plan for the existing trees on site.
. A written certificate of completion should be prepared by the landscape
architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape
plan. All standards of installation should apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14.
Submit copies of a revised landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes
mentioned above, with the final plat application(s).
Bitterbrush Point Subdivision AZ-06-041, PP-06-042
PAGE 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 31, 2006
Common Areas / Open Space: The applicant has provided 0.85 acres (9.9%) of
landscaped open space, meeting the 5% minimum required by DOC 11-3G-3A-1. The
majority of the open space is passive in nature and provided in the form of landscaped
parkways. The applicant is also proposing some open space/common area along two
micro pathways. Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the
Harpe Subdivision Homeowners Association.
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 utilize 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. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all
landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC ll-3A-15
and MCC 9-1-28.
Stub Streets: The applicant should be required to provide public stub streets to Lot 13
Block 1 of the proposed subdivision and to the Wood property to the west (Parcel
#R1608650150) as proposed.
Existing Residences/Buildings: The site currently contains multiple buildings. The
existing buildings span across proposed lot lines and do not meet setback requirements of
the requested zoning. Therefore, all existing buildings shall be removed/re-located in
accordance with the building setbacks of the R-8 zone, prior to signature of the fmal plat
by the City Engineer.
Emergency Vehicle Turnaround: The current design of the cul-de-sac at the north end of
N. Bright Angel Avenue does not meet Fire Department standards for an emergency
vehicle turnaround. The applicant should work with the Fire Department to ensure that
the cul-de-sac or possible alternative meets Fire Department standards.
Fencing: No perimeter fencing is shown on the preliminary plat or landscape plan. The
applicant should submit a detailed fencing plan with the final plat application for the
subdivision. If permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to
contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building
permit. All perimeter fencing must be completed prior to issuance of building permits.
Fencing should taper down to a 3 foot maximum within 20 feet of all rights-of-way.
Fencing adjacent to all micro pathways is also required, and is shown on the landscape
plan. All fencing shall be installed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-7.
Ditches. Laterals. and Canals: As per UDC 11-3A-6, all irrigation ditches, laterals or
canals, exclusive of natural wateIWays and waterways being used as amenities, which
intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered.
b. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, staff fmds that applications AZ-06-041 and
PP-06-042 substantially conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and UDC standards. Staff
recommends approval of said AZ and PP applications subiect to the conditions listed in Exhibit
B.
Bitterbrush Point Subdivision AZ-06-041, PP-06-042
PAGE 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 31,2006
11. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat (Dated: August 23, 2006)
2. Landscape Plan (Dated: July 25,2006)
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 Description
D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance
Bitterbrush Point Subdivision AZ-06-041, PP-06-042
PAGE 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 31, 2006
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat (Dated: August 23, 2006)
lL-
Ow
!jJ;!~~
ZO~...~g
o ,0
-z ;O:u
!;; !1l0<"li'<0
ii' ~;::~ll~~
> o!l:....Zg
O:o;ll1li::w!O$ .
<0 <,,:to"
!:l.l.~zF~2E<
S (/);:lS~~~
w w~:toww
0: a... ~~"':;
.. c: fil~.;~
~~~~~
g~~U\
04SPI 'ueIP~aV1l
~eld AJeU!W!laJd
NOISI^IOSnS 3d~fv'H
,
E ~iM.
~ m:
8 ,ltb
!Z
w
l!i
~ - I
iillbld
~ !i~!il
ilUII'
" I I
I .
,- - -- '-- --1"--
~
I' I!I II i !dl =Ii 11"1'
,Ii I I . .. i. I I' I I
Itlp III iliq.: j:i j
t IIIIIII1 I! I! I Hili '
I II · h I. I. WI 1111
11!;l i. il i i! i! iI ii ill I
I !liilllP :1:1:1,1 ill! I
.Ih'lill; Illal,l! Ii il
:ll~! !li' !I iI it ill ill Ii iii ~Il~~ Ii
... II.! II " n IE Ie .. I~I.. :t
i" ~Ir, ..;I~; :.1 ~,I ~I,~ll!, :111 II
Exhibit A
~~l_I"'llll ." 111'! t d.
~ M . I, lit ' ,': ~~ ll.
lMtmI. ',:VIi '/'1 1'1"1' 'I, f !
) 1.. I I
. i ~
~~.I! !
a!l'! ,i.t
~;.ll !il~l
ilnl~ilpili
UUIBhilh
~ ; ~ 5
~
m 11
i1iis.
h
n
Ii!
I
I
'CIlI _- -lSf'ClO1 '" - c,
, 'IP ,
@'1!"
'I,'i
Ii!
I
~
, 1
'-"~\..:\ '.
,. -.~ :
..r",'
I
Ii
___L
,
!!I,! 111;1
unnll~1
" llll! I~I
m\ j' ~: I .
" illli
13111' Iii. 1
~ INI iI~11 It.11l "lli ,alii
u IIII II!I I II lib I I!I
lil,l~ iliil~ MlIfi lmfi il;11
n~.-';~
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 31, 2006
2. Landscape Plan (Dated: July 25,2006)
Ie:! t!ll III i -----ueld ~;~~;~~~~u:~~:~eu~~~laJd
:: ",,: _____"~~OISI^I<:!.8n~_~d~VH,
-I I ~]i-lu'lltlH!!-I'1 iil,il "m
, m~.I~1 hl!'!ll ",.Jil~ j. ',' ~1
= ,. "'I dill;
, ; 1
! ,I I
-t I ~ .-- -!- .1._ _
.. -----&-~ <<
I
~,\ -- '.-
.~!
II:
; i I
: i' I'
: 1
i
i I
I-
I
~,/" ~<1i II' I
! "~l l----i--
I ' " ! I "
II :'::r,l I,
. 1 . " --~t
. '
~ i
~-~() ~
i ..~. I
o f
I
!
o
,
.d~l~i 11
~ Sill
" J~ 1:;0
~ 20igh
~
OJ
::;
~ ,I
~ 111~
S "ll~
Q !~~h
ii I "
!i . il
i~ :'11
;. II ,I "
Ijl~.lU III
:. . ~I.
, :! ---J
-<" ,. <!i1
,,:, ' Ii ~>=
'-, "Ili UJZ
,,' ~"ffi:3
_&< I Q.- Q.,c..
v
!H fJ ~
j~i ~ ~1 -, ~
!U i d ~i
,.,'!! I z
11:' II j::
ll!!j'l! 2
, H! I I!.! ~
In I 'ill
I ~ I~j :.~~ WW
1" qi f l'~ij 0:
!l! \ In t-
I~~ ~hU~ gs
II ~~o ~F!i; 0
ill@!1 i3
_ """l,l-
- :'1 ;n.,! ~
i~~ !~iih~ c
~liI~~:I:~l~; '"
I!! i ! j l!! fi 'Ill [Hill !lpl,1I i Ii ii' ! II! i
21[ II'jl Ill! ilJ i'l' ,'jld 11i'l'! ,II! ill ill ! Ii! '
ts II' III illl. 'hill 1',1 I, 1'1'11 'II J
F II!:! III !,llllllllllill!!i! Illll~,!II, 111111
I H I t!f 1111,)11% hi!ljfi I pm! I 'i'l ,
.., i Ill. IHi Ihdl!!h1lfHill hi lllliU I'I!! II
~ 11"!'!!ii!!!lt1il',II!IIHllilll'll Hlii ilH!!II!lll,IUII
I ,',I,,' I, l'Ii', I I '. I' I I,!
~ Il!!/!!i !lii!!ll !11!illilllll!1)!!I!llllj!!I!111 ll:!!!!!!!1
Exhibit A
!l ~
~~ ::i
~ !
1
(!J,
z
>=
~
W
UJ
0:
l
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 31, 2006
B. Conditions of Approval
1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1.1 ANNEXATION COMMENTS
1.1.1 The annexation legal description submitted with the application (prepared on June 15,2006, by
Dennis Lewis, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the
City of Meridian. Any future subdivision, uses, and construction on this property shall comply
with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of submitta1.
1.2 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
1.2.1 The preliminary plat labeled as Sheet 1, prepared by The Land Group, dated August 23, 2006, is
approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments and provisions of the accompanying
Annexation and Zoning application (AZ-06-041) and any future development agreement shall
also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (pP-06-042).
1.2.2 The landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., on July 25, 2006, and labeled Sheet Ll.O
is approved with the following modifications/notes:
. Per UDC 11-3G-3B5 parkways that are used as common open space shall be a
minimum of eight feet wide from street curb to edge of sidewalk and contain one class
two tree for every 35 linear feet of parkway.
. The proposed micro pathways that connect N. Bright Angel Avenue to McMillan Road
and Locust Grove Road shall be constructed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-8. All
landscaping adjacent to the pathways shall meet the requirements outlined in 11-3B-12
including the requirement for one deciduous tree per 35 linear feet of pathway.
. Per UDC 11-3G-3A, set aside at least 9.9% (0..85 acres) of the site for useable open
space, as proposed.
. Per UDC 11-3B-10, the applicant shall work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on
designing, adopting, and implementing a protection and mitigation plan for the existing
trees on site.
. Provide a copy of the updated landscape plan showing the changes made to the
preliminary plat with the [mal plat application.
. A written certificate of completion should be prepared by the landscape architect,
designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan. All standards of
installation should apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14.
The landscape plan is not to be altered without approval of the Planning and Zoning Department.
No field changes to the landscape plan are permitted. All standards of installation shall apply as
listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit a landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above,
with the final plat application(s).
1.2.3 Provide public stub streets to Lot 13 Block 1 of the proposed subdivision and to the Wood
property to the west (Parcel #R1608650150) as proposed.
1.2.4 All buildings that span across proposed lot lines, or do not conform to the dimensional standards
(setbacks, height, etc.) of the UDC shall be removed, relocated or made to conform to city code,
prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer.
1.2.5 The current design of the cul-de-sac at the north end of N. Bright Angel Avenue does not meet
Fire Department standards for an emergency vehicle turnaround. The applicant shall work with
the Fire Department to ensure that the cul-de-sac or possible alternative meets Fire Department
standards.
Exhibit B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 31, 2006
1.2.6 ACHD is requiring that an access easement be placed across all of Lot 2, Block 2 for the required
temporary emergency vehicle turnaround. Prior to signature of the final plat the applicant shall
work with staff to determine the most effective way to address this easement and ensure that Lot
2, Block 2 remains a non build lot until the stub street is extended. This lot shall be maintained
weed free until the easement is removed and the lot is developed.
1.2.7 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Harpe Subdivision
Homeowners Association.
1.2.8 Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, and
waterways being used as amenities, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided
shall be covered. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or
lateral users association ( ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the
Public Works Department prior to construction plan approval. Iflateral users association approval
can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
1.3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
1.3.1 Sidewalks/walkways shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the
subdivision pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17.
1.3.2 The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11- 3A-11.
1.3.3 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water. The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for
the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a 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. An underground, pressuriz~d irrigation system should be installed
to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 1l-3A-15 and
MCC 9-1-28.
1.3.4 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. 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.
1.3.5 The applicant shall submit a fencing plan with the final plat application for the subdivision. If
permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be
installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fences shall taper down
to 3 feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of-way. All fencing should be installed in
accordance with UDC 11-3A~7.
1.3.6 Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing
additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed.
Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to
be mitigated.
1.3.7 Staffs failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved
annexation/conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
1.3.8 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6B~7.
2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains installed in
Havasu Creek Subdivision to the south. The applicant shall install mains to and through this
Exhibit B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 31, 2006
development; 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.
2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in Havasu Creek Subdivision
to the south. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this
development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works.
2.3 Any potential reimbursement agreements must comply with all requirements of City Code 9-1-13
and 9-4-19, which includes the preliminary agreement (which includes footage, size, and depth of
reimbursable pipe) being fmalized prior to construction plan approval. The detailed agreement
with the reimbursable amount shall be approved by Council prior to plat signature.
2.4 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public
right of way (include all water services and hydrants).
2.5 The applicant has not indicated the pressure irrigation system in this proposed development is to
be maintained as a private system, therefore plans and specifications will be reviewed by the
Public Works Department as part of the construction plan review. A "draft copy" of the
operations and maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "final draft"
being required prior to final plat signature on the last phase of this project.
2.6 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.
2.7 All existing houses that are to remain on site shall be required to connect to City services. The
applicant shall be responsible for the payment of assessments prior to signature on the fmal plat
and the actual physical connection to the services prior to issuance of Certificates of occupancy.
2.8 Prior to signature on the final plat the applicant shall vacate the easements that were dedicated
along the interior lot lines of the original Crestwood Subdivision.
2.9 All existing structures not meeting setbacks or meeting the dimensional standards of the UDC
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 Additional width to the public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along the right-of way
shall be dedicated where the sidewalk is located past the right-of-way. The additional width
needs to be sufficient to allow for 10 feet of easement past the sidewalk.
2.12 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.
2.13 Per UDC ll-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, that
intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. Plans will need to be
approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch
owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department prior
Exhibit B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 31, 2006
to plan approval. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
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.
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 Environmental 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. Where mailboxes
are located on or near sidewalk the applicant shall comply with all American with Disabilities Act
requirements for unobstructed sidewalk access.
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, on 25' pole shall be required on all public
residential streets. Two-hundred and fifty watt high pressure sodium streetlights, on 30' pole
shall be required on subdivision entrances and collector roadways. Design of the streetlights shall
be approved by the Public Works Department. Decorative lights require a streetlight agreement
on file with Public Works prior to activation. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's
expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants, and no further than
400' distance in between locations. Final design locations and quantity are detennined after
power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain
approval from the Public Works Department, and permit from Building 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 feet
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.
3.3 Final Approval ofthe fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
Exhibit B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 31, 2006
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 1;2" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications.
d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers when spacing permits.
e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade.
g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5.
h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing
buildings within 1,000 feet of the project.
3.4 The phasing plan may require 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. (The proposed cul-de-
sac at the north end ofN. Bright Angel Avenue does not meet the turnaround requirements.)
3.5 All entrance and internal roads, alleys, and cul-de-sacs shall have a turning radius of 28' inside
and 48' outside radius.
3.6 All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside and
shall have a clear driving surface which is 20' wide.
3.7 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.
3.8 The proposed 22-10t subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total
estimated population of 64 residents at build out.
3.9 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as
measured around the perimeter of the building.
3.10 . 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. For buildings equipped
throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section
903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183).
a. For Group R-3 and Group V occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183
m).
b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system
installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall
be 600 feet (183 m).
4. POLlCE DEPARTMENT
4.1 All interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if
solid fencing is used.
4.2 The micro paths shall be adequately lit to afford greater visibility of the site as policed from the
public street.
4.3 The shrubbery along the micro-pathways shall not exceed two feet in height at maturity.
4.4 The southern tenninus of the proposed micro-pathway connecting to McMillan road shall tie
directly into the sidewalk along North Bright Angel Avenue.
5. PARKS DEPARTMENT
Exhibit B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 31, 2006
5.1 Standard for Mitigation of Trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape
Ordinance (UDC 11- 3B-1 0) will be followed.
5.2 Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in
the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance (UDC 11-3B-I 0) will be followed.
6. SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY
6.1 SSC has no comments related to this application.
7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (DRAFT COMMENTS RECEIVED ON 8/21/06)
7.1. SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
7.1.1 Construct the internal streets as 33-foot street sections with rolled curb, gutter, and 8~foot planter
strips within 50~feet of right-of-way; and 5-foot detached concrete sidewalks within an easement;
and obtain fIre department approval for the reduced street sections.
7.1.2 Construct the stub street to the west approximately 160-feet north of the south property line as the
internal street section. This street should be signed as follows: "THIS STREET WILL BE
EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE."
7.1.3 Construct the second proposed stub street to Lot 13 of Block 1, located 165-feet south of the
north property line as the internal street section, with a fully improved turnaround at the terminus
(utilizing a minimum turning radius of 45-feet). Where the right-of-way ends at the property line,
the applicant should install signage stating: "TillS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE
FUTURE."
7.1.4 Obtain fire department approval for the use of the temporary emergency turnaround on Lot 2 of
Block 2, and provide the easement across the entire lot prior to signing the fmal plat.
7.1.5 Construct a 5pfoot concrete sidewalk located no closer than 2-feet off of the right-of-way line
(back of walk to ROW) for McMillan Road. If the sidewalk is located outside of the right-of-way,
the applicant should provide a sidewalk easement. Any existing driveway access to McMillan
Road should be closed to match improvements; thereby restricting all of the site's access to the
internal streets.
7.1.6 Dedicate 45.feet of right-of-way from the centerline of McMillan Road from the west property
line to 335-feet east of the west property line by means of a warranty deed. The frontage on
McMillan Road [WIll 335-feet east of the west property line to 435-feet east of the west property
line should taper to 59-feet from centerline; continued to the intersection with Locust Grove.
Note: The original proposed right-of-way for McMillan Road is accurate with the exception of
the location of the taper. The taper length is accurate, however it should begin 100-feet from the
intersection rather than the proposed 80-feet. This will shift the starting point and ending point of
the taper 20-feet to the west, as noted in the diagram below.
7.1.7 Construct a 5-foot concrete sidewalk located no closer than 2.feet off of the right-of-way line
(back of walk to ROW) for Locust Grove Road. If the sidewalk is located outside of the right-of~
way, the applicant should provide a sidewalk easement. Any existing driveway access to Locust
Grove Road should be closed to match improvements; thereby restricting all of the site's access
to the internal streets.
7.1.8 Dedicate 35-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel by
means of a warranty deed, and dedicate the northeast property comer (chamfer the radius) to
facilitate the construction of improvements for the planned signalized intersection (see attached
diagram). The exact design of the comer should be determined by the District Development
Review.
Exhibit B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 31,2006
7.1.9 No direct lot access may be taken from either Locust Grove Road or McMillan Road.
7.1.10 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
7.2
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.3
7.2.4
7.2.5
7.2.6
7.2.7
7.2.8
7.2.9
7.2.10
7.2.11
7.2.12
7.2.13
Exhibit B
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or
right-of-way.
All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be
borne by the developer.
Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the
construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file
number) for details.
Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy.
Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing
by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for
details.
All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy
Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all
applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the
State ofIdaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit
(or other required pennits), which incorporates any required design changes.
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.
Payment of applicable road impact fees is required prior to building construction in accordance
with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-ofwway. The
applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The
applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days
prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic
Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during
any phase of construction.
No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing
and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized
representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to
obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this
application. shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or
other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest
advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use ofthe subject property unless
a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect
at the time the change in use is sought.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNiNG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 31, 2006
8. SETTLERS' IRRIGATION DISTRICT
8.1 All irrigation / drainage facilities along with their easements must be protected and continue to
function. The facility is the Parkins Nourse Lateral. Contact SID for additional irrigation
requirements.
8.2 A Land Use Change Application must be on file prior to any approvals.
8.3 A license agreement MUST be signed and recorded prior to construction of any S.I.D. facilities.
8.4 Any changes to the existing irrigation system such as relocation, tiling, and landscaping must be
approved by Settlers Irrigation District.
8.5 All storm drainage must be retained on-site.
8.6 A pressure irrigation system must be provided to service all lots with irrigation water.
Exhibit B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 20, 2006
C. Legal Description
{~ I-Y~;~-:-;:~'J~
~ . 1:'" ~~
~~
.""'1
iY
td~
fJ.lI: I...-\;\;D CH..U\:P. r):c.
June 14,2006
Project No. 06018
Annexation Legal Description
Larry C. Harpe
8_95 ^cres
R~P"QVAl, ., ,
BY -"' I {o'rt--"
>,1ERIQIAN PUBLIC
WORKS I)EPT.
ANNEXATION LEGAL
A tract of land siruat"d in the Nord,,,~"t One Quaner of the Northeast One Quaner of Section 31,
Township 4 Nonh, Range 1 East, Boise Me,-idian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, described as
follows:
Commencing m" found brass cap monumenting the NOrtheaot Corner of said Section 31 being the
POINT OF 13EGIl\'NIISG.
Thence following the easterly line of section 31 South 00033'04" West a distan,,,, of 660_00
feet to poior;
Thelle_. North 89046'38" West a distance of 250,00 feet to a found '/, inch steel pin;
Thence :'\Iorth 89058'24" West a disrance of 340_37 feet to a point; ,
Thence North 00033'04" East a distance of 661.18 teet to a point 011 the northerly line of
said Section 31;
Thence following me northerly line of section _11 South 89"46'35" East a distance of
590.36 feet to tli" POINT OF BEGINNING,
Prepared By:
THE LAND GROUP, INC.
462 E. Shore Drive, Suite 100
Eagle, Idaho 83616
20R--939-4041
208-939-4445 (FAX)
,
Exhibit C
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 20, 2006
SITUA lED IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4
OF SECTION 31 TOWNSHIP 4 NOR1H, RANGE 1 EAST,
8.M., CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
o
~ E IoloIt1IllAN ROAD
'u S89-'4fs'j-S"EUS90:j6;_n -
\.
J
...- --.... ---~.__._.~._-~ ,....--- _..._~--~
------"--"
(
l-t~-~?~~ :L--'
~.,gr.. 31
~
I
t
, -
~
II
~
~
~'
"
"
~, l:NG'NEERlSURV[,YOR
~
~ :-"" I!""'_~ 'I'l1E LAND GROUI', INC-
',,',. ~"'IIIii",-' ~ .l~"tb~p.If~Mh,,^~,...
~ . :~~~ A":/!.~(,.~I.
"i . 0.01/ "~j"'.. ft'nlPllflllon ... '~mrw
::. . (;'rrItJ1I{o COl'Jlll'ttounfll'91Nan
~ . l.(md liur'VrJ'I'DJ1'
~ - .... '(p; f/rlJ .~,f;f/';:' t/IIf "'-1'" ~
;/.
MERiClIAN pUBI.IC
wo,,~s pEP1.
""
o
'"
<.l
'"
~
~
00.
LEGEND
;l':
...
~
I~
...
e>f
'"
'"
o
8.
a. CAlCULATED POiNT
FOUNO 1/2. STEEL PIN
III FOUNO BRASS CAP
SEClI(Jl UNEjSmEET CENlERUNE
ANNEXAlION fIOUNDARY
()(P-16 -o~
N69'58'24"W 3403 .
~
Exhibit C
PROJECT INFORMATION
SCAlE:1'.100'
EXHIBIT"H"
ANNEXATION PROPERTY
HARPE SUBmVISION
06/HI06
PROJECT _NQ,05021
1
~
I'
j;',
G'
..
I!I'
h,
i,'
..
,~ :
IT'
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 20, 2006
D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance
1. Annexation Findings:
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation
and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation
and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
The applicant is proposing to zone all of the subject property to R-8. Staff finds that the
proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of
this Staff Report.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed
district, specifically the purpose statement;
Staff fmds that single-family residential uses are allowed within the requested zoning
district of R-8 as a Principally Permitted Use. The accompanying plat demonstrates the
land will be developed with varying lot sizes and other dimensional requirements which
conform to the proposed zoning designation.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,
aod welfare;
Staff fmds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on
any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding.
4. 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; aod,
Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact
upon delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site, as
conditioned in the staff report.
5. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-SB-3.E).
Staff finds that all essential services will be provided by the developer to the subject
property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. The applicant is
proposing to develop the land in general compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan;
and this is a logical expansion of the City limits. In accordance with the findings listed
above, staff fmds that Annexation and Zoninl! of this property to R -8 would be in the best
interest ofthe 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:
1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Staff finds that the proposed application is in substantial compliance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports the proposed density and proposed plat layout, with
Exhibit D
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 20, 2006
recommended changes, as they comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report.
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to
accommodate the proposed development;
Staff finds that public services can be made available to accommodate the proposed
development. (See Finding Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings for more
details.)
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled pnblic improvements in accord with the
City's capital improvement program;
Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their
own cost, staff fmds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
4. 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 Exhibit
B, Agency Comments and Conditions, for more detail.)
5. 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.
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
Staff is unaware of any 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. Staffrecommends 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 staffis unaware.
Exhibit D
~\?\
e
Joint School District No.2
911 Meridian Road · Meridianf Idaho 83642 · (208) 855-4500 · Fax (208) 888-6700
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr. Linda Clark
August 1, 2006
""" - -"
City of Meridian
___ _ _ 66_QJ;;...:w:a!~J1myexJAme
Suite 202
Meridian, II) 83642
.::)j:;'3 r~1 .':
"' <t=.n\.o'v.
,'..__'_:J.
/: "'", .~. ..' -, :':", ,,"
~:..~ _~ _:....-_ -:-~ .-":,,,-r'-;-:=;- .._
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 ofthe Harpe Subdivision will have an impact on school enrollments at Prospect
Elementary. Sawtooth Middle and Eagle High School.
We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house six (6) elementary aged
children, five (5) middle school aged children, and five (5) 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.
. .-----SchootWlp'dcity-isaddressed-in-ldaho-eude-6-90--656S-;-T-he-M--eridian --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, J. A 1) J
'tduu:uJ' ~/lpjn . ~
(f~~ 'E;f;d~ ~
Building & Construction Manager
-
SETTLEPS'
e
IRf;Z/GAT/ON
DISTP/CT
COpy
~}\
Po. BOX 7571
PHONE 344-247]
BOISE, IDAHO 83707-1 57]
FAX 343-] 642
August 2, 2006
,) .'--~: ; <
" ")' ('
t':j"
AUG 0 :\ 2006
Phil Hull
The Land Group
462 E. Shore Drive, Suite 100
Eagle, ID 83616
c)r '::,:~-~ ,:::." _==
(~; 1 {=: :t" ;"<
Re: PP 06-042 Harpe Subdivision
J)eNRhil: ___~'" c=_-_ --,
After review ofthe Preliminary Plat of the above-mentioned applications Settlers Irrigation
District requests the following:
1. All irrigation/drainage facilities along with their easements must be protected and
continue to function. The facility is the Parkins Nourse Lateral. Contact SID for any
additional requirements.
2. A Land Use Change Application must be on file prior to any approvals.
3, A license agreement MUST be signed and recorded prior to construction of any SID
facilities, or within its easements.
4. Any changes to the existing irrigation system such as relocation, water delivery, tiling,
and landscaping must be approved by Settlers Irrigation District's Board of Directors.
5. All stonn drainage must be retained on-site.
6. A pressure irrigation system must be provided to service aU lots with irrigation water.
If you have any questions please call 343-5271.
athan Draper, Manager
Settlers Irrigation District
Enclosures
Cc: City of Meridian Planning Department (w/o enclosures)
~, Il!"-~
-.,' ~ ~
..-~ .
~
-~~
- ~~
11 "~~C\; ~(-'\ (j'\ '[-" :r-_:~' - .-")
- :\,.l.~"w ',.._,,' 1,:,<,.. .. V .L'I,I.
AUG 2 ;': 2006
THE LAND GROUP; INC.
<;it,,-,)f ,I\J:enchan
('j(" Cl;~rk OJJiCf::
City of Meridian
____r'-,~ and Zoning Department
660 E Watertow:er: ~ne. Suite 202
Meridian, Idaho 83642 _ _._
--~- ~
8/22/2006
RE: Sign Certification: Harpe subdi~ision
-~
.~'--...
Dear Planning Department,
Applicable code requires that the applicable property fot this application be posted and that
the City of Meridian be appropriately notified of such posting.
I hereby certify the following:
1. What: Two signs were posted on the ptoperty (see attached photos)
2. Wher:e: The Signs were placed near the property comers and/or along the public
road right-of-way~s t~ed by Otdinance and/or as discussed with staff
3. When: On t W, 2006--at least 10 days prior to scheduled hearing
Van
Planner
Attachment(s)
Subscribed and sworn to before me the day and year first above written.
~CoK
No Public for Idaho
Residingat: Ak ClrLL"'~~ I lJ~i~)
My commission expires: 0 I :L8-j ().'~
, !
....Ull..,.,,,
rI.....rI.. l\'B Co ""#<t
"'....'" r-"\." ....oe.".p< "...
"" " -" \
.. .. fo
i. ~o'tA~r" 'i
i f _.- 1 *!
: * \. : E
\ "PUB\..o\0.r ~
.... .0"
~ ,'~ ll'_ o.~ :;
iI! VI. ." !IIi
...~ 1'>1 .......... .~ It'
'+"40 .'I'S 0 P \~ "",...
'1"",nul""'-
,
Jilt Pklllllil{1!. .. T ~/I;(j.-alf' ,'Irr;/life.-t1lr, .. Civil T ;1I~!.iN..,ili~ -C;Q#- CtJ1lr.r~ /'r'll;'g'Jfil>H e:l' F.n.gil((~rin~ .. Gmphk(:OwlIlllli,wfi.lifi . JimIO'Ii~p'.
462 E- Shore Dd"e, Sle, 100, Engle, lliaho 1:13616 . \' 208.939.4041 [i 208.939.+H5 . w\>;-w.lhehmdgroupinc,c(\llI
;{lfj ~ 8
'(lia :5~
..~ lo:::!.4d
.. C"4 ,.q ""'
~...~Q8
.i-j'
o. ...
,,\
'p ~
~ \r,\O
'. :.a~
,'CO
{, - ,$.1i.
~ ('-..I . ,2\ ~ \
'-' ,.-<
~ aU
) r;~.~. \
<( ~~~ \
~ r~ \.,-,'
~ ,." ,\\!r<
'p
[ ....
j..LJ
.1--.....,
.'~-#'"
H
~ ~,.
['7' I
~"'l
r -
, "",..,/
r~::';
,......~
0::
~
~
_~ Cl)
('J ~
;-8?~
~:O
.;:.: ,-"\~~
~?~ ~~
~+,,"'~
OU
(:"0..,
(!)
::::>
<(
;;"--.
-.-"
.,....
\:.)
It ~,
,1"""'\
\<~
'M
;~:~ ~
:'z!t3'~ ~
..,' c:"'o.I
1;1'.1.. .
.IX .' t . (.:J
,J-, .'.'1' :::t
':<~":' <C
1\1' '. .
.;i~J \' ' ,
1,/ \
,. I .
;.1 C)
roe;)
:.a~
.~O
~..!t1
~ ~I
......(1)
au
t>.>
.~ +-'
~~.~
':.) Q
r
':
t~
I
_.
I
j
~\)
;t:S
:{)o _ '\~~~ _____
~ 1. ~,~l\\)~c.
,,~tO,: '\~\ 'j () ~
\'"'" (""""' \~ ,:~-':.--' '>1,~ V-
". ~ ,'t' ""1,-1 ~
"\",.' -, \~",l..f
(~ ,,'.~,:,,:..>
':", ..,~jr
~V
A';i~it,,--
A~
(k~uttf, ~"'
John S. Franden, President
Carol A. McKee, 1st Vice President
Dave Bivens, 2nd Vice President
Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner
Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner
August 23, 2006
l~F~ C E IVEll:
Applicant:
Larry Harpe
1092 W. Shearwater
Eagle, ID 83616
Gl'r y' ()I~ l\/i Fl~~(i D Il\~,:
-'-'-1"1--\' ,--: L' '/ ,.---. , ''-',
. ,I \ _ .~_~. ;; ~'''_, ~, "-: ,~: ; i : _n
Representative:
The Land Group Inc.
462 E. Shore Drive #100
Eagle, ID 83616
Subject:
Harpe Subdivision/MPP-06-042/MAZ-06-041
4715 N. Locust Grove Road
24-lot residential
On August 23, 2006 the Ada County Highway District acted on your application for the above referenced
project. The attached report lists site~specific requirements, conditions of approval and street
improvements, which are required.
Sincerely,
questions, please teel free to contact me at 208-387-6187.
Andrew Mentzer
Planner I
Right-ot-way & Development Services
CC: Project tile, Construction Services, Utilities, Meridian City
Ada County Highway District. 3775 Adams Street. Garden City, 10 . 83714. PH 208 3B7 6100 . FX 345-7650. www.achd.ada.id.us
Project/File:
Lead Agency:
Site address:
Staff Level
Approval:
Applicant:
Representative:
Staff Contact:
Tech Review:
Right-ai-Way & Development Services Department
~~~lt,
A~~-
Oo~uL-:to ~u-
Harpe Subdivision/MPP-06-042/MAZ-06-041
This application is for the rezone and annexation of 8.95 acres from RUT to R-8; as
well as the preliminary plat approval for 24-resideniallots.
Meridian City
4715 N. Locust Grove
August 23th 2006
".' :..
Larry Harpe
1092 W. Shearwater
Eagle, ID 83616
The Land Group Inc.
462 E. Shore Drive #100
Eagle, ID 83616
Andrew Mentzer
Phone: 387-6187
E-mail: amentzercmachd.ada.id.us
August 11th 2006
Application Information:
Acreage: 8.95
Current Zoning: RUT
Proposed Zoning: R-8
Residential Lots: 24
A. FindinClS of Fact
Existing Conditions
1. Site Information: The site is currently occupied by two residential structures.
2. Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area:
Direction
North
South
East
1
Land Use
Rural Residential
Residential'Havasu Creek
Residential Settlement Brid e
Zonin
RUT
R~4
R-8
I RUT
I West
I Rural Residential
3. Existing Roadway Improvements & Right-ot-Way
McMillan Road is currently improved with 2 travel lanes, paved shoulders,
and no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. McMillan Road currently
has between 55 and 64-feet of right-of-way abutting the site.
Locust Grove Road is currently improved with 2 travel lanes, paved
shoulders, and no curb, gutter, or sidewalk abutting the site. Locust Grove
Road currently has 50-feet of right-of-way.
4. Existing Access: There is currently one driveway accessing the site from McMillan Road
located approximately 165-feet east of the west property line (measured near
edge to property line). There are currently two driveways accessing the site
from Locust Grove Road located approximately 135 and 200-feet north of the
south property line (measured near edge to property line).
5. Site History: ACHO has not previously reviewed this site for a development application.
Development Impacts
1. Trip Generation: This development is estimated to generate approximately 220 additional
vehicle trips per day (20 existing) based on the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation Manual, single family dwelling land use
designation.
2. Impact Fees: There will be an impact fee that is assessed and due prior to issuance of any
building permits. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee
ordinance that is in effect at that time.
3. Traffic Impact Study: A traffic impact study was not required with this application.
4. Impacted Roadways:
Roadway Frontage Functional Traffic Count Levelot Speed
Classification Service* Limit
McMillan 565' Minor Arterial 4,042 east of Better 50 MPH
Road Meridian on than "C"
02/18/2004
635' Minor Arterial 50 MPH
Locust Grove Better
Road 7,498 south of than "C"
McMillan on
12/13/2005
*Acceptable level of service for a 2 lane minor arterial is "0" (14,000 VTO).
5. Capital Improvements Plan/Five Year Work Program
McMillan Road from Locust Grove to Eagle Road (SH 55) is slated for widening to 5-lanes in the
Five Year Work Program. McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road (abutting the site) are slated for
widening to 3-lanes in the Capital Improvements Plan. Also, the intersection of McMillan and Locust
Grove is slated to be widened and signaiized in the CiP.
?
B. Findings for Consideration
1 . Stu b Street
Stub Street Policy: District policy 7203.5.1 states that the street design in a proposed development
shall cause no undue hardship to adjoining property. An adequate and convenient access to
adjoining property for use in future development may be required. If a street ends at the
development boundary, it shall meet the requirements of sub section 7205, "non-continuous
streets." District policy 7205.5 states that stub streets will be required to provide intra-neighborhood
circulation or to provide access to adjoining properties. Stub streets will conform with the
requirements described in Section 7204.5,7204.6 and 7204.7, except a temporary cul-de-sac will
not be required if the stub street has a length no greater than 150-feet. A sign shall be installed at
the terminus of the stub street stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE."
Turnaround Policy: District policy 7205.2.1 requires turnarounds to be constructed to provide a
minimum turning radius of 45-feet. The applicant should also be required to provide a minimum of
a 29-foot street section on either side of any proposed center islands within the turnarounds. The
medians should be constructed a minimum of 4-feet wide to total a minimum of a 1 DO-square foot
area.
Applicant Proposal: The applicant has proposed two stub streets with this application. The first
stub street, E. Copper Ridge Street, terminates at the west property line approximately 160-feet
north of the south property line (measured property line to centerline). It is approximately 355-feet in
length to provide connectivity to the rural parcel to the west. Additionally, the applicant has
proposed a temporary emergency vehicle turnaround on Lot 2 of Block 2, which will not be
developed until the stub is extended. The second stub street, N. Bright Angel Avenue, terminates at
the eastern edge of Lot 13 of Block 1, approximately 165-feet south of the north property line. This
particular lot is over 2-acres in size, and the applicant has indicated that it will likely redevelop in the
near future; thereby requiring a public access from some place other than McMillan Road. The
applicant has proposed a temporary turnaround for this stub street located at the south property line
of Lot 13 of Block 1.
Staff Recommendation: The applicant should be required to construct the first stub street to the
west located approximately 160-feet north of the south property line as the internal street section.
The applicant should obtain fire department approval for the use of the temporary turnaround on Lot
2 of Block 2, and provide the easement across the entire lot (thereby restricting building of the lot
until the connection is made to the west) prior to signing the final plat. Signage at the terminus of
this stub should read as follows: "THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE." The
second stub street to Lot 13 of Block 1 (located 165-feet south of the north property line) should be
constructed as the internal street section, with a fully improved turnaround with a center island at
the terminus (utilizing a minimum 45-foot turning radius and 29-foot street section all the way
around, in compliance with District policy requirements). The right-of-way for this turnaround should
be brought to the property line of Lot 13 of Block 1, so as to accommodate any future
redevelopment/connection. Signage should be installed at the property line stating: "THIS STREET
WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE."
2. Tree Planter policy
Tree Planter Policy: The applicant should also comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim
Policy which prohibits all trees in planters less than 6-feet in width. In addition to prohibiting trees in
planters less than 6-feet in width, the policy requires a minimum planter width of 6-feet for class II
tress with the installation of root barriers on both sides of the planter strip or a minimum planter
width of 8-feet without the installation of a root barrier. The policy also requires Class I and Class III
trees to provide a minimum planter width of 10-feet.
~
3. Locust Grove Road
Right-ot-Way Policy: District pOlicy requires 70-feet of right-of-way on 3-lane arterial roadways
(Figure 72-F1 B). This right-of-way width allows for the construction of a 3-lane roadway with curb,
gutter, 5-foot wide detached sidewalks and bike lanes.
Sidewalk Policy: District policy requires 7-foot wide attached (or 5-foot detached) concrete
sidewalk on all collector roadways and arterial roadways (7204.7.2).
Applicant Proposal: The applicant has proposed to dedicate 35-feet of right-of-way from centerline
for Locust Grove Road.
Staff Recommendation: The applicant should be required to construct a 5-foot concrete sidewalk
located no closer than 2-feet off of the right-of~way line (back of walk to ROW) for Locust Grove
Road; and dedicate 35-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Locust Grove abutting the parcel
by means ot a warranty deed. If the sidewalk is constructed on site, the applicant should provide an
easement for public access. The right-of-way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be
completed and signed by the applicant prior to scheduling the final plat for signature by the ACHD
Commission or prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs
first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all
requested material. The owner will be paid the fair market value of the right-of-way dedicated which
is an addition to existing ACHD right-of-way.
4. McMillan Road
Right-ot-Way Policy: District policy requires 70-feet of right-of-way on 3-lane arterial roadways
(Figure 72-F1 B). This right-of-way width allows for the construction of a 3-lane roadway with curb,
gutter, 5-foot wide detached sidewalks and bike lanes.
Sidewalk Policy: District policy requires 7-foot wide attached (or 5-foot detached) concrete
sidewalk on all collector roadways and arterial roadways (7204.7.2).
Applicant Proposal: The applicant has proposed to dedicate 45-feet of right-of-way (from
centerline) from the west property line to 355-feet east of the west property line. The frontage on
McMillan Road from 355-feet east of the west property line to 455-feet east of the west property line
will taper to 59-feet and continue to the intersection with Locust Grove (see site plan).
Staff Recommendation: The applicant should be required to construct a 5-foot concrete sidewalk
located no closer than 2-feet off of the right-of-way line (back of walk to ROW) for McMillan Road. If
the sidewalk is located outside of the right-of-way, the applicant should provide a sidewalk
easement. Any existing driveway access to McMillan Road should be closed to match
improvements; thereby restricting all of the site's access to the internal streets. The applicant
should dedicate 45-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of McMillan Road from the west property
line to 173-feet west of the section line for Locust Grove Road by means of a warranty deed. The
frontage on McMillan Road from 173-feet west of the section line for Locust Grove Road to 73-feet
west of the section line should taper for 1 DO-feet to a 59-foot right-of-way width from centerline;
continued (at the 59-foot width) to the intersection with Locust Grove (see site plan).
The right~of-way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be completed and signed by the
applicant prior to scheduling the final plat for signature by the ACHD Commission or prior to
issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30
business days to process the right-ot-way dedication after receipt at all requested material. The
owner will be paid the fair market value of the right-of-'N2Y dedicated which is an addition to existing
ACHD right-of-way.
A
Note: As a part of the North Meridian Traffic Plan, it was noted that a 3-lane roadway with curb,
gutter, 5-foot concrete detached sidewalks and bike lanes within 70-feet of right-of-way would be
adequate to accommodate the projected traffic volumes on McMillan Road. Due to the fact that the
North Meridian Traffic Plan recommended a 70-foot right-of-way on McMillan Road and the
Commission has supported the recommendations in the past, staff is recommending a total right-of-
way width of 70-feet as opposed to 96-feet of right-of-way (48-feet from centerline).
The Lemp Canal is located on the north side of McMillan Road. This canal is very large in nature
and would be extremely costly to relocate. Any right-of-way on McMillan Road will be acquired
from the south side of McMillan Road in order to allow the canal to remain in its current location. To
be consistent with the District's past action and to remain consistent with the location of McMillan
Road, staff recommends that the applicant dedicate additional right-of-way abutting McMillan Road.
In order to acquire the full required right-of-way abutting McMillan Road between Locust Grove
Road and Meridian Road, the north side of McMillan Road will not dedicate additional right-of-way
and the south side of the roadway will dedicate 45-feet of right-of-way from centerline. This will
provide tor a 70-toot right-ot-way that is consistent with the recommendations ot the North Meridian
Traffic Plan and what has been acquired tor other developments on McMillan Road.
Staff recommends that the applicant dedicate the additional right-ot-way for McMillan Road in order
to keep the irrigation facilities (the Lemp Canal) outside ot the District's right-ot-way.
5. Intersection: Locust Grove & McMillan
Staff Recommendation: The intersection ot McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road is currently
under review tor preliminary design as it is in the District's Five Year Work Program. At this time,
Staff has determined the appropriate right-ot-way dedication necessary tor McMillan Road; the
exact design tor Locust Grove Road is to be determined in the near tuture with the current
intersection study. This particular intersection requires additional consideration due to the tact that
the Lemp Canal crosses diagonally under the roadway trom the northwest corner to the southeast
corner ot the intersection. The applicant should dedicate 35-feet ot right-ot-way trom the centerline
ot Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel by means ot a warranty deed, and dedicate the northeast
property corner (chamter the radius 38-teet) to facilitate the construction ot improvements for the
planned signalized intersection (see attached diagram)_
6. Internal Streets
Right-ot-Way Policy: District policy 7204.4.1 and Figure 72-F1A requires 50-teet ot right-of~way
on local streets. This right-ot-way allows tor the construction ot a 2-lane roadway with curb, gutter
and 5~foot wide concrete sidewalks.
33~foot Street Section Policy: District policy 72-F1A, allows local residential public roads with a
33-foot street section with parking on both sides ot the roadway, it the amount of vehicle trips per
day on the street does not exceed 1,000 and the appropriate tire department reviews and approves
the street section. The proposed density ot development that will utilize the internal local residential
streets is anticipated to generate less than 1,000 vehicle trips per day.
Applicant Proposal (Internal streets): The applicant is proposing to construct the internal streets
as 33-toot street sections with rolled curb, gutter, an 8-toot planter strip, and 5-foot detached
concrete sidewalk. The applicant is proposing a 50-foot right-ot-way dedication, with part of the
sidewalk in an easement. N. Bright Angel Avenue will be extended into the site as the primary
access (stubbing from Havasu Creek Subdivision to the south).
l;;
Staff Comment/Recommendation; The applicant should be required to construct the internal
streets as 33-foot street sections with rolled curb, gutter, and a-foot planter strips within 50-feet of
right-of-way; and 5-foot detached concrete sidewalks within an easement, as proposed. The
applicant should obtain fire department approval for the reduced street sections.
C. Site Specific Conditions of AIDlroval
1. Construct the internal streets as 33-foot street sections with rolled curb, gutter, and a-foot planter
strips within 50-feet of right-of-way; and 5-foot detached concrete sidewalks within an easement;
and obtain fire department approval for the reduced street sections.
2. Construct the stub street to the west, N. Copper Ridge Street, approximately 160-feet north of the
south property line as the internal street section. This street should be signed as follows: "THIS
STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE."
3. Construct the second proposed stub street to the west (touching Lot 13 of Block 1), located 165-feet
south of the north property line as the internal street section, with a fully improved turnaround at the
terminus (utilizing a minimum turning radius of 45-feet, and center island with 29-foot street sections
all the way around, per ACHD policy requirements). Where the right-of-way ends at the property
line, the applicant should install signage stating: "THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE
FUTURE."
4. Obtain fire department approval for the use of the temporary emergency turnaround on Lot 2 of
Block 2, and provide the easement across the entire lot prior to signing the final plat.
5. Construct a 5-foot concrete sidewalk located no closer than 2-feet off of the right-of-way line (back
of walk to ROW) for McMillan Road. If the sidewalk is located outside of the right-of-way, the
applicant should provide a sidewalk easement.
6. Dedicate 45-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of McMillan Road from the west property line to
173-feet west of the section line for Locust Grove Road by means of a warranty deed. The frontage
on McMillan Road from 173-feet west of the section line for Locust Grove Road to 73-feet west of
the section line should taper tor 100-teet to a 59-foot right-ot-way width from centerline; continued
(at the 59-foot width) to the intersection with Locust Grove (see site plan). The right-of-way
purchase and sale agreement and deed must be completed and signed by the applicant prior to
scheduling the final plat for signature by the ACHD Commission or prior to issuance of a building
permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process
the right-at-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be paid the tair
market value of the right-of-way dedicated which is an addition to existing ACHD right-of-way if the
owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in
accordance with the ACHD Ordinance in effect at that time (currently Ordinance #200), if funds are
available.
7. Construct a 5-foot concrete sidewalk located no closer than 2-feet off of the right-of-way line (back
of walk to ROW) for Locust Grove Road. If the sidewalk is located outside of the right-of-way, the
applicant should provide a sidewalk easement. Any existing driveway access to Locust Grove Road
should be closed to match improvements; thereby restricting all of the site's access to the internal
streets.
8. Dedicate 35-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel by
means of a warranty deed. The right-of-way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be
completed and signed by the applicant prior to scheduling the final plat for signature by the ACHD
c:
Commission or prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs
first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all
requested material. The owner will be paid the fair market value of the right-of-way dedicated which
is an addition to existing ACHD right-of-way if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact
fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with the ACHD Ordinance in effect at that
time (currently Ordinance #200), if funds are available.
9. Dedicate the northeast property corner (chamfer the radius 38-feet) to facilitate the construction of
improvements for the planned signalized intersection (see attached diagram). The exact design of
the corner should be determined by the District Development Review.
10. No direct lot access may be taken from either Locust Grove Road or McMillan Road.
11. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
D. Standard Conditions of ARJ)roval
1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
2. Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or
right-of-way.
3. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne
by the developer.
4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the
construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file
number) for details.
5. Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy.
6. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by
the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details.
7. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy
Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all
applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State
of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
8. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or
other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes.
9. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
10. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance
with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
11. 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 DIGLlNE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking
7
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.
12. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and
signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized
representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to
obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
13. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or
other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest
advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a
waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at
the time the change in use is sought.
E. Conclusions of Law
1. The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of Approval
are satisfied.
2. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an
undue burden on the existing vehicular transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the
proposed development.
Attachments
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan
3. Appeal Guidelines
4. Development Process Checklist
Q
1".':;'
....(
j~m~ m
, ,
c:
.~
~'i ~~'l;n. ':'I~.~'5.1i1ll ',3
I'~ :"~~1i ~'~J':;IH
l!i !..'," :~',' m
.i 'i:"I-I ',: .i-:~ "~l '"
~Il~ ~i ~~~~ :"i~ ~~ g
H h.!~1: ~{~;~: ~
~;::! s:!~ ~
'"
n.~
~i~::
~.~~~
, .3
!~; ~
- ;1
I, ,
'"
"
."
Z
'c;l
I,'
"
;
'-'--r---"'-
, I
I I
I I
i
I
1
:;
~
~
'"
is
1;:'0, "c-_,___ _~ _ __
{;i ' ~, I
~; 'i, I: C' ~.. l~ :IJ "" '.
i~T--ir~!:-'" --it '~-l ! /-;:;;--
~; H_*','"'~' ..FI, ~---.;-,,--t-:i - ~,;!.\~:.
., :; 3 Ih"-h "f"....... .11:"7\ .'L ~
~-- ~ -:-~-'" - - -~+:r .~ - <>.~~ -~~ if
I" ~., !.1 ' " ,\ @
r '" l~ ~) 'i '.. I~ ;,
['- --~J~,- . : : J j! : - -- I";:'--l
:" 1'~"I['I"~ ""~ "
:c- - ,..=- -- __I '>0-- . -.J:
!~..,~:.,~,,'_':.~~.~_:--',_c.::~:..',.,l!~~-.-~~-:.=,',____' ',,' ",\.. ""~I':--o;;
-;.--=~~~;', ~ -<21- ;;"' ]iJ;1u
~"';'r _ ' "~~ _ ;<-~-:. ,~' ~.;rn:il"-!,"\?~":.';<", ~,I ,. iii!"
,,-., '-, -' ',"0'0 ,i-Ef -". 'CI." - '-' . "r.> Y ',' i "'-.. t
. '.......... .. :::.r i"':::;'; :~ flQ ~JJtI..;J:Jr1.~ ...... ~ r ;Ii -...."._i
, ' ,- - - ......,' 'e ~ \,.., \-. " 8 .: 1 j
j I, I ,I' '\ti\'" '<_ ~
I _, . ,',~ . _ I ;-"" , I ~ - I \ \'; ,\ !, - :l,
ff:~--~" --~r-'-'-.._,~___,-, -" "s~.l \,\~. /
- C~~-_~:,~:~~.~~--:_~"~-~~-~~~~gL~;=~~-~.~~~< . '" / 'J
, N.~oct)$T-GROVE-,RD. -'-~----"-
I:
;.L'11
,
'/
, d
'.,,: I
· f r "'1
r: I
'.;:.:~ I
'@:'~
;, I
I
~,-----'
" u~.~@)"
~I:
i
!':i
~
5
U
~I
.
~.
~
z
Z
~
,r/l
'"
...
OJ
)>
o
"
'"
;-~mi.~
H~!l'pl
j ~ .:~
31:
'"
,%
:-i
Cl
ill!i II
- i !
- ~ --
c;l
..,
'"
1"1
,..
0
"
I::
111
Z
. ...
'c
'- ,.
...
, )>
~ ~
"l
..
-~
v
-p
.....
, --"'i....
:/tr
!' 'il~~ ~'ii
,.
HARPE SUBDIVISION
Preliminary Plat
Meridian, Idaho
"
!~ !IH,i,' l~ !~; !; ~:; ':; ~, ;: ~; ;,;; i'oz
~ i:t ~ . J~ )lli'.,. ~1-~ n ..., 1'" ".~,. r
,1 ',!;~ 1; 1~' 1'1 ~;~ ,~;; ii' i. ;: :~!: liri
, ,. "If' l!i I" J n:i ,.', :r/l
;,,: 1,;lli ,I~. '~lil';S . ~l'l 1</ \"
: ': , I: "i~ a 'rJ :;1 ~!l H ,;!H '
I I .~ L''', ~ ~ \"! ,i'. i~i~ .
"~: i':': ,: l: "I!, ,.,' 'I
! ~J T<f 'I ",; ,; :, 'I'l,
I ~li · ;;~" ' j :;; '! \\i,' I
j;i I,' , l; il: < '0 , .j I
-II 'i je ! :~ " ! ~l' ~::,
'j' ,.,...,! 11 j l;: j
I.! ~l I I! I; Iii ~ :;; i
"I .i!:! ,1 dj I L!!
jjr ;~; j~ ,i,~ ! ! S ? I I
11.1 j.: ,.; " 1 . ~ ;!l1
I, l~ -- I. I :. J , i-'j ~
I 1 I ,! I ,I .
L
Ij)Z
'-'10
]":"'10;:1:"""
?;.;""O
."'@~~J:
~",6i;ri)>
~ Q.--ib:o
~ ~g-i,<,~"O i
~ s:=~o=fm C
'" 5"'z-";(I) ;::
(fj ,,21j)-iZC"'z
g zg;:::~N"IO>
:! - >-:;IM1JIoN'l/;:::i
.. 6z...z00 ""
-.i. :>~ ...,.O:iJ- .~
S! :;;>(j:J-i < c-
o, Q ~ ::J :;! 6 en :>:
o:;!:'i;Z_
3;?;~ 0
z>-i....Z
=<6:~
- r1 0
--"
-<
-"
(1
~
:Il
-0
,>
, 0 <
f2 ~
ci
~
',-
,~
1
,:;.;
''''
o
z
~i~
'I::
,. :
,,, ,
-"'-
l~r I ;e!
--"i'
to' - ~
i{
),"
'1(;
., i",
~
"
Ii' ~
t.
I. "
, ,~
i ';
t:
.. ~...il'.
,,: ; t ;
Ii I ...
~r !
'.' ~
. -
_ '0 !./".li"'."'.~:'" .:~~' . ~~;.&f~ ';" :'
r'tj""''''' -"'f ,
'\'~,.r.R.\~D CA~\'OS
"~~;~'Ii>." "'":::-, ,:: ~'~::"'i' ~:, '
r~ ' ~",~"j~, ,: f ,;~...
"D" ',~ ",~,=
--'~ ' :~ w.i
~:~ J.
,., ': ...
~4 ~.. J, ." ,
;; ~.,., -
_ /t'. f
....... \4-
l:~i
... .... '* .. :
"'\01,
~:.. \ .(, ", ~:.;"'~. '.".:/'~":~0.:(~~J l .
""'It'- ~',";"""'JW"..>tjl1
i~)~~,:.: -/." 'Ii:.': ,'.:; ',"'\~' .
~I": ,(.-,., -"---,, ---'--- -,,,,,r-,
1..:'~ \. \
.,' ,I ~: - ~-
"~tl,, Ki,;,
i..' .~v, l _. f i~ .. '
':~ ~.'~I ';, ~ ;
,}fJ ^ "",
i. .!~.! .,....
~~. -:,; 'f
lroii
, ,:.1
01
"i
(.;\
~ l 'I.:
" ;. i
"" ;, y,
~; 1,
. 0 "........t:r .
. ~~~lr'.~
, It :.:j T!RRITOR\' ',' ,j
",f'< o;;i' fl" "":;*
If;Jnrt:t "',t{;;i
H '~'\;:I ,'1f'\':'
I . . ".~. 1\,', .', .1y' .,'
:j:'RA~n C~:;O,;~,t.~~F\ :
I, '" .-' 11,<il/1:V~! " :-.i
..~, 'J'"".'M!~~~~ /
. ""...,lj'lIi'':'. <'.-: :"
I,
,I .~
I.
-- ...
1 ..
:r-:
:0
r-:
I
-- ,
" '; i'
,I)
:_ _\1
._.~:';.~:
'"
1'..
'In
fo
, I
I i
, I
t I
~~ II
~ I I
.
" . t'1
..- ,~ ,- -,~~ ~ -, ,
o
~'
.[
i
~
._~._-~-~.
I~ i '
"""", ~
Q. ''"-----.. -4 " '-
~ \,,"..
....--- - '--..........------.~ .. .:.-....~' ,.
,
.
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
r
)
,-/
,,~ - ~._.. - H-
." !
f I
l''i 1
-- ;
-- -~- - 1-
t i
I \ '""
, ?
I, J
" I ~
d "
j " i
i
~ I /.--,"1. /
!l I J' "f l'
It I; r /
t : 1 ""I I
: '----"t : I
. I I
" '.
i,... "
~ 1 .. I ·
11 I
1
. I
I ... I
I~
. ;:J.,.. .' . , ·
~. ~-L__ , "
_ ~.;'~~, ~-:-::.:o,.,--~';~-'~~ . _ . .
, "" ~".~ \ ' "'. "
".
-....---
~. ,.:&".1. \1 I....,~ ~ "J.....1II
,;
f
'1
~
. --=.=-~----:'~-,,;-= j .~;"); ~~
J 'I" -- I
~
i
tJ'~~J
i
....,., ,
HARPE SUBDIVISION
,"" ~~L~,,~~
o. 1
::~~
. -i
'I! i l J c'
; 1;1
r"\,.__I' ~. III.
, ,
. ~.:.~-~-
~ ~
.:1:110'
-
.,--_.,--,.-,--.._'-----'----'-_.- -- ,-- --- . - -,-- --------- ---------------'
- -
, \
J
-.J
~-
-
<.D
<R
?
o
~
:11 0'
@
....'
J
- -
9
,:::l~
~ -
--,-----,,-----'-'- .'
-
0--'"'
~-
b
~
~
n
-8
(1)
g'
-::$:
(1)'
--
,..-~-::;' .._- ...----.
25. o.
I
+-
\ .
L--
".
,.~,~~,,'--~- ,,-
\ Loc:-\J'-6. ~ <:;-(0''''' e..,-....~ ;t="
, "7
\
~ r---------~.-~.. .-----~~- ."
""'-1
~~
-~
/
-f1""'1
. '
s:.
C>
s=
-
r-: .-
,
~
;:0
c::::J
.
\
~
l
.........,
~,...........-_..-. -----"1
. -=====------~
---,.----
\ '
Request for Appeal of Staff Decision
1. Appeal of Staff Decision: The Commission shall hear and decide appeals by an applicant of the
final decision made by the ROWDS Manager when it is alleged that the ROWDS Manager did not
properly apply this section 7101.6, did not consider all of the relevant facts presented, made an
error of fact or law, abused discretion or acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the interpretation or
enforcement of the ACHD Policy Manual.
a. Filing Fee: The Commission may, from time to time, set reasonable fees to be charged
the applicant for the processing of appeals, to cover administrative costs.
b. Initiation: An appeal is initiated by the filing of a written notice of appeal with the
Secretary of Highway Systems. which must be filed within ten (10) working days from
the date of the decision that is the subject of the appeal. The notice of appeal shall refer
to the decision being appealed, identify the appellant by name, address and telephone
number and state the grounds for the appeal. The grounds shall include a written
summary of the provisions of the policy relevant to the appeal and/or the facts and law
relied upon and shall include a written argument in support of the appeal. The
Commission shall not consider a notice of appeal that does not comply with the
provisions of this subsection.
c. Time to Reply: The ROWDS Manager shall have ten (10) working days from the date of
the filing of the notice of appeal to reply to the notice of the appeal, and may during such
time meet with the appellant to discuss the matter, and may also consider and/or modify
the decision that is being appealed. A copy of the reply, and any modifications to the
decision being appealed will be provided to the appellant prior to the Commission
hearing on the appeal.
d. Notice of Hearing: Unless otherwise agreed to by the appellant, the hearing of the
appeal will be noticed and scheduled on the Commission agenda at a regular meeting to
be held within thirty (30) days following the delivery to the appellant of the ROWDS
Manager's reply to the notice of appeal. A copy of the decision being appealed, the
notice of appeal and the reply shall be delivered to the Commission at least one (1)
week prior to the hearing.
e. Action by Commission: Following the hearing, the Commission shall either affirm or
reverse, in whole or part, or otherwise modify, amend or supplement the decision being
appealed, as such action is adequately supported by the law and evidence presented at
the hearing.
1~
II
Development Process Checklist
II
0Submit a development application to a City or to the County
0The City or the County will transmit the development application to ACHD
0The ACHD Planning Review Division will receive the development application to review
t8JThe Planning Review Division will do one of the following:
DSend a "No Review" letter to the applicant stating that there are no site specific requirements at this time.
DSend a "Comply With" letter to the applicant stating that if the development is within a platted subdivision or part
of a previous development application and that the site specific requirements from the previous development also
apply to this development application.
0Write a Staff Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating
the proposal for its conformance to District Policy.
DWrite a Commission Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and
evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Policy.
DThe Planning Review Division will hold a Technical Review meeting for all Staff and Commission Level reports.
DFor ALL development applications, including those receiving a "No Review" or "Comply With" letter:
· The applicant should submit one (1) set of engineered plans directly to ACHD for review by the Development
Review Division for plan review and assessment of impact fees. (Note: jf there are no site improvements required
by ACHD, then architectural plans may be submitted for purposes of impact fee calculation.)
· The applicant is required to get a permit from Construction Services (ACHD) for ANY work in the right-of-way,
including, but not limited to, driveway approaches, street improvements and utility cuts.
DPay Impact Fees prior to issuance of building permit. Impact fees cannot be paid prior to plan review approval.
DID YOU REMEMBER:
Construction (Zone)
o Driveway or Property Approach(s)
· Submit a "Driveway Approach Request" form to Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Construction (for approval by
Development Services & Traffic Services). There is a one week turnaround for this approval.
o Working in the ACHD Right-of-Way
· Four business days prior to starting work have a bonded contractor submit a "Temporary Highway Use Permit Application"
to ACHD Construction - Permits along with:
a) Traffic Control Plan
b) An Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan Designer, if trench is >50' or you are
placing >600 sf of concrete or asphalt.
Construction (Subdivisions)
o Sediment & Erosion Submittal
· At least one week prior to setting up a Pre-Con an Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan
Designer, must be turned into ACHD Construction - Subdivision to be reviewed and approved by the ACHD Drainage
Division.
o Idaho Power Company
· Vic Steelman at Idaho Power must have his IPca approved set of subdivision utility plans prior to Pre-Con being
scheduled.
o Final Approval from Development Services
ACHD Construction - Subdivision must have received approval from Development Services prior to scheduling a Pre-Con.
14
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
RECEIVED
AUG 3 12006
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
DATE
August 31, 2006
ITEM #
8,9
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 06-041, PP 06-042
PROJECT NAME
Harpe Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE P_RINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL
~'f' ~1 () "..~i~()-^Al D ) X