HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpurwing Patio Homes
November 13, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Spurwing Limited Partnership
AZ -06-043
November 16, 2006
ITEM NO.
8
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from November 2,2006 - Annexation and Zoning of 20.51 acres
from R-R to R.8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision - NEe of N. Ten Mile Rd. and
W. Chinden Blvd. and west of N. Spurwing Way
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes
t2tco mmc~ pen.ccV
10 C~
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Email from Andrea Nist
contacted:~~ Date:~
Emailed:cC-- S--5~..b:(\ :s G', G:t, ~ .r\--e~ Staff Initials:
'.
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Phone:
~
q3<6'~ 01~O
Meridian Plannina and Zenina Meetina
November 2, 2006.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 2, 2006, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Chairman Michael ROhm, Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner
David Zaremba, and Commissioner David Moe.
Members Absent: Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Amanda Hess, Sonya
Watters, Justin Lucas, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to open the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for November 2nd, 2006,
and begin with the roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we are going to
have some changes. Items 4 and 5 related to Spurwing Patio Homes has been
requested to be continued until November 16th. We will not be hearing that tonight, so if
there is anybody here for that project, it will be heard on November 16th. Items 7 and 8,
both related to Harcourt Subdivision are -- that project is going to be continued until
December 21 st. Item No. 12, Una Mas Day Care is to be continued to November 16th.
And Items 14 and 15, Lochsa Falls Office Commercial Addition is to be continued until
the December 21 st hearing. Anybody that is here for those hearings, they will not be
heard tonight and will be continued until the stated date. With that being said, I'd like to
have a motion to accept the agenda as amended.
Moe: So moved.
Rohm: It's been moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 2 of 53
Rohm: And seconded to accept the adopted agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Ma'am, did you have a question? Can you submit -- from the audience we are
asked if they could say something about those projects, because they are not going to
be here. And the answer is not tonight, but if you can't be here on that night, you can
submit a letter of testimony and it will be received by each of us as Commissioners and
it will be given the same weight as if you were to testify yourself. The question was can
we postpone until after the first of the year and the answer is the new agenda has
already been selected and if, in fact, we do not get through it on the 16th and if there
are answers to questions that just aren't available, then, items can be continued again
for final conclusion at a later date, but, generally speaking, once they are posted to an
agenda we will take testimony, either written or otherwise, and try and act on them at
that time, but that's not saying that we -- obviously, we continue a lot of them and that
may happen again, so--
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but since there are some
members of the public here on that, maybe Mr. Hood can remind me, but I thought we
only left that hearing open for your findings. Were you going to have another hearing?
Rohm: I'm not sure which one she was referring to.
Nary: I thought they were asking about Spurwing. And wasn't that just for Findings?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Mr. Nary, the way that I understood the hearing and the direction from
the Commission was we didn't have conditions of approval either, so it was for staff to
draft conditions of approval and Findings. A decision hadn't necessarily been made, I
think the direction was we like the project, but want to see the conditions of approval
and the Findings to basically affirm that -- the direction they seemed to be going.
Nary: Okay. Great. I just wanted to make sure those folks, if they were going to come
back, that we were going to have a hearing. If there was no final decision made, just a
general direction of staff to bring back for consideration, then, that's fine. I just didn't
want these folks to have the wrong understanding when they left.
Zaremba: And that was my understanding. And the hearing was open.
Nary: Okay.
Zaremba: It's not closed.
Rohm: And so if you have got some thoughts on that project, for sure you're welcome to
come and you will be heard.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 4 of 53
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from October 19,2006: AZ 06-043 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 20.51 acres from R-R to R-8 zone for
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership _
NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden Boulevard and west of N.
Spurwing Way:
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006: PP 06-045
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential building lots
consisting of 46 attached single-family units and 27 detached single-family
units and 6 common/other lots on 20.51 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership -
NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden Boulevard and west of N.
Spurwing Way:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open Items 4 and 5, both related to Spurwing Patio
Homes Subdivision, AZ 06-043 and PP 06-045, both with the intent only to continue
them to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 16th, 2006.
Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 06-043 and PP 06-045 to
the regularly scheduled meeting of November 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open -- there is a little speech that we give before we start
any hearings to be heard and that is the procedure that we go through is we will open
up the hearing, we will ask staff to speak to that particular project and what staff does is
they talk to us about how that project relates to ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan
and, then, they will give us a recommendation of approval or denial based upon its
adherence to those two documents. Once we have heard from the staff, the applicant
has their opportunity to sell the project to us. Once those two presentations have been
completed, it is, then, open to the audience to comment on the application and once
that's done, then, the applicant has an opportunity to respond to any queries made by
direct testimony or testimony offered in writing. Once all of that's been heard, we will -- if
we have got enough information we will deliberate and issue a recommendation to City
Council. And that's typically the way projects, once it's opened, works, but sometimes
there is not information to continue it -- or to complete it and it will be continued to a
later date.
Page 1 0[2
Machelle Hill
From: Sonya Watters
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 2:37 PM
To: Bill Nary; Caleb Hood; David Moe; Keith Borup; Machelle Hill; Michael Rohm; Sharon Smith; Tara
Green; Ted Baird; Wendy Newton-Huckabay; Will Berg
Cc: Becky McKay; Shari Stiles
Subject: FW:
Please include as pan of the public testimony record for the proposed Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision.
Thanks,
Sonya
From: Andrea Nist [mailto:runngwild@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08,2006 1:53 PM
To: Sonya Watters
Subject:
. i.::{ l'C- ~f.'~:1-H:; I.
November 8, 2006
NOV 0 8 2006
Andrea Nist
2932 W. Salata Ct
Meridian, Id 83646
::<,;y e!f Merid~~".,:-;_
" '~=:2<s!"}.;: t=><:~.] c.:'~
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Spurwing patio homes development (AZ-06-
043,PP-06-045, VAR-06-020). I live on Salata Ct and am very concerned regarding the density
of this development. Our neighborhood only has one entrance/exit onto Highway 20/26. Our
neighborhood is not yet fully developed nor is the Spurwing Country Club full. I am very
concerned about the traffic that this development will bring to our quiet neighborhood and
country club.
There is no way to judge how congested our neighborhood will be in the coming years because
we are also a country club. The club has a men's league on Wednesday nights that consistently
draws over 100 players. Each of these players drives to the club. The club does not have enough
parking and therefore the overflow cars are parked on Spurwing Way. This issue has been
addressed with our club and there is no way to prevent cars from parking on this road. This road
would be the main road for the new patio development. This creates a very dangerous situation
for the children in this neighborhood. All summer long the children in this neighborhood are on
bikes, skateboards and scooters back and forth to the pool. In addition to traffic to the golf course
for tournaments and league play, we have additional traffic to our pool.
I understand that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Staff has recommended denial of this project
for a number of reasons. I have read the report and agree with all of their concerns. The
transition density, fire dept., sheriff dept., are all valid issues as to why this should not be
approved. I ask you to consider these issues and deny this project as presented.
Sincerely,
11/8/2006
Page 2 of2
Andrea Nist
11/8/2006
~GVRW/'\t
" Q
-Il-
l'" D:I
o ~
c. (,"
1i1"R~
JOCK HEWITT
RECEIVED
NOV 'l.6 200G
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
.
200 North 4th, Suite 203
Boise, 10 83702
(208) 345.2762
Fax (208) 345.2784
Mobile (208) 890-1430
June 6, 1996
ICOUnlRYClUB
Chuck & Joy Compton
1130 Justin Place
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Chuck & Joy,
SpurWing Country Club continues to be the IItalk of the town.1I
SpurWing's fabulous golf course has received rave revues from
both amateur and professional players. The new clubhouse
features all facilities required of a first class club and has
greatly surpassed the expectations of members and non-members
alike. The consensus is that SpurWing Country Club is one of
the very best.
As you know, the SpurWing residential area has only
sites. Only a few of the 22 lots in Phase 1 remain
of the 30 lots in phases 2 and 3 are now reserved.
SpurWing will be "sold out."
.
70 home
and over 1/3
Before long,
When you think about the many wonderful reasons for bulding your
home at SpurWing Country Club, also consider the following.
SpurWing Country Club is unique in that club memberships out
number home sites 492 to 70. As a result, the fortunate seller
of a SpurWing residence will very likely find more than a few
members who will want to be 1 of the 70 and live at the club.
Residential lot sales are the obvious beneficiary of this
outstanding country club facility, and are now running a year
ahead of our projections.
We are therefore developing Phases 2 & 3 concurrently.
Construction should begin in 30 to 45 days with closing on your
lot 46 at that time. We will keep you posted as to progress on
the date of construction commencement and closing.
Sincerely yours,
c:fy.
Jock Hewitt
.
JH:ll
...... .~. .~-
Proiect: Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision fAZ-06-043.PP-06-045. V AR-06-020)
Update: This project was continued from the October 19th Commission meeting at which time the
Commission directed Staff to prepare Conditions of Approval. (Conditions of Approval were originally
not prepared because Staffis recommending denial of the project.) On November 13th, the applicant
submitted a revised plat with the following changes:
)- The common area in Block I has been reconfigured and approximately Y2 an acre of open space
has been added.
)- Two building lots were removed from the north-east portion of Block 1 (Lots 58 & 59) and the
open space between Lots 30 & 32 at the north-west comer was shifted to the east for a more
central location. These changes provide more visibility to the common area as requested by the
Police Department. (Lot sizes on afew of the lots along the north boundary changed slightly but
still meet the minimum requirements of the R-8 zone; all other lots stayed the same.)
)- The ponds and meandering creeks have been removed, which provides more usable open space.
Location, size of property and existing/proposed zoning: The subject property is generally located
north-east of the N, Ten Mile Road/Chinden Boulevard intersection; is 20,65 acres in size; and is
currently zoned RR in Ada County. The applicant is requesting to annex and zone the property R-8
(Medium Density Residential).
Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
1. North: Single-family I-acre lots within Spurwing Subdivision, zoned RR (Ada
County).
2. East: hnmediately to the east, Spurwing Golf Course, zoned RR (Ada County);
further east, the proposed Knight Sky Subdivision, zoned R-4, R-15, and C-c.
3. South: Spurwing Golf Course, zoned RR (Ada County); south of Chinden, the
proposed Irvine Subdivision, zoned R-8; rural residential property, zoned
RUT (Ada County).
4. West: Spurwing Golf Course, zoned RR (Ada County); further west, single-family
one-acre lots in Westwing Estates Subdivision and agricultural land, zoned
RR
Applications: Annexation and Rezone, Preliminary Plat, & Variance (Commission is not required to
make a recommendation to City Council on the VarianceJ-
Overall Project Description & Subdivision Information:
1. Residential Lots: 71
2, Non-residential Lots: 0
3 . Total Building Lots: 71
4. Common Lots: 5
5. Other Lots: 0
6, Total Lots: 76
7, Gross Density: 3, 46:t dwelling units per acre
Landscaping:
1. Width of street buffer(s): None required
2. Width ofbuffer(s) between land uses: None required
3, Percentage of site as open space and any amenities: 19% open space is proposed,
..-
~ ..' ...
Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access: Access to this site is provided by N. Spurwing Way via
W. Balata Court, both local public streets within Spurwing Subdivision. An emergency access is proposed
from Chinden Boulevard at the southwest comer of the site for emergency vehicles only. Direct lot access
to Chinden Boulevard shall be prohibited except for the emergency access point approved with this
subdivision; a note shall be placed on the final plat restricting access. (ITD has not yet approved the
emergency access to Chinden.)
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The proposed R-8 zone generally complies with the Future
Land Use Map; however, Staff recommends that at least a portion of the property be zoned R-4 to provide
more ofa transition in zoning from the existing I-acre lots on the north boundary of the subdivision (see
staff report for more detail.) The Comp. Plan specifically states that "residential uses north of Chinden
and within a 14 mile or less from the rim should have lot sizes r:mp'ing from Yz - 1 acre, ensuring
compatibility with SpurwinR Country Club to the east. Use of transitional lot sizes & clustering of smaller
lots adiacent to the non-residential and rim Droperty is encouraged." Staff is not recommending approval
of the annexation & preliminary plat as submitted.
Compliance with UDC: All lots shown on the proposed plat conform to the minimum dimensional
standards of the R-8 zone. A Variance is being requested to exceed the maximum block length allowed in
a residential district.
Proposed DA requirements: Staff is requesting that the applicant submit recorded warranty deeds that
reflect the current boundary of the plat and complete a Record of Survey for a property boundar)'
adjustment in Ada County for the portion of Lots 2 & 4, Block 1, Spurwing Subdivision, that are
currently within the boundaries ofthe subject annexation request, prior to annexation ordinance approval.
History of Previous Actions: The subject property is currently platted in Ada County as Lot 3, Block 1,
ofSpurwing Subdivision and also contains portions of Lots 2 and 4 of the same subdivision. NOTE: A
Property Boundary Adjustment is currently in process at Ada County that will adjust the boundaries of
these lots as shown on the proposed plat and described with the annexation application.
Outstanding Concerns: Although the revised plat provides more visibility to the common area along the
north boundary, the Police Department still believes there is a the lack of visibility from the street to the
open space proposed behind the residential lots on Blocks 1 & 2.
Other: A Variance is being requested to exceed the maximum block length allowed in a residential
district.
Elevations: None at this time; Applicant may bring sample elevations to hearing.
Written comments on this project have been received from the Joint School District No.2, Andrea Nist,
Holly Kotoski, Nichol Black, Randy & Kathleen Rudeen, and an unsigned/undated letter stamped
received by the City Clerk on November 2nd.
Staff Recommendation: Staff is recommending denial of the subject applications. (The Commission is
not required to make a recommendation on the Variance request.)
Notes:
.~\.')flR~1-S
n 3
~ ~
/VrR'< C;
RECEIVED
NOV 1 5 2006
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
6800 North Spurwing Way · Meridian, Idaho 83642 · (208) 887~1800 . Fax (208) 887-9967
November 16, 2006
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing in reference to the sub division that is being proposed for development by
Jock Hewitt. We feel the addition ofthis proposed housing development will be a
valuable asset to SpurWing Country Club and the surrounding neighborhood_ We have
been aware of this planned development since SpurWing Country Club was first built and
we continue to support its development.
If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
~
onna Larson
General Manager
Kimberly Hardwic:k
7190 NDrth Spurwing WB)'
Meridian, In 83646
RECEIVED
NOV '/6 2006
C/ty of Meridian
CIty Clerk Office
To Wl om It May Concern:
RE: Sourwinl! Patio .Homes
In Jul) of 2004, my husband and I purchased Lots 38 .md 39 in the Spurwing Country Club
subdivi5ion. At that time, we were informed by the Hewins of the upcoming development of
appro> imately 70 patio homes in Spurwing.
We mve recently reviewed their proposed plan for thc: patio homes iU'd find the plan to be
tasteful. The project is very similar to many upscale golf communities we have visited in
Califo: 'nia and Arizona.
As lor g as all the fire and safety conditions arc met, J would bave no o~iection with their
propo~ed plan.
~=~ ytWt~
KimbE rly HardwickO
KH:de hf
VI
"0
C
~
S-
IC
"
OJ
,...
5"
I
o
3
~
---.--..----
..~... .:.;.--
~&~1~T)~
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651 -4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
6 September 2006
phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
City of Meridian
City Clerk's Office
William G. Berg Jr.
33 East Idaho Avenue
_Meridian, ID 83642-
.--'.
RECEIVED
RE: AZ-06-043, PP 06-045/Spurwing Patio Homes Sub
Dear Will:
C.ity of Meridian
CIty Clerk Office
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above referenced application for
Preliminary Plat & Annexation & Zoning as it is out of our district.
Sincerely,
Y3..w/l-~
Bill Henson
Asst. Water Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
-BWdbg
c: File - Office/Shop
'0," ., '
.....,..:.
".
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
~f '
ctG;;dli!F5'\
, ID/\HO r
~, ft-
-0 . ,
-'~'\"')"I'h'TI<~'\SlJK8Y\c.LE' - To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by
the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission please submit your
comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall
.
-- ~
~
TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: September 28,2006
Transmittal Date: August 22, 2006 File No.: AZ 06-043/ PP 06-045
Hearing Date: October 5, 2006
Request: Public Hearing. Annexation and Zoning of 20.51 acres from R.R to an R~i
zone & Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential building lots consisting of 46
attached single.family units & 27 detached single-family units & 6 common/other
lots on 20.51 acres in a proposed R.B zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Sub
By: Spurwing Limited Partnership
Location of Property or Project: NEe of N. Ten Mile Rd. and
W. Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Spurwing Way
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
Joseph W. Borton
Charles M. Rountree
Shaun Wardle
Crn' DEPARTMENTS
City Attorney/HR
703 Main Street
898-5506 (City Attorney)
898-5503 (HR)
Fax 884-8723
Fire
540 E. Franklin Road
888-1234/ fax 895-0390
RECEIVED
. f
NO" I.Am~ AUG 2 ! 2006
- . ~.~ g:~g:e~~:
Parks & Recreation
11 W_ Bower Street
888-3579/ fax 898-5501
David Zaremba (no FP)
David Moe (no FP)
Wendy Newton-Huckabay (No FP)
Michael Rohm (No FP)
Keith Borup (No FP)
_ Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
Charlie Rountree. C/C
Joe Borton, C/C
Keith Bird. CIC
Shaun Wardle, C/C
_ Water Department
.1.- Sewer Department
Sanitary ServiceS(No VAR. VAC. FP)
Building Department / Rich Greene
Fire Department
Police Department
City Attorney
_ City Engineer
_ City Planner
Parks Department
Planning
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 202
884-5533/ fax 888-6854
Police
1401 E- Watertower Lane
888-6678/ fax 846-7366
Public Works
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 200
898-5500 / fax 898-9551
Building
660 E. Water tower Lane
Suite 150
887-2211 / fax 887-1297
Wastewater
3401 N. Ten Mile Road
888-2191 / fax 884-0744
Your Concise Remarks:
- Water
2235 N.W. 8th Street
888-5242/ fax 884-1159
Meridian School District (No FP)
Meridian Post Office(FP/PP only)
- Ada County Highway District
Ada County Development Services
Central District Health
Nampa Meridian Irrig. District
Settlers Irrig. District
Idaho Power CO. (FP,PP,CUP)
Qwest (FP/PP only)
Intermountain Gas (FP/PP only)
Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PP only)
Idaho Transportation Dept (No FP)
Ada County Ass. Land Records
Meridian Development Corp.
Historical Preservation Comm.
CITY HALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433
CITY CLERK - FAX 888-4218 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLtNG - FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE - FAX 884-8119
Printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE
November 16, 2006
ITEM #
8, 9.
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 06-043, PP 06-045
PROJECT NAME
RECEr"~
'fOV f '
"" 6
qty of Meridian
CIty Clerk om.
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE PRINT)
FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL
~
x
X
. ..:T t> 1-1 JJ F~/1I-1El?rV'
'pO~ ;Z' ~
~-
:::;
s:
-'
lC
"1J
::.,
......
0'
I
o
3
fb
'""
October 30, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
AZ -06-043
November 2, 2006
APPLICANT Spurwing Limited Partnership ITEM NO. 4
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006 - Annexation and Zoning of 20.51 acres
from R-R to R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision - NEe of N. Ten Mile Rd. and
W. Chinden Blvd. and west of N. Spurwing Way
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS'IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
See Previous Item Packet! Attached Minutes / Staff Report
CorvHnw p/H h /1-/6-0(,
[)2- - D'~
D
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Email from Andrea Nisl/ Email from Holly Koloski
Date: 0 3 (ex;, Phone: 93'6 -0 9 ~ 0
Emailed:'-e5 - .:Sho ( 5 -" Staff InitIals: ffi
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 29 of 84
Zaremba: Excuse me, I think I better go home now.
Rohm: Okay. All right. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing?
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-009. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number RZ
06-009 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 19th, 2006, with
the following changes to the staff report: That the zoning be designated as R-4, rather
than R-8. I don't know, Sonya, what bullet point you want me to make that, though. Or if
I need to.
Rohm: I think that's sufficient.
Newton-Huckabay: End of motion.
Rohm: Everybody knows.
Watters: Yeah. I think that's sufficient, Commissioner.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of RZ 06-009, to include all comments in the staff report, with one modification
to an R-4 zoning. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank
you all for coming in.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-043 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.51
acres from R-R to R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision by
Spurwing Limited Partnership - NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden
Boulevard and west of N. Spurwing Way:
Item 8:
Public Hearing: PP 06-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of
73 residential building lots consisting of 46 attached single-family units
and 27 detached single-family units and 6 common/other lots on 20.51
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 30 of 84
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision
by Spurwing Limited Partnership - NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W.
Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Spurwing Way:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-043 and PP 06-
045, both items related to the Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision and begin with the
staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before
you are for an annexation and rezone, preliminary plat, and variance request for
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision. The property is 20.65 acres in size and is currently
zoned rural residential, R-R, in Ada county. The applicant has requested this property
be rezoned to the R-8, medium density residential zoning district. The subject property
is generally located northeast of the North Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard
intersection and is an existing lot in Spurwing Subdivision. If you look on the overhead
here, this is the vicinity map of the area. The red arrow points to the subject property
here. Look at the next. This is the aerial view of the property. It's surrounded with golf
course and the existing Spurwing Subdivision here to the north. Residential one acre
lots. The property further east of the proposed subdivision down in this area is the
proposed Knight Sky Subdivision, zoned R-4, R-15, and C-C. Further west of the
subject site are one acre residential lots and Westwing Estates Subdivision and
agricultural land, zoned R-R. South of the golf course is Chinden Boulevard, which is
bordered on the south by the proposed Irvine Subdivision, zoned R-8, and rural
residential properties zoned RUT. The plat consists of 73 single family residential
building lots, consisting of 46 attached units and 27 detached units, and six common
lots on 20.51 acres. All lots meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R-8 zone.
The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 3.56 dwelling units per acre, which
generally complies with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of
medium density residential. The average lot size in the proposed development is 9,067
square feet, with the lots bordering the existing one acre residential lots to the north
being 4,595 to 6,042 square feet or approximately 1/10th of an acre, with minimal
overall house sizes of 1,400 square feet. The applicant is proposing 18 percent open
space, with landscaped common areas, pond, and connecting stream channels. A
variance is being requested to exceed the maximum block space length allowed in a
residential district. However, the Commission is not required to make a recommendation
to Council on this application. Here is a copy of the plat here and, then, the landscape
plan showing the common areas. Access to the site is currently provided by North
Spurwing Way via West Ballotta Court, both local public streets within Spurwing
Subdivision. An emergency access is proposed from Chinden Boulevard at the
southwest corner of the site for emergency vehicles only. Direct lot access to Chinden
Boulevard shall be prohibited, except for the emergency access point approved with this
subdivision. Note that ITD has not yet approved the emergency access to Chinden and
the police department is requesting the applicant provide an additional access to the
site. The issues highlighted in the staff report for the Commission are as follows: First,
this site is currently platted as Lot 3, Block 1 of Spurwing Subdivision, but also includes
a portion of Lots 2 and 4 of the same subdivision. A property boundary adjustment
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 31 of 84
application that matches the configuration of the property as shown on the proposed
plat is currently in process at Ada county and will be required to be completed prior to
annexation ordinance approval by City Council. Second, this property is currently not
serviceable for sewer. It is master planned to flow to the North Black Cat lift station
through planned mains in the annexed, but undeveloped property to the west. If the
applicant wishes to commence development prior to the master planned mains being
available, they may proceed providing they meet the conditions stated in Exhibit B of the
staff report. Water service will be provided by United Water. Third, a goal of the Comp
Plan is to require new urban density subdivisions, which abut or are proximal to existing
low density residential land uses to provide landscape screening or transitional densities
with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level
densities and rural densities -- rural residential densities. The applicant has complied
with the landscape screening portion by proposing a common area with ponds and
meandering streams and a stone wall fence as a buffer to the existing residences.
However, the UDC requires qualified open space to be accessible to all residents of the
development, which the design of this site does not allow. Although 18 percent open
space is proposed, the usable amount of open space does not meet the minimum five
percent requirement. The police department is not supportive of the design of the open
space area on the north boundary, as it does not offer natural surveillance opportunities
for the public areas and creates a potential safety hazard. Further, the proposed
approximate 10th acre lots along the north boundary do not provide enough of a
transition from the existing one acre lots. Larger, more comparable lot sizes and lower
densities should be provided to buffer the interface between urban and rural residential
densities in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Fourth and further on the subject
of transitional lot sizes, the Comp Plan specifically states that residential uses north of
Chinden and within a quarter mile or less from the rim should have lot sizes ranging
from a half to one acre, insuring compatibility with Spurwing Country Club to the east.
Use of transitional lot sizes and clustering of smaller lots adjacent to the nonresidential
and rim property is encouraged. Fifth. The police department is requesting that an
additional access be provided to the site for increased emergency access. Staff
believes that this will be a difficult condition to meet considering the site is surrounded
by golf course and there are no stub streets provided to the property from the existing
Spurwing Subdivision to the north. Last, the landscape plan does not state what height
the proposed stone wall fence will be along the north boundary. The applicant should
address this in their response. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the subject
applications for the reasons previously stated and those stated in the staff report. That's
all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Thank you. Would the applicant like
to come forward, please.
McKay: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay,
Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm representing the applicant
on this application. The applicant is Spurwing Limited Partnership. It's the same
applicant that was the original developer of the Spurwing development that's been out
there for a few years. To kind of give the Commission just a little bit of a background of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 32 of 84
how this came to be, this particular area out here was beyond an area of city impact, it
was zoned rural residential. The only development options available under Ada county
jurisdiction was ten acre minimums or they could do a nonfarm development. That
allowed them to cluster one acre lots. The minimum was one acre. They could have one
home per five acres if they allocated 75 percent of the property as set aside for open
space or agricultural uses and, then, that was deed restricted for a period of up to like
15 years. And that's how that golf course came about. Mr. Hewett had this master
planned and he came to me and the site plan was already worked out and it -- it was
integrated into this as part of a component of the golf course. Obviously, when an area
of city of impact was extended outward, urban service planning areas were extended to
the property, then, at that time development at a more urban density along the fairways
would be viable and that's where we are now. Obviously, with the extension of the north
Meridian plan jumping north across Chinden it's within that urban service planning area,
it's within your area of impact as designated. I don't think Ada county has adopted that
area impact as of yet, but, nonetheless, this area is planned up to the Phyllis Canal to
be part of the City of Meridian. So, it was the desire of the applicant to submit a request
for annexation and preliminary plat for this particular development. We did two
neighborhood meetings on this particular project. My first neighborhood meeting I
anticipated quite a fury when, you know, one thinks, well, they are one acre lots and we
are proposing more urban density with some attached patio homes adjoining them. I
was absolutely surprised that the overwhelming majority of the residents were very
pleased and excited to see some mixed use. They said, yes, that's exactly what we
need out here. There are a lot of people who want the smaller lots, but yet want the golf
course atmosphere and the open space. One resident even said I may sell my house
and purchase one of those patio homes. Mr. Hewett -- it is his intent -- he will be
building these, so they will not be a hodge podge. As far as the anticipated value of the
patio homes and the detached structures, they think that the low end will be 350 and
they will go all the way up to about 800,000. So, what you're looking at is approximately
20 and a half acres. It is a platted lot, was platted when they did the original Spurwing.
We are proposing 73 single family dwellings, of which 46 are attached. The 46 attached
units are located along this corridor here. One of the things that I thought was quite nice
is Mr. Hewett wanted a nice buffer here and your Comprehensive Plan, if you read the
section that Sonya quoted, requires new urban densities abutting low density residential
provide landscape screening or transitional densities, with larger, more comparable lot
sizes. That or is stuck in there. So, it obviously, allows for an alternative of landscaping
as an appropriate buffer. This particular area, this cul-de-sac is open here and I kind of
-- this will give you a little better idea. The cul-de-sac is open at the end. Mr. Hewett
wants to incorporate some water amenities. The wall proposed would be a masonry wall
approximately six feet high. It would be located all along the north boundary. The input I
received from the residence, they were happy. A lot of them said great. Very similar to
what you see on the perimeter of Lochsa Falls off of Linder Road. Very decorative. It
looks like a -- like a masonry wall, but, really, it's a stamped concrete. They go in, they
hand paint it to give it a more authentic masonry look. This area here is approximately
30 feet wide. The area widens out in through here. This is about 50, 55 feet. In
evaluating the locations of the homes along the West Bollatta Court, most of the homes
are around 80 feet setback from their rear property line. Some are up to 120. The two
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 33 of 84
closest dwellings to us -- there is one located here and here. They are about 50 feet
from the property line, maybe one is a smidge less. So, obviously, you can see that that
buffered area expands. I know Sonya indicated that there is a question concerning the
safety of this common area. Well, the block -- the masonry wall will be along the north.
The patio homes are open to that area. There won't be any site obscuring fences along
the north boundary of the patio homes. The whole idea of this concept was to provide
water amenities, open spaces, to give the patio homes a good feel and yet create a
buffering here for the existing one acre estate lots. We -- one of the thoughts that Mr.
Hewett brought to my attention is most of the people that will be occupying these will be
-- mostly this will be a second home, coming in from other areas, wanting to live out in
this north Meridian area along the golf course, spending their summer here and, then,
exiting to warmer weather. The other thing that they did consider when they came up
with this original concept was the fact that along this fairway they wanted to minimize
the number of homes to basically minimize the conflict of the golf balls. If the patio
homes were aligned all along the south boundary, then, you would have, obviously,
more conflict potential for more property damage. So, that was another reason for
putting the attached units on the interior here. As far as our Comprehensive Plan
designation, it's designated medium density residential. Obviously, the three to eight
dwelling units per acre. Our proposed density is 3.56 dwelling units per acre. So, we are
on that lower end. The other thing is your ordinance requires only, you know, the five
percent open space, excluding mandatory buffers. We are proposing 18 percent. That's
3.69 acres out of 20 and a half. We think that this project is a good idea. When you look
at other golf course communities throughout the northwest or other states, you find a
very good mix and diversity of the home types and lot types, basically satisfying
different lifestyles and different, you know, people's desires. Some people want a 5,000
square foot house, others do not. They want maybe 2,000 square feet, 2,500, and they
want all the amenities that a 5,000 would offer. So, you know, that's what we are here
this evening to propose. As far as the zoning out here, Irvine, right across Chinden, is
proposed as -- was approved as R-8. As Sonya indicated, Knight Sky to the east of this
particular project proposed R-4, R-15, and commercial. So, I don't think that we are
going way out asking for the R-8. We went with the R-8 so we could meet the
dimensional standards, provide this type of diversity. We think this project has a lot of
benefit to the city. If the city didn't intend to, you know, start annexing north of Chinden,
obviously, they wouldn't have wanted to extend that urban service planning area and
that area of city impact. Services. I think the staff indicates in your staff report that it's
the Black Cat Trunk. Well, so is Irvine and so is Silverleaf and the elementary school
that was proposed. So is Bainbridge. Voltera. The Black Cat Trunk is designed, a large
portion of it. They are working on that second lift station design. The development
community is working with the city, Public Works Department, to facilitate getting that --
that Black Cat built and that second lift station, if at all possible, as soon as we can. Mr.
Hewett is very aware that until sewer is available that, obviously, the project will be
sitting on hold. I have reviewed the conditions of approval. I think that we can work with
them. I think we are in agreement with those. I feel that this project has definite merit.
It's not very often that I get such a warm reception from estate type lots. It was
refreshing. And I was very surprised when the staff recommended denial, I'll put it that
way. One other thing. Last week -- I'll conclude. The fire department, if we have in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 34 of 84
excess of 50 lots, does require a second means of access, whether that be a secondary
full vehicular access or an emergency vehicle access. Obviously, our access in this
area has already been set with the Spurwing development. We have got the Spurwing
Way here, which is a collector roadway coming up to the clubhouse. This West Ballotta
Court comes down here, it serves approximately 17 single family dwellings. So, this is a
36 back to back with curb, gutter and sidewalk. There is a short section of sidewalk that
is missing. Obviously, capacity exists on Ballotta, connecting with a public street,
bringing it here, creating a loop around and, then, we have an emergency vehicle
access only out to Chinden that is in alignment or -- well, it's on the east side of Ten
Mile from this east of the center line. Now, staff indicated that Idaho Department of
Transportation e-mailed them stating we do not have a permit for that emergency
vehicle access. The reason is it's premature at this time. They require, prior to giving us
a right of way permit, an actual design. They need construction drawings, they don't just
give us a permit. In the past in all my dealings with ITD, they have always been
cooperative when it was an emergency vehicle access. We also have a condition with
Ada County Highway District that we have to have fire department approval and their
approval on that gate, because they don't want that to be utilized as a de facto access.
It is for emergency vehicle access only in the event that this has some type of blockage.
That concludes my presentation. Do you have any questions?
Rohm: Thank you, Becky. Any questions? Jenna Ingle.
Ingle: Good evening. My name is Jenna Ingle and I live at 2819 West Ballotta Court,
which is the property that backs up to this proposed project, and I was surprised to hear
the young woman who just spoke say that she had a real positive reception from the
residents at Spurwing. The majority of the residents on Ballotta Court are not in favor of
this project being approved as is. As she stated, we are -- most of us in Spurwing are on
one acre lots and I think the transition to high density dwellings from our one acre
parcels is inappropriate and one of the other things is that we have a horrendous
problem at Chinden and Linder with traffic and so to propose 73 units in there is going
to add to the problem, which is only going to get worse, and we know that Chinden, at
least, is not scheduled to be widened or -- yeah, isn't going to be widened for maybe ten
years and so one of the things that comes up for me is that my son is a fireman and he's
the driver and he cannot get his vehicle through our community to get to his response
time, which is four minutes. It's now six and a half. If emergency services, EMT, fire, and
police, can't get to us -- any of us, you included, essentially, we are dead in the water.
We are just left there. And there was an incident on the corner of Linder and Chinden
where a nurse had to give CPR to someone who was involved in an accident there,
because the emergency services couldn't get to them. So, those are some of the
concerns and I think it would be much more appropriate if the Commissioners would
look at the situation and we are not saying that we don't want the project, but I think the
number of dwellings that Mr. Hewett is proposing is way beyond what it should be. So, I
don't know what the designations R-8 and R-4 and R-2 are, but I think -- I think some of
the inner circle of dwellings that are proposed for there should be cut back to another
number, lesser number. And I do appreciate the work that staff did. You made things
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 35 of 84
very clear to us as to what you're in favor of and I would ask the Commissioners to
acknowledge and agree with what the staff has proposed. Thank you very much.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask her a question.
Rohm: Would you -- ma'am, would -- he's got a question for you.
Ingle: I'm sorry.
Zaremba: And this is just -- it's kind of for my own information and I hesitate to ask a
question about CC&Rs, because the city is not involved in enforcing CC&Rs, that's
internal to your subdivision to enforce them, but it's my understanding that the people
that currently live in Spurwing have paid a pretty good premium for their lots and that
involves some relationship with the golf course as well. Are you aware of anything in
your CC&Rs that would prevent a denser project like this within your subdivision? This
is still part of that same subdivision, I believe; right?
Ingle: I really can't answer that question. I don't know.
Zaremba: Okay.
Ingle: But someone that I spoke to recently said that there is a concern about the
transition from what is a rural community in a great sense to this -- what looks like a set
aside development and one of the reasons that most of us moved there to begin with
was to have some space around us and I mean the development, of course, is coming
in and everything that's coming in around us is high density. So, that's the concern of
the Ballotta Court residents and some of the other folks that live in Spurwing, too. Most
of the people that live out on the rim won't be as affected by that. But being that there is
no access onto Chinden, there are times even now when we are, essentially, prisoners
in there, we can't get out of Spurwing onto Chinden. And so with no other access and
they don't have that fire access, I mean we are just kind of stuck there in our spot. But I
don't -- I don't know how to answer your question about the CC&Rs. I'm not well versed
about that.
Zaremba: Okay. It really was just a curiosity, since we can't do anything about them
anyway, but --
Ingle: Okay.
Zaremba: Just wondered. Thank you.
Ingle: Are there any other questions?
Rohm: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning CommiSSion
October 19, 2006
Page 36 of 84
Ingle: Thank you.
Rohm: Chris Ingle.
C.lngle: My name is Chris Ingle. I live at 2819 West Ballotta Court. I was at the first
meeting that we had, the neighborhood meeting, and at that time this plan was shown to
us there was not a lot of negative input, because it was said that this was a computer
layout and it mayor may not stand. So, there wasn't any reason to argue about it. My
major concern -- I think that the lots along the golf course are fine. The ones that back
up against Ballotta Court are -- are too much of a difference between the sizes of
Ballotta Court and these houses or these parcels of land. The green belt is a fine idea.
The problem is that most of the houses on that side of Ballotta Court are two story, so a
six foot fence is not going to do much, other than deter people crossing back and forth
and I don't know how to deal with that. But my -- my concern would be -- or my proposal
would be that without stating it because there are larger lots there, that the lots along
the back of Ballotta Court be enlarged, that the impact between the two is going to be
substantial. And it is a private golf course, so it feels like it should have some space.
Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Kevin Gould. Julie Gould. Anybody else that would like to testify?
Come forward, please. Excuse me. Goulds were against, but they have gone home.
Morts: My name is Rick Morts and I live at 3028 West Ballotta. It's on the north side of
Ballotta Court. First off, I want to say that I have been very pleased with the Spurwing
development that Mr. Hewett has -- you know, what we have seen so far to date. So, I
put some trust into -- a little bit into his vision here, because I have been happy with
what we have seen to date. He is a resident in the community and, however, he is on
the north rim and not quite as affected by these lots. I do -- am concerned to the fact
, that this is, really, the first plan I have seen. I am not aware that I have been invited to
any of the neighborhood meetings. Maybe I was and I missed it, but in hindsight at least
I was aware of one of them in post -- I found out afterwards and in hindsight I found out
it was only the people on the south side of Ballotta that were invited. Maybe that was
the case, maybe not, but we did not see an invite, so this, really, is our first opportunity
to take a look at this plan. I think there was an earlier question about the CC&Rs. I don't
know if it's just in this actually hard written CC&Rs or part of the architectural committee,
but there was a minimum house lot size of 2,800 square feet for the subdivision. I don't
know if that's still the case or not for these, but I assume these will be much smaller
than 2,800 square feet patio homes. I think my biggest concern is still probably just
overall -- I like the plan, I like the idea of patio homes. When we moved in and we built
there, we knew that there was going to be patio homes and just did not have a plan of --
you know, the density of them and I think this is, you know, my only thing I want to voice
is probably -- I agree with the previous speaker, the size of the lots on the -- against the
-- that backs up against the golf course there seems more appropriate to me as far as
fitting in with the subdivision also. That's -- and I -- I'm not familiar with where all the
waterways and/or -- are supposed to be placed. I don't know if it was on the diagram
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 37 of 84
there, the plan for waterways and so forth, but -- and maybe I can ask has that been
planned in there where the waterways are?
Rohm: Sir, you need to speak into the microphone.
Morts: Oh. Where the waterways are planned in that subdivision, if it can be pointed out
to me. Any questions? I think my biggest -- just a little voicing of the same concerns
previously about the density. I think the nature of the patio homes is fine, the idea of
putting in that street there, but I think the density concerns me a little.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Go ahead.
Borup: Yeah. A question I had. You said you were made aware that there would be
patio homes being developed there. How was that conveyed to you? Was that on your
deed or was it mentioned by the real estate agent or -- I mean how were you told about
that? How were you made aware of that?
Morts: I think the community has been aware that that was a future plan. Just been
more through the community. I don't think there was anything in writing.
Borup: So, that sounds like that was the developer's intention from the beginning you
mean? Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would that like to testify? Pretty much
everyone in the audience. Becky, would you like to come back up, please.
McKay: Mr. Chairman, as far as the neighborhood meeting, we did notify everyone
within 300 feet as required by the city and we held two meetings and they were both
held at the clubhouse to make it as convenient as possible. So, we did provide two
opportunities. Maybe the gentleman is just beyond the 300 feet or -- I'm not sure what
the problem is or the assessor's office. We get their date from them. So, if there is a
delay in a deed transfer, then, that does cause us a problem. As far as the -- the
association, the patio home section would be -- have its own association. There was a
mention of a concern that these homes -- the patio homes would be two story.
Obviously, would hoover over the top of the six foot masonry fence. These will be all
single story. Mr. Hewett's intent is these will be empty nest type dwellings. Usually
senior citizens and so forth don't want to be going upstairs. So, his intent has always
been single story units. Traffic. Obviously, Spurwing's central collector is not at the half
mile. When I did Lochsa Falls it -- Idaho Department of Transportation was insistent that
we design our collector at the half mile. If you notice when you drive down Chinden, that
signal was -- is installed. I don't believe it's operational and it was installed at the
developer's expense of Lochsa Falls. So, in talking with some of the traffic engineers,
you know, indicate that when the signal is operational it will create stacking and some
gaps for cars to enter. Right now you have got, you know, a lot of traffic going down
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19. 2006
Page 38 of 84
Chinden at higher speeds and with intermittent signals at the mile. So, you know, they
are trying to add some of these half mile signals, which will create what we call
platooning of the traffic, therefore, creating gaps. Mrs. Ingle mentioned the fact that
there were some people that were not happy at the neighborhood meeting. There were
a few people that were not, but the over -- my statement that the overwhelming majority
appeared to be pleased and already had prior knowledge that this project at some point
in time would be -- would be coming down the pike is absolutely correct and true. When
I went to that neighborhood meeting I expected to be probably tarred and feathered, but
I -- you know, it went far better than I had ever anticipated. As far as fire -- or back on
the traffic, Idaho Department of Transportation has told me that they are designing
Chinden five lanes all the way to Caldwell. Now, when it's built your guess is as good as
mine, but that's what's in the works. There is even -- I have even seen some
documentation talking about that it could even be seven lanes. So, who knows.
Hopefully the sooner they build it the better for the entire community. As far as fire
protection, your closest operational fire station is over on Ten Mile, just, what is it, south
of Ustick. There is also another proposed fire station on Linder at approximately the half
mile at Lochsa Falls that as soon as funding is allocated for that that station will be built.
So, it is, you know, obviously, within that umbrella. I know you like to have your fire
stations within a couple of miles of a particular property in order to give it proper
protection. We do meet that. I guess I ask you this evening to, you know, kind of open
your mind beyond typically what we are looking at as far as projects are concerned.
This is a unique situation. Golf courses are a different animal. I think this is an excellent
project. I think it will be a benefit and I ask that you recommend approval to the Council.
Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Becky, earlier you made comment that you had gone through the staff
comments --
McKay: Yes, sir.
Moe: -- and that you -- you could work through those. I noted in the staff comment that
they would like to see some of that R-8 go into an R-4 and I guess what I -- I would be
curious as to how would you work with that and where would you do that?
McKay: I don't believe that -- that was not a condition of approval, was it?
Moe: No, it was just --
McKay: That was part in the text.
Moe: It's just in their text. Yes. It shows you I read it all.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 39 of 84
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, when you referenced that I had reviewed
staff's comments and that I thought we could comply with them, those are the conditions
of approval. I did read the section back in the text where the staff said that even though
we were providing landscaping and masonry wall as buffering, that they felt an R-4
combination would be more appropriate. I guess my response to that is if you look at
your new North Meridian Comprehensive Plan, that whole band along Chinden is
designated primarily medium density residential, you got some -- also some commercial
designations and I think some mixed use. So, it is the anticipation that there will be five
to seven lanes there. So, obviously, when the powers to be were looking and analyzing
that, they thought that a higher density would be more appropriate. As you move north,
then, it goes to low density residential.
Moe: Thank you.
Rohm: What's the question? You'll have to come back up to the microphone, but
typically we don't do it this way, but -- you have to restate your name.
C.lngle: My name is Chris Ingle, 2819 West Ballotta Court. The clarification was we --
everything we heard was that all the patio homes would be single story. So, my concern
is not that they are going to look down in our yards, I looking at we are going to look
down in theirs. All the houses on Ballotta Court, primarily, are two story, so it's not that
they are going to be this tall, we already are. So, pretty much anything he does over
there will affect our view shed and the more homes there are the more it's going to do
that. So, the properties are bigger and less houses. It will fit in better. Okay?
Rohm: Thank you. And, Becky, you're welcome to come back up and respond if you
would like to his point of clarification if you would like.
McKay: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Mr. Hewett just wanted me to go on the
record that there are a lot of trees that were planted a few years ago that are maturing
back along those rear lots also and I just want to reiterate the fact that those homes do
sit quite a ways away from us, with the exception of you can see them, just two right
there where the landscaped area becomes the largest. So, there is some natural
buffering on their side also. Thank you.
Rohm: Becky, we are not done yet.
McKaiy: Okay.
Rohm: The staff report indicated that the lots adjacent to the one acre parcels doesn't
appear to have the transition that they would like to -- like to see and I believe testimony
from others have indicated that they feel similarly. I'd like to hear what -- a comment
from you in response to that. I didn't hear anything -- what alternatives or potential or if
you -- or in support of the existing configuration.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 40 of 84
McKay: Mr. Chairman, I think as I mentioned earlier, the landscape buffering and the
masonry wall are something that we typically don't see along the perimeter. Usually we
are backing lots up directly to the more urban one acre rural lot and that's where, you
know, the transitional lot sizes become I think more important from a planning
perspective. When we try to create our own natural buffering and, then, obviously,
install like a six foot masonry type wall, we are creating almost a double buffer here. I
guess I, you know, would leave it to the Commission to make the determination, but,
you know, we fight this time and time again and, you know, residential is compatible
with residential. These are going to be luxury patio homes. They are attached in pods of
two and Mr. Hewett's indicated that they will be single level. In the design of the golf
course this is -- this is how the experts who design golf courses -- you know, this is what
they recommended, the larger lots along the perimeter and the smaller lots on the
interior. I guess I'd defer to the Commission, you know, I guess you have to--
Rohm: Just from my perspective, Becky, it doesn't appear as if that transition width
gives the -- enough transition, I guess. It just -- it looks like you got a huge lot to the
north, a narrow strip of transition and, then, some very narrow lots. It looks like there is
like three lots on the south to the one lot to the north along a couple of those lots with
the very narrow strip of transition and it does, to me, appear to be a bit overdeveloped I
guess. But that's just as I view it. Thank you.
McKay: Sure.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Mrs. McKay, I would ask you a question that probably needs
the drawing that you showed before. And while she's getting that, I would like to ask
staff a question. The staff report asked for a clarification of the fencing that was going to
go along the north side of this property, the south side of the exist properties. My
recollection that in it's in the ordinance because it's a police request all the time, that the
only options are a six foot nonsight obscuring fence or a four foot sight obscuring fence.
Am I right that they can't put a six foot solid wall there on an open space?
Watters: Perimeter boundaries are allowed to have a six foot fence.
Zaremba: Even if it's an open space?
Watters: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. Well, that is strike three, then.
Rohm: Well, you got one good one in.
Zaremba: Okay. That subtracts it, then. What I was looking for is a clarification of is the
blue indicating water?
McKay: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 41 of 84
Zaremba: Okay. So, within the space between the patio homes and the existing homes,
that's a pretty good size pond?
McKay: Yes. Yes. And a stream.
Zaremba: And a stream.
McKay: And, then, also vegetation and trees and so if you would envision the masonry
wall would be on the north side, there would be restrictions -- you wouldn't want any
fencing on --
Zaremba: Right.
McKay: -- the south side of that open space.
Zaremba: Now, are people able to walk along what's depicted as green there, is there --
you have some accesses to it I see, but are people --
McKay: That's for the waterways to come through.
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
McKay: This is more what we call a passive open space, you know, they are kind of on
their own green, basically. That's kind of what --
Zaremba: So, that's not really intended to attract people into that area, it's just --
McKay: No, sir.
Zaremba: -- it's just a visual amenity.
McKay: It's a visual amenity to provide, you know, open space within in -- within this pod
here and I have seen this on -- you know, on golf courses in Hawaii, they do, you know,
large mixed use residential developments around the golf courses and I've seen more
diversity in the dwellings than we ever see in the northwest and they are very creative
and it all seems to fit and mesh well. Creates quite a beautiful community.
Zaremba: What I was thinking of is the police comment that it -- that area doesn't
provide for much surveillance, but I was assuming -- and perhaps the police are -- that it
was going to be an active use open area. The police still want you to come and talk to
them, but they may --
McKay: I would be glad to.
Zaremba: That point may make a difference to them, that if it's not intended to be
actively used --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 42 of 84
McKay: And, Commissioner Zaremba, I think sometimes they anticipate that the rear
yards will all be fenced and so you would isolate that area and create a corridor. But
where these are all open to it, you're not creating a corridor. It's almost an extension of
the lot.
Zaremba: Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Watters: Chairman Rohm? Excuse me. Staffs issue with the open space at the rear of
the lots was that to be -- part of the required open space of five percent, the open space
has to be accessible by all residents of the subdivision. This is not, pretty much as
Becky stated, the little -- what appear to be pathways are not, they are where the
meandering streams come down. Also, I believe police will probably still have an issue
with this due to people getting back there, you know, invited or not. It's a good area to
hang out and, you know, not be seen. Thank you.
Rohm: Yeah, I think that the -- your definition of amenity or the five percent and the
applicant's seem to be in conflict and, Becky, I hate to have you keep coming back up
here, but, you know, the point of the fact is is if you have got 18 percent of your
development that is noted as an amenity on your perspective, but it's unusable from the
city's perspective, we have got a -- we have got a major issue here and I'm not sure
exactly where to take that and --
Watters: Chairman Rohm, if I could expand on that. Excuse me. According to my
calculations, the actual usable open space is actually below the five percent, if you don't
include the open space in the middle of the Block 2 or the open space on the north
boundary, it, actually, is a little bit below the required amount. Thank you.
Borup: So, then, you included the areas on the access road and, then, the areas on the
entrance road?
Watters: Yes.
Borup: But if the other is not usable area, then, then, the police department shouldn't
worry about anybody getting back there.
Watters: Commissioner Borup, it's still a concern whether it's usable or not. They are
worried about trying to --
McKay: Commissioner Rohm, I guess, you know, it boils down to how -- how we define
open space. In most of the projects that we design we do have areas of open space that
are more beneficial to one segment of the project than the other as linear open space,
pocket parks, playgrounds, and so forth. It may be over in the west side of the project,
but does it benefit the people on the east. I think one can look at it from that perspective
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 43 of 84
that, you know, we do have open space, maybe it benefits some lots more than it does
others, but, nonetheless, is it still open. That whole end of that cul-de-sac is open to that
waterway bringing that waterway through with a stream as it -- an illusion that it crosses
under the roadway and goes on. Also, Mr. Hewett wanted me to stress to the
Commission that the true open space out here is the golf course. It's surrounded by
open space. This is not your average subdivision where we are going to have an
overwhelming majority of small children who need play equipment and so forth. This is
intended for more empty nest type people, snow birds and you got open space to the
west, to the south, to the east, all the way around it and, then, we are creating open
space along the north. So, I guess I -- what I'm asking the Commission is just to kind of
think outside the box. Typically we are not here on a golf course. Not very often. And
you even see, if you look at Cherry Lane golf course, a good mix of different residential
type dwelling. A lot of attached patio homes, detached, large lots and that's kind of
standard. This is outside the normal subdivision that comes before you. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, Becky.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to comment on the open space. I have some opinions
regarding density on the north there, but there is a development in Boise that's larger
estate type homes down there at Gary Lane that has that type of -- where the water
comes -- basically, it's an extension of your backyard and, then, I believe -- Bound
Crossing. Have any of you been out there and see if their open space is developed
similarly as well. Some of it. It's wetlands, I believe. Is that kind of the -- that's what I'm
envisioning when you're talking about this. Is that the same idea? Yeah. And I think it
looks -- I think it looks very nice. I think it would create a transition to the homes to the
north and it would certainly -- all of them that I have seen would discourage anyone
from going there just to hang out, because you would feel like you were in someone's
backyard. So, regarding the design of the open space, I like that piece of it and I just
wanted to give some comparison of some things that I have seen around the valley that
are developed similarly that I think look and serve their purpose very well and I very
much would like to remember the name of the development down there.
Rohm: How do you feel about the lot sizes?
Newton-Huckabay: Well, on paper I just don't like the way it looks. You know, you have
three to one almost. I would -- my thought would have been just flip them, put more of
the bigger lots on the south -- or the density on the south and the big lots on the north,
but I don't have the educational background to say that designing golf courses should
be one way or another, I guess. But I personally -- on paper I think it looks too dense.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 44 of 84
Zaremba: In thinking about the sizes and Mrs. McKay mentioned Cherry Lane golf
course, which has been improved by new managers and is now called Lake View Golf
Course. It's surrounded by the Ashford Greens Subdivision on one part of it and I live in
Ashford Greens. Part of the Ashford Greens Subdivision is called James Place and it is
patio homes. They fit in very well. You know, I live like half a block away from them and
I'm hardly aware that they are there. They are populated by -- well, they only market
them to 55 and better, they call them, so it is mostly people approaching senior
citizenship who do fit into the community. Their backside is on the other part of the golf
course. In thinking about this project, I can see some similarities. If you think about the
lots that are backed up to the existing large lots, if I'm understanding this correctly, you
almost have to think of them in pairs. If these are going to be common wall patio homes,
then, two dwelling units are going to appear to be one unit, one building, and if they are
pushed to the lot line and there is open space between one building and the next
building on the other side of the property line from the common wall, then, you almost
have to think of these in pairs, not as individual lots, because they -- these won't be
small lots with a house in the middle of them, they will be pushed -- two of them will be
pushed together and appear to be one building from anybody else looking at them and
I'll have to admit I came to the meeting siding with staff that I didn't think this was
appropriate, but I have been -- I have had my mind opened to think otherwise.
Rohm: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: So, in essence, there will be like 14 buildings, if I'm counting right.
Borup: Half of whatever lots there are.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Don't make it simple.
Rohm: Commissioner Borup, do you have some thoughts on this application?
Borup: Well, I think a project like this is one of the reasons I appreciate that we look at
each application on a case-by-case basis, rather than having a set of regulations that
we need to follow on everything. I, too, have changed my mind. And I think the reason is
-- well, actually, this is a first -- first project that I have looked at in a golf course setting
and I think that puts some different dynamics on it than what we are used to looking at. I
-- after looking at everything, I have got -- I'm in favor of the project as designed. Those
are larger lots for patio homes. Most of the patio homes attached are usually 40 foot
lots. These are another ten feet wider. You know, that allows for another six, seven
hundred square feet in a building than what you can get in a -- what I think we are used
to seeing as the attached patio lots and I think the buffer is a good buffer. Usually, when
we are talking about transition as has been stated, it's where property lines are joining
and it could be housing 15 feet from the other property line. They have got that natural
distance, plus the buffer of the other existing also added to that. So, I -- I mean we are
looking at something we haven't looked at before and I think for a golf course
subdivision this works.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 45 of 84
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: It works out to be 15 buildings. I have answered that question.
Borup: Fifteen backing up against ten.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, I think so. Yeah. You have got 15 buildings versus--
Borup: Ten. Or eight. Or eight, I guess.
Newton-Huckabay: Whereas it would be -- if you took out -- if you started taking out lots
and making those detached, you're probably going to get somewhere more around 20
buildings.
Borup: Yeah.
Rohm: So, what you're saying --
Newton-Huckabay: Is anybody -- are you guys agreeing with me?
Rohm: Yeah. Yeah. I think your math is probably close. So, you're in favor of the
existing proposal based upon that --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess when Commissioner Zaremba -- I hadn't really thought
about it that way. I guess that's what I said on paper, but he's right, if you put 15
buildings versus if you make them bigger lots and you could end up with 20 homes,
you're going to have -- appear to have less density because they are attached to each
other. Or in pairs of twos, so two residences is one building. I mean, like you said, from
the back it's going to appear to be only one building. You end up with more space
between them.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Moe~
Moe: The thunder has been stolen again. Mr. Chairman, when I first saw this, quite
frankly, I was pretty excited about the project. I think it really -- it really mixes in well with
what's already out there and what not and a little bit of diversity is great. Going through
the staff report, though, you know, I did start having some concerns in regards to the
size of the lots and whatnot, but, again, just like Commissioner Newton-Huckabay made
the comment until Commissioner Zaremba brought up the fact about the -- as far as the
buildings per se on the -- the two lots per se, it makes a lot more sense now that he --
it's not going to look as crowded as it could in the fact you open it up and you have --
you might gain a little bit of area on lots, but, then, you're going to end up with more
homes in there. So, I'm basically combining -- I think you're -- it's going to be -- it won't
look as crowded as you might anticipate. So, quite frankly, I am in favor of the design.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19. 2006
Page 46 of 84
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I guess my only concern is the open space and, you know,
quite frankly, the individuals that will more than likely be purchasing here probably aren't
going to need swing sets and playgrounds and basketball courts and things such as that
that you would see in a typical subdivision. So, I guess I can overlook it, but initially I
had great concerns over the open space, because even though it -- square footagewise
it's there, it's really not usable open space, it's just -- it's just undeveloped space. So,
that was my primary concern and I think I can live with the response from the applicant.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I know staff considered this very carefully. Their conclusion was that we
should not recommend approval, therefore, they have not developed or provided
conditions of approval. I would suggest that what we need to do is continue this and
direct staff to provide conditions of approval, at which time they can again address with
the police department the concerns about the open space.
Rohm: I think that's in order. Would you like to put that in a motion?
Newton-Huckabay: Do we have any -- I'm sorry, do we have any elevations for these
patio homes?
Hewett: My name is John Hewett. I live at 7212 West Spurwing Way. I'm the developer
for Spurwing. We haven't at this time done any elevations of the patio homes per se. All
I can tell you is they will be masonry, stucco, tile roofs, you know, attractive looking and
they will fit in with the existing structures that are out there. The other thing I would like
to point out, too, is all of the people that -- everybody that will be living in this project,
they are all -- they will all be members of the club. I mean it's basically one family out
there and we have people that are living in all types of homes from -- they will be living
in small patio homes, people that are there during the summertime, gone during the
winter, to people that live in great big huge houses on the rim. So, they are all part of a
community out there and what this does is address the needs of a great many of our
members that prefer a place that they can lock the door and head south in the
wintertime.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay. Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I guess I would ask staff for their preference. Would you like time to develop
conditions of approval or would you like to do some off the top of your head.
Watters: Commissioner Zaremba, yes, I would like time to prepare conditions of
approval. November 2nd will work for me if that's all right with everyone.
Rohm: Works for me.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 47 of 84
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move to continue file numbers AZ 06-043 and PP 06-042 to
the hearing date of November 2, our regularly scheduled hearing, to allow staff to
compose conditions and findings for approval.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue this Public Hearing AZ 06-043 and
PP 06-045 to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 2nd, 2006. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you all for coming in.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: Are we going to have a break or --
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Just like five minutes would be great.
Rohm: We are going to take just a real short break, five minutes, and we will be right
back.
(Recess. )
Item 9:
Public Hearing: CUP 06-029 Request for Conditional use Permit for the
construction of a 5,200 square foot multi-tenant retail building with drive-
thru for Grandview Marketplace Retail Building "B" by W.H. Moore
Company - NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road (Lot 4, Block 1,
Dorado Subdivision):
Rohm: Okay. I think we are ready to reconvene. At this time I'd like to open the Public
Hearing on CUP 06-029 associated with Grandview Marketplace Retail Building Band
begin with the staff report.
Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before
you is a Conditional Use Permit for a 5,200 square foot retail building with a drive-thru
window to be located within the Dorado Subdivision. The Dorado Subdivision is
generally located at the northwest corner of Overland and -- at the Overland and Eagle
Road intersection. The subdivision is currently zoned C-G, general retail and service
commercial. Dorado was granted final plat approval in 2005. As previously stated, the
applicant has proposed an approximately 5,200 square foot retail building with a drive-
thru window. At this time the tenants are unknown. A Conditional Use Permit would
typically not be required for a project like this, as retail uses are principally permitted
within the C-G district. However, the UDC requires all drive-thru establishments to
obtain Conditional Use Permit approval where the facility is located within 300 feet of
another drive-thru or a residential district. The proposed establishment is located within
300 feet of another drive-thru within the subdivision, as well as an existing residence.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 48 of 84
The applicant will be required to obtain CZC approval, certificate of zoning compliance
approval, from the planning department for site and landscaping improvement prior to
building construction. All such improvements must be installed prior to receipt of
occupancy. Therefore, staff is supportive of the proposal as revised and submitted. Per
the request of the applicant, staff has prepared Findings consistent with our
recommendation to be signed at the close of the meeting. If there is no opposition to the
proposal and if the Commission is amenable to approving the application this evening.
And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Unless
there are -- is there questions of staff before we --
Seal: Good evening. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito. I'll try to make
this pretty simple. I have read through the staff report. We are in agreement with it. I
would add tonight that if you do approve it -- and I'm hoping you will -- we'd also request
that you approve the Findings of Fact for us. Just very briefly, this was supposed to be
heard on October 5th, based on our error it had to be changed to this date. At this point
in the year a couple weeks can make the difference between starting a project in the fall
or having to simply wait until the spring. So, again, if you approve it tonight, I would
greatly appreciate it if you would approve the Findings of Facts also tonight, which
would enable us to, hopefully, get this project started in the fall and unless you have any
questions, I'm going to sit down.
Rohm: My only comment to that, Jonathan, is, generally speaking, it's nice to have an
opportunity to review those Findings of Facts before we vote on them and I haven't --
have you had an opportunity to review those?
Zaremba: They are provided as Exhibit C and I -- there is some wording that has to go
along with them to adopt them, I think, but all of the facts are there.
Rohm: I think the comment that I'd like to make to you, if we do move forward with
Findings of Facts as well, I would not want this to be the norm. The bottom line is we
have a process that we try to stick to and with this particular one being delayed, I can
see your concerns from a construction perspective, but just out of respect for the
process I'd like not to take this as the normal process for moving forward with projects.
Seal: Mr. Commissioner and -- or Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, no, I appreciate
that greatly. As I say, Amanda was very helpful in this and given the circumstances, you
know, I know she cooperated with me and I appreciate it, but, no, I would not make a
habit of this and, as I say, I admit it was my error, so I guess I'm asking for forgiveness
and understanding.
Rohm: Thank you.
Seal: You're welcome.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 49 of 84
Rohm: Okay. Any discussion?
Zaremba: I guess I would ask legal counsel -- there is normally a format in which the
actual Finding document is provided, but we do have all the substance that would go
into it in front of us. Can we approve the Findings tonight?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, I mean if
you're satisfied there is enough information in front of you to direct staff to prepare the
findings based on the information in the report, so that the -- so that the Findings are
approved tonight and all you're doing -- going to do at your next meeting is ratify them,
so that they can actually be signed in the due course, but if you're satisfied those are
adequate, you can certainly approve them. I don't know if they have them in a format
that's -- If Ms. Hess has them in a format that she normally would have. So, you can add
it to your agenda as Item 15 if you wish to do that and simply approve them at the end
of the meeting if you feel there is enough information provided. So, you have either
option.
Borup: I'm comfortable to do that. The difference here being we have already looked at
the overall project and we already have seen the conceptual design layout and they are
just -- they are just continuing on with the -- what has already been presented to us.
Rohm: Okay. I think it's in order to just close the Public Hearing at this time, then.
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-029. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: That was my last motion for the evening.
Rohm: Oh. Okay. Commissioner Moe, would you like to take a stab at making a motion
and move this project forward?
Moe: No. No.
Borup: Well, then, do we need to discuss a little bit. We can go with the motion that's
here and, then, further state that we'd approve -- no, are we making a motion to approve
the Findings as written in the staff report and --
Rohm: I do have a document here if there is someone that would like to review them
that is a City of Meridian Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for this project that's
typed up in its entirety. We could -- we could either make an Item 15 and do that at the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 50 of 84
end and make -- or I believe our city attorney said we could add that to this motion and
do it all in one fell swoop, if you'd like to review or just make a motion to that effect.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, in case I wasn't clear, if you want to add the Findings as those are
prepared, you should add them as an Item 15, so that the clerk can amend the agenda
and it will be reflected on the agenda that the actual document, rather than the staff
report, is what you approved.
Rohm: Got you.
Borup: Could it be 9-A?
Nary: If you wish.
Rohm: That works as well.
Nary: That would be fine.
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number CUP 06-029 as presented during the hearing of October 19th, 2006, with no
modifications. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate Findings document
to be considered by this Planning and Zoning Commission as an item added to our
agenda at position 9-A.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-029. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9A:
CUP 06-029 - FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW-
Grandview Marketplace Retail Building "B".
Borup: Do we now do 9-A? Who has got that?
Zaremba: I guess we can take a minute to pass that along, so we at least have all seen
it. Mr. Chairman, if we are ready for Agenda Item 9-A.
Rohm: Well, I guess we have to open it first, don't we?
Borup: Yeah. I guess.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19. 2006
Page 51 of 84
Zaremba: It's normally on a Consent Agenda. I'm not sure it needs to be --
Rohm: Okay. Let's just go with it.
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and decision and order in the matter of CUP 06-029. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the Findings of facts,
Conclusions of Law in respect to CUP 06-029. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.556
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt
Edmonds - 4515 South Locust Grove Road:
Item 11:
Public Hearing: PP 06-047 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22
single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 7.556 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt Edmonds - 4515
South Locust Grove Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open AZ 06-045 and PP 06-047 for the sole purpose
of continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission of 12/21/06.
Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 06-045 and PP 06-047 to
the regularly scheduled meeting of December 21st, 2006. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. Well, let's -- it's getting late.
Moe: Are we going to take a break?
Item 12:
Public Hearing: AZ 06..048 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 32.75
acres from RUT to a C-G zone (8.74 acres) and I-L zone (24.01 acres) for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 52 of 84
Creamline Park Subdivision by Creamline Associates, LLC - 1200 W.
Franklin Road:
Item 13:
Public Hearing: PP 06-050 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
industrial lots on 24.01 acres in a proposed I-L zone and 4 commercial lots
on 8.74 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Creamline Park Subdivision
by Creamline Associates, LLC - 1200 W. Franklin Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open AZ 06-048 and PP 06-040, both items related
to Creamline Park Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I am pinch hitting tonight for
Justin Lucas. He is in Denver right now at the ULI conference, so I will be presenting his
staff report on Creamline Park Subdivision. The project consists of annexation and
zoning to C-G and I-L. There are 8.74 acres on the south side of the development that
are proposed for the C-G zoning designation and 24.01 acres proposed for the I-L, light
industrial zoning classification. All of this property is currently zoned RUT in Ada county.
The site is located on the north side of Franklin Road near the northeast corner of
Franklin and Linder Roads, approximately 350 feet east of Linder. Highlighted there in
the teal. Adjacent land uses and zoning. North is a retirement community and future
multi-family development, zoned L-O. East is a lumber storage, 84 Lumber, and vacant
land down along Franklin Road. And I think they have some -- there is some storage of
trailers I think out there, too. To the south is Franklin Road. Directly to the south. And,
then, Crestwood Estates Subdivision, a residential subdivision, is directly across
Franklin Road from this site. To the west are single family homes and some home
occupations. Those are zoned R-1 in Ada county. There is also a day care zoned L-O
and some of the properties are vacant or underdeveloped. The one right on the corner
is zoned C-C, on the northeast corner of Franklin and Linder, zoned C-C. There is the
day care -- I guess I better point some of these out. We will probably talk about this a
little bit more. There is a day care that was approved maybe three, four years ago,
something like that, right by the railroad tracks. A lot of these homes -- folks have some
signs up -- I think someone makes like wooden chairs and kind of low impact home
occupations, if you will. I have never really seen them be too intensive of uses. They
mayor may not be permitted in the county, as are all county properties today. It's my
understanding, even, that if a family owns a -- you know, three, four, or five parcels,
even, out there and, you know, father, son, and someone else that owns -- each has
their house out there, and, then, as I mentioned, the corner piece is C-C and it's
industrial on the other side of this property. The overall project does have six industrial
lots, all on the north side of this lateral here that bisects the site east-west and, then, on
the south are four commercially zoned lots proposed. The access. One public street,
Northwest 13th, is proposed for this project. It's pretty much centered in the middle of
the project and cul-de-sacs just across that lateral. Beyond the cul-de-sac the applicant
is proposing a 500 foot long drive aisle and cross-access easement to provide access to
the -- to the other parcel. You may be able to make out the property lines here and here.
So, there are your six. One, two, three, four, five, six. The applicant is also proposing to
construct two curb cuts that will offer direct access to Franklin Road for lots 2 and 10
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 53 of 84
and I think I remember this correctly, somewhere in there, and I think -- maybe the
applicant can help me out, but there is a couple of other driveways -- we have ACHD's
staff report, too, that, essentially, said if you want a driveway over here it needs to be on
this property line and share it and if you want one over here it's on this property line and
share it. The constraints that staff has -- or the main issue, I guess, that staff has with
this -- it's a hodge podge kind of right now of development, if you want to call it that --
land uses -- existing land uses. There are some newer developments. 84 Lumber hasn't
been open a year yet. Some industrial uses up Taylor and up that -- up 10th there is
pretty industrial uses. Same with on the other side of Linder. If you go over here, most
of these are industrial uses. In fact, they are zoned I-L, too. Then, you have these
homes that are kind of in transition, kind of stuck, not quite sure how they are going to
develop. A lot of them are pretty small. Probably the best way, in an ideal situation, you
know, you get three, four, five -- all of them to come in and redevelop, but the likelihood
of that happening probably isn't very feasible. Ever since I started at the city I think one
of the very first pre-apps I had was someone out there that wanted to develop, but they
only had one and we said, well, see if you can get a couple of your neighbors to come in
with you and they haven't been back. So, there are existing homes, though, and we do
need to respect that people do live there. This is getting to some of the applicants letter
that they wrote to -- well, it's addressed to Justin, dated today. I will jump into that I think
here in just one more second. This issue is mixed use community on the future land use
map. All this area, including these smaller parcels and the day care and the C-C parcel
on the future land use map. This does generally comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
You mayor may not recall last year there was a project proposed on the site for a
residential development. That wasn't a good project, so they did withdraw that
application here in 2005. There are some requirements, of course, for landscaping
along Franklin Road. Probably the biggest landscape concern that's brought up in the
applicant's letter, they asked to not have to construct a 25 foot wide land use buffer
between the I-L zone and these county zoned parcels. The way the UDC is written it
says that if you are non I-L, to be any -- it could even be commercial zoning. If you're
not industrial, you need to provide a 25 foot wide landscape buffer. So, that's straight
out of the ordinance. There is -- we do alternative compliance, but having no landscape
buffer there, it doesn't make sense and it doesn't comply with code. That's one of the
concerns. I guess the biggest concern that staff has in the staff report has to do with the
-- with the lack of access into this property. Staff's recommendation, just trying to
brainstorm, essentially, is how do we get a public access back to this back side. It's a
really deep parcel. Stub streets and access back out to Linder, essentially take -- it
would take a lot away to stub over here and get it through. Then, if you stub it through,
then, you have access to an industrial park from Linder. Does that make sense? I mean
if -- if, you know, really these industrial properties want to have limited access, it doesn't
really make sense to create a cut-through avenue for the general public to get through
here and back over there, in my opinion. So, stubbing there is out of the question based
on what the applicant is proposing for uses here. You can't go this way, these are fully
developed here. This is -- there is not much frontage on these parcels here, it doesn't
help access back to these. So, what staff came up with is there is a -- there is an
existing street -- I think this is 13th or 12th, I can't remember now. 12th. It must be 12th.
And it aligns over here. Staff's idea was that construct this loop roadway system that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 54 of 84
would come up -- and I don't know exactly how far, we will let them -- I guess just based
on this layout, so it doesn't have too much of an impact, in my mind, again, I'm not -- the
applicant works with this more often, but I guess just for simplicity, if the road were to
come, do something like this, and, then, come back down either in alignment with where
the street's shown now or, really, anywhere over here, as long as ACHD would approve
that location -- but that's the idea. Then, you get -- you can have your cross-access
easement come off of that here and, essentially, it's the same layout, just with a
secondary access. So, if this gets blocked, emergency access vehicles can get back up
into the rest of the site. That's really what staff his looking for, is some other way to get
across and it's not the general public per se, although they would be able to do the
public street, obviously, but it is -- it is not only for emergency services, although it's
primarily for emergency services, but also for people using these in the future, the
tenants there, large truck drivers having -- you know, being able to loop through this
subdivision and not having to turn around. I might point out that the fire department now
has requested a cul-de-sac on the end of this, because they will have to use this
anyways to get back here, so they wanted to make sure that they -- they have a
turnaround in that location. Let's see. The applicant -- I'm going to jump to the
applicant's letter now and just address some of their requests to modify the staff report.
Essentially, it's all the conditions of approval that they have issues -- they take issue
with, except for the approval of the preliminary plat and the landscape plan. So, just to
go down the list, I guess, the first one, 1.2.2 on Exhibit B, page one, is our loop road.
So, that's what that talks about. I think I have explained that one. 1.2.3 is the applicant
shall provide a cross-access easement to the Thornton property. So, let me back up
and explain that requirement a little bit. This parcel here has about 350 feet of frontage
on Franklin Road and somewhere in the neighborhood of 300, although I haven't scaled
it out on Linder Road. So, when this C-C property does develop, they are going to be
right on the signalized intersection here. So, ACHD has allowed them, if they so choose,
the applicant, to construct a shared right-in, right-out access point on the property line
with this parcel. I think that's a great idea. If, in fact, this applicant wants to construct a
driveway there. If they don't, I still think it makes sense to provide cross-access to the
public street, we don't have a driveway less than 300 feet to a signalized intersection in
the future and we have to grant some variance to this parcel, because we have to give
them access. So, if we could get that through this development somehow -- and I hope
-- these are C-G zoned properties, so you're not looking at the mix of, you know,
sending commercial users through an industrial development to get into Franklin Road,
they are real similar -- C-C and C-G are real similar zoning designations. So, that's that
condition. 1.2.4 is the western boundary landscape buffer of 25 feet to buffer the
existing homes and the nonindustrial uses there. 1.2.5 talks about limiting trash
compactors, loading areas, and docks and bays from facing that direction. So, we are
saying put them -- face your bays, loading docks, trash compactors to the north-south or
to the east, but don't have them facing to the west, because there is people living there.
So, that one makes some sense to -- to staff, anyways, to have that restriction placed
on this development. I'm going to skip 1.2.6, because that talks about the landscaping.
The applicant has addressed their type of fencing in 1.2.7. The UDC does not allow
chain link fence with slats as screening material, so any outdoor storage areas will,
actually, have to be screened with a solid fence. You can use chain link slats with vinyl
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 55 of 84
slats in other locations, but if it is outdoor storage, it needs to be screened and that __
that does not mean chain link with vinyl slats. So, I think the applicant has clarified their
intent -- intentions for screening out here. You may want to talk about that some more,
but -- and, then, finally, their last comment was on 1.2.8 talking about tiling ditches and
canals and it stated I think in the letter that an NMID, that they were advised that the
pipe must be a minimum diameter of 60 inches. You may -- this isn't necessarily
something for the Commission, it, actually, just requires that the Council act on it. Their
general rule of thumb if anything's greater than 48 inches they don't require you to tile it.
However, that's just a guide. Anything could be tiled or left open at the discretion of the
Council. So, if you have any preference on whether it should be open or tiled, that's --
you can sure make comment on that. It is not natural waterway, so by ordinance it
would need to be tiled, unless the applicant can prove that it's a quote, unquote, large --
large capacity facility I think is how the ordinance reads. I shouldn't have done the
quotes. But, anyways, I think I pretty much touched on -- stole Brad's thunder and -- but
he can sure touch on his stuff. The only -- the last thing, I guess, that I wanted to say is
that just this afternoon I did get another e-mail from Joe Silva and this is in section three
-- or Exhibit D, section three, of the staff report. It starts on page four. Is the fire
department's comments. He sent me an additional condition and this says: As a
condition of approval the fire department requests that the applicant provide fire
department approval of any uses north of the creek with any application for a CZC. In
our discussions with the fire department at our agency comments meeting, they had
concern about the single access point and if users, particularly on the north end of this
development, were to be hazmat type or store flammable materials, those types of
things and only having the one access point into the site, so they wanted the ability to
review these uses and if they are of that variety -- and there is -- it's not probably
worded the best it could be. It, basically, makes Joe Silva God if he can approve or
deny uses that go in there. But that's the intent is that, you know, they want to make
sure that the uses that go in there aren't highly flammable, hazardous material, places,
whatever that is -- but that's -- hazmat was thrown out there a lot. So, anyway, there is
that condition that they wanted, just to have a sign off saying, yes, this use is okay and
we are okay with the one access for that use when they come in. So, with that I will
stand for any points of clarification or questions you may have.
Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come
forward, please.
Miller: Brad Miller representing Creamline Associates, 3084 East Lanark in Meridian. I'd
like to thank Caleb for his presentation. He's pinch hitting for Justin. Normally, I'm more
agreeable on these things, but on this one there is a lot of issues that we have with this.
Caleb, could you go back to that aerial photo? Could we first address the surrounding
uses, the -- these homes right in here are really transitionary. If you go across the street
-- this is an older aerial photo, but right here you have got the bus barn facility, which we
sold to the Meridian School District. Right here you have the Sanitary Services and their
transfer station. We sold that to them as well. You have got Marcon here that has their
concrete barricades and you have got some industrial uses here. All along -- not here,
but all along here you have got industrial uses. So, these residences and businesses
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 56 of 84
here are facing industrial uses. It's interesting to note that these lots are over 300 feet
deep. So, I think that we will have very little impact on them right here and the 25 foot
landscape buffer, to tell you the truth, I think is just going to be an added expense and
not have any material impact on those residents, either pro or con, because if you
notice, everything but the day care is located on the front 25 percent or the front third of
the lots and so I think there is plenty of buffer there already. We would want to do
whatever the landscaping requirement is along the perimeter of the development like
this, but we just don't feel like the 25 feet would be necessary in this situation, because
it wouldn't add any noticeable benefit to that. The other issue that staff has addressed is
they want us to restrict the functioning of these buildings in these areas, they don't want
any trash compactors. Well, we own dozens and dozens and dozens of industrial
buildings, we don't have any trash compactors in any of them that I know of, but there
are loading docks. All of our industrial buildings have loading docks, either grade level
doors or dock height doors and I find it -- it would be difficult for us to -- in fact, most of
our buildings will have doors on two sides. Some of them have doors on all four sides.
We will have ground level doors on the front, dock high doors on the back and usually
on the side we will have a door. So, I don't see any situation where we couldn't have --
well, that's an overstatement. I don't -- it would be unlikely that we would put a building
there that wouldn't have doors oriented that direction. These are going to be -- a couple
of examples of users that we have here are -- we have got a company that does pipe
storage, they do plumbing materials, and they would have a lot of pipe out in the yard,
they have trucks, they would be off loading trucks there and they would have loading
docks as well for the smaller materials to go inside the house -- or inside the building.
So, I just feel that to restrict the uses on those lots in that way would -- doesn't really
serve any purpose for these people and if we have got a six foot fence along there, I
just think it would be negligible and wouldn't necessarily impact them, especially given
the fact that in ten years I'll bet there is very few residences there, if any. We have
attempted -- we have contacted all those owners and attempted to purchase their
parcels. They all want like 15 bucks a foot and given that we paid two bucks or 2.50 a
foot for that piece, 15 bucks doesn't make any sense. So, that's the issue of the -- of the
compatibility with the -- with the surrounding neighbors. So, I would like to ask that we
not have to put in that 25 foot landscape median, but we would want to landscape the
perimeter with five foot or ten foot or whatever the minimum requirement is, but not
provide the 25 foot buffer. In regard to the -- to the loop street -- well, let me back up.
ACHD has granted us full access here, they have granted us full access here, provided
it's shared with this parcel here and provided that it's aligned with this here. They have
also granted a right-in, right-out access there. We don't have any problem with providing
a cross-access easement at that point -- access point, if we choose to build it. We would
like to reseNe the right not build that and possibly get access for this lot onto this
Northwest 13th. If that is the case, we wouldn't want to be bound to provide an access
across that access easement to the Thornton property here. But I mean he would
always be able to build one there on his property line. If we do build an access point
there, we would be more than willing to provide a cross-access easement. We just don't
want to have to be bound by that if we choose to take access over here. Let me see
what else we have here. Oh, on the loop road. The need in the market right now -- there
is very little industrial property in Meridian. There is a lot of smaller parcels -- I mean you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 57 of 84
can see over here you have got parcels that are, you know, an acre or less and you can
see over here there is plenty here on Taylor Avenue. In fact, we own that building there
and you have got 84 Lumber here and the mini storage. There is a need for larger lots.
It's -- to tell you the truth, it's not the highest and best use for the property, we won't
make as much money by doing this, and if we put a loop road in there you can get
smaller lots, but the market really is calling for some larger lots and we have a number
of tenants who will immediately move in here as soon as we get subdivided and get the
improvements in. Most of those will be relocated from Boise. We have got Speciality
Construction, which does construction supplies that wants to be here, they do highway
supplies. Keller Supply, which I referred to before, and we have -- in fact, all of these
lots we believe would be built out within two years. We don't have any perspective users
for the front here, but a loop road would -- if we did a loop road it would not allow us to
do the larger lots and it would provide -- I don't know if it would really get us anything or
give the city anything. The fire department was concerned about the length here. We
preferred to run the cul-de-sac all the way up, but they said that was -- 450 feet was the
maximum, so we have proposed a 450 foot cul-de-sac. We would be willing to move
this up here, but, then, we have -- these are all actually flag lots here. The fire
department has stated that they would like to restrict -- have the opportunity to restrict
the uses on all of these lots here. I would suggest that since this meets the city
requirement of 450 feet, that we allow them the right to restrict uses on these four lots,
but not on these two, because they meet all the -- would meet all the requirements of
the 450 foot long cul-de-sac. Let me see. In regard to the ditch, Nampa-Meridian, we
would prefer to tile the ditch. If it were a 48 inch pipe, that wouldn't be a problem, but as
Mr. Moe can attest, going from a 40 inch to a 60 inch isn't a multiple, it's more of an
exponential type -- I mean the costs just go up dramatically and it would just preclude us
from being able to do that. It wouldn't be economically feasible. So, what we would do is
we would only cover this portion here to cross the road. When we sold the property to
the bus barn here, they were in the same circumstance. If you go over there you will
notice that the Eight Mile Lateral as it goes across there has two crossings on it, which
we installed for them, and they chose not to tile the entire ditch, because of the cost
involved. Let me make sure I have got everything covered here. As far as the fire
department turnaround, with the -- with the Commission's approval we would be willing
to move this cul-de-sac right up to here. This right here is going to be easements, but if
you were standing on the road looking at it you wouldn't notice any difference between
this portion and this portion. We will build this to ACHD standards, sidewalks, curbs,
gutters, everything would be identical to what we are doing here. The only difference is
this would not be dedicated and the only reason that's not dedicated is because the city
only allows a 450 foot deep cul-de-sac. I think I got it all covered. I think that's it. Any
questions? There is quite a few issues there and I apologize for that.
Rohm: You had mentioned that you didn't want to put that 25 foot buffer along the west
line. I think in the staff report he mentioned that there is an option for alternatives. Did
you mention what your alternative might be?
Miller: I haven't and we'd be more than willing to work with staff on that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 58 of 84
Rohm: Because I tend to agree with your response. There is no sense in just putting a
buffer just for a buffer's sake if all you're going to do is widen an effective 150 buffer that
already exists.
Miller: I agree. I mean we want to be good neighbors and we don't want to offend the
neighbors in any way or impact them in a negative way, but it seems to me that the 25
foot landscape buffer really doesn't serve a purpose and I would be more than willing to
meet with staff and find out other alternatives. One other issue I might bring up is we
would be willing to put a stub road here. We don't have a problem with that at all. I mean
ultimately having the second way in and out would probably be beneficial, but the
problem is where do you locate it. As soon as you locate here, then, all of a sudden this
guy's price goes to 50 bucks a foot instead of 15 bucks a foot, so -- but we would be
willing to either dedicate -- or not dedicate but provide an easement there, provide a
secondary access that could be dedicated in the future.
Rohm: Quite honestly, this doesn't excite me very much.
Miller: It doesn't excite very many people.
Rohm: Yeah.
Miller: Staff either.
Rohm: Yeah. I --
Miller: But it's shorter than this one here. If you lengthen that out it would go to there.
Rohm: What -- did you consider this at all, a horseshoe there?
Miller: No. And I will tell you, if the staff and the city requires that we do a loop road, we
won't do the project. What we will do is we would -- and, please, don't take this as a
threat, because it's not meant that way. We have some major mini storage guys that are
just begging us to do mini storage there and we don't want to do mini storage, it's not -- I
mean it's probably more lucrative, but it's just not what we want to do. But if the city
were to say we have to do a loop road, then, we would say, okay, we are going to turn
this into one large lot here, develop these two out as industrial lots, and, then, just do
mini storage there. So, I don't see any circumstances under which we would be willing
to do a loop road. You just lose too much property and, as I said in my letter, for
industrial uses -- I mean those users don't want the public driving through there.
Although there has to be good access for trucks. So, that's why we make the roads wide
and the driveways wide to accommodate trucks, because if you can't accommodate
trucks, you don't have an industrial project.
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant?
Borup: Do you have anything on this property here? Is this owned by the --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 59 of 84
Miller: That's 84 Lumber.
Borup: Oh. That's where they are. All right.
Miller: And, then, next to that Yankes have built a facility here. So, I mean this really is a
lot more built out than is depicted here.
Hood: Mr. Chair? If I may ask Brad a question. Do you guys -- you said you offered a
stub street back over to those properties on there. Did you knock on any doors to -- you
said a couple of them were 20 dollars a foot or whatever.
Miller: We have approached all the owners. Now, there are -- let me see. And I might be
off by one or two here. This -- there is about an acre and a half right now that's for sale
there and we are nosing around that a little bit, but it's over -- in our opinion it's
overpriced, in their opinion it's not.
Hood: And so I guess just to follow up my question a little bit. What -- because I'm pretty
stumped on how they are going to develop. Like you said, they are pretty much
sandwiched between industrial, if you're project's approved.
Miller: Right.
Hood: How do they develop? They are not like what's happened on either side, the
large parcels. I mean you have got 30 acres of industrial there and at least a half mile of
industrial type uses back the other way. That isn't the situation the way it's parceled out
today. So, how do you envision those--
Miller: Well, Caleb, I think what's going to happen there is I .- there is one fellow -- I
believe his name is Joe Olsen, who has purchased two of those properties. I think what
you're going to see happen is you will have people come in and tie up two or three of
those, combine them together, and' think you will end up getting buildings like you have
got over here across the street, is what you are going to get. So, I don't think you're
going to get a nice cohesive development there, I think you're going to see a hodge
podge, to tell you the truth.
Hood: But industrial type --
Miller: , think it's going to be industrial type uses. That's what I think. But, you know,
that's just my opinion.
Hood: I won't hold it to you.
Miller: Right. But if they are going to -- if they are going to sell their properties for ten to
15 dollars a square foot, you can't afford to do industrial uses on those properties. The
rents don't justify it. Unless, potentially, they are user -- or owner occupied, user
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 60 of 84
occupied buildings. But you can't afford to build them and lease them and pay -- I mean
you can afford to -- afford to pay maybe up to five bucks, but not much more than that. I
apologize for the difficulty of this, but, you know --
Newton-Huckabay: Do you think putting a stub to the west, though, would -- that, to me,
would increase the traffic problem basically through there.
Miller: Potentially it could. I think you would have cut-through traffic there. I think you're
correct. But, you know, we don't want to be disagreeable. I mean we want to try to
accommodate the needs of staff and the needs of the city. I don't know if there is really
a good solution, because the loop road does not work for us.
Newton-Huckabay: Is there any reason why -- and I, honestly, don't know. You say you
don't want to tile the canal there, but could you put another -- I mean can you put
another bridge across the canal --
Miller: Oh, sure.
Newton-Huckabay: -- so you could get -- I mean so you just drive through.
Miller: Sure. Yeah. And so we would -- we would plan to put one here, but most likely
what you're going to have is you will have -- right now this is fenced here and, then, you
will have a perimeter fence here and, then, most likely you will have chain link fences on
all these property lines. And most likely we would fence the ditch just to keep people out
of there.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, so there would be fences around each individual industrial
property?
Miller: Most likely. And most likely what will happen is say we put a building there, there
would be fences along the edge of the building as well, so you would have a parking
area in the front and, then, you would have gates on either side or both sides of the
building and the trucks would go and circulate around. Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Because they will have outdoor storage?
Miller: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Miller: Yeah. For the most part. I would say -- I mean a number of our industrial projects
are not fenced, but the majority of them of this type where they have got a lot of yard
area, yes, they would be fenced.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, that wouldn't really serve a lot of purpose in the --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 61 of 84
Miller: I don't think it would. Interestingly enough, just as a point of reference, these two
crossings -- we did those for the school district. It was 180,000 dollars total for two
crossings of that ditch with a 60 inch pipe. It's just outrageous, so -- and just to let you in
on another little thing, we own this piece here, too. Our thought was to tile this whole
thing, because we would pick up more ground there, usable ground, because you can
park on it, you can drive on it, you can landscape it, but you can't build on it. But when
we saw that it was -- it's kind of a cheap way to pick up more usable ground, but with 60
inch it's not, it just is not economically feasible at all.
Borup: Not when you get over 36. It gets real spendy.
Miller: We have even been willing to go 48, which, you know, we have done before. In
fact, we piped the Eight Mile Lateral over on Overland Road and I believe it was 48 inch
there, so -- there are my dilemmas, folks. Thanks for your consideration.
Borup: Maybe just one comment. I don't think that this necessarily answers the
alternative compliance on the buffering, but in an industrial zone you can also do an
eight foot fence. The other thing I -- we have not -- Caleb, has there been any -- any
phone calls from any of the neighbors? I mean, obviously, none of them are here, so
they, apparently, don't seem to have any concern with this, so there is --
Hood: They haven't -- Mr. Borup, they haven't contacted me, but I was not the primary
on this application, so I don't know if Justin talked to anyone or not. He didn't tell me that
he did.
Borup: It seems like he probably would have mentioned -- there would have been some
mention of -- if there was some adamant opposition.
Newton-Huckabay: The only piece of property along there that isn't in disrepair, in my
opinion, is the one next to the railroad tracks.
Borup: The day care.
Newton-Huckabay: The day care.
Miller: That's a newer day care and it is in good shape.
Newton-Huckabay: But all the other buildings and homes, if you're to be --
Borup: I think are just waiting for --
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, they are just waiting to get 15 dollars a foot.
Miller: They are waiting for someone like us to buy them out.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 62 of 84
Newton-Huckabay: Because that -- whenever I drive down that stretch of road I find it's,
one, the landscaping on the west or -- on the west side isn't kept up and, then, you have
all those properties that aren't kept up and it's just very rundown looking all the way
through there.
Miller: It's an ugly stretch.
Newton-Huckabay: It really is. And, then, of course, the road is -- I think I would -- if I
may say -- is there -- and, again, I don't know -- can you have emergency access __
there is not like emergency access roads next to the railroad tracks, are there?
Miller: Well, let me -- let me tell you one thing that is here. On the north of this property
there is -- the subdivision granted when they did this -- I think it's called the Hepner
Subdivision. It was done in the late '60s. There is a 60 foot easement right there,
because the sewer line, believe it or not, runs along there. So, we will flow our sewer
back to that line and not out to Franklin. The water will come from Franklin. One of the
things when we met with Joe Silva -- we talked about maybe this -- the fire department
could have access there. There is a gate here right now. Now, they have their parking
lot there, so I don't know how feasible that is. The other thing that we offered to Joe is
that we would provide the ability for the trucks to drive completely around the buildings
and that's not a problem at all, is for -- I mean they could come back here and drive
completely around the buildings and have access to all sides of the building, which
seemed to be a concern to him, it seems to --
Moe: Well, you bring up the -- the easement. I'd like to -- when can you find out about
that? I'm very concerned about just the -- the single access and the road going back in.
Miller: Sure.
Moe: But if we can find out what's going on with that easement up there, that, to me, is
going to make a difference in my opinion on the project. And while I --
Miller: Right.
Moe: -- have got you here, you also made comment that you guys have already thought
of other uses for this property, if, in fact, if this isn't going to fly, so -- as far as --
Miller: Right. I mean if you didn't -- if the City Council denies it, we will just go a different
route or, actually, if you didn't recommend it, we would shift things around before we got
to Council. So, I mean we have always got a Plan B. But I just learned about -- I didn't
just learn about the easement, I knew the sewer easement was there, but I just saw the
plat today for the first time, it has a 60 foot easement, but it didn't have any notes on the
plat, which said what that easement was for and the notation on the easement just
easement. So, I have got First American Title researching that for me to find out exactly
what the intent was for that easement. If it's only for utilities, then, you would have to get
some sort of granting from the owner there to allow you to use it for emergency access.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 63 of 84
But, once again, their parking lot is there and, you know, the fire department likes to
always go straight, it doesn't like to curve around things, so --
Zaremba: I have a couple of questions.
Miller: Oh, no.
Zaremba: One of them is kind of innocuous, the other one may not be.
Miller: Okay.
Zaremba: Is there any thought that you might find two users of the northern two pieces
that would want access to the railroad? I mean for an industrial property to be right next
to the railroad and not make any use of it sounds unusual to me.
Miller: That's an excellent point, because right now 84 Lumber is in the process of
putting a spur in here, so they are going to start bringing rail cars in and it's interesting,
just as a point of -- and maybe it's not interesting to you guys, but to industrial guys it's
interesting -- five, six, seven years ago nobody had any interest in rail. None of the
tenants wanted rail. Now, I don't know if it's gas prices or what it is, but we get a lot of
calls for rail. So, yes, we have got -- potentially we have got a lumber company -- not a
competitor of them, they would be a hardwood lumber company that's interested in
taking that whole thing and they potentially would have a rail spur there. The other issue
with rail spurs is they are so darn expensive. I mean to get a rail spur there you're
probably talking three to four hundred thousand dollars, belive it or not.
Borup: So, it makes sense for two of them to go together on it, then, wouldn't it?
Miller: Well, I don't know if it would -- I mean it would if it -- if it could be extended out,
but some -- considering that both of these people would be in the lumber business, 84
may not be agreeable to that.
Zaremba: The other question -- my memory sometimes fails me, but in discussion of a
450 cul-de-sac and, then, private drive aisles and stuff beyond that, during the Process
Improvement Group that was developing the Unified Development Code --
Miller: I don't know if I'm aware of those people.
Zaremba: -- my recollection was that you spent a lot of time on that committee and I'm
sure the city is appreciative if it. I felt you had an awful lot of good input. But I'm trying to
remember the discussion about cul-de-sacs and extending them and I would have
thought that at that time you were not in favor of the kind of design that you're
presenting to us. I know many of the members weren't. As a matter of fact, there were a
lot of people who were flat out against cul-de-sacs, but it was brought up that in
industrial areas or particularly in small in-fill developments, you almost have to have a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 64 of 84
cul-de-sac, even though they don't work well for police or fire or public transportation or
anything else.
Miller: Right.
Zaremba: And I think the 450 foot actually was settled on from the fire -- from the
International Fire Code or something.
Miller: It could have been.
Zaremba: It was not a figure that we made up. And, then, at a totally different time there
were discussions about private driveways and the lengths of them and if I remember, all
of those discussions involved a private driveway or a drive aisle that actually attached to
a through street, not a cul-de-sac. I don't remember if it was ever anybody's intention to
add those two together and make a deeper street.
Miller: I can't disagree with you there. I don't remember specifically the discussions. All I
just remember is I was overruled a lot, so --
Zaremba: Well, you had very good input.
Miller: Commissioner Zaremba, I can't remember, to tell you the truth, but I mean this
definitely is not a standard situation and -- I mean to tell you the truth, it's kind of a
novel, unique way of -- I shouldn't use this word, but of circumventing the ordinance,
you know. I mean I don't know what other options we have. I mean we could make that
northern portion just, you know, into a mini storage as we discussed and that would --
and that would work fine. But that doesn't provide a need in the market right now, even
though it would make us more money to do that. But I mean it's definitely -- I mean
that's -- it's definitely not ideal, but we would improve it all to ACHD standards.
Zaremba: I guess maybe I'll discuss with staff for a moment. On that same subject,
sometime since the UDC was actually adopted we have had two residential
developments that had a full length cul-de-sac and, then, additional private drive added
to that. But their limit is since you can only have four residences on a private drive, they
only ended up being 500 feet or 550, they didn't add that much to 450. I guess my
question is -- I don't feel that the people that were putting the UDC together anticipated
coupling the two lengths together. Not that it would apply to the current applicant, but
might it not be a good idea to prepare an amendment to the UDC that says that you
can't combine cul-de-sacs and drive aisles to anything more than 450 feet?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I think that's something we can evaluate, too.
I mean especially if this becomes a regular occurrence where we get people --
developers that need to, essentially, get a street -- a cul-de-sac street that's longer than
450 feet and we are looking at variances, because they need it to be 800 feet. You
know, once you see that trend, then, something's wrong with your ordinance. So, this is
the first commercial one that I can recall. We do get residential ones sometimes, similar
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19. 2006
Page 65 of 84
to the Spurwing earlier tonight, they didn't have anywhere to stub to, they couldn't get
out. It's a similar situation here. They really -- there is nowhere for them to go. They are
kind of in there. So, that's why staff feels that the recommendation of this loop to get --
it's not a cul-de-sac -- it's not just a dead end. That's where we are coming from. But we
can sure look into the ordinance in making some industrial exclusion or allowing them to
have a longer cul-de-sac in non-residential -- generally, cul-de-sacs aren't encouraged.
But, yeah, if you tried to circumvent the ordinance or whatever by -- I think we could
write something that says thou shalt not take a driveway for more than one property
further than that street. We can sure work on that. I can run it by Anna and we can -- I
know we have got a text amendment in the next couple of months. Maybe we will
propose something and kick that around with you, so we'll look into it more.
Zaremba: One side question -- and I'm trying to think for the fire department, some of
this, which I really have no great knowledge of, but in a situation like this where, as you
said, you are going to build it to look like a continuing street. On a public street there are
requirements to have a fire hydrant so often. Is there any possibility that the fire
hydrants could continue up your private street?
Miller: That will be a requirement of the fire department. And, most likely, they will
require us to put some fire hydrants on site within those lots. I know that 84 -- and, Mike,
you can correct me on this -- 84 Lumber has, what, a couple on -- within their site? Four
-- three or four within their site. So, I would imagine with these larger sizes that we
would be required to put fire hydrants within the site.
Zaremba: That makes me more comfortable.
Miller: Now, one other thing that I might point out is, yes, the cul-de-sac's long, but as
compared to the -- to the Spurwing project -- I mean they had however many homes on
there. I mean we are talking, realistically, there is four users -- potentially only three
users if we do one -- one user across the back, but there would only be four users who
would be outside of that 450 feet. So, you aren't talking, you know, a hundred homes or
50 homes or even ten homes, so --
Borup: And I was thinking about the same thing. If it was a private drive with a dozen
lots adjoining it, that would be maybe a different situation. We don't have that here.
Miller: And I think the uses in there will not be high impact uses. I mean we will have
truck traffic, but I don't see us having a fleet of delivery vans going out from there or
anything like that, like a distributor of -- like Sara Lee Bread is one of our tenants. I don't
see, you know, all the Grandma Sycamore bread trucks going out from there. I just don't
see that kind of use. It's going to be more construction related users that need large
yards for storage.
Zaremba: Go back a moment to the discussion about loading docks. I got a little
confused about your description of it. Are you saying it's not possible to limit the loading
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 66 of 84
docks to what would be the sides of the buildings, north, south, and east, as opposed to
not having them on the west?
Miller: Anything's possible. But, you know, the thing that I found is loading docks really
aren't offensive, because everything happens inside. I mean the forklifts are accessing
the trucks inside, I mean so it might be a visual thing seeing a truck backed up to a
building, but there is really not any noise associated with that. I mean the noise is the
flatbed trucks that are out there being unloaded with the backup alarms from the
forklifts, which -- and I promise you there will be forklifts all over this site, but I guess I
just don't see the offensive nature of loading docks. A trash compactor -- I mean I could
understand it if it were over next to the property line, but I would imagine that all these
uses also will be -- just want to make sure I'm not lying here -- I think they will be during
normal business hours. I don't think -- I wouldn't want this restriction on us, but I don't
think that we will have any 24 hour a day uses there. I mean we don't have -- of all of
our tenants I have very few 24 our a day uses. In fact, I can't think of any.
Zaremba: I would not suggest putting that restriction on it. My assumption would be that
by the time their business has grown to the point where they might want to be 24 hours,
your prediction of what's going to happen along Linder with those converting to
industrial would have happened.
Miller: That's true.
Zaremba: So, I'm in -- if you're not going to start out 24 hours today, it could happen in
the future, but by then I don't think it would be impacting residents, so --
Miller: We have -- if you go over by Lewis & Clark Middle School, you have got Pine and
Executive that travels through there. We own all the buildings that are east of -- well, we
sold off a couple, but most of the buildings that are east of the middle school there and
we have got residences up against our north boundary. We haven't had any problem
with those residents there. We try to be considerate of them and try to -- in fact, that one
we butted the building up against the property line as close as we could and put the
loading docks in the front. So, I mean we don't want to do -- I mean the worst situation
for me is having neighbors calling me and complain or call the tenant and complain and
the tenant calls me. So, we want to avoid any conflict with the neighbors there. But I
guess I just don't see the loading docks or loading bays or anything is offensive. And I
don't necessarily think it should be restricted there. Especially given the 200 feet or so
to the houses or 150 feet or whatever -- whatever it is.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I may make another comment on -- to
help the applicant, I don't know where the Commission's at, but the 25 foot wide
landscape buffer that's required by ordinance along that property line. Alternative
compliance is an option for landscaping, so if you wanted to propose fencing and a ten
foot buffer -- and I'm not saying that's what we would approve, but, you know, there is
some flexibility written in the UDC with an alternative compliance application. Some of
the other provisions -- restrictions about loading docks, trash compactors bays, and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 1 g, 2006
Page 67 of 84
things being on that side, are based on past testimony from the public. Now, most of
those people probably didn't know it was offensive at the time and they are saying I
don't want to see these things, they weren't people that already lived there, they were
having this use potentially come on and move in next to them. So, whether their
comments were based on any -- those uses actually being most offensive to them or
not, those are the common ones that we seem to get and that's why they kind of cut and
pasted into yours saying these are the ones we get complaints on --
Miller: Right.
Hood: -- on a fairly regular basis. That's why we will try to head that off, too, and so no
one gets calls and complaints.
Miller: Right.
Hood: So, just -- that's kind of some background of why that condition made it in the
staff report or -- those seem to be the ones that we get the calls on, too. So, yeah.
That's it.
Miller: We will agree to no trash compactors.
Rohm: I kind of like the idea of procuring the emergency access on the north line from
Linder into your property. I don't know if that's an occupied improvement, but that
certainly helps access to the development as a whole. Along that 60 foot easement and
I don't know if the -- what it's going to take to get that to include emergency vehicle
access, but that would certainly be something that I would consider as a trade for a
buffer.
Miller: Sure. Well, the -- and I don't know the answer to that yet. It may already include a
provision for emergency access. The problem the fire department is going to have is the
parking lot that they put there and they have got curbs and things, so -- but what we
would be willing to do is put a gate right there on the property line and they could, you
know, cut the lock and go on through. But we wouldn't -- I mean we wouldn't propose --
there will be a sewer easement here, but we wouldn't propose a dedicated 60 foot right
of way there. I mean we would propose that that emergency access be within the yard
area of that tenant and we could restrict the tenant so they didn't store anything there as
well.
Rohm: Okay. Anymore questions of this applicant? I'm not sure where we go from here.
You have made some very valid points and I guess what we are faced with is the point's
well taken and ordinance.
Miller: I hear you. I appreciate your help and consideration.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe, do you have some comments?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19. 2006
Page 68 of 84
Moe: Do I have comments? Well, this is a tough piece of property, quite frankly. I am
concerned that the single access in through the center -- I understand the concerns of
putting a loop road in, taking away some property, and whatnot, but I'm just -- I'm just
real concerned that there isn't enough availability without the loop road on this piece of
property. This is the second project we have seen off this property here and, you know,
the first one wasn't very good either and I'm a little bit concerned on what we do with
this. I'm just -- I guess my point being is I am swayed more towards the staff comment,
than I am from the presentation.
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I like the idea of having potential of, you know, six different -- or five
different employers, rather than one employer with a whole bunch of storage sheds, but
I do think that -- I agree access is an issue. I think I'd probably go with the stub to the
west as far north or maybe midway between the railroad tracks and Franklin and I think
that would be -- for one, you get a longer road in there and, two, you're going to have
flow through. I think that's what I would do.
Moe: Would you say that one more -- I missed --
Newton-Huckabay: A stub to --
Moe: Okay. To the west property, then.
Newton-Huckabay: So, you would have your road come -- you know, your road come
up and cul-de-sac up here somewhere --
Moe: Right.
Newton-Huckabay: -- and so this stub --
Moe: That may go nowhere.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, yeah, they may eventually go nowhere, but odds are at some
point they would, aren't they? Well, okay, if it was --
Moe: Depending upon who wants to buy that piece of property.
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I have got a question for the applicant to maybe clarify. The property south of the
ditch, that's the C-G zone?
Miller: Correct.
Borup: Okay. And there would be -- and you're looking at access there at 12th?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 69 of 84
Miller: Yeah. Yes. There would be a full access point at 12th.
Borup: And, then, would there be cross-access between those front properties, then?
Miller: All these front properties would have access. Yes. So, this parcel here when it's
developed would have access there and that would be its only access. We would not
ask for additional access here. We would try to get access here, but I don't know if we
will be able to, because there is a limited --
Borup: Too close to the intersection.
Miller: Yeah. Too close to the intersection.
Borup: Okay.
Miller: And this would feed onto there. One point that I might make is ACHD -- Justin
Lucas appeared at the ACHD tech review meeting and argued the point of the loop road
and ACHD didn't feel like a loop road added anything or was necessary, so they felt that
one full -- actually, initially, they said they didn't want us to have access here and, then,
when they saw the alignment here they said, yes, you can have full access here and full
access here and, then, limited here if you wanted it.
Borup: Okay. That answers my question.
Miller: Thank you.
Borup: Well, I'm thinking of the survey that the city did a few months back or maybe it
was a year ago, the lack of industrial land that we have in Meridian and, you know, the
areas are along the railroad, so I think it's needed. I think the city needs it. The reason I
asked the questions on the cross-access on those front C-G properties is even though
it's south of the ditch, that, essentially, is a loop road. I think the only -- I know the fire
department's concerned about not being able to -- you know, having access blocked,
but this is the only place here that could be blocked. You know, all the way along here
you got access from these other properties -- at least from this other property into it. So,
I think that is a secondary access there. I do like the idea of having at least an
emergency access up there, so I hope something could be done for that aspect. I'm
comfortable, just because of the nature of what's here, because we have not heard from
any of the neighbors, to -- to be -- to approve that -- the landscape plan as submitted,
which shows -- which shows trees all along. The only thing that may be done -- I don't
that -- I can't read the access point, if it even shows a fence, but I don't believe the
ordinance requires a fence, it just requires the buffer and I think if I was living there I
would much rather have an eight foot fence and a five foot buffer than a 25 foot buffer
with no fence. And that may -- what I started to say, that may be the other extra
considerations, maybe an eight foot fence along there, rather than -- rather than the six.
There is a lot of landscaping already being shown on the -- on the plan. And, then, other
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 70 of 84
than -- other than maybe restricting the trash compactors that -- you know, I agree with
the applicant on the loading -- loading areas and docks and such on the west side, I
don't think it's a big concern. That's alii had. Maybe.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Well, I agree that this -- I like the industrial area. I'm happy with the C-G along
Franklin. It would be nice if some of them wanted access to the railroad, so that we
could start making more use of that. And I could be comfortable with the suggestion that
the fire department can circulate all around the buildings. I think the question I would
have on that is if the various tenants are going to fence their properties and probably
gate them and lock them, would the fire department be satisfied with -- what do they call
them, knock boxes or -- Knox boxes. I mean it doesn't do any good to say you can
circulate around a building and, then, have them come up to a locked fence, but if they
would be given a way to go through the gates, that would help. And I am satisfied on
access to the property to the east, which is owned by the same owner. I'm still a little
uncomfortable with access to the property to the west that's actually on the corner of
Linder and Franklin. My feeling is that needs to be absolutely assured, that their -- their
entrance -- their property needs to be a little farther away than their property is wide. So,
if you are putting a right-in, right-out driveway along that property line and they could
use it, that's fine. If you don't do that, I would want them to be able to access your cul-
de-sac the same as the other two properties are, which means some open passage
along there. Because in that location Franklin is going to get busier and busier. Linder at
some point will be widened to five and when there is an overpass to the interstate it's
going to be a busy street. That intersection may end up needing brake turn lanes and
acceleration-deceleration lanes and I don't think that property is going to be able to put
a driveway within their property and I just -- of all the things that have been asked for, I
think it's important to preserve their ability to cross part of your property to access
Franklin. I don't know if you care to comment on it. The Public Hearing is still open.
Miller: If I could. I believe the minimum for a right-in, right-out is 220; is that right? Two
hundred and twenty feet. So, they have got 350 feet there. There is nothing that would
__ there is nothing that would preclude them from coming right up against our property
line and doing a driveway there, which would be the same as if we put on there. I
wouldn't really want them to go across two of our lots to get to that cul-de-sac.
Zaremba: It's not an attractive solution to the --
Miller: Yeah. Especially if they were to put say a Maverick or something there and so
you have got all these cars coming back and forth going in for their -- you know, their
900 ounce Cokes and things. So, I mean for me the preferred location would be on the
property line, but we just want to reserve the right to not put access there if we don't
choose to. But nothing would preclude him from coming right over on his side and
putting an access point there, which seems to me it's a cleaner -- a cleaner way to do it,
than to have him cross our lots, because most likely those lots on the front are -- you
have got a better idea there than I do -- what are they, an acre and a half, something
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 71 of 84
like that. So, they are larger lots and there could be office uses there. I don't know. I just
wouldn't want to say that we absolutely provide access across our lots for them. Once
they are developed out you can see how it lays out. Maybe it's a different story. But if
they had a commercial type use there where they had a lot of ingress and egress, I
wouldn't want them traveling across our lots. A similar situation is that Chevron over on
Eagle Road that goes through the front of that savings and loan there and, then, John
Jackson, when he bought it, ended up putting the driveway at the back behind the
savings and loan, because that was just a mess. People walked out of there and it was
-- we had people zooming back and forth. So, I mean I would propose that Tim
Thornton get his access off of Franklin or off of Linder on his property. In fact, I would be
willing to say when he got to the point of doing that, we would be willing to split the
property line with the access point, with the driveway and we would be more than happy
to do that. We just don't want to be required to, number one, put an access point there if
we don't need it and, number two, if we don't put an access point there, provide him
access across both of our lots, so -- but we don't want to preclude him -- we don't want
to preclude him from developing that property. Although if you look at the way that ditch
runs across there, I don't know how he's going to develop it, so --
Zaremba: Thank you. Well, I guess my basic summary is I think this is a project that
needs to happen and the right place for it and the right zones. There are a lot of issues
that aren't comfortable, but it's an odd piece of property as well, so sometimes we make
allowances for things that we don't agree with. End of comment.
Rohm: Thank you. Any additional comments by any Commissioners or questions of
staff? Then, at this time could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing?
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: And that's her last motion.
Newton-Huckabay: And that was my next last motion.
Rohm: I wonder what the next one will be. It's been moved and seconded to close the
Public Hearing on AZ 06-048 and PP 06-050. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, for heaven's sake. Okay. Landscaping.
Rohm: I personally think that the landscaping is not a necessary component of this
development and --
Borup: Well, they have already got landscaping plans submitted.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 72 of 84
Newton-Huckabay: So, as submitted?
Rohm: As proposed?
Newton-Huckabay: As proposed?
Rohm: Okay.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if you decide to do that, we need to keep
the record clean, because the ordinance does require 25, we still need the applicant to
actually submit the application and jump through that hoop. I have no problem if you
want to give the direction saying five feet is fine, that's fine, but they do need to actually
submit an application, because of the UDC.
Borup: Right. What does the landscape plan presently show? Our copies are too small
to -- I didn't get a full size. I don't think. Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I did.
Hood: It looks like it's about a five -- it's kind of tough to tell. It looks like there is a
property line and, then, a fence about two and a half feet in and, then, about another
two and a half feet of landscaping. So, it's kind of tough and it varies a little bit.
Borup: Yeah. I think it's more than even.
Hood: I mean they are just trees. I don't see any shrubs or any ground cover below the
trees, so -- it's tough to -- maybe the width of the of trees is the landscape buffer,
because I don't see anything else underneath them.
Borup: Yeah. I can't tell where it ends. It looks like it comes close to ten feet if you go to
the outside line, but I don't know if that's lines or a ditch or what that is.
Hood: There is top of bank of a ditch there. That's what gets a little bit confusing. If you
go down to the very first thing on the north side of the canal, it would be on the very
southwest corner.
Borup: Oh, there it is. Yeah.
Hood: That one is probably the best, where that parking lot goes over, that's kind of the
best place to measure it and it measures out five feet is what I'm scaling out to.
Borup: Okay. In my mind that's not a visual place where a lot of shrubs and flowers are
going to mean anything. The trees -- the trees are always a nice feature to have,
especially when they mature. I don't see where -- other than trees, where most of the
perimeter landscaping does anything. So, are we looking for suggestions on --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 73 of 84
Rohm: I think Commissioner Newton-Huckabay is preparing to make a motion. She's
doing a lot of writing.
Borup: Well, if there is a concern about buffering on that side, an eight foot fence would
-- would be an added -- be some added site buffering anyway.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, I mentioned it earlier that the UDC doesn't allow
chain link with slats to provide that screening material. Now, if that's something that you
guys want to do as part of this alternative compliance and allow the applicant to do that,
because it truly doesn't, it doesn't screen. I mean you can see right through the chain
link with slats.
Borup: Well, the UDC doesn't -- doesn't even require a fence, does it?
Hood: Well, that's what this alternative compliance is.
Borup: Right.
Hood: It would not otherwise require a fence, no.
Borup: So, you're saying add chain link with the slats as part of alternative compliance?
Hood: That's not necessarily what I'm saying.
Borup: Oh.
Hood: If you do want to do that, that's fine. But if it were just coming to us and we
weren't having this discussion with the Commission, staff would not approve chain link
with slats and a five foot buffer. You have to tell me what you want to approve pretty
specifically or else we may have some discrepancies between the applicant and myself,
so -- or Justin in this case, maybe. But as specific as you can be as possible with what
you would like to see there, I can approve that, because I have got some direction from
you.
Borup: Well, I don't think it justifies a masonry wall, so what else is there?
Rohm: I just think an eight foot chain link fence with a five foot buffer is -- it doesn't even
have to be slatted, I mean in my mind.
Borup: But that's not a site -- but that's not a site buffer.
Rohm: Well, the --
Borup: Just keeps kids from climbing over it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 74 of 84
Rohm: There you go. And that's the purpose -- that's the purpose of that fence from -- in
my mind anyway.
Zaremba: I used to be able to climb a chain link fence pretty fast. It's not an obstacle.
I like the idea of having maybe some extra trees along there. And the current -- the
current neighboring uses would make me feel like there should be a solid fence or wall,
masonry construction wall along that west property line, but I also agree with the
applicant's prediction that those are going to transition out of residences at some point,
at which time the wall would be excessive.
Rohm: That's why I like the chain link fence and let it go.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, is it chain link with slats or chain link with no slats?
Rohm: If it makes staff happier, with slats works for me. No preference. It's your motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Slats it is.
Zaremba: Can we specify that the slats have more than one color, they are not all the
same color all the way down?
Newton-Huckabay: No.
Zaremba: You don't want to alternate the green and a white one?
Borup: Probably get a red and a blue in there.
Newton-Huckabay: No, we can't.
Zaremba: Never mind.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you're on.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm still working on this. Okay.
Borup: It looks like the trees are already at 35 feet. Approximately that area. Which is --
that's what the -- that's as close as you would want to do them anyway, isn't it?
Hood: The UDC actually would require them to touch at full maturity to provide a full
screening buffer.
Borup: So, it depends on which species of tree.
Hood: Well, they are showing them -- at this plan that is at maturity is what they should
be showing on the plan, so--
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19. 2006
Page 75 of 84
Borup: Oh.
Hood: -- again, for it to be a land use buffer it really is a continuos wall of plant material
when they mature. That's the intent. One for 35 is our standard requirement along
streets and edges of parking, drive aisles, and things like that.
Borup: They scale out how I figure it 37 and a half. So, close. So, that's close to --
Newton-Huckabay: You want more?
Borup: I don't.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Is everybody in the --
Zaremba: I would support the fire department having some input to the northern four
lots. I don't think it needs to be all six.
Newton-Huckabay: I have got that -- basically, Brad's statement related to this -- they
will provide access that they can drive completely around all the proposed buildings.
Oh. And they are supposed to -- and Knox --
Zaremba: Well, if they have access with Knox boxes -- if they have access and can
drive all the way around, should they still have approval over the --
Newton-Huckabay: And I also have that.
Zaremba: But are we -- if we are going to also have that, I would limit it to the northern
four lots, as opposed to six.
Newton-Huckabay: Four, five, six, and seven? Okay.
Borup: I agree. Just those lots.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And we are not tiling the ditch -- or the canal. What about
access? That's the only one --
Borup: Access to?
Newton-Huckabay: One access on the west. Are we going to require to build the right-
in, right-out or go for the letter to provide --
Zaremba: I think the way the applicant would like to see it state is if it exists it shall be
right-in, right-out and have cross-access to the property.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 76 of 84
Borup: You mean if the applicant provides it?
Zaremba: If they choose to put it in --
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: -- it would have to have those elements to it. But he wants the right not to put
it in.
Hood: Mr. Chair, maybe Commissioner Newton-Huckabay may want to -- the ACHD's,
actually, already covered that condition, we don't necessarily need to regurgitate that. If
you want to, that's fine, too, but the applicant already has that option and if they do
construct cross-access there, so --
Newton-Huckabay: So, I don't need to address that at all.
Borup: Yeah. That's right. ACHD gives all kinds of alternatives.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Zaremba: Okay. That works for me.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Now, what about the cul-de-sac and the drive -- long
driveway. Just leave as is?
Rohm: If that meets with the road standards as far as the 450 max and the rest of it is
private aisle.
Newton-Huckabay: So, leave it as it is?
Borup: Well, I think -- from my standpoint, because there is -- because those other
access points and cross-access agreements from the front, it's not technically a loop
road, but it serves the same purpose and, you know, if you started measuring the cul-
de-sac from the ditch and went 450 feet, you would be up to those -- well, not quite, but
you would be -- you would be at least up to those other two lots.
Moe: I may have missed this, but are you -- are you noting anything in regards to
possibility of the emergency access on the north side?
Newton-Huckabay: No, not yet. I need to know where to put that.
Moe: I guess the concern I have there -- if you have the emergency access, the
applicant did state that he may have a tenant that's going to take that -- both lots on the
north, so, then, you're losing your emergency access to get back into that property.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 77 of 84
Borup: Well, not if -- not if he makes that a requirement to that tenant to have some kind
of access through there, I think. A fire lane and a gate?
Moe: Yeah. That's kind of what I was going to is to make that there was access.
Borup: Well, that would be the ideal I think.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And, then, finally -- so, another condition would be to pursue
that or are we just recommending that before City Council? How do you want that stated
on the north?
Borup: I mean --
Moe: I guess emergency access?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah.
Moe: Follow up prior to City Council whether or not --
Newton-Huckabay: Is that 1.2.9? Or 1.2.1 O?
Borup: That would be a good place. Or it could be stated stronger to provide an
emergency access from the north easement, unless --
Moe: Unavailable.
Borup: Right. Or prohibited or something.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Here we go.
Borup: Did you do anything on the trash compactor and stuff?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Do you want to review your notes or are you comfortable with what you
have got?
Newton-Huckabay: I think I'm okay. It won't be like I haven't stumbled over my words on
the record before.
Borup: Everybody reads those so carefully.
Newton-Huckabay: Really, it is the last motion I'm making today. After -- or did we close
the Public Hearing? After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-048 and PP 06-050 as
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 78 of 84
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 19th, 2006, with the
following modifications. And give me a moment to get -- what page are those on?
Hood: Exhibit B, page one.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I mean what page on the internet thing here? Sixteen or --
Okay. I'm going to try to stay in order here, but -- condition of approval 1.2.2 -- shall we
-- we just strike that whole statement relating to the applicant shall provide two public
street access points to this property along Franklin Road. These two streets shall be
linked together by a public street that loops into the proposed development across the
Eight Mile Lateral.
Borup: We still have the two public access points, but just cross the loop part, maybe.
Newton-Huckabay: The two streets shall be linked together by a public street that loops
into the proposed development across the Eight Mile Lateral. One of the public streets
access points shall align with Southwest 12th Street, which currently intersects Franklin
Road across from the property. Do I strike the rest of that statement -- or the applicant
shall submit a revised plan with alternative --
Borup: Well, it's an or, so that could stay. I don't know if--
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. We'll leave that. So, we will strike -- go ahead.
Hood: I'm sorry, not to intervene. I think the direction you're going, though, it's going to
be easiest to strike that whole condition.
Newton-Huckaby: Okay.
Hood: There aren't two public streets proposed currently, so this would be a change.
Borup: Oh.
Hood: It's essentially staffs loop road proposal --
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Hood: -- or some other alternative that may have come from this hearing. That's the or.
And if you want to keep anything from the or, that may be where you want to insert your
alternative potential access -- emergency access to the north, but, otherwise, that whole
thing, if I'm reading you correctly, should go away. The whole thing could be --
Borup: So, do we even want to leave this statement that says provide two access
points? They are going to do it anyway, so it probably doesn't matter, does it?
Hood: Well, the difference is they are not public street access points.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 79 of 84
Borup: Right. Yeah. We could cross out the public streets or just -- or just cross out the
whole thing.
Hood: Essentially, by 1.2.1 you're approving their -- their one public street access point,
so you don't need to call that out. This is called out, because it's a change.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, strike comment 1.2.2 and, then, 1.2.4, and I think we can
strike 1.2.4 and 1.2.6, the landscape plan, we are suggesting that they submit an
alternative compliance application with landscaping as proposed on their landscape
plan, with a five foot buffer and a six foot chain link fence with slats of a single color.
And so do we leave 1.2.7, then, Caleb?
Hood: The first portion of that has been met. He clarified what type of fencing.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Leave it as is, then?
Hood: It works fine just leaving it. Sure.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And, then, 1.2.8, that's regarding the irrigation ditches and the
lateral. Do we just strike that and state that the applicant will not be tiling --
Hood: What you can do is -- the Council is the only body that can actually --
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Hood: So, you can state that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that
they not have to tile this, but as staff we are going to have to call this out for them to
actually make that call. But you can sure put something in.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Borup: Or just leave it like it is.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I will just leave it as it is. And, then, now moving over to 3.4
and 3.18 and fire department. I would just take the statements made in the applicant's
letter on 3.4 -- can we just reference the applicant's letter and include that the fire
department is requiring a turnaround -- they agree to provide the fire department the
ability to drive completely around any proposed building and provide Knox boxes, as
well as grant the fire department -- on 3.18 now -- to the restrictions by the fire
department on Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, regarding use restrictions for hazardous material or
what's the term you want me to use there?
Zaremba: Flammable and hazardous.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 80 of 84
Newton-Huckabay: Flammable and hazardous. Or just subject to fire department review
and approval? I'm looking for affirmation from somebody.
Borup: That's being duly withheld.
Hood: Yeah. It's a little bit difficult, because it is the fire department's comments, so I
don't want to --
Nary: And is that -- is that authority until there is at some point a secondary access or
forever?
Hood: I mean the way the condition reads is the fire department reserves the right to
restrict future uses in areas that only -- are only served by one access. So, as I read
that, if you have two accesses, then, we don't -- we don't care.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Until a second access is provided on that. We didn't do
anything with the street design. And -- oh. I'm sorry. Back to item 1.2.5. The statement
reads: No trash compactors, loading areas, docks or bays shall face the western
property line on Lots 3, 5 -- Lots 3 through 5 on Block 1. Would you strike loading areas,
docks or bays, so the statement will read no trash compactors shall face the western
property line on Lots 3 through 5, Block 1. And item 1.2.10, the applicant will provide
emergency access from the north by City Council, unless prohibited by --
Borup: Just leave it as --
Hood: It's private property, so they would have to negotiate with that -- that person to
acquire an easement there, so --
Newton-Huckabay: So, we just -- unless prohibited by stakeholders?
Zaremba: Shall we say they should pursue it?
Borup: Make every effort.
Newton-Huckabay: Best effort?
Hood: It's hard for us to say that -- you know, complies -- it complies or doesn't. So,
that's -- if you want to require some -- yeah, it's hard to put it on some other person.
They may not want to even write a letter saying, no, you can't have an easement across
my property. I --
Newton-Huckabay: Applicant will pursue obtaining emergency access on the north
property line by City Council and report at City Council. I do belive that is the end.
Hood: I do have one more point of clarification that was discussed during your -- it was
just discussed during -- and I told you to leave it out, because ACHD's covering it --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 81 of 84
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Hood: -- with the -- the way that 1.2.3 is worded currently says -- requires the applicant
to provide a cross-access easement to the Thornton property. So, I'm not sure what you
want to do with that, but I think it --
Borup: Which number was that again?
Hood: 1.2.3. And that was regardless of whether it's constructed as a shared driveway
or as access to 13th Street. We wanted to see access provided through this site to that
Thornton piece. So, whatever you want to do with that. I just -- you didn't make a
change to that, but you talked about giving some flexibility and if you construct your
driveway here, then, provide it. If you don't --
Newton-Huckabay: And that's what's in the ACHD comments; right?
Hood: Correct. But ours goes a step further than that.
Newton-Huckabay: Can we reference the ACHD comments in compliance with ACHD?
Hood: What's your intent, I guess, of that condition?
Newton-Huckabay: I understood that the Commission's intent was that we agreed they
didn't necessarily have to build the driveway, but if they didn't they had to allow -- or if
they did build the driveway, they had to allow them access. If they didn't build the
driveway, they didn't have to provide any other access.
Hood: Then, I would recommend you strike that entire condition. ACHD has covered
that.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Strike statement 1.2.3.
Borup: I think in my mind it depends on what the use is. If it's a Maverick store, then,
you don't want to be crossing all the other properties. If it's another office building or
something, then -- or a retail or something, that would be appropriate, but we don't know
that.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And I believe that is the end --
Rohm: End of motion?
Hood: There is not much of a staff report left, but --
Zaremba: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
October 19, 2006
Page 82 of 84
Newton-Huckabay: Duly noted.
Rohm: Okay. Good job, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. It's been moved and
seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-048 and
PP 06-050, to include all staff comments with the changes as stated. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: All right. We have got one more Public Hearing, so--
Newton-Huckabay: We do?
Item 14:
Public Hearing: CPA 06-004 Request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to modify the definition of "Office" by removing the last
sentence of the description (see Chapter VII, page 106, June 2006
printing of the Comprehensive Plan) for Office Designation Text
Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department:
Rohm: Yes. Just a short one. Very short. At this time I'd like to open CPA 06-004, a
request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to modify definition of office.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. We are proposing to amend
some text within the Comprehensive Plan relative to resolution 04-454, which is
commonly used for residentially designated properties on arterials that want to go to
office space, because they are less than three acres in size, but have frontage on an
arterial street. Recently the Council has made an interpretation that it goes vice-versa
and if you're office you can ask for residential, essentially. That was not the intent of
resolution 454. We are cleaning this up so it really only applies to those resident --
pretty much residential properties, existing homes that back out of their driveways today
as a single family home and they want to convert theirs to office. To do so, not for
someone that is supposed to be office asking for residential. So, that is the clarification.
We are proposing to remove the last sentence within office designation as currently
written in the Comp Plan and I will stand for any questions you may have.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would note that the room is empty of public, therefore, nobody intends to
add any public testimony and, therefore, I move to close the Public Hearing on CPA 06-
004.
Moe: Second.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
Hearing Date: November 2,2006
Planning & Zoning Commission
Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner
Mike Cole, Development Services Coordinator
208~884-5533
~U ~ nT~',;", ,
'\..../VLCridian
I JI),\HO
\~
W"'
m_ "\1
'<"
~
}
SUBJECT:
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision
AZ-06-043
Annexation and Zoning of20.65 acres from RR (Ada County) to
R-8 (Medium Density Residential).
PP.06~045
Preliminary Plat approval of 73 single. family residential building lots and 6
common lots on 20.51 acres in a proposed R-8 zone.
V AR-06-020
Variance from UDC 11-6C-3F to exceed the maximum block face length
allowed in a residential district.
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Spurwing Limited Partnership, is requesting concurrent approval for Annexation
and Zoning (AZ) of 20.65 acres of land to R-8 (Medium Density Residential), currently zoned
RR in Ada County; Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of 73 single.farnily residential building lots
consisting of 46 attached patio homes and 27 detached homes, and 6 common lots; and a
Variance (V AR) from UDC 11-6C.3F to exceed the maximum block face length allowed in a
residential district. The site is located just north of Chinden Boulevard and northeast of the Ten
Mile Road/Chinden Boulevard intersection. Currently, the site consists of vacant land some of
which is improved for the golf course. The site is composed of one tax parcel and is currently
platted as Lot 3, Block 1, of Spurwing Subdivision. This site also includes a portion of Lots 2 &
4, Block 1, of Spurwing Subdivision. A Property Boundary Adjustment application that matches
the configuration of the property as shown on the proposed plat is currently in process at Ada
County and will be required to be completed prior to annexation ordinance approval by City
Council. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area, but is outside of the
City's current Area of Impact.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The subject applications (AZ, PP, V AR) were submitted to the Planning Department for
concurrent review. Below, staff has provided a detailed analysis for the requested Annexation
and Zoning, Preliminary Plat, and Variance applications. Due to the annexation path of this
oropertv. the proposed plat layout and zoninl! requested. Staff is recommendinl! denial of the
proposed Spurwinl! Patio Homes Subdivision (AZ-06-043. PP-06-045. V AR-06-020) for the
reasons listed in the Analvsis of the Staff Report. Note: The Commission is not required to make
a recommendation to City Council on the Variance application.
At the Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission meetin!! on October 19. 2006. the Commission
recommended that this proiect be continued until November 2. 2006 in order for Staff to
prepare Findin!!:s and Conditions of Approval. The ori!!:inal staff report did not contain
Conditions of Approval since Staff was recommendin!! denial of the proiect. Staff has now
included Conditions of approval in Exhibit A and revised Findin!!:s in Exhibit C. .
OCT
',',1
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045N AR-06-020
PAGE 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing)
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the
City Council of File Numbers AZ-06-043 and PP-06-045 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of November 2, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of
approval: (Add any proposed modifications.)
Recommend Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the
City Council of File Numbers AZ-06-043 and PP-06-045 as presented during the hearing of
November 2, 2006 for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial of
the annexation and you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the plat.)
Continuance
I move to continue File Numbers AZ-06-043 and PP-06-045 to the hearing date of (insert
continued hearing date here) to allow Staff to compose conditions and findings for approval.
4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location:
Parcel No.: R808l770030
Generally located northeast ofthe N. Ten Mile Road/Chinden Boulevard intersection;
S.W. ~ of Section 23, TAN., R.l W.
b. Owner:
Spwwing Limited Partnership/Pacific Links Ltd. Partnership
200 N. Fourth Street, Suite 203/6800 N. Spwwing Way
Boise, II) 83702/Meridian, II) 83642
c. Applicant:
Spurwing Limited Partnership
200 N. Fourth Street, Suite 203
Boise, II) 83702
d. Representative: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, LLP
e. Present Zoning: RR (Ada County)
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting concurrent approval for
Annexation and Zoning of the subject 20.51 acres to R-8, Preliminary Plat approval of73
single-family residential building lots and 6 common lots; and a Variance from UDC 11-6C-
3F to exceed the maximum block face length allowed in a residential district. Forty-six ofthe
lots are proposed to be for attached patio homes and 27 are proposed to be for detached homes.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R-8 zone. The
average lot size in the proposed development is 9,067 square feet. The gross density of the
project is 3.56 dwelling units per acre; the net density is 4045 dwelling units per acre. Open
space consists of 3 .69 acres or 18% of the site.
1. Date of preliminary plat (attached in Exhibit A): 6/20/06
2. Date oflandscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): 5/28/06
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06.045/V AR-06-020
PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
5. PROCESS FACTS
a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation as detennined by City Ordinance.
By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is
required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and 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 Chapter 5, a public
hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on this
matter.
c. The subject application will in fact constitute a Variance as determined by City Ordinance. By
reason of the provisions ofthe Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is
required before the City Council on this matter.
d. Newspaper notifications published on: October 2nd and 16th, 2006
e. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: September 2Znd, 2006
f. Applicant posted notice on site by: October 7th, 2006
6. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): The site is currently vacant.
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This property in bordered on the north by 1-
acre lots in Ada County and is surrounded on the south, east, and west by Spurwing Golf
Course property. Further to the west, bordering the golf course, are also one-acre lots in Ada
County.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
1. North: Single-family 1 ~acre lots within Spurwing Subdivision, zoned RR (Ada
County)
2. East: Immediately to the east, Spurwing Golf Course, zoned RR (Ada County);
further east, the proposed Knight Sky Subdivision, zoned R-4, R-15, and C-c.
3. South: Spurwing Golf Course, zoned RR (Ada County); South of Chin den, the
proposed Irvine Subdivision, zoned R-8; rural residential property, zone RUT
(Ada County).
4. West: Spurwing Golf Course, zoned RR (Ada County); further west, single-family
one-acre lots in Westwing Estates Subdivision and agricultural land, zoned
RR.
d. History of Previous Actions: The subject property is currently platted in Ada County as Lot 3,
Block 1, of Spurwing Subdivision and also contains portions of Lots 2 and 4 of the same
subdivision. NOTE: A Property Boundary Adjustment is currently in process at Ada County
that will adjust the boundaries of these lots as shown on the proposed plat and described with
the annexation application.
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities:
1. Public Works:
Location of sewer: This property is currently not serviceable. It is Master
Planned to flow to the North Black Cat Lift Station, through planned mains in the
annexed but undeveloped property to the west.
Location of water: In a cooperative agreement with United Water ofIdaho,
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045/V AR-06-020
PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
Meridian as agreed to allow United Water to service this property.
Issues or concerns: Sewerability ofthis property.
2. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There are no major facilities coursing through this site. The
applicant shall be required to tile any ditch lying within this site.
3. Hazards: No hazards have been identified on this site.
4. Proposed Zoning: R-8 (Medium Density Residential)
5. Size of Property: 20.65 acres (AZ); 20.51 acres (PP)
f. Subdivision Plat Information:
1. Residential Lots: 73
2. Non-residential Lots: 0
3. Total Building Lots: 73
4. Common Lots: 6
5. Other Lots: 0
6. Total Lots: 79
7. Gross Density: 3.56 dwelling units per acre (net density is 4.45 dwelling units/acre)
8. Minimum House Size: 1,400 square feet (proposed by applicant)
g. Landscaping
1. Width of street buffer( s): N/ A (A street buffer is not required on any of the internal,
local streets.)
2. Width ofbuffer(s) between land uses: N/A
3. Percentage of site as open space: 18% (3.692 acres)
4. Other landscaping standards: Common open space lots should include at least one
deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet (UDC 11-3G-3E2).
h. Amenities: Open space and common areas are proposed with ponds and connecting stream
channels.
i. Off-Street Parking: UDC 11-3C-6 requires single-family detached and single~family attached
dwellings with more than 1 bedroom to have 2 enclosed parking spaces ( a garage) and a 20' x
20' parking pad in front of each garage.
J. Proposed and Required Residential Standards:
R-8 Dimensional Standards (in feet)
Setbacks Proposed Required
Front Living Area (from back of sidewalk) 15 15
Side Accessed Garage (from back of sidewalk) 15 15
Front Accessed Garage (from back of sidewalk) 20 20
Side (5' public utility & drainage easement is required) 4 4
Rear 12 12
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045N AR-06-020
PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
Frontage (detached, with garage facing street) 50 50
Frontage (attached) 40 40
Lot Size (detached, w/garage facing the front property line) 5,000 5,000
Lot Size (attached) 4,000 4,000
Maximum Building Height 35 35
* No changes to the dimensional standards in UDC Table 11-2A-5 were requested.
k. Proposed and Required Non-Residential: N/A
1. Sununary of Proposed Streets and/or Access: Access to the proposed subdivision will be
provided internally from the existing public street, W. Balata Court, which is accessed via N.
Spurwing Way from Chinden Boulevard. Balata Court is currently improved as a 36-foot wide
street with curb and gutter. Sidewalk has been constructed on W. Balata Court in front ofthe
residential lots and the clubhouse lots west of the site and on the north side of the street but
none exists where the site abuts Balata or east of the proposed connection to Balata on the
south side. Access to the dwellings within this development will be via internal public streets
to be constructed with the subdivision. All of the internal streets will be local streets with 36-
foot wide street sections (measured back of curb to back of curb) and contain 5-foot wide
attached sidewalks within 50-feet of right-of-way. The applicant is not proposing any stub
streets since the surrounding property is currently a golf course and there are no existing stubs
on the north boundary from Spurwing Subdivision. Staffis generally supportive of the
proposed street system. NOTE: To satisfy the Fire Department requirement for secondary
access, the applicant is proposing an "emergency access only" road at the southwest comer of
the site from Chinden Boulevard directly north of the tenninus ofN. Ten Mile Road.
ACHD has submitted conditions of approval for this development (see Exhibit B).
The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has submitted a conunent that the applicant has
not yet applied to ITD for the proposed emergency access from Chinden Boulevard with a
note that the main access at Spurwing will not be signalized in the fuhrre, so it is prudent to
consider how many households would be added to the intersection. Supposedly, the
predominant movement from the subdivision would be left turns onto the highway. Over time,
congestion on the highway will make this a more difficult movement (please see Exhibit B for
all ofITD's conunents).
7. COMMENTS MEETING
On September 29,2006, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers
in this area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian
Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Meridian Police Department.
Staff has included conunents, conditions and recormnended actions in Exhibit B below.
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
This property is designated "Medium Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use Map. Medium density residential areas are anticipated to contain three to eight
dwelling units per acre (see Page 99 of the Comprehensive Plan). The proposed Preliminary Plat
includes 73 single-family lots on 20.5 1 acres for a gross density of 3.56 dwelling units/acre. The
proposed density lies within the anticipated density of the Comprehensive Plan for this area.
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045/V AR-06-020
PAGE 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply
to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy):
Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 - Require that development projects have planned
for the provision of all public services.
When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the
subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands proposed
to be annexed in the following manner:
. Sanitary sewer service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense,
although it is currently not available (water service will be provided by United Water).
. The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District.
Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire
Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire
Department.
. The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Office.
Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD).
. The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the
Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change.
. The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service
will not change.
. The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service
will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a
result of the subject annexation.
Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the
Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian
Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company.
Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 9. Require new residential development to provide
permanent perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown debris
from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties.
The applicant is proposing to construct a solid manufactured stone wall fence along the northern
perimeter boundary and a 4-foot tall wrought iron fence along the west, south, and east perimeter
boundaries of this development. Prior to house construction, fencing should be constructed
around the perimeter of this site. See Analysis below and Exhibit B for more information.
Chapter VII, Goal N, Objective D, Action 2 - Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors
and arterial streets.
This parcel has limited frontage on Chinden Boulevard, an arterial street. The applicant is
proposing an emergency access only connection to Chinden Boulevard. The new public street
connection to W Balata Court has been reviewed and approved by ACHD. City Staff is also
supportive of the connection to W Balata Court; no additional access points to Chinden
Boulevard, except for the emergency access, shall be allowed. The Idaho Transportation
Department has yet to approve the proposed emergency access from Chinden. The Meridian
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045/V AR-06-020
PAGE 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
Police Department is requiring that the plat be revised to include an additional stub street for
increased emergency access to this site.
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 proposed development is
generally compatible with the existing single-family residential properties to the north in that
they are both residential uses; however, Staff does believe that there should be more of a
transition in density and lot sizes between the existing i-acre lots to the north and the proposed
attached units proposed on 4,595-6,042 square foot lots.
Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 8 - Require new urban density subdivisions which abut
or are proximal to existing low density residential land uses to provide landscaped screening or
transitional densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban
level densities and rural residential densities.
There are some existing low density residential land uses to the north. The applicant is proposing
to construct solid manufactured stone wall fence along the northern perimeter boundary of this
development to provide a buffer to the existing residences. Further, a landscaped common area
with a meandering creek and ponds are also proposed along this boundary between the existing
homes and the proposed attached homes. Staff finds that the proposed fencing and common area
would assist in providing screening between the proposed urban development and the existing
surrounding rural residences.; However, Staff believes that the applicant should provide a better
transition in density and plat larger more comparable lot sizes adjacent to the existing i-acre lots
to the north, instead of the proposed landscape buffer and attached lots. Staff recommends that a
minimum 10,000 square foot lot be provided along the north side of this property, to effectively
transition to the urban densities proposed. Further, although the applicant has provided a bufler
in the form of landscaped common area along this boundary, it is virtually inaccessible and
unusable to the residents of the subdivision because of the proposed ponds and meandering
creeks and does not meet the requirements of UDe 11-3G-3. Also, the Police Department is not
supportive of the design of the open space area on the north boundary as it does not offer natural
surveillance opportunitiesfor the public areas and creates a potential safety hazard. Staff
recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any written or verbal testimony provided
from neighbors when determining ({additional screening or if a different transition in density is
more appropriate.
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 zone. Spurwing Subdivision to the north
obtained an RR zone (i-acre lots) in Ada County. Staff finds that the requested zoning
designation contributes to the variety of residential zoning categories in this area and is
generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this site; however, Staff
believes that more of a transition should be provided between the existing rural lots and the
proposed urban lots in the form of larger, more comparable lot sizes, and lower densities on the
north boundary of the subdivision. To provide an even better variety of residential zoning, and to
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP.06-045N AR-06-020
PAGE 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
better transition between the one acre lots to the north, some R-4 zoning should be approved on
the northern portion of this property.
Staff generally believes that the density proposed with this project is appropriate. However, the design of
the development does not fit well into this established area. Staff recommends that the Commission and
Council rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when
determining if the applicant's zoning and development request is appropriate for this property.
9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
a. Schedule of Uses: Unified Development Code (UDC) 11.2A-2lists single-family attached and
detached homes as permitted uses in the R-8 zoning district.
b. Purpose Statement of Zone:
R-8 Medium Density Residential: The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for
a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all
residential districts. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of
dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated
within the density range.
c. General Standards: All lots shown on the proposed plat conform to the minimum dimensional
requirement of the R.8 zone per UDC 11.2A-2. No dimensional modifications are being
requested for the proposed development. Therefore, the applicant must meet all dimensional
standards.
10. ANALYSIS
a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
1. Annexation & Zonin!!: Application: Based on the policies and goals contained in the
Comprehensive Plan, Staff believes that the requested R-8 zone is generally consistent
with what the Future Land Use Map calls for. However. Staff believes that zoning all 20
acres of this property to R-8 is not appropriate for this property. Please see Exhibit D and
the Comprehensive Plan Analysis above for detailed analysis of the required facts and
findings for annexation.
The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped on October 16,
2006 by David Marks, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate
boundary of the City of Meridian.
Although the annexation path ofthis property appears to comply with the requirements of
State Code, Staff believes that annexing the subject property will have the effect of
having City parcels in the middle of a County subdivision (a City enclave). Staff believes
that it is in the City's best interest to have additional properties included as part of
annexing this property. It does not seem appropriate to have a City.approved subdivision
of this size that is surrounded by property still in the, County, which mayor may not
annex into the City in the foreseeable future. Further, the applicant is actually processing
a property boundary application through the City to annex a small portion of the golf
course lots, to facilitate this development, but is leaving a vast majority of the golf course
lots out of the subject annexation and development request.
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045N AR-06-020
PAGE 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
At the Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission meetin!! on October 19. 2006. the
Commission did not have an issue with the DroDosed R-8 zone and the transition in
densities Drovided between the existin!! I-acre DroDerties in SDurwin!! Subdivision
and the DroDosed lots.
2. Preliminary Plat ADDlication: The proposed preliminary plat substantially complies
with the Unified Development Code.
Special Considerations:
Density: As noted previously in this report, this area is designated for medium density
residential uses. Medium density residential is defined as 3 to 8 dwelling units per
acre. The submitted plat has a gross density of 3.56 dwelling units per acre. Although
Staff has no problem with the proposed density, Staff believes that more of a transition
from the existing I-acre rural residential lots should be provided in the form of larger
lots and lower densities along the north boundary. The smaller, attached lots should be
relocated to the west, east, and south boundaries adjacent to the golf course, with the
larger lots serving as the transition between the I-acre lots to the north and the
attached lots further to the south.
Landscaping: The landscape plan prepared by Harvest Design, on 5-28-06, labeled
Sheet #LS-l is not approved.
. Per UDC 11-3B-lO, 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.
. Per UDC.1l-3G.3, the applicant must provide a minimum of 5% open space
that is accessible by all residents of the development including but not limited
to: open grassy areas of at least 50' x 100' in area, community gardens, ponds
or water features, or plazas. While the applicant is proposing ponds and
meandering creeks as water features, they are not readily accessible by all
residents of the development, and do not allow emergency service providers
good visibility into these public areas. Further, not all of the grassy areas
proposed meet the dimensional requirements stated above for qualified open
space. Although the proposed open space calculations exceed the
requirements of the UDC, the actual qualified open space does not meet the
minimum requirements due to dimensions and location. Staff believes that the
common area should be more centrally located and provide more open area
without ponds for usability by the residents.
Applicant should clarify at the public hearing what height of fence is proposed
along the north boundary.
The aDDlicant clarified at the Dublic hearin!! that a 6-foot tall masonry wall is
DroDosed alon!! the northern Derimeter boundary adiacent to the existiD!!
SDurwiD!! Subdivision.
A written certificate of completion should be prepared by the landscape architect,
designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan upon
completion of the landscape installation. All standards of installation should apply
as listed in UDC 1l.3B-14.
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045N AR-06-020
PAGE 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARlMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
Access: Access to this site is currently provided by N. Spurwing Way via W. Balata
Court, both local public streets within Spurwing Subdivision. An emergency access is
proposed from Chinden Boulevard at the southwest comer of the site for emergency
vehicles only. Direct lot access to Chinden Boulevard shall be prohibited except for
the emergency access point approved with this subdivision; a note shall be placed on
the final plat restricting access.
Stub Streets: The Police Department is requiring that an additional stub street be
added for increased emergency access to the site. Staff believes that this will be a
difficult condition to meet. Staff recommends that the applicant meet with Lieutenant
Bob Stowe to discuss this issue, prior to the next public hearing. As of the print date
of this report. the applicant was unable to make contact with Lieutenant Bob
Stowe to come to a resolution on an additional access to the site. Staff contacted
the Lieutenant and the Police Department stHI maintains that they would like to
see an additional access provided to the site. It appears that the applicant will be
unable to provide one based on the existine subdivision to the north that did not
stub to this property and the existing: g:ol! course that surrounds the site.
Existing: Residences/Buildings: The site does not currently contain any residences or
buildings.
Fencing:: The applicant is proposing to construct a manufactured stone wall fence
along the northern perimeter boundary of the subdivision adjacent to the existing
residences. A 4.foot tall wrought iron fence is proposed on the west, south, and east
perimeter boundaries. A detailed fencing plan should be submitted upon application
of the final plat. If permanent fencing is not provided before issuance of a building
pennit, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the
perimeter. Perimeter, common open space, and micro-path /multi-use fencing shall be
designed according to UDC 1l.3A.7.
Common Areas: Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision Home Owners' Association.
Ditches, Laterals. and Canals: Per UDC ll-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or
canals, exclusive of any natural waterway, that intersect, cross or lie within the area
being subdivided shall be covered.
Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems
be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to use
any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is
not available, a single-point cOlll1ection to the culinary water system shall be required.
If a single-point connection is used, the developer will be responsible for the payment
of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the [mal plat by the City
Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all
landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC ll-3A-
15 and MCC 9-1-28.
Although the proposed plat and R-8 zoning would add to the variety of housing types
in the subject area, Staff believes that more of a transition in density and lot sizes
between the existing: 1 ~acre lots and the orooosed attached units should be provided
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045N AR-06-020
PAGE 10
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
along the north boundary. Staff does not oPPose the overall density proposed;
however. believes that the higher densitv attached homes should be relocated from the
north boundary to the west. east. and south boundaries of the subdivision. Further.
Staff would like to see larger. more usable open space areas. located centrally within
the development. The Commission should consider staffs analysis and
recommendation. and the layout of the proposed lots and open space in relation to the
existing and proposed homes when making recommendation to the City Counci1.
At the Plannine & Zonin!! Commission meeting on October 19. 2006. the
Commission heard testimony. considered Stafrs analysis. and discussed
the proposed common areas and did not have an issue with the amount of
open space provided. or the location and inaccessibility of some of the
common areas as noted bv Staff in this report. The Commission also did
not have an issue with the requested R-8 zone or the transition in density
and lot sizes proposed between the existing rural lots and the proposed
lots. Althoueh some of the proposed lot sizes are small. they believed that
since the proposed units would be attached and would be a minimum of
1.400 SQuare feet per unit. the structure itself would be least 2.800 sQuare
feet. comparable with the existine homes in Spurwine than smaller
detached homes on these lots would be. Therefore. the Commission
reQuested that Staff prepare Conditions of Approval for the subiect
applications (see Exhibit A).
3. Variance Application: The applicant has applied for a Variance from UDC 11-6C-3F to
exceed the maximum block face length allowed in a residential district.
Special Considerations:
There are no existing stub streets or pedestrian cOlUlections from the existing surrounding
Spurwing Subdivision for this development to connect to. Since the land to the west,
south, and east is part of the Spurwing Golf Course, no stub streets are proposed for
future cOlUlectivity although the Police Department is requesting a stub street be provided
to the property The irregular shape and size of the property also limits design alternatives
that would allow for shorter block lengths. Staff believes compliance with UDC 11.6C~
3F is not feasible in this case due to the site limitations stated above and that the required
Findings for a Variance can be met (see Exhibit D).
b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the subiect applications. AZ-06-043. pp-
06-045. and V AR-06-020 per the comments stated in the staff report for the hearing date of
October 19. 2006. NOTE: Staff is recommending denial of the variance because the
recommendation is for denial of annexation into the City.
At the Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission meetine on October 19. 2006. the Commission
recommended that this project be continued until November 2. 2006 to allow Staff time
to prepare Conditions of Approval. The orieinal staff report did not contain Conditions
of Approval since Staff was recommendine denial of the project. Staff has now included
Conditions of approval in Exhibit A and Findines in Exhibit C.
11. EXHffiITS
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045N AR.06-020
PAGE 11
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity Map
2. Preliminary Plat (dated: 6-20-06)
3. Landscape Plan (dated: 5-28-06)
B. Conditions of Approval
I. 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. Idaho Transportation Department
9. Central District Health Department
C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map
D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045N AR-06-020
PAGE 12
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity Map
I
lilJf.. "~/-(-t-t-J
, ,____ -~.i_L, -_L" I
"", / --T-, ... T--/~>
--.j'.~--.L_ LI /
~ '--~.I....
I
I
,
.L
l '~
idi
~
2
,~
Ji
W. CHINDEN BLVD. T
I
.~
t>1tO:tvJSlOll
RUT
IOU 'I" .
'CMi'Q,w.~. 0II'mDJ
-.,... 511ft
_ 1M'
VICIN
SPURWlNG TOWNHOMES SUBDIVISION
lOCATED IN 1HE SW 114 Of' SECTION 23, TAN.. R.1W., lUlL
MERIDIAN, ADA COUNlY,IDAHO
VICINITY MAP
~NGlNEERlNG
-SOlUTIONS w>
tlD.E. ~ $fN!!.T. fUlI:.
'I!i~~_~
'~~""'r.,"~\
Exhibit A - Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
2. Preliminary Plat (dated: 6-20-06)
jIiol,,- (Ioc) """'" (Ift,__ (1c) "-
maw VIR ":IA:IIII mm Illm__
~t'2ll-.~t...._ 1.'iIt'~II'Il;_'IIL_
oIIJmal1U~"'bN1 oMIIIIII-..4t'I~
~z~
l"I_~'" 5~~~~
.=!!i\:.
J.W""AJoI~
_....'\:..~_.:._..:::'.,__, oll\lll'J.1IOiIJg..... j
... - wI'IlI.'Ir'liIo'lltlUllll~.t1I.".~Jll!;II1! I~ ~ UJ ~
fflSll0llR70ro lVld^"""""I1'llJd .' ~. .. a: W
~, IilOISlAlOllJlS "', a.-"
9.,1133.",,3 IDOIOIIYd f)1ilI&JldB ~ Ii!
(]OO:lil:.l JlO SI:l]NtN)
"3d013raa
.cJVlNOO 11:l3NN\fld
I, .d~iI ii; !i
It ~~~!iI~~
r~i ~I: ~
dl ~II~I;!; i"1 ~
· i;' Sill l JiM Ii. gl
~i I t... ~~. Ibl. ,
..: .. '" ~ .
r~, ;
I.W
<l----ll----<2
!j
51111DzlI!Ill
i
I ~
J ~
~ ~
'" I '
! k k "..._1 ~~
I ~
Jig
J. ~
lmm
!111m
~Imm
~'lillll
Olmm
mim
~~~:'~7.:".~;:~,--~__"""'___~
!I
._w...-
Exhibit A - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
3. Landscape Plan (dated 5-28.06)
;."",..,,.~~.~.- :------1'
.' . ..:",;-:,:' i
, ,
_. -
f/ftl-!)Ij\l(Q0lI_".:l'lOlOt:l;iOH,/()!'.1BlOtlD
dIHSmNHJ\/d" all'b~~nd' J~i> !
l'v'ld A~'v'Nlt'lm1jd f I ~
NOISlAlOSns S31'lOH Oll'v'd :>NIM!1~ ;; I i
I ~
I
~, ~!~~ ~~~!~ .~.~~~-~~ ~~~~~~ ':'1':';':~;~~~':~':~
111111. 1I1IIIIlIlI.1I. III.wllll 11,,,..1111 ..c...._I...........I-..'"..~...
!jj
; l'l
~
I ~
iil lie
I-
~ii
II"
Nl"d
'I"
I
i
II
[I
II
I
I
r
II
rill
~III; ~
j I
, I i
!I: I ~ I
II ~ '" II
~i /-~II.I'
h J ,,\r
.~' -~~);;i l
. '
L ,"
Exhibit A - Page 3
~
w
~
I.
'"
, I
i ! ~II'
II I mi~
Illnl. ~iM'ii
\ \ \ I. ~ -I
\1\>\'~1 ~ ~
. it
I"
... ~
/ ,.! ..
~~~~! m; I: ~.
li;Ii!i!id.11j oj
1iJ'I" II I
.I
I'
I;
, ~
il !:
l~ ill ,
~~l
~~l
s"- ~ i ii':l i ~
I' ,,!I, ~
'" l Ii I~ I!! 1U
~~ i 1"Iiii ~
~ ~ ~I.~~~
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department
1.1 ANNEXATION COMMENTS
Prior to the alll1exation ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be entered into
between the City of Meridian, property owner(s) (at the time of annexation ordinance adoption),
and the developer. The applicant shall contact the City Attorney. Bill Nary. at 888-4433 to initiate
this process. The DA shall incorporate the following:
. Prior to annexation ordinance approval, the applicant shall submit recorded warranty
deeds to the Planning Department that reflect the current boundary of the plat. Prior to
alll1exation ordinance approval, the applicant shall complete a Record of Survey for a
Property Boundary Adjustment in Ada County for the portion of Lots 2 & 4, Block 1,
Spurwing Subdivision, that are currently within the boundaries of the subject annexation
request. Submit a copy of the recorded Record of Survey to Planning Staff.
. Prior to annexation ordinance approval by City Council, the applicant shall submit new
recorded warranty deeds for this property that reflect the current boundary of the
proposed alll1exation and plat.
1.1.1 If City Council approves a zone other than the proposed R-8 zone, the applicant will be required
to revise the exhibit map submitted with the legal description to reflect the approved zone prior to
annexation ordinance approval by City Council.
1.1.2 The annexation legal description submitted with the application (prepared on August 16, 2006, by
D. David Marks, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the corporate boundary of the City of
Meridian.
1.2 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP-06-045)
1.2.1 The preliminary plat labeled as Sheet 1 of 1, prepared by Engineering Solutions, LLP, dated June
20, 2006 is approved. Note: The Police Department is still not satisfied with the proposed
lavout of the plat: the Police Department would like to see an additional access provided to
the site. All comments and conditions of the accompanying Annexation and Zoning (AZ-06-043)
application shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP-06-045).
1.2.2 The landscape plan prepared by Harvest Design, Associates, on 5-28-06, labeled Sheet #LS-l is
approved with the following modifications/notes:
. Per UDC ] 1-3B-l 0, 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. Include mitigation information on the landscape plan.
. Provide a detailed fencing plan for all fencing proposed on the site reflecting a 6-foot tall
masonry wall along the northern perimeter boundary adjacent to the existing Spurwing
Subdivision and a 4-foot tall wrought iron fence around the west, east, and south
perimeter boundaries as shown on the landscape plan submitted with the preliminary plat.
. The landscape plan is not consistent with the Police Department's requirements.
Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed
such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as
proposed by staff. The preceding modifications and notes should be shown on a revised landscape
plan submitted with the final plat application(s).
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
1.2.3 All lots within the development shall conform to the dimensional standards of the proposed R-8
zone.
1.2.4 Approval of the preliminary plat is contingent upon the Idaho Transportation Department's
approval of the emergency access proposed from Chinden Boulevard. If ITD should deny this
access request, the development would not be able to provide the two emergency access points
required by the Fire Department for this size of development.
1.2.5 Place a note on the face of the [mal plat that prohibits direct lot access to Chinden Boulevard
except for the emergency access point approved with this subdivision.
1.2.6 Per UDC 11-3B-9C6, all open water ponds proposed on the site shall have re-circulating water
and shall be maintained so that they do not become a mosquito breeding ground.
1.2.7 Provide fencing around the perimeter of the development, as proposed. Provide a 6-foot tall
masonry wall along the north boundary of this site, as proposed during the October 19th public
hearing. A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the fInal plat. If
permanent fencing is not provided before issuance of a building pennit, temporary construction
fencing to contain debris shall be installed around the perimeter. Perimeter, common open space,
and micro-path fencing shall be designed according to UDC ll-3A-7.
1.2.8 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Spurwing Patio Homes
Subdivision Home Owners' Association.
1.2.9 Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of any natural waterway, that
intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. Plans will need to be
approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch
owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If
lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to fInal plat signature.
1.2.10 Underground, pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development.
1.3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMlNARY PLAT (PP-06-045)
1.3.1. A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision ordinance and as
noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the [mal plat application(s).
1.3.2. Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision
pursuant to UDC 11-3A-l 7.
1.3.3. All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All
stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11-
3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated
surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as pennitted under UDC 11-3B.
Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed
such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as
proposed by staff. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved
open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-18, then the applicant shall relocate the
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of
the developer to comply with ACHD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at
the time of final construction.
1.3.4. A written certificate of completion should be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or
qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan upon completion of the landscape
installation. All standards of installation should apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14.
1.3.5. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
1.3.6. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation and
conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
1.3.7. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6B-7.
2. Public Works Department
2.1 The preliminary plat shows the sewer main proposed in this development ending at W. Chinden
Boulevard. At this time there are no sewer mains in or planned to be installed in Chinden
Boulevard. This property is master plalllled in the North Black Cat shed. This property is
currently not serviceable by the City of Meridian's sewer system and the City of Meridian does
not guarantee sewer service in the timelines outlined in the DDC.
2.2 This property is master planned to sewer to the North Black Cat Lift Station via mains that are
plalllled to be development driven in the property to the west. If the applicant wishes to
commence development prior to the "Master Plalllled mains" being available they may proceed
under the following conditions:
a) This is conditional on there being available capacity within the Ten-Mile Trunk.
b) The applicant shall provide written permission from the owner of the Silver Leaf Lift
Station, granting access to use that lift station.
c) The applicant shall be responsible to prove capacity exists in the Silver Leaf Lift Station,
and be responsible for any upgrades necessary.
d) The applicant shall be responsible install the necessary off-site gravity mains from this
site to the Silver Leaf Lift Station. These mains shall not be eligible for reimbursement
agreements.
2.3 The applicant shall install sewer mains to and through this proposed 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.
2.4 The applicant shall be responsible to install an all-weather access road per City of Meridian
standard specifications to all sewer mains not located within the right-of-way.
2.5 The applicant shall COlUlect to a Municipal water system.
2.6 The applicant shall comply with all Department of Envirorunental Quality's Best Management
Practices separation requirements between storm facilities and private wells.
2.7 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
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
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.
2.8 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).
2.9 The applicant has indicated that the P.l system shall be an extension of Spurwing's system. Prior
to scheduling of a pre-construction meeting the applicant shall provide written approval from the
owner of that system.
2.10 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.
2.11 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from
domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-
domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
2.12 Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, that
intersect, cross or lie within the area being developed shall be tiled. 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 plan approval. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
2.13 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed,
drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final
Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits.
2.14 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to
signature on the [mal plat.
2.15 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.
2.16 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat.
2.17 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.
2.18 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
2.19 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
2.20 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.
2.21 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.
2.22 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.
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAfF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
2.23 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 determined 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 not exceeding 3600 square feet will require a fIre-flow of 1,000
gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. One and two story
family dwellings 3600 square feet and greater will require a fIre flow of 1500 gallons per minute.
Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 500' apart. International Fire Code Appendix C
3.2 Acceptance of the water supply for fIre protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and
water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing.
3.3 Final Approval ofthe fIre hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 )-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 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside
radius.
3.5 The emergency access drive 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.
3.6 The emergency access drive shall have a 20' wide improved surface capable of supporting an
imposed load of 75,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D
Section D103.6 Signs.
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 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 ill) from a hydrant on a fIre apparatus access road, as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants
and mains shall be provided where required by the code officiaL F or buildings equipped
throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section
903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183).
a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183
m).
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in
accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet
(183 m).
3.9 lbis project will be required to provide a 20' wide swing or rolling emergency access gate. The gate
shall be equipped with a Knoxbox Padlock which has to be ordered thru the Meridian Fire
Department. A "No Parking, Fire Lane" emergency access sign shall be installed at the access gate.
4. Police Department
4.1 The proposed development and/or plat do not offer natural surveillance opportunities of the
public areas. Conunon areas are completely blocked from public view. Seventy-three home sites
with one primary access is not acceptable. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall
meet with the Police Chief and/or Planning Staff to discuss features that increase visibility.
including but not limited to: doors and windows that look out on the public areas, front porches,
and adequate nighttime lighting. The site plan and/or landscaping plan shall be revised in accord
with those discussions.
4.2 To increase emergency access to the site, the applicant shall provide a stub street from the
property. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall submit a revised plat/site plan to
reflect this requirement.
4.3 Any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if
solid fencing is used.
5. Parks Department
5.1 Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape
Ordinance will be followed.
5.2 Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in
the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance will be followed.
6. Sanitary Service Company
6.1 SSC has no conunents related to this application.
7. Ada County Highway District
7.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
7.1.1 Construct West Balata Court as one half of a 36-foot street section within 50-feet of right-of-way
complete with curb, gutter and 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk.
7.1.2 Locate the entry road intersecting West Balata Court as proposed.
7.1.3 Construct all the internal roadways as 36-foot street sections within 50-feet of right-of-way
complete with curb, gutter and 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk.
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAfF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOYEMBER2, 2006
7.1.4 Locate and construct one knuckle on the south side of West Tramore Drive and one standard cul-
de-sac turnaround at the intersection of North Dunloy Way and North Castle Bar Way.
7.1.5 Construct emergency access at the southwest corner of West Tramore Drive, as proposed. Utilize
some restrictive device to inhibit the possibility for cut-thru or general use traffic within the
emergency access. The device used to control access on the emergency vehicle roadway shall be
approved by the Meridian Fire Department and submitted to ACHD in writing.
7.1.6 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
7.2 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
7.2.1 Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
7.2.2 Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or
right-of-way.
7.2.3 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be
borne by the developer.
7.2.4 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.
7.2.5 Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy.
7.2.6 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.
7.2.7 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.
7.2.8 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.
7.2.9 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.
7.2.10 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.
7.2.11 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 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.
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
7.2.12 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.
7.2.13 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 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.
7.3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
7.3.1 The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of
Approval are satisfied.
7.3.2. 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.
8. Idaho Transportation Department
8.1 The applicant shall apply to ITD for the emergency access to US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd.) shown
on the proposed plat.
Note: The main access at Spurwing will not be signalized in the future, so it is prudent to consider
how many households would be added to the intersection. The predominant movement from the
subdivision is suspected to be left turns onto the highway. Over time, congestion on the highway
will make this a more difficult movement.
9. Central District Health Department
9.1 After written approval from appropriate entities is submitted, we can approve this proposal for
central sewage and central water.
9.2 The following plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health &
welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage and central water.
9.3 Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map
~
TEALEV'S LAND
SURVEYING
2501 l'logllS Basin Rd. . Boise, Idaho 8370:>
(208) 385-0636
Fex (208) 38500896
Project. No.: 2981
Date, June 2, 2006
Revised: August 16. 2006
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION FOR
SPURWING PATIO HOMES SUBDIVISION
A parcel of land beings portion oHots 2 and 4 and all of Ldt 3 of Block 1 of
Spurwing Subdillisltln, as filed for record in the office of the Ads County Recorder, Boise,
Idaho In Book 69 of Plats at pages 7104 thru 7108, and a portion of the SW1!4 of
Section 23, T4N., R.1W., a.M" Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as
follows:
BEGINNING at a brass cap marking the Southwest corner of the said Section 23;
thence along the Westerly boundary of the sald.SW 1104 of Section 23; thence
North OO~20'40" East 324.83 feet to an fron pin; thence said Westerly boundary
South 89"39'20" East 30,00 feet to an iron pin marKing a point of curve; thence
continuing along an arc of a CUIV8 te the left, said ,curVe having a radius of 20.00 feel, a
eentral angle of 104"21'16",a length of 36,43 fsel and a long chord bearing
South 51"49'58" East 31.60 feet to an Iron pin marking a point of tangent; thence
continuing
North 75"59'24" Eas1156, 18 feet to an iron pin; Ihence continuing
North 00"48'28" East 164.90 feet 10. an iron pin; thence leaving seidWes\erly
boundary
North 10"58'41" Ea$t 673.13 feet to an iron pin marking the Northwest comer of
said Lot 3; thence along the Northerly boundary of said Lot 3
South 76"36'59" EaSl106.97 feet 10 an iron pin; thence continuing
,South 62'"24'58" East 127,74 feet to an iron pin; thence continuing
South50.13'5S" East 125.67 feet to an iron pin; thence continuing
SOuth 43"02"58" East 160.00 feet to an iron pin; Ihence continuing
South 43000'12" East 160,00 feet to an Iron pin; thence continuing
South 52"28'14" East 222.39 feet 10 an iron pin; thence continuing
South 87"44'25" East 28(l,67 feet.lo an iron pin; thenqB continuing
North 54048'27" East242_01 feet to an iron pin; thence continuing
North 26046'22" EiIlit166,21 feet 10 an fron pin; thence continuing
North 19022'35" East 115,96 feet to an Iron pin; thence continulng
North 43012'34" West 265.25 feet to an Iron pin marking a point of curve; thence
continuing along an arc of a curve to the teft, said curve hailing a radius of 20.00 feet, a
centnll angle of 102027'35", a length of 35.77 feet and a long chord bearlng
South 85"33'38" West 31.19 to an Iron pin marking a point of ending of curve on
the South rlght.of-wayline of We8tBalata Court; thence leaving said South rigtu-of--way
11M
North 55"40'10" West 25.00 feet 10 a point on the centerline of said West Salata
Court marking a point of curve; thence along said centerline along the arc of a curve to
the right, said curve havlng a radius of 350,00 feel. a central angle of 20047'29", ,8 length
of 127.01 feet and along chord bearlng
Q:;~~.~~~dOCl..
Exhibit C - Page I
Project No.: 2961
Debt: June 2, 2006
RB'Jised: August 16, 2006
Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING SIIllXlUSSASlNROAD, BOI~IDAHO!3702'(2I18)~
North 44043'35" Easl126,31 feet to a point maf1{jng a point of ending of curve:
thence leaving said centerflne .
South 34"S2"40" East 25.00 feet to en Iron pin on said South right-of-way line of
West Balate Court; thence leaving said South lighl-of-way line
South 05"57'22" West 30.26 feet to an iron pin; thence
South 43"12'34" East 266;19 feet to an iron pin marking a point of curve; thence
along the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 75.00 feet, a central
angle of 24"20'33". a length of 31.86 feet and 8 long chord bearing
South 31"02'18" East 31.63 feet to an Iron pin marking a point of tangent; thence
South 18"52'01" East 77.34 feet to an Iron pinon the East boundary of said Lot
3; thence along uid East boundary
Soulh 00"48'2S" West 789.24 feet to an iron pin maf1{ing the Southeast comer of
said Lot 3; thence along the Southerly boundary of said Lot 3
North 76"39'48" West 691,47 feet to an iron pin; thence continuing
South 62"16'37" West 505.59 feet tt:I an iron pin; thence oofltinuing
North 85006'24" West 300.82 feet 10 an iron pin; thence contInUing
South 75"59'24" West 194.94 feet to an Iron pin marking a point of curve; thence
continuing along the arc of a curve to the left. said curve. hailing a radius of 20.00 feet, a
central angle Of 75"38'44". II length of 26.41 feet and a long chMl bearing
South 38010'02" West 24.53 feet to an Iron pin marking a point of tangent; thence
continuing .
South 00"20'40" West 177.61 feet to an Iron pin marking a poInt of curve; thence
continuing along the arc of a curve to the left. said curve having a radius of 20.00 feet, a
central angle of 89"32'12", a length of 31.25 feet.and a long chord bearing
. . South 44025'26" east 28.17 feet: to an iron pin marking a point of ending of curve
on said North right-<J;-way Une of State Highway 20: thence leaving said North right-of-
way line
South 00648'28" West 40.00 reet to a point on the South boundary of said
Section 23; thence along saldSouth boundary
North 89611'32" West 69.52 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said parcel of tand contains 20.65 acres, more or less.
~~~~~.
~~.'
r\l61..\C
lAI'1't\O\~~ o~Vi.
'HO"......
Exhibit C - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
'~"""'~;,o,
:--
SP\JIlWlNG suaUNlSION
,
-;
It
---I
---j
------'
,
-=4 SPURWJNG SUBDMSION
I
,
--I
...
--~
,
,
,
,'1h hr),VI,liC
1 f.R iON'"
. . \
a ~\ ~.smrw
~~w
1'\IIIf1lF_
CURVE OAT'"
.,.. _ ilia ". .... ~ CIIIIl.
c:r _ IOI'.lnr >>J~ .. .J'I" ssnr...t
o ,.. ~." ,..W Jil," 1:.....
ell .. fII~ IBM "JI tlUI M wnr l
t" U ..,., ;!l.... ..-. 1'I" i .s....... r
"m _ ~ ..~ .fI:U .M.SII "..,..,....
CI .. .... JIB I"~ ...rr I.......l
""l. ,._
SPURWlNG PATIO BOMBS SUBDIVJ8ION
PROPOSED MERIDIAN ANNEXATION
l.OCAT!Il III 1M[ !II l/us SEC1IlIl 23, 1.4/1" R.I.. II.ll-
l8lN. KIA ClUII'f, 1WlO'
ENStIEESJ.G
SOLUTIDIISw
1IfO:....... '-/",. ..
..110.' !I,,2t
tIi!Er '''''
,
~~"
I
I "
'_.
.~;
::~
~
I
.~
I
~ a
~
'"
~ "-
z
:J:
u
"'-
.,'f.
~-
-~
.!'o..,;;
.~::
-
I I
a
"'Ill l- __ S11lEE1; . -.: i
PlU, _. mil
---,..lmt-.
Exhibit C - Page 3
CrTY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Annexation Findings:
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation
and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation
and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings:
A. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
The applicant is proposing to zone all of the subject property to R-8. The Commission
finds that the proposed zoning map amendment generally complies with the applicable
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
B. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed
district, specifically the purpose statement;
The Commission [mds that future development of this property will comply with the
established regulations and purpose statement of the R-8 zone.
C. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare;
The Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare. Commission recommends that the Council rely on any
oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this fmding.
D. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of
services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City
including, but not limited to, school districts; and,
The Commission [mds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse
impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to
this site.
E. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-5B-3.E).
The Commission finds that all essential services can be made available or will be
provided by the developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable
expenditure of public funds. This is a logical expansion of the City limits. In accordance
with the findings listed above, the Commission finds that annexing: the subiect property to
R-8 is in the best interest of the City at this time.
2. Preliminary Plat Findings:
In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short
plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings:
A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
The Commission finds that the transitional densities and the landscaping and fencing
Exhibit D - Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
proposed between the existing rural I-acre lots and the proposed lots on the north
boundary generally comply with the Comprehensive Plan goal that requires new urban
density subdivisions which abut existing low density residential land uses to provide
landscaped screening or transitional densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to
buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities. Further,
the Commission finds that the proposed landscaping and common areas meet the
requirements for qualified open space in the unc.
B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to
accommodate the proposed development;
The Commission finds that public services can be made available to accommodate the
proposed development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public
service providers.)
C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the
City's capital improvement program;
Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their
cost, the Commission fmds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
D. There is pnblic financial capability of supporting services fOf the proposed
development;
The Commission recommends that the Council rely upon comments from the public
service providers (i.e., police, fire, ACHD, etc.) to detennine this finding. (See finding
Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings, and the Conditions of Approval in
Exhibit B for more detaiL)
E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare; and
The Commission is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated
with the development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Council's
attention. ACHD and ITD consider road safety issues in their analysis. Council
recommends that the Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to
detennine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or
environmental problems of which staff and the Commission is unaware.
F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
The Commission is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features on this site.
Therefore, the Commission fmds that the proposed development will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major
importance. Commission recommends that the Council reference any public testimony
that may be presented to detennine whether or not the proposed development may
destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff or the
Commission is unaware.
Exhibit D - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOYEMBER2, 2006
3. Variance Findings:
The City Council shall apply the standards listed in Idaho Code 67-6516 and all the
findings listed in Section 11-5B-4E of the UDC to review the variance request. In order to
grant a variance, the Council shall make the following findings:
A. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed
in the district:
The UDC requires that no block face be more than 750-feet in length without an
intersecting street or alley or that no block face shall have a length greater than 1,300-feet
without a connecting pedestrian open space and pathway. Therefore, if the City grants the
variance it would allow a right or privilege not usually allowed in a residential district.
However, since the property is irregularly shaped and the existing surrounding
development does not stub or have pedestrian connections to this property, Staff believes
the variance requested should be granted. This site is such that full compliance with the
UDC standards would be relatively impossible and cause an undue hardship to the
applicant.
B. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site;
Staff finds that this is an irregularly shaped lot, which limits design alternatives that
would allow for shorter block lengths. Further, the existing surrounding development
does not provide any stub streets or pedestrian connections to this property which would
allow the applicant to comply with the UDC. For these reasons, Staff believes that a
variance would relieve an undue hardship to the applicant because of the characteristics
of the site.
C. The variance shall not he detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Staff finds that granting the subject variance should not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare. Further, staff recognizes that this is an unusually shaped
property and existing site conditions restrict compliance with the ordinance. However, if
the City grants the variance it would allow a right or privilege not usually allowed in a
residential district. Staff believes that in this case, site conditions are such that would
cause an undue hardship to the applicant and that a variance should be granted. Staff is
recommendinlZ approval of the Variance application. Staff further recommends that this
development be required to comply with all other dimensional standards of the UDC.
Exhibit D - Page 3
Page 1 of 1
Machelle Hill
From: Sonya Watters
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:53 AM
To: Machelle Hill; Sharon Smith; Tara Green; Will Berg
Cc: Becky McKay; C. Caleb Hood
Subject: FW: spurwing subdivision
From: Andrea Nist [mailto:runngwild@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, October 23,2006 1:30 PM
To: Sonya Watters
Subject: spurwing subdivision
OCT-
tOGG
..j"._ _" ."," .. , I 0"'-": ~>..:;
Dear Ms. Watters,
I am a homeowner in Spurwing and just received some info regarding the patio subdivision. I
just want to go on record saying that I do not approve this sub. We were told by the Engineering
company we would receive more info later. We will have a showing at the next meeting!
Thanks,
Andrea Nist
10/2412006
Page 1 ofl
Machelle Hill
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Sonya Watters
Monday, October 30,200610:51 AM
Machelle Hill; Sharon Smith; Tara Green; Will Berg
C. Caleb Hood
Subject: FW: proposed zoning For Spurwing country club town homes.
~--~-~-'-'--'-"----'--'------"~-------"O'7"T---'-'(;'1~:r------------
From: Holly [mailto:holly-kotoski@att.net] ',-, I dL '"
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 20062:51 PM
To: Sonya Watters
Subject: proposed zoning For Spurwing country club town homes.
I would like to voice my concern regarding the rezoningfor the Spurwing country club town
home (patio home) area. Please Deny the application until the following issues are taken
care of!
1. There is no transition density. (needs to be more larger lots and fewer small lots )
2. The fire dept has concerns because there is only 1 access into our neighborhood. A
neighborhood with more than 50 homes should have 2 accesses. TheI.e is not yet
approval for an emergency access.
3. The sheriff dept would like another stub street.
4. The common area proposed is not accessible to the public.
5. The common area could be a security risk per the sheriff dept.
6. Concerns regarding the stone/stucco wall (length. height. etc.)
Holly kotoski
6993 n Spurwing way
meridian id 83646
lO/30/2006
Memo
,;
j
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner
CC: Anna Canning, Bill Nary, Will Berg, Project File
Date: Noyember 1,2006
Re: Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision (AZ-06-043, PP-06-045)
November 2, 2006 City Council Agenda Item
On October 19, 2006, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted to continue the
public hearing for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision until the November 2, 2006
Commission meeting in order to give Staff time to prepare conditions of approval.
Staff did not originally prepare conditions of approval because Staff is
recommending denial of the subject applications.
The applicant, Engineering Solutions, has requested that this project be continued
until the November 16, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Staff is in
agreement with the applicant's request for continuance to November 16, 2006.
Page 1 of 1
Machelle Hill
From: Sonya Watters
Sent: Wednesday, November 01,20069:13 AM
To: Machelle Hill; Sharon Smith; Tara Green; Will Berg
Cc: Becky McKay; C. Caleb Hood
Subject: FW: Spurwing patio homes
,... ~)fi!'...., .~~,
v dj'~,)
From: Nichol Black [mailto:nblack@ameritelinns.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 8:01 PM
To: Sonya Watters
Subject: Spurwin9 patio homes
I am unable to attend the meeting on 11/2 but wou vote to deny the patio homes in
their proposed density.
Please make a note of this when considerin a roval. Thank ou.
Nichol Black
Loan Officer
nichol@loanidaho.com
Eagle River Mortgage
439 E. Shore Drive, Suite # 120
Eagle, Id 83616
tel: 208-319-999911
fax: 208-319-0532
mobile: 208-440-2470"
Add me to your address book"",
Want a signature like this?
11/1/2006
This identical plan was presented to Spurwinll Homeowners 10 months allO in Dec. 2005. and
a!lain in March 2006. The applicant told us that it was just preliminary. At both meetings there
were yery few answers to our questions. No new information was offered at the second meeting.
When asked why, the applicant stated that the meetings were just a formality required by the city
of Meridian to get on their agenda.
What we were told, was that there would be a separate access directlv onto Chinden for the
new homes, and an emerllencv access for Fire and Police as drawn on the plan, and that they
had allowed for plenty of open space and common areas. To our knowledge, none of these
provisions have been implemented. Garalles and !luest parkin!l have not been addressed either.
As proposed, this project will more than double the number of homes in the SWCC impact
area, and will potentially add 150 or more cars a dav. all passing through Spurwing's main
gates. addin!l to an alreadv danJlerouslv congested thoroughfare and intersection of Linder &
Chinden.
n:' 0 ltCS
I
Meridian's Comprehensive Plan specifies that development must transition from low density to
medium density residential in this area. SWCC is obviously low-density residential with homes
on minimum one acre lots. The applicant's proposed sub-division consisting of73 homes on 20
acres is clearly high density residential and cannot possibly pass for medium residential. This
plan clearlv does not complv with the transitional requirements of The Comprehensive Plan
and for this reason alone. should be denied!
When SWCC was founded ten years ago, the homeowners were told by the applicant that
between 30 and 35 homes would be constructed between Balata Court and Chinden. These
were to be Patio Homes, defined on Google as "detached single family homes with no common
wall," not duplexes which are defined as "two units having one shared common wall".
Duplexes are what he now prooosinl! and are not aopropriate for this area. The same
homeowners said they were told that there would be a separate access for emergency Fire and
Police services. Ten vears later we are still without this access! Weare very concerned about
this situation as without adequate accees for emerl!encv services, we are left unorotected!
The Comprehensive Plan also requires 5% "Open Space" within this new development. With 73
homes proposed on a 20-acre site, it is obvious this requirement is not being met.
2
Placing homes so close to the golf course also makes them very vulnerable to damage
and personal injuries from wayward golfballs! The applicant has maintained that this project is
a separate entity from SWCC, complete with its own Home Owners Association, and therefore
as such, Sourwim! Golf Course cannot be considered as "ereenbelt" for the new homes to meet
the oro;ect's "Ooen Soace" requirements.
It is our position that the plan should be re-examined and re-drawn, paying particular attention to
reducing/limiting the number of homes to 30 and not more than 35, detached single family
dwellings, and placing them in a configuration that will be aesthetically pleasing to homeowners,
neighbors, members and visitors alike. And mandatory that open space requirements be met, as
well as provide access for all services necessarv to oreserve the safetv and well beine of the
residents.
In the interest oftime, we have chosen not to rebut the remarks of the applicant's representative
at the meeting of October 19,2006, except to say that a major portion ofthe information she
imparted was skewed and/or inaccurate, to make it appear as though the plan she presented was
acceptable to the homeowners and that the plan was in compliance.
3
We are not trying to prohibit the applicant from pursuing his project. We are asking for your
help and that you take into consideration the reasons homeowners moved here, which was to
escape overcrowding, noise, traffic congestion, crime and other problems usually associated with
urban sprawl of big cities. We are endeavoring to preserve what is left of the beauty ofthe area,
peace and tranquility and the lifestyles we have enjoyed up to now in Spurwing.
In closing, we feel that is incumbent upon the applicant to provide answers to the questions that
homeowners and members of SWCC have posed, who will be greatly impacted by this project.
It is imperative that the applicant adheres to the rules and guidelines set forth in The
Comprehensive Plan with regard to this development. Therefore. we urf!e vou to uphold the
recommendation of The Plannine and Zonine Staff to denv this application as stated in their
report of October 19.2006. and for the reasons we have expressed here this eveninf!.
Thank you.
4
c\\'/ Of t.J\ER\O\AN
pUGue \-\EAR\NG
S\GN.UP s\-\EEi
OA-rE
NO'leOlber 2. 2006
p.;z. 06.043, pP 06.045
SpurWil\9 patio \,\oflles
fOR />.G/>.INS1' NEU1'RJ>.'-
PROJEC1' NUMBER
PROJEC-r NAME
4,5
\-rEM #
v/
v-~~
7
. --- - -------------
Machelle Hill
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sonya Watters
Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:46 AM
Machelle Hill; Sharon Smith; Tara Green; Will Berg
C. Caleb Hood; Becky McKay; Shari Stiles
Spurwing Patio Homes Sub.
Please re-schedule this project for the October 19th P&Z meeting. The applicant is unable
to attend the meeting on the 5th.
Thanks,
Sonya
Sonya Watters
Associate City Planner
CITY OF MERIDIAN
Planning Department
660 E. Watertower Ln., ste. 202
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: (208)884-5533 Fax: (208)888-6854 --------------------------------
1
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE
October 19, 2006
7,8
ITEM #
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 06-043, PP 06..045
PROJECT NAME
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRA~,
c:I:~~~" A ~aL'L ;///
( f'iL t ( ~ f)~ I
A"1 LA"-.-- ?::::- A J ~ ,.. ~
- L~ t/ vV'"
\.( ~\11 N. ~. ~uu?' Gal.! L'\')
October 16, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
AZ -06-043
October 19, 2006
APPLICANT Spurwing Limited Partnership ITEM NO. 7
REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 20.51 acres from R-R to R-8
zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision - NEC of N. Ten Mile Rd. and
W. Chinden Blvd. and west of N. Spurwing Way
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
en nt-i h Gte P / l-f -&
See Attached Staff Report
./I);;-/U(,
fOr CO(1d/.-f1' () n S
Cl f A ppro v tt-P
DZ-~29
No Comment
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
See Attached Comments
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
See Attached Comments
See Attached Comments
No Comment
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
/" d ? ~o
Contacted:
Emailed:
Phone:
Staff Initials: JJ<.
....
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19,2006
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
Hearing Date: October 19, 2006
Planning & Zoning Commission
Sonya Watters
Associate City Planner
Meridian Planning Department
208-884-5533
~;;di~ '\
llJAl-tO ~
, t,'
=
SUBJECT:
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision
AZ-06~043 OCT 1 3 '~i~"-,
Annexation and Zoning of20.65 acres from RR (Ada County) to " . L!X.~J
R-8 (Medium Density Residential). _ _ ~. .. .
", \ ,
.. ., ~- ."
~ \.~
PP-06-045
Preliminary Plat approval of 73 single-family residential building lots and 6
common lots on 20.51 acres in a proposed R-8 zone.
V AR-06-020
Variance from UDC ll-6C- 3F to exceed the maximum block face length
allowed in a residential district.
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Spurwing Limited Partnership, is requesting concurrent approval for Annexation
and Zoning (AZ) of 20.65 acres of land to R-8 (Medium Density Residential), currently zoned
RR in Ada County; Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of 73 single-family residential building lots
consisting of 46 attached patio homes and 27 detached homes, and 6 common lots; and a
Variance (V AR) from UDC ll-6C-3F to exceed the maximum block face length allowed in a
residential district. The site is located just north of Chinden Boulevard and northeast of the Ten
Mile Road/Chinden Boulevard intersection. Currently, the site consists of vacant land some of
which is improved for the golf course. The site is composed of one tax parcel and is currently
platted as Lot 3, Block 1, of Spurwing Subdivision. This site also includes a portion of Lots 2 &
4, Block 1, of Spurwing Subdivision. A Property Boundary Adjustment application that matches
the configuration of the property as shown on the proposed plat is currently in process at Ada
County and will be required to be completed prior to annexation ordinance approval by City
Council. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area, but is outside of the
City's current Area of Impact.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The subject applications (AZ, PP, V AR) were submitted to the Planning Department for
concurrent review. Below, staff has provided a detailed analysis for the requested Annexation
and Zoning, Preliminary Plat, and Variance applications. Staff is recommendillll denial of the
proposed Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision (AZ~06-043. PP-06-045. V AR-06-020) for the
reasons listed in the Analysis of the Staff Report. Note: The Commission is not required to make
a recommendation to City Council on the Variance application.
3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing)
Recommend Denial
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045N AR-06-020
PAGE 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I moye to recommend denial to the
City Council of File Numbers AZ-06-043 and PP-06-045 as presented during the hearing of
October 19, 2006 for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial of the
annexation and you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the plat.)
Continuance
I move to continue File Numbers AZ-06-043 and PP-06-045 to the hearing date of (insert
continued hearing date here) to allow Staff to compose conditions and findings for approval.
4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location:
Parcel No.: R8081770030
Generally located northeast of the N. Ten Mile RoadlChinden Boulevard intersection;
S.W. y.;. of Section 23, TAN., R.1 W.
b. Owner:
Spurwing Limited PartnershiplPacific Links Ltd. Partnership
200 N. Fourth Street, Suite 203/6800 N. Spurwing Way
Boise, ill 83702/Meridian, ill 83642
c. Applicant:
Spurwing Limited Partnership
200 N. Fourth Street, Suite 203
Boise, ill 83702
d. Representative: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, LLP
e. Present Zoning: RR (Ada County)
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting concurrent approval for
Armexation and Zoning ofthe subject 20.51 acres to R-8, Preliminary Plat approval of 73
single-family residential building lots and 6 common lots, and a Variance from UDC 11-6C-
3F to exceed the maximum block face length allowed in a residential district. Forty-six of the
lots are proposed to be for attached patio homes and 27 are proposed to be for detached homes.
All ofthe proposed lots meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R-8 zone. The
average lot size in the proposed development is 9,067 square feet. The gross density of the
project is 3.56 dwelling units per acre; the net density is 4045 dwelling units per acre. Open
space consists of 3.69 acres or 18 % ofthe site.
1. Date of preliminary plat (attached in Exhibit A): 6/20/06
2. Date oflandscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): 5/28/06
5. PROCESS FACTS
a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation as determined by City Ordinance.
By reason ofthe provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is
required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on this matter.
b. The subject application will in fact constitute a Preliminary Plat as determined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public
hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on this
matter.
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045N AR-06-020
PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER ]9, 2006
c. The subject application will in fact constitute a Variance as determined by City Ordinance. By
reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is
required before the City Council on this matter.
d. Newspaper notifications published on: October 2nd and 16th, 2006
e. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: September 22od, 2006
f. Applicant posted notice on site by: October 7th, 2006
6. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): The site is currently vacant.
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This property in bordered on the north by 1-
acre lots in Ada County and is surrounded on the south, east, and west by Spurwing Golf
Course property. Further to the west, bordering the golf course, are also one-acre lots in Ada
County.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
1. North: Single-family I-acre lots within Spurwing Subdivision, zoned RR (Ada
County)
2. East: Immediately to the east, Spurwing Golf Course, zoned RR (Ada County);
further east, the proposed Knight Sky Subdivision, zoned R-4, R-15, and CoCo
3. South: Spurwing Golf Course, zoned RR (Ada County); South of Chinden, the
proposed Irvine Subdivision, zoned R-8; rural residential property, zone RUT
(Ada County).
4. West: Spurwing Golf Course, zoned RR (Ada County); further west, single-family
one-acre lots in Westwing Estates Subdivision and agricultural land, zoned
RR.
d. History of Previous Actions: The subject property is currently platted in Ada County as Lot 3,
Block 1, of Spurwing Subdivision and also contains portions of Lots 2 and 4 of the same
subdivision. NOTE: A Property Boundary Adjustment is currently in process at Ada County
that will adjust the boundaries of these lots as shown on the proposed plat and described with
the annexation application.
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities:
1. Public Works:
Location of sewer: This property is currently not serviceable. It is Master
Planned to flow to the North Black Cat Lift Station, through planned mains in the
annexed but undeveloped property to the west.
Location of water: In a cooperative agreement with United Water of Idaho,
Meridian as agreed to allow United Water to service this property.
Issues or concerns: Sewerability of this property.
2. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There are no major facilities coursing through this site. The
applicant shall be required to tile any ditch lying within this site.
3. Hazards: No hazards have been identified on this site.
4. Proposed Zoning: R-8 (Medium Density Residential)
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045/V AR-06-020
PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
5. Size of Property: 20.65 acres (AZ); 20.51 acres (PP)
f. Subdivision Plat Information:
1. Residential Lots: 73
2. Non-residential Lots: 0
3. Total Building Lots: 73
4. Common Lots: 6
5. Other Lots: 0
6. Total Lots: 79
7. Gross Density: 3.56 dwelling units per acre (net density is 4.45 dwelling units/acre)
8. Minimum House Size: 1,400 square feet (proposed by applicant)
g. Landscaping
1. Width of street buffer(s): N/A (A street buffer is not required on any of the internal,
local streets.)
2. Width ofbuffer(s) between land uses: N/A
3. Percentage of site as open space: 18% (3 .692 acres)
4. Other landscaping standards: Common open space lots should include at least one
deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet (UDC Il-3G-3E2).
h. Amenities: Open space and common areas are proposed with ponds and connecting stream
channels.
i. Off.Street Parking: UDC 11-3C-6 requires single-family detached and single-family attached
dwellings with more than 1 bedroom to have 2 enclosed parking spaces (a garage) and a 20' x
20' parking pad in front of each garage.
J. Proposed and Required Residential Standards:
R.8 Dimensional Standards (in feet)
Setbacks Proposed Required
Front Living Area (from back of sidewalk) 15 15
Side Accessed Garage (from back of sidewalk) 15 15
Front Accessed Garage (from back of sidewalk) 20 20
Side (5' public utility & drainage easement is required) 4 4
Rear 12 12
Frontage (detached, with garage facing street) 50
Frontage (attached) 40
Lot Size (detached, w/garage facing the front property line) 5,000
Lot Size (attached)
Maximum Building Height
4,000
35
50
40
5,000
4,000
35
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045N AR-06-020
PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
* No changes to the dimensional standards in UDC Table 11-2A-5 were requested.
k. Proposed and Required Non-Residential: N/A
1. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access: Access to the proposed subdivision will be
provided internally from the existing public street, W. Balata Court, which is accessed via N.
Spurwing Way from Chinden Boulevard. Balata Court is currently improved as a 36-foot wide
street with curb and gutter. Sidewalk has been constructed on W. Balata Court in front ofthe
residential lots and the clubhouse lots west of the site and on the north side of the street but
none exists where the site abuts Balata or east of the proposed connection to Balata on the
south side. Access to the dwellings within this development will be via internal public streets
to be constructed with the subdivision. All of the internal streets will be local streets with 36-
foot wide street sections (measured back of curb to back of curb) and contain 5-foot wide
attached sidewalks within 50-feet of right-of-way. The applicant is not proposing any stub
streets since the surrounding property is currently a golf course and there are no existing stubs
on the north boundary from Spurwing Subdivision. Staff is generally supportive of the
proposed street system. NOTE: To satisfy the Fire Department requirement for secondary
access, the applicant is proposing an "emergency access only" road at the southwest comer of
the site from Chinden Boulevard directly north of the terminus ofN. Ten Mile Road.
ACHD has submitted conditions of approval for this development (see Exhibit B).
The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has submitted a comment that the applicant has
not yet applied to ITD for the proposed emergency access from Chinden Boulevard with
anote that the main access at Spurwing will not be signalized in the future, so it is prudent to
consider how many households would be added to the intersection. Supposedly, the
predominant movement from the subdivision would be left turns onto the highway. Over time,
congestion on the highway will make this a more difficult movement (please see Exhibit B for
all ofITD's comments).
7. COMMENTS MEETING
On September 29, 2006, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers
in this area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian
Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Meridian Police Department.
Staff has included comments, conditions and recommended actions in Exhibit B below.
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
This property is designated "Medium Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use Map. Medium density residential areas are anticipated to contain three to eight
dwelling units per acre (see Page 99 of the Comprehensive Plan). The proposed Preliminary Plat
includes 73 single-family lots on 20.5 1 acres for a gross density of 3.56 dwelling units/acre. The
proposed density lies within the anticipated density of the Comprehensive Plan for this area.
Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply
to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy):
Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action I - Require that development projects have planned
for the provision of all public services.
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045N AR-06-020
PAGE 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
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 service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense,
although it is currently not available (water service will be provided by United Water).
. The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District.
Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire
Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire
Department.
· The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Office.
Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD).
· The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the
Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change.
. The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service
will not change.
· The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This se1l'ice
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 Wastewater Department, the Meridian
Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Se1l'ices, and Sanitary Se1l'ices Company.
Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 9 - Require new residential development to provide
permanent perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown debris
from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties.
The applicant is proposing to construct a solid manufactured stone wall fence along the northern
perimeter boundary and a 4-foot tall wrought ironfence along the west, south, and east perimeter
boundaries of this development. Prior to house construction, fencing should be constructed
around the perimeter of this site. See Analysis below and Exhibit B for more injonnation.
Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2 - Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors
and arterial streets.
This parcel has limited frontage on Chinden Boulevard, an arterial street. The applicant is
proposing an emergency access only connection to Chinden Boulevard. The new public street
connection to W Balata Court has been reviewed and approved by ACHD. City Staff is also
supportive of the connection to W Balata Court; no additional access points to Chinden
Boulevard, except for the emergency access, shall be allowed. The Idaho Transportation
Department has yet to approve the proposed emergency access from Chinden. The Meridian
Police Department is requiring that the plat be revised to include an additional stub street for
increased emergency access to this site.
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 proposed development is
generally compatible with the existing single-family residential properties to the north in that
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045/V AR-06-020
PAGE 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE Of OCTOBER 19,2006
they are both residential uses; however, Staff does believe that there should be more of a
transition in density and lot sizes between the existing I-acre lots to the north and the proposed
attached units proposed on 4,595-6,042 square foot lots.
Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 8 - Require new urban density subdivisions which abut
or are proximal to existing low density residentia11and uses to provide landscaped screening or
transitional densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban
level densities and rural residential densities.
There are some existing low density residential land uses to the north. The applicant is proposing
to construct solid manufactured stone wall fence along the northern perimeter boundary of this
development to provide a buffer to the existing residences. Further, a landscaped common area
with a meandering creek and ponds are also proposed along this boundary between the existing
homes and the proposed attached homes. Staff finds that the proposed fencing and common area
would assist in providing screening between the proposed urban development and the existing
surrounding rural residences.; However, Staffbelieves that the applicant should provide a better
transition in density and plat larger more comparable lot sizes adjacent to the existing I-acre lots
to the north, instead of the proposed landscape buffer and attached lots. Staff recommends that a
minimum IO, 000 square foot lot be provided along the north side of this property, to effectively
transition to the urban densities proposed. Further, although the applicant has provided a buffer
in the form of landscaped common area along this boundary, it is virtually inaccessible and
unusable to the residents of the subdivision because of the proposed ponds and meandering
creeks and does not meet the requirements of UDC II-3G-3. Also, the Police Department is not
supportive of the design of the open space area on the north boundary as it does not offer natural
surveillance opportunities for the public areas and creates a potential safety hazard. Staff
recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any written or verbal testimony provided
from neighbors when determining if additional screening or if a different transition in density is
more appropriate.
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 zone. Spurwing Subdivision to the north
obtained an RR zone (I-acre lots) in Ada County. Staff finds that the requested zoning
designation contributes to the variety of residential zoning categories in this area and is
generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this site; however, Staff
believes that more of a transition should be provided between the existing rural lots and the
proposed urban lots in the form of larger, more comparable lot sizes, and lower densities on the
north boundary qfthe subdivision. To provide an even better variety of residential zoning, and to
better transition between the one acre lots to the north, some R-4 zoning should be approved on
the northern portion of this property.
Staff generally believes that the density proposed with this project is appropriate. However, the design of
the development does not fit well into this established area. Staff recommends that the Commission and
Council rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when
determining if the applicant's zoning and development request is appropriate for this property.
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045N AR-06-020
PAGE 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
a. Schedule of Uses: Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-2A-2lists single~family attached and
detached homes as permitted uses in the R~8zoning district.
b. Purpose Statement of Zone:
R.8 Medium Density Residential: The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for
a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all
residential districts. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of
dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated
within the density range.
c. General Standards: All lots shown on the proposed plat conform to the minimum dimensional
requirement of the R-8 zone per UDC 11.2A-2. No dimensional modifications are being
requested for the proposed development. Therefore, the applicant must meet all dimensional
standards.
10. ANALYSIS
a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
1. Annexation & Zoning: Application: Based on the policies and goals contained in the
Comprehensive Plan, Staff believes that the requested R-8 zone is generally consistent
with what the Future Land Use Map calls for. However. Staff believes that zoninl! all
20 acres of this property to R-8 is Dot appropriate for this property. Please see
Exhibit D and the Comprehensive Plan Analysis above for detailed analysis of the
required facts and findings for annexation.
The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped on October 16,
2006 by David Marks, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate
boundary of the City of Meridian.
2. Preliminary Plat Application: The proposed preliminary plat substantially complies
with the Unified Development Code.
Special Considerations:
Density: As noted previously in this report, this area is designated for medium density
residential uses. Medium density residential is defined as 3 to 8 dwelling units per
acre. The submitted plat has a gross density of 3.56 dwelling units per acre. Although
Staff has no problem with the proposed density, Staff believes that more ofa transition
from the existing I-acre rural residential lots should be provided in the form of larger
lots and lower densities along the north boundary. The smaller, attached lots should be
relocated to the west, east, and south boundaries adjacent to the golf course, with the
larger lots serving as the transition between the I-acre lots to the north and the
attached lots further to the south.
Landscapinl!: The landscape plan prepared by Harvest Design, on 5-28-06, labeled
Sheet #LS.l is not approved.
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045N AR-06-020
PAGE 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
. Per UDC 11-3B-1O, 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.
· Per UDC-11-3G-3, the applicant must provide a minimum of 5% open space
that is accessible by all residents of the development including but not limited
to: open grassy areas of at least 50' x 100' in area, community gardens, ponds
or water features, or plazas. While the applicant is proposing ponds and
meandering creeks as water features, they are not readily accessible by all
residents of the development, and do not allow emergency service providers
good visibility into these public areas. Further, not all of the grassy areas
proposed meet the dimensional requirements stated above for qualified open
space. Although the proposed open space calculations exceed the
requirements of the UDC, the actual qualified open space does not meet the
minimum requirements due to dimensions and location. Staff believes that the
common area should be more centrally located and provide more open area
without ponds for usability by the residents.
Applicant should clarify at the public hearine what heieht of fence is
proposed alone the north boundary.
A written certificate of completion should be prepared by the landscape architect,
designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan upon
completion of the landscape installation. All standards of installation should apply
as listed in UDC 11-3B-14.
Access: Access to this site is currently provided by N. Spurwing Way via W. Balata
Court, both local public streets within Spurwing Subdivision. An emergency access is
proposed from Chinden Boulevard at the southwest comer of the site for emergency
vehicles only. Direct lot access to Chinden Boulevard shall be prohibited except for
the emergency access point approved with this subdivision; a note shall be placed on
the final plat restricting access.
Stub Streets: The Police Department is requiring that an additional stub street be
added for increased emergency access to the site. Staff believes that this will be a
difficult condition to meet. Staff recommends that the applicant meet with the
Lieutenant Bob Stowe to discuss this issue, prior to the next public hearing.
Existing Residences/Buildinl!s: The site does not currently contain any residences or
buildings.
FencinlZ: The applicant is proposing to construct a manufactured stone wall fence
along the northern perimeter boundary of the subdivision adjacent to the existing
residences. A 4-foot tall wrought iron fence is proposed on the west, south, and east
perimeter boundaries. A detailed fencing plan should be submitted upon application
of the final plat. If permanent fencing is not provided before issuance of a building
permit, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the
perimeter. Perimeter, common open space, and micro-path /multi-use fencing shall be
designed according to UDC 11- 3A-7.
Common Areas: Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision Home Owners' Association.
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045N AR-06-020
PAGE 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER) 9, 2006
Ditches. Laterals. and Canals: Per UDC ll-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or
canals, exclusive of any natural waterway, that intersect, cross or lie within the area
being subdivided shall be covered.
Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems
be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to use
any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is
not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required.
If a single-point connection is used, the developer will be responsible for the payment
of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the 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 11-3A-
15 andMCC 9-1-28.
Although the proposed plat and R-8 zoning would add to the variety of housing types
in the subject area, Staff believes that more of a transition in density and lot sizes
between the existinl! I-acre lots and the proposed attached units should be provided
alonlZ the north boundary. Staff does not oppose the overall density proposed;
however. believes that the higher densitv attached homes should be relocated from the
north boundary to the west. east. and south boundaries of the subdivision. Further.
Staff would like to see 1arlZer. more usable open space areas. located centrally within
the development. The Commission should consider staff s analysis and
recommendation. and the layout of the proposed lots and open space in relation to the
existing and proposed homes when making recommendation to the City CounciL
3. Variance Application: The applicant has applied for a Variance from DOC Il-6C-3F to
exceed the maximum block face length allowed in a residential district.
Special Considerations:
There are no existing stub streets or pedestrian connections from the existing surrounding
Spurwing Subdivision for this development to connect to. Since the land to the west,
south, and east is part of the Spurwing Golf Course, no stub streets are proposed for
future connectivity although the Police Department is requesting a stub street be provided
to the property The irregular shape and size of the property also limits design alternatives
that would allow for shorter block lengths. Staff believes compliance with UDC 11-6C-
3F is not feasible in this case due to the site limitations stated above and that the required
Findings for a Variance can be met (see Exhibit D).
b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the subiect applications. AZ.06-043. PP-
06-045. and V AR-06-020 per the comments stated in the staff report for the hearinl! date of
October 19. 2006. NOTE: Staff is recommendinl! denial of the variance because the
recommendation is for denial of annexation into the City.
11. EXHffilTS
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity Map
2. Preliminary Plat (dated: 6-20-06)
3. Landscape Plan (dated: 5-28-06)
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045N AR-06-020
PAGE 10
CiTY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Public Works Department
2. Fire Department
3. Police Department
4. Parks Department
5. Sanitary Service Company
6. Ada County Highway District
7. Idaho Transportation Department (forthcoming)
8. Central District Health Department
C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map
D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision AZ-06-043/PP-06-045N AR-06-020
PAGE 11
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19,2006
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity Map
j
- -l-r-t--;-J
~~ ~"~~<l~____L I
J-'-ITr
.,~-_L_u /
" -.''-----Z
--,
_.1
I
.~
l
lll~
.~
i
m
..........--,~._._-~
W. CHlNDEN BL~-
w,VDOt
I"ItO~O.
RUT
HZ
I
..... ,. .
DIH..ot.1'l. .0MDmI
-..... 511.
......- 10'\
VICIN
SPURWlNG TOWNHOMES SUBDMSION
LOCA'im IN THE SW 114 OF SEC110N 23, TAN.. R.1W.. B.M.
IEMUH, ADACOUNTY,IDAHO' -
VICINITY MAP
~GlNEERlNG
-SOlUDONS UJ'
tiel E:MWIm AtMft'r. Urt.
..1Il~~_,tS
....~___ "~iDf4iII'
Exhibit A - Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19,2006
2. Preliminary Plat (dated: 6-20-06)
lItt'l.....liIccI~ Ittl.....~_
rot~-~~_ ~~-:-:.'-:-o:I!
1IIlWnn/W'l1R'1~~II[1~
~{~~
.7#fJit,
"'VlIa,,),)!~
"'_"".'~"-"'''-
'"'....,........~_....
="'.."..........-'".
.J.r'~ '.........
1."1.~1l"'~- iRlI'JmtlJIlII,-*-, j
~)ijI'It'.u..u."".l~~ m!I'1lI..'....I'n~~~I.".IiI~ ~!~ ~ UJ!
mSflDllII1,O l"'d_l1_ .: ~. - cr: !
~~ 1iI0l8lAlmmg ~ . . Cl.. .
SNI1I331119"~ mOB OJJ.Vd 91i11AllldS a M l ~
~
~.1NOCI/I:j3NNVld
01<.)0"" ;a S\lilNMO
h
!~
i ~!I
:~h
II!-.O
"J
i~
;1
_II ~ i I
!~ !UII!i
~Ib~~i
;! P!!i 19!
Exhibit A ~ Page 2
mm~
1IIIm
~Imm
~'Il!m
almm
IUlm
I......
r!,~
~l,j
4------i2------
~
*
I g
~ ~
"I'
1)1)1_ _, ~~
. ~.
. p~
! ,h
: I J~;j
~
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
3. Landscape Plan (dated 5-28-06)
~ l'I\'~I"I~ (~) .~'J 'l'i.l.~l:l Ol-/"tl) ',1~1O\l D
' , 'i::Oj::';aJ.S'.l.SfCt'NOO/:1i JU
! I dIHSmNHJ\ld 011 DNIMClnd
i l\1ld ^Cl\lNI~ii:3~ · i I ~
i
. , NOISVlIOSnS S3rlOH OllVd DNIMClndS i II i
-- ~!~! ~~~!!~~~ !~~~~~ ~~t.:!~~~ .~:~'::'::':~!';!':':':";':':';:
".,11. ...".....1:1:\1'1111'1111<11I: 111111_"_ ..'-"'_-..\0...................
Exhibit A - Page 3
I
~
~
~
1:
z
~f
..;
~
~
I.
'"
!m
~
~;
"'.
5"
":~
,
I ! :itl'
!I! li~
llnli. ..i;
'\ ,II. ~
\~\ \\'~Id~ ~
" ~
/ \.1 ~
l"i'~'lj ~.
I" m \1.11",' .."
iti(1l ·
.I
.'
II
, ,I
il1:
'; .11,
8(q~ \ ~
',' ;
~ ... a...
/1", ~
(" I I I',/)
~ I i'h i g
~ d., fl
II" '1~1~~ [ll
;M!~ M
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Public Works Department
1.1 The preliminary plat shows the sewer main proposed in this development ending at W. Chinden
Boulevard. At this time there are no sewer mains in or planned to be installed in Chinden
Boulevard. This property is master planned in the North Black Cat shed. This property is
currently not serviceable by the City of Meridian's sewer system and the City of Meridian does
not guarantee sewer service in the timelines outlined in the unc.
1.2 This property is master planned to sewer to the North Black Cat Lift Station via mains that are
planned to be development driven in the property to the west. If the applicant wishes to
commence development prior to the "Master Planned mains" being available they may proceed
under the following conditions:
a) This is conditional on there being available capacity within the Ten-Mile Trunk.
b) The applicant shall provide written permission from the owner of the Silver Leaf Lift
Station, granting access to use that lift station.
c) The applicant shall be responsible to prove capacity exists in the Silver Leaf Lift Station,
and be responsible for any upgrades necessary.
d) The applicant shall be responsible install the necessary off-site gravity mains from this
site to the Silver Leaf Lift Station. These mains shall not be eligible for reimbursement
agreements.
1.3 The applicant shall install sewer mains to and through this proposed 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.
1.4 The applicant shall be responsible to install an all-weather access road per City of Meridian
standard specifications to all sewer mains not located within the right-of-way.
1.5 The applicant shall connect to a Municipal water system.
1.6 The applicant shall comply with all Department of Environmental Quality's Best Management
Practices separation requirements between storm facilities and private wells.
1.7 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 finalized prior to construction plan approval. The detailed agreement
with the reimbursable amount shall be approved by Council prior to plat signature.
1.8 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).
1.9 The applicant has indicated that the P.1. system shall be an extension of Spurwing' s system. Prior
to scheduling of a pre-construction meeting the applicant shall provide written approval from the
owner of that system.
1.10 All existing structures not meeting setbacks or meeting the dimensional standards of the unc
shall be removed prior to signature on the fma1 plat by the City Engineer.
1.11 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
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.
1.12 Per UDC ll-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, that
intersect, cross or lie within the area being developed shall be tiled. 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 plan approval. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
1.13 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed,
drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final
Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits.
1.14 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to
signature on the final plat.
1.15 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.
1.16 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.
1.17 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.
1.18 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
1.19 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
1.20 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.
1.21 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
1.22 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of
3~feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom
elevation ofthe crawl spaces of homes is at least I-foot above.
1.23 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 ofthe 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.
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19,2006
2. Fire Department
2.1 One and two family dwellings not exceeding 3600 square feet will require a [lIe-flow of 1,000
gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. One and two story
family dwellings 3600 square feet and greater will require a fire flow of 1500 gallons per minute.
Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 500' apart. International Fire Code Appendix C
2.2 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.
2.3 Final Approval of the [lIe hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 W' outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications.
d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers when spacing pennits.
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.
2.4 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of28' inside and 48' outside
radius.
2.5 The emergency access drive 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.
2.6 The emergency access drive shall have a 20' wide improved surface capable of supporting an
imposed load of 75,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D
Section D103.6 Signs.
2.7 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.
2.8 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 flIe apparatus access road, as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants
and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped
throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section
903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183).
a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183
m).
b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in
accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3 .1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet
(183 m).
2.9 This project will be required to provide a 20' wide swing or rolling emergency access gate. The gate
shall be equipped with a Knoxbox Padlock which has to be ordered thru the Meridian Fire
Department. A "No Parking, Fire Lane" emergency access sign shall be installed at the access gate.
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19,2006
3. Police Department
3.1 The prooosed develooment and/or plat do not offer natural surveillance opportunities of the
public areas. Common areas are completely blocked from public view. Seventy-three home sites
with one primary access is not acceotable. Prior to the next public hearinlZ. the applicant shall
meet with the Police Chief and/or Plannin~ Staff to discuss features that increase visibility.
includinlZ but not limited to: doors and windows that look out on the public areas, front porches.
and adequate nilZhttime lil!htinl!. The site plan and/or landscapinlZ plan shall be revised in accord
with those discussions.
3.2 To increase emergency access to the site, the applicant shall provide a stub street from the
property. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall submit a revised plat/site plan to
reflect this requirement.
3.3 Any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if
solid fencing is used.
4. Parks Department
4.1 Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape
Ordinance will be followed.
4.2 Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in
the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance will be followed.
5. Sanitary Service Company
5.1 SSC has no comments related to this application.
6. Ada County Highway District
6.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL
6.1.1 Construct West Balata Court as one half of a 36-foot street section within 50-feet of right-of-way
complete with curb, gutter and 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk.
6.1.2 Locate the entry road intersecting West Balata Court as proposed.
6.1.3 Construct all the internal roadways as 36-foot street sections within 50-feet ofright-of~way
complete with curb, gutter and 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk.
6.1.4 Locate and construct one knuckle on the south side of West Tramore Drive and one standard cul-
de~sac turnaround at the intersection of North Dunloy Way and North Castle Bar Way.
6.1.5 Construct emergency access at the southwest comer of West Tramore Drive, as proposed. Utilize
some restrictive device to inhibit the possibility for cut-thru or general use traffic within the
emergency access. The device used to control access on the emergency vehicle roadway shall be
approved by the Meridian Fire Department and submitted to ACHD in writing.
6.1.6 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
7.2 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
7.2.1 Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
7.2.2 Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or
right-of-way.
7.2.3 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be
borne by the developer.
7.2.4 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the
construction ofthe proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file
number) for details.
7.2.5 Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy.
7.2.6 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.
7.2.7 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.
7.2.8 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.
7.2.9 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements ofthe Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
7.2.10 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 hnpact Fee Ordinance.
7.2.11 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 DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days
prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic
Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during
any phase of construction.
7.2.12 No change in the terms and conditions ofthis approval shall be valid unless they are in writing
and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized
representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to
obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
7.2.13 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 subj ect property unless
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect
at the time the change in use is sought.
7.3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
7.3.1 The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of
Approval are satisfied.
7.3.2. 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.
8. Idaho Transportation Department
8.1 The applicant shall apply to ITD for the emergency access to US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd.) shown
on the proposed plat.
9. Central District Health Department
9.1 After written approval from appropriate entities is submitted, we can approve this proposal for
central sewage and central water.
9.2 The following plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health &
welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage and central water.
9.3 Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map
[f]
TEALEV'S LAND
SURVEYING
2501 80gU5 Basin Ad. . Bolsa, Idaho fl8702
(208) 385-0636
Fa. (208) 388-0&96
projeol. No.: 2981
Oats: June 2; 2006 .
Revlssd: August1S, 2006
ANNEXAnON DESCRIPllON FOR
SPURWING PATIO HOMES SUBDIVISION
A parcel of land being a portion of LotS 2 and 4 and all of LOt J of Block 1 of'
Spurwlng Subdivision, as filed for record in the office of the Ada County Recorder. Bois6,
Idaho in Book 69 of Plats at pages 7104 thru 7101'1, and a portion of the SW 1{4 of
Section 23, TAN., R.1W., S.M., Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as
follows:
BEGINNING at a brass cap marking the Southwest corner of the $Sid Section 23;
thence along the Westerly bOUndary of the said SW1 f4 of Section 23; thence.
North 00"20'40;' Eest 324.83 feet to an iron pin; thence said Westerly boundary
South 89'39'20" Eait 30.00 feet to an iron pin marking a point of cuNe; thence
continuing along ,an arc of a curve til the left, Said CUM! havIng a radiUs of 20.00 feel,a
ceritral angle of 104"21'18", a length of 36.43 feet arid a long chord bearing
South 51'49'58" East 31.60 feet to an Iron pin marking a point of tangent; thence
continuing
North 75"59'24" East 156.1 B feet to an Iron pin; thence continuing
North 00"48'28" East 164.90 feet 10 an iron pin; thence leaving said Westerl"
boundary
North 10"58'41" East 673.13 feet 10 an Iron pin marking the Northwest comer of
said Lot 3; thence along the Northerly boundary of said Lot 3
South 7B';38'59" East 106.97 feet 10 an iron pin; thence continuing
. South 62024'58" East 127.74 feet to an Iron pin: thence continuing
Soulh50'13'S6" East 125.67 feet to an iron pin; thence continuing
South 43'02"58" East 160.00 feet to an Iron pin; thence continuing
South 43"00'12" East 160. 00 feet to an Iron pin; thence continuing
South 52.28'14" East 222.39 feet to an Iron pin; tMence continuing
.South 87"44'25" Eaat290.67 feet to an iron pin; thence continuing
North 54"48'27" EBSt242.01 feet to en Ira" pin; thence continuing
North 26"46'22" East 166.21 feet to an Iron pin; thence oontlnuing
North 19"22'35" East 116.96 feet to an Iron pin: thence continuIng ,
North 43"12'34" West 265.25 feet to an Iron pin marking a point of curve; thence
cOntInuing aleng an are of a curve 10 the left, said cUNehaving a radjlJS of 20_00 feet, a
central angle of 102"27'35". a length of 35.77 feet and a long thord bearing
South 85"33'38" West 31.19 to an Iron pin marking II point of ending of curve on
the South rlght.of-way Une of West Salata Court; thence leaving said South right-of-way
Une
North 55"40'10" West 25.00 feet to a point on the centerline of said West Salata
Court marking a point Of cum; thence along said centerline along the arc of a curve 10
the right, said curve having a radius of 350.00 feel, a central angle of 2O"47'29",alength
of 127.01 feel and a long chord bearing
C:~..:l~~...~iIIIIIt-~
Exhibit C - Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
TEALEY;S LAND SURVEYING 2M! BOGUS8ASlN ROAD, EiOISe,tDAHO&'l102'12llll1J8>-ool6
Project No.: 29S1
Date: June 2, 2006
Revised: August 16, 2006
Page 2
North 44"43'35" East 125.31 feetto a point marking a point of endtng of curve;
thence leaving saidcentanlne .
South 34"52"40" East 25.00 feet to an Iron pin on said South right-at-way Une of
West Balata Court; thence leaving said South right-of-way line
South 05"57'22" West 30.28 teet to an iron pin; thence
South 43~12'34' East 266.19 feet to an iron pin marking a point of curve; thence
along the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 75.00 feet, a central
angl& of 24"20'33". a length of 31 ..86 feet and a long chord bealing .
South 31'02'18" Ellst 31.63 feat to an iron pin marking a point of tangent; thence.
Sol.lth 18"52'01" East 77.34 feet to an Iron pin on the east boUndary of said Lot
3; thence along said East boundary
South 00"48'28" West 789.24 feet to en iron pin marKing the Southeast comer of
said Lot 3; thence along the Southerly boundal)f of said Lot 3
North 16"39'48" West 691.47 feet to an iron pin; thence continuing
South 82"16'37" West 505.59 feet to an Iron pin; thence continuing
North 85"08'24" West 300.82 feet to an iron pin; thence continuing
South 75"59'24" West 194.94 feet to an Iron pin marl<ing a point of curve;thenee
continuing alQflg the ere of a curve to the left. llald curve having a radius- of 20.00 feet. II
central angle of 7S"3S'44", a I$ngtn 01' 26.41 feet and a long chord bearing
'SOuth 3S"10'02" West 24.53 feet to an Iron pin marking a point of tangent; thence
continuing, .
South 00.20'40" W&5t 177.61 feet.to an Iron phi marking a point of aJrve; tMence
continuing along the arc of a curve to the laft, said curve having a radius of 20.00 feet, a
central angle of 89"32'12", a length of 31.25 feetand a long chord bearing
. South 44"25'26" East 28.17 feet to anlton pin malting a point of ending of curve
on saki North right-of-way fine of Stale Highway 20; thence leevtng said North right-of-
way line
South 00"48'28" West 40,00 feet to a point on the South boundary of said
Section 23; thenCe along said South boundary
North 89"11'32" West 69.52 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
SalcI parcel of land contains 20.65 acres., more or ,less.
:\I1ilIi tf91lO'l~
:r~
'.',',.
"
1/" -
ltI'UBI..\C
\Aa~\O~~o~I';.
Wofl;...
Exhibit C - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
~ -~~.,~~. '~~"''''''-''''"'^~ """'"
;-
SF'URWlNG $U8DMSION
,
SPlJRWING StJBDMSIQN
,
,
--,
""
--fj
~
n-n ;/U.'(j \'i>
!IA. '/O\'I,\'(,
--~ .\
a t\ lS~W
~---It-~I1I'.r
PlIll' Ii' IBNIlIl
CURVE DATA
"* _ ilia ..: 1lIiIIIllIJ ~ ~.
tI .. ....... JIJ' ... J.~. .. ....tr r.
.CI; .. ..... 5" 1\. l1." 5: ~ r
g. .-- ..,... Ift.fl 1MJ'l UUI ..~(
.. ... ~ "Al ..._' ".. ,'........ r
CII .. .... ..., 4l>> M.S!I ,.....,..,.,..
~ .. _lit" '~IJl' ,,11II lut !i"Mnr.(
rtM.l ,._
I
[
~I ~ .
.
~'
,',<
~:::',
!':-;-
.,~.'
!'.,.
~
~
z
15
!
.~
~
~
...
'~~~.'
;..~.
! I
SPUBWING PATIO BOMBS SUBDIVI8ION
PROPOSED MERIDIAN ANNEXATION
EIIS/llfERJIIS
'SOLUTIO"SIII
..... oatlJ" IIfIlo
1'IllII, .. linn
~ 101,
LOCA1D 1II1l4E . 1/- or SEl';lJlIj 23. Ult. R.'''. Il.IL
lISlIllIIN. NIIt IXIIM\', IWtIl
.511 f.._mm.SlIIQ: ,
. . 011I.[, -.. . ""G'G .
---- ""...-.
Exhibit C - Page 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19,2006
D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Annexation Findings:
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation
and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation
and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
The applicant is proposing to zone all ofthe subject property to R-8. Staff finds that the
proposed zoning map amendment generally complies with the applicable provisions of
the Comprehensive Plan. However, Staff is recommending that a portion of this property
be zoned R-4. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff
Report.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed
district, specifically the purpose statement;
If approved, Staff finds that future development of this property will comply with the
established regulations and purpose statement of the R-8 zone. However, staff is
recommending that at least a portion of this property be zoned R-4.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare;
Staff finds 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; and,
Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact
upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site.
5. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-5B-3.E).
Staff fmds that all essential services can be made available or will be provided by the
developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public
funds. Staff is not recommending approval on the annexation as submitted. If the
applicant revises the annexation application as Staff has requested and re-submits a
revised plat, the property should be in general compliance with the City's Comprehensive
Plan. This is a logical expansion of the City limits. In accordance with the findings listed
above, Staff finds that annexing all ofthe subiect property to R-8 is not in the best
interest of the City at this time.
Exhibit D - Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
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 transitional densities proposed between the existing rural I-acre lots
and the proposed lots on the north boundary do not meet Goal I, Objective D, Action No.
8, of the Comprehensive Plan that requires new urban density subdivisions which abut
existing low density residential land uses to provide landscaped screening or transitional
densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban
level densities and rural residential densities. The applicant has proposed landscaped
screening which is intended to meet this requirement; however, the open space area
proposed does not meet the requirements for qualified open space in the UDC. For this
reason and other reasons stated in the analysis and Comprehensive Plan Policies and
Goals, Staff does not support the proposed plat layout Please see Comprehensive Plan
Policies and Goals, Section 8, and Analysis, Section 10 of the Staff Report for more
information.
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 Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service
providers.)
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the
City's capital improvement program;
Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their
cost, staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
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 finding
Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings, and the Conditions of Approval in
Exhibit B 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 and ITD consider 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.
Exhibit D - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDiAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
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. Staff recommends that the
Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to
determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or
scenic feature( s) of maj or importance of which staff is unaware.
3. Variance Findings:
The City Council shall apply the standards listed in Idaho Code 67-6516 and all the
findings listed in Section 11-5B-4E ofthe UDC to review the variance request. In
order to grant a variance, the Council shall make the following findings:
A. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise
allowed in the district:
The UDC requires that no block face be more than 750-feet in length without an
intersecting street or alley or that no block face shall have a length greater than
1,300-feet without a connecting pedestrian open space and pathway. Therefore, if the
City grants the variance it would allow a right or privilege not usually allowed in a
residential district. However, since the property is irregularly shaped and the existing
surrounding development does not stub or have pedestrian connections to this
property, Staff believes the variance requested should be granted. This site is such
that full compliance with the UDC standards would be relatively impossible and
cause an undue hardship to the applicant.
B. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site;
Staff fmds that this is an irregularly shaped lot, which limits design alternatives that
would allow for shorter block lengths. Further, the existing surrounding development
does not provide any stub streets or pedestrian connections to this property which
would allow the applicant to comply with the UDC. For these reasons, Staff believes
that a variance would relieve an undue hardship to the applicant because of the
characteristics of the site.
C. The variance shall not he detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Staff finds that granting the subject variance should not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare. Further, staff recognizes that this is an unusually shaped
property and existing site conditions restrict compliance with the ordinance.
However, if the City grants the variance it would allow a right or privilege not
usually allowed in a residential district. Staff believes that in this case, site conditions
are such that would cause an undue hardship to the applicant and that a variance
should be granted. Staff is recommendinlZ approval of the Variance application. Staff
further recommends that this development be required to comply with all other
dimensional standards of the UDC.
Exhibit D - Page 3
\ 0\ l:\
Joint School District No.2
911 Meridian Road · Meridian, Idaho 83642 · (208) 855-4500 · Fax (208) 888-6700
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr. Linda Clark
RECEIVED
August 28, 2006
'-'1 "
. ,
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
_ _ _ .. City of Mepdian
- -- -----. ---CitY CTerk'-s -OIfice-~----
Attn: William G. Berg, Jr.
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, ill 83642
Dear Planners:
The Meridian School District has experienced phenomenal student growth the last ten
years. The high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools throughout the district
are operating over capacity.
Approval of the SpUlwing Patio Homes Subdivision will have a significant impact on
school enrollments at Andrus Elementary. Sawtooth Middle and Eagle High School.
We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house twenty-two (22) elementary
aged children, twenty (20) middle school aged children, and sixteen (16) 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.
.._____..__,_........~,~ .__.__.___~___-=---._---=-..:.-__ ..__..:.,.......:...,,:-=-__ _ ~__._~ ~___:-.._:.c":.__~_,_._..__~~_.:--'--_____-=--__ __~_. _..::_"....:.- ..:.~_..._~_ _ ___
School capacity is addressed in Idaho Code 67-6508. The Meridian School District is
currently operating beyond capacity. Future development will continue to have an impact
on the district's capacity. If you have any questions, please contact me at 855-4500.
~&8~
(Signed in his absence
by Kim Harp)
Wendel Bigham
Building & Construction Manager
-:.1
.~~\:)
-..\6> l>-
y~'~} 1.~\\~
~<~-- x.~ \ \,~\~~o.
S .. --~~~&-1P
~~~o
September 7,2006
~;f~it,,,-
A~
fJo~ed1i, ~
John S. Franden, President
Carol A. McKee, 1st Vice President
Dave Bivens, 2nd Vice President
Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner
Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner
.:,J
__ ,; "~ .; '; -~f--
":. . ",,'
~-, ..
To:
Spurwing Ltd. Partnership
200 North Foruth Street, Ste. 203
Boise, 10 83702
SEP I :i, 2.006
. I ..
__'.1. ~_ "
')""\
"k. ("1 ../. _.t~_'
Subject:
MPP06-045/ MAZ06-043/ VAR-06-020
Spurwing Pation Homes Subdivision
Northwest of State Highway 20/26 and North Spurwing Way
On September 5, 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.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (208) 387-6174.
Sincerely,
._~------.._---
~~ . '"
-'-- ---./."
- __n
Ryan McDaniel
Planner I
Right-of-way & Development Services
Ada County Highway District
CC: Project file, Utilities
City of Meridian
Pacific Links Ltd. Partnership
6800 North Spurwing Way
Meridian, 10 83642
Engineering Solutions, LLP -Becky McKay
150 East Aikens Street, Ste. B
Eagle, ID 83616
Ada County Highway District. 3775 Adams Street. Garden City, ID · 83714 . PH 208-387-6100 · FX 345-7650 · www.achd.ada.id.us
Project/File:
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision I MPP06-045I MAZ-06-043I VAR-06-020
This is a Preliminary Plat Subdivision / Annexation and Zoning / Variance application
for 73-residentiallots and 6 common lots on 20.51 acres
Lead Agency:
City of Meridian
Site address:
Northwest of the intersection of State Highway 20 & 26 and North Spurwing Way
Staff Level
Approval:
September 5, 2006
Owners:
Spurwing Ltd Partnership
200 North Fourth Street, Ste. 203
Boise, 10 83702
Pacific Links Ltd Partnership
6800 North Spurwing Way
Meridian, 10 83642
Representative:
Engineering Solutions, LLP -Becky McKay
150 East Aikens Street, Ste. B
Eagle, 10 83616
Staff Contact:
Ryan McDaniel
Phone: 387-6174
Email: rmcdaniel@achd.ada.id.us
Tech Review:
August 31,2006
Application Information:
Acreage: 20.51
Current Zoning: R-R
Proposed Zoning: R-8
Residential Lots: 73
Common Lots: 6
Existing Conditions
A. Findinas of Fact
1. Site Information:
The site is currently an unimproved
area within the Spurwing Golf Course.
1
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision
2.
Zoning
RR
RR
RR
RR
hole
3. Existing Roadway Improvements and Right-of-Way Abutting or Near the Site:
West Salata Court is currently improved with 2-traffic lanes, 36-feet of
pavement with curb, gutter and sidewalk adjacent to the site. Abutting the
site there is curb and gutter but no sidewalk. There is 50-feet of right-of-way
existing for West Salata Court( 25-feet from centerline).
4.
Existing Access:
5.
Site History:
Development Impacts
6.
Trip Generation:
7.
Impact Fees:
8.
Traffic Study:
9. Impacted Roadways:
North Spurwing Way is currently improved with 2-traffic lanes, 36-feet of
pavement with ribbon curb, gutter and sidewalk. There is 72-feet of right-of-
way existing for North Spurwing Way.
State Highway 20 & 26 is currently improved with 2-traffic lanes, and a center
turn lane only at North Spurwing Way, 40-feet of pavement with no curb,
gutter or sidewalk adjacent to the site. There is 64-feet of right-of-way
existing for State Highway 20 & 26 (38-feet from centerline). State Highway
20 & 26 is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department.
There is one delineated access point to West Salata Court from this property
and the site has frontage on State Highway 20 & 26.
ACHD has previously reviewed this site for a development application in 1994
with the Spurwing Subdivision Application.
This development is estimated to generate 622 additional vehicle trips per
day (0 existing) based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Single Family Detached Dwelling and Townhouse land use
designation.
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.
A traffic impact study was not required with this application.
Roadway Frontage Functional Traffic Count Level of Speed
Classification Service* Limit
West Salata 70-Feet Local Residential N/A Acceptable 20 MPH
Court planning
threshold for
this Road is
2000 ADT
State 40-Feet Principal Arterial 19,592 east of Under LOS"D" 50 MPH
Highway 20 & Road on 6/8/05
26 17,426 west of Under
2 Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision
Road on 4/19/05
North O-Feet Local Residential N / A Acceptable 20 MPH
Spurwing planning
Way threshold for
this Road is
2000 ADT
*Acceptable level of service for a two-lane arterial roadway is "0" (14,000 ADT).
*Acceptable level of service for a three-lane arterial roadway is "0" (17,000 ADT).
10. Capital Improvements Plan/Five Year Work Program
There are currently no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity of the project that
are currently listed in the Five Year Work Program. The intersections of State Highway 20 & 26
with Under Road and Ten Mile Road are listed in the Capital Improvements Plan for widening and
signal upgrades.
B. Findinas for Consideration
1. West Salata Court
District Street Section and Right~of-Way Policy:
District policy 7204.4.2 states, "developments with any buildable lot that is less that 1-acre in size
will typically provide streets having a minimum pavement width of 32-feet with curb, gutter and
sidewalks. The total street width shall be 36-feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. Variations of
this width may be allowed, depending on traffic volumes forecast to be generated by the
development. Concrete sidewalks shall be a minimum of 5-feet in width unless they are separated
from the curb 5-feet or more in which case the sidewalk shall be a minimum of 4-feet in width.
Applicant Proposal:
The applicant proposes to construct curb, gutter and 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk on West
Balata Court.
Staff Comment/Recommendation:
The applicant's proposal to construct West Balata Court as one half of a 36-foot street section
within 50-feet of right-of-way where the subject site abuts the roadway is approved with this
application as proposed.
There is a small portion of the street located to the east of the subject site boundary that does not
have sidewalk. When Spurwing Subdivision was initially processed as a non-farm development in
1994, the site was outside of the City Meridian's area of impact and the District could not require
curb, gutter and sidewalk. The applicant voluntarily chose to construct the roadway improvements
in front of all lots and in front of the club house to benefit the future residents.
With this application, the applicant is not required to construct sidewalk off-site, which would
complete this portion of West Salata Court; however, since this site is adding trips to West Salata
Court, the District would support the applicant completing the sidewalk from the east property line of
the subject site to the terminus of the existing sidewalk.
2. Entry Road and the Internal Public Roadways
3 Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision
District Street Section and Right-of-Way Policy:
District policy 7204.4.2 states, "developments with any buildable lot that is less that 1-acre in size
will typically provide streets having a minimum pavement width of 32-feet with curb, gutter and
sidewalks. The total street width shall be 36-feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. Variations of
this width may be allowed, depending on traffic volumes forecast to be generated by the
development. Concrete sidewalks shall be a minimum of 5-feet in width unless they are separated
from the curb 5-feet or more in which case the sidewalk shall be a minimum of 4-feet in width.
District Offset Policy:
District policy 7204.11.6, requires local roadways to align or offset a minimum of 125-feet from
another local roadway (measured centerline to centerline).
Applicant Proposal:
The applicant proposes to construct all the internal roadways as 36-foot street sections within 50-
feet of right-of-way complete with curb, gutter and 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk. The applicant
proposes to locate the internal roadways not closer than 125-feet form one another.
Staff Comment/Recommendation:
The applicant's proposal for the internal roadways is approved with this application as proposed.
3. Knuckles and Turnarounds
District 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 OO-square foot area.
District Knuckle Policy:
District pOlicy District policy 7202.7 and 7207.5 and the local Fire District standards require an
island within a knuckle to be constructed with the island being a minimum of 4-feet wide with a
minimum area of 1 OO-square feet and designed to safely channel traffic. The roadway around the
traffic island should maintain a minimum of a 29-foot street section. The design should be reviewed
and approved by ACHD's Development staff.
Applicant Proposal:
The applicant proposes one knuckle on the south side of West Tramore Drive and one standard
cul-de-sac turnaround at the intersection of North Dunloy Way and North Castle Bar Way.
Staff Comment/Recommendation:
The applicant's proposal for the knuckle and cul-de-sac turnaround is approved with this application
as proposed.
4. Emergency Access
Applicant Proposal:
The applicant is proposing an emergency vehicle access on State Highway 20 & 26 located at the
west property line.
Staff Comment/Recommendation:
The applicant should install some restrictive device to stop the potential for general use traffic
through the emergency vehicle access road. The device used to control access on the emergency
vehicle roadway shall be approved by the Meridian Fire Department.
4
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision
5. Driveways
District Driveway Policy:
Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being
tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with District policy, 7207.9.1, the applicant should be
required to pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of
pavement of the roadway and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii abutting the existing
roadway edge.
District Driveway Width Policy:
District Policy 7207.9.3 restricts residential driveways to a maximum width of 20-feet.
District Driveway Offset Policy:
District policy 72-F4 (1) and 72-F4 (2), requires driveways located on local residential roadways to
offset a controlled and/or uncontrolled intersection a minimum of 50-feet (measured near edge to
near edge).
Applicant Proposal:
The applicant has not specifically identified the location of any driveways on the Preliminary Plat
application or site plan.
Staff Comment/Recommendation:
Staff understands that the driveway locations are to be determined at a later time. The applicant is
being provided the current policy in effect at this time and is directed to work with ACHD
Construction Services staff in attaining driveway approach permits.
6. District Tree Planters
District's Tree Planter Width POlicy 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 a-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.
Applicant Proposal:
The applicant has not specifically identified trees on the Preliminary Plat application or site plan.
Staff Comment/Recommendation:
Staff understands that the use of trees may be determined at a later time. The applicant is being
provided the current policy in effect at this time and is directed to work with Development Review
Staff in regard to potentially planting trees in the public right-of-way.
C. Site Specific Conditions of Al!Proval
1. Construct West Balata Court as one half of a 36-foot street section within 50-feet of right-of-way
complete with curb, gutter and 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk.
2. Locate the entry road intersecting West Salata Court as proposed.
3. Construct all the internal roadways as 36-foot street sections within 50-feet of right-of-way complete
with curb, gutter and 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk.
5 SpulWing Patio Homes Subdivision
4. Locate and construct one knuckle on the south side of West Tramore Drive and one standard cul-
de-sac turnaround at the intersection of North Dunloy Way and North Castle Bar Way.
5. Construct emergency access at the southwest corner of West Tramore Drive, as proposed. Utilize
some restrictive device to inhibit the possibility for cut-thru or general use traffic within the
emergency access. The device used to control access on the emergency vehicle roadway shall be
approved by the Meridian Fire Department and submitted to ACHD in writing.
6.
7. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
D. Standard Conditions of Awroval
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 is 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
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.
6 SDurwina Patio Homes Subdivision
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.
7 SDurwim:1 Patio Homes Subdivision
Attachments
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan
3. Appeal Guidelines
4. Develo ment Process Checklist
8
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision
9
~
j ~f
~ II ctc:l:O.!l:1
! If mIni \:
~;~~~:: ~
~i r- . .
I I; i;.
I [. ucml~
~ ~ !ilil;~ill
'" i
! I mm!
i
Iii
D---i2---J>
'I i
I ill: :
r! !
I: : 11
!il i
!
I
~
I
It i~
.. 11 ''iilII_ I" I
-.
llllB ;ii
s '" ;i~~
.
s d
q' II ~ -g ~-
;; h - II. ~i
~5
B
; . ~ I SPUWDiG PATIO IlODB ...... PlANNER I CONTACT ~ C1.VNERS OF REOOAD
-""0 ~ SUBDllJSIOJf - ....., -"'-- ~~__ MIiIAII~""".."...
:0 - .. i i PREUMltWlV PlAT 11at.~1I 2lld ll4IHlit_SIf. a) 2llllII.,.t:&I!Jf'~1II._ -"'.,,~..-
m ~ ii ~ ...........v.,................'" ;;r.=--='-f.iiE:: ~ ,. -..... .... -...., - - - ....
":;" == ~~.......co ",-,~...t4>> fIItIIt_....1G11
t -....-- .:=r:F"..=:.="
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision
-.-
"
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.
10
Spurwin9 Patio Homes Subdivision
II
Development Process Checklist
II
[8]Submit a development application to a City or to the County
[8]The City or the County will transmit the development application to ACHD
[8]The ACHD Planning Review Division will receive the development application to review
[8]The 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.
[8]Write 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.
[8]The 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 set of engineered plans directly to ACHD for review by the Development Review
Division for plan review and assessment of impact fees. (Note: if there are no site improvements required by
ACHD, then architectural plans may be submitted for purposes of impact fee calculation.)
. The applicant is required to get a permit from Construction Services (ACHD) for ANY work in the right-of-way,
including, but not limited to, driveway approaches, street improvements and utility cuts.
DPay Impact Fees prior to issuance of building permit. Impact fees cannot be paid prior to plan review approval.
DID YOU REMEMBER?
Construction Zone
D 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.
D 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 sJ. of concrete or asphalt.
Construction (Subdivisions)
D 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 Stormwater
Division.
D Idaho Power Company
. Vic Steelman at Idaho Power must have his IPCO approved set of subdivision utility plans prior to Pre-Con being
scheduled.
D Final Approval from Development Services
ACHD Construction - Subdivision must have received approval from Development Services prior to scheduling a Pre-Con.
11
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision
\0\ \~
(i..-- CHDDEEI~~TATRARRIATC~~JN~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
... Environmental Health Division
Rezone #
Conditional Use #
Preliminary / Final/Short Plat
01.
02.
03.
04.
05.
06.
07.
.42 ~t. -0 V?
Return to:
o Boise
o Eagle
o Garden City
~eridian
o Kuna
DACZ
Star
.?~ 06 -O'lr
yu/w'^7 ~/;~ ~~s ~~
We have No Objections ~o this Proposal.
t~ j J'" ~ .". 'I f"I fh '
, . _i J." ,,-'..I,,,;)
We recommend Denial of this Proposal. City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal.
We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of:
o high seasonal ground water 0 waste flow characteristics
o or bedrock from original grade 0 other
This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or
surface waters.
This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and
water availability.
~ After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
~Isewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water well
o interim sewage ~tral water
o individual sewage 0 individual water
~he following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division of Environmental Quality:
~I rtral sewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water
o sewage dry lines ~ral water
k Run-off is notto create a mosquito breeding problem.
o 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
o 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State
Sewage Regulations.
o 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
o food establishment 0 swimming pools or spas
o beverage establishment 0 grocery store
o child care center
Date: -ILJ~Oh
Reviewed By: d-- ~
o 14. Please see attached stormwater management recommendations
o 15.
15726.001 EH0904
Review Sheet
Oct 11 2008 3:29PM
Engineering Solutions
208 938 0941
p. 1
AFFIDA vrr OF POSTING
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ~
COUNTY OF ADA )
I. Shari Sti1es~ Engineering Solutions. LLP. 150 E. Aikens Street. Suite B. Eagle. Idaho, 83616, being duly
sworn, WX)n oath" depose and say:
I did personally post the subject property on the Th day of October 2006 with the hearing signs. This is in
compliance with the ten (l0) day posting as required by the City of Meridian for public hearings. Signs
were posted for annexation and zoning and preliminaIy plat for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision.
Dated this
11 th day of
OctnhP.r
,2006.
Ofk~
(Sie;rtature )
....,
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written.
,My Commission Expires'
C;\Doewncn1s laid SettiDpI200"11\'Jl2~GP&Z.doc
1
'I
,,"
"
('
~:;\!,~'
n
:0
..:~
,~",...'
r.
8';,
,,..,..,.
......., ..oC" ,
..'\ 1..,,"_,"
j
:s
T';
tll":?
....--'::. '
-~-i
i::~'
, :
!~..,..
".o:.~~'.:'
"""
-;.-'
"X"
,..., ~,'
,)!~~-'
-.,
".
,.J.~'
---
..
Public Hearing - Meridian - US 20-26 - Spurwing Patio homes Subdiyision
Page 1 of 1
Machelle Hill
From: Sonya Watters
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:22 AM
To: Machelle Hill; Sharon Smith; Tara Green; Will Berg
Subject: FW: Public Hearing - Meridian - US 20-26 - Spurwing Patio homes Subdivision
From: Sue Sullivan [mailto:Sue.Sullivan@itd.idaho.gov]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:04 PM
To: Sonya Watters
Subject: Public Hearing - Meridian - US 20-26 ~ Spurwin9 Patio homes Subdivision
OCT 1 ..',. 2000
~.' j- -
_...:_~::'t-i:.
. .I.~ <::.
Sonja,
This is just to let you know that the applicant has not applied to ITD for the emergency access to US 20-26 shown
on their plans.
Please note, the main access at spurwing will not be signalized in the future, so it is prudent to consider how may
households would be added to the intersection. I suspect the predominant movement from the subdivision would
be left turns onto the highway. Over time, congestion on the highway will make this a more difficult movement.
Since the development is not directly adjacent to the highway I have no comments on other issues such as
setback, noise abatement and pathways.
Thanks,
sue suLLivan
Senior Transportation Planner
Idaho Transportation Department
District Three
(208) 334-8955 Office (208) 334-8917 Fax
E-Mail: sue.sullivan@itd.idaho.gov
10/13/2006
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
2. Preliminary Plat (dated: 6-20~06)
_I_~"'" 1t+1......{IDI).~
mtetOlfilllWI:II ~CIlIIII""
~'II6-JjIlut"_ 1.'III:'JCI...~IIW11
...~"&lI~~ ~lIil~
iiflr;:
.:IjlI$~'):OI;,
~~,.,I.)I3t
.,,_1-1""'.....__
",-..,..",~.~,_.-
"'L_",___,_,,~,
-~....,.-----
l_II=III\j\'l~_ fiIlt:'~\'OI'IIdDn J :
1!I:I!1I~'.gilWiHltt"11III'1 'JItI.....~..I'n:iIImB.~IlIIi11I1~ ~!~:;;: ill II
"SNOllR70r.o !W1d .-'..n",," c }. - 0:: ~
1l1!~ NOISIAJa&:llS . a..-
9NllJllNl9N., SDOH OLtVd llN1AlJldS .1, !
II[.I-_!.m ~
;Ji(n OIIlI:II'lMII
iW-7.II':JI;IItr"llllE
~Ql'~
Cllo::l3ll ~c S1ENMO
~
1O\I1NCO/~3NNVld
I.
i Ii.
rt :11
~ i~i
i1
~I
-d :1 =.1
is' ;;.!5
=61~~~i
~i1i~~lb
fi lug III!
~ :' II
ilb~
i~~
t"
.;! ~I
II:. !Il
~~~~#~~
- .
Exhibit A - Page 2
~ ! ~
P ~ ~ Iii IS I ~d
~ i 1;1 ~ I i I ~ i Ig I
alllla2 ttl iUI
tt i j III , r
I IH'*I nH
I r I I ~ II'k
I [I .11
i ~I
=~: i: ~p~hH
hn~lId!uH
II 1/11 ! i : \) Ii I
, , " 'I I 1
Ii 11:/ rdl
. :: II ! <
I, I : : i ~ 11;
r Ifl rl,_ ~
Ii i: Illl
~
!I
i
~
@m I i
!Il~m ~ ~
~llllm I'
~'I~!m : ~ II" III
Ulmm -, ~.
Imm
!ngUll
HI
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
3. Landscape Plan (dated 5-28-06)
r-- I DttH~ (itll) .~~ ,:J~l,~~ ~i.(l~'.~~~ D
I dlHSiJ3NHfvd 011 ONWliJnd ~~>
i l\fld .l,~IiNI~iU~ ~d · i i ~
I NOISlAlOSnS S3~OH Oll\fd ONIMiJndS · i
! - i E I
I
I. 'fH! ~"!~~~~~~ ~!~~~~ 1!'1!~~a:! .~";':':';f,:!~~'t:'.:";'::~'::
....\;111. 1I.1li-~lI!1.\l, Ill.....". ~1II11_1I111 ........._"''''....,......'''....
"
I~
I t! II
. ~ 'I
I · Ii! 1 ·
~ · e I ~I
, i" J II
I";~ i I Il
i ! .11 i'i Ii if
~lP I ~ l!.i !:i' ~ I I ii
., 1111 P Illi Q I"' '13"
~ 11111 ;~;l!~ ~ o,l !i! !ljg ill
g I!l i' ,II 1\1.151 I ! II. Ii!
i! 15 I!'i~ z "'! "I 'j:;! ill
~ffi ..i,!~C'i!~ ,ffilol
f5U dl!!~g;! ~ll
lrii...."'~........... J!slftl ..".. u}~ 'li' a-1:.1!;1; Ii.'''''' ~i;
I I Illll hi ~ III
I UllllUlIlllIll'IIUI!1
Exhibit A - Page 3
~
~
"
j':;
"' ~~
~ .;
I ~
I~
.'5
~l~
II",
~
~
!
~e
.,;
. I I"
i lilli'
I I '1',1
!I, 1,1"1
I' I,! II""
1I1~1l Hii.!! ~
\ \ I~,II(~ ~
'\ \ c
. *
~
~
;;:
s
"
I':~ "H i! i.
I":~ ml ~~ y,2.
ji; ill ~I ..
,"'J! I
.I
I-
II
, ;1
il i:
" ;ill
i; iii i ~
41\\\ ~
". ;
~.. Q,.
!Ij /1" '/ ~
~ ~ i IIII i ~
~~ Ii lillN ~
2a ri..!!!"
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Public Works Department
1.1 The preliminary plat shows the sewer main proposed in this development ending at W. Chinden
Boulevard. At this time there are no sewer mains in or planned to be installed in Chinden
Boulevard. This property is master planned in the North Black Cat shed. This property is
currently not serviceable by the City of Meridian's sewer system and the City of Meridian does
not guarantee sewer service in the timelines outlined in the UDC.
1.2 This property is master planned to sewer to the North Black Cat Lift Station via mains that are
planned to be development driven in the property to the west. If the applicant wishes to
commence development prior to the "Master Planned mains" being available they may proceed
under the following conditions:
a) This is conditional on there being available capacity within the Ten-Mile Trunk.
b) The applicant shall provide written permission from the owner of the Silver Leaf Lift
Station, granting access to use that lift station.
c) The applicant shall be responsible to prove capacity exists in the Silver Leaf Lift Station,
and be responsible for any upgrades necessary.
d) The applicant shall be responsible install the necessary off-site gravity mains from this
site to the Silver Leaf Lift Station. These mains shall not be eligible for reimbursement
agreements.
1.3 The applicant shall install sewer mains to and through this proposed 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.
1.4 The applicant shall be responsible to install an all-weather access road per City of Meridian
standard specifications to all sewer mains not located within the right-of-way.
1.5 The applicant shall connect to a Municipal water system.
1.6 The applicant shall comply with all Department of Environmental Quality's Best Management
Practices separation requirements between storm facilities and private wells.
1.7 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 finalized prior to construction plan approval. The detailed agreement
with the reimbursable amount shall be approved by Council prior to plat signature.
1.8 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).
1.9 The applicant has indicated that the P.I. system shall be an extension of Spurwing's system. Prior
to scheduling of a pre-construction meeting the applicant shall provide written approval from the
owner of that system.
1.10 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.
1.11 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be remoyed from
ExhibitB ~ Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19,2006
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.
1.12 Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, that
intersect, cross or lie within the area being developed shall be tiled. 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 plan approval. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
1.13 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed,
drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final
Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits.
1.14 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to
signature on the [mal plat.
1.15 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.
1.16 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat.
1.17 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.
1.18 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
1.19 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Army Cotps of Engineers.
1.20 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.
1.21 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
1.22 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.
1.23 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 determined 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.
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
2. Fire Department
2.1 One and two family dwellings not exceeding 3600 square feet will require a fITe-flow of 1,000
gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire proj ect. One and two story
family dwellings 3600 square feet and greater will require a fire flow of 1500 gallons per minute.
Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of500' apart. International Fire Code Appendix C
2.2 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.
2.3 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 W' outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works 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.
2.4 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside
radius.
2.5 The emergency access drive 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.
2.6 The emergency access drive shall have a 20' wide improved surface capable of supporting an
imposed load of 75,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D
Section D103.6 Signs.
2.7 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.
2.8 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 fITe apparatus access road, as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fITe hydrants
and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped
throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section
903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183).
a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183
m).
b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in
accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet
(183 m).
2.9 This project will be required to provide a 20' wide swing or rolling emergency access gate. The gate
shall be equipped with a Knoxbox Padlock which has to be ordered thru the Meridian Fire
Department. A ''No Parking, Fire Lane" emergency access sign shall be installed at the access gate.
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARlMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DA IE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
3. Police Department
3.1 The proposed development and/or plat do not offer natural surveillance opportunities of the
public areas. Common areas are completely blocked from public view. Seventy-three home sites
with one primary access is not acceptable. Prior to the next public hearing. the applicant shall
meet with the Police Chief and/or Planning Staff to discuss features that increase visibility.
including but not limited to: doors and windows that look out on the public areas. front porches.
and adeauate nighttime lilZhtinlZ. The site plan and/or landscapinlZ plan shall be revised in accord
with those discussions.
3.2 To increase emergency access to the site, the applicant shall provide a stub street from the
property. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall submit a revised plat/site plan to
reflect this requirement.
3.3 Any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if
solid fencing is used.
4. Parks Department
4.1 Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape
Ordinance will be followed.
4.2 Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in
the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance will be followed.
5. Sanitary Service Company
5.1 SSC has no comments related to this application.
6. Ada County Highway District
6.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
6.1.1 Construct West Balata Court as one half ofa 36-foot street section within 50-feet ofright-ofpway
complete with curb, gutter and 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk.
6.1.2 Locate the entry road intersecting West Balata Court as proposed.
6.1.3 Construct all the internal roadways as 36-foot street sections within 50-feet of right-of-way
complete with curb, gutter and 5pfoot attached concrete sidewalk.
6.1.4 Locate and construct one knuckle on the south side of West Tramore Drive and one standard cul-
de-sac turnaround at the intersection of North Dunloy Way and North Castle Bar Way.
6.1.5 Construct emergency access at the southwest comer of West Tramore Drive, as proposed. Utilize
some restrictive device to inhibit the possibility for cut-thru or general use traffic within the
emergency access. The device used to control access on the emergency vehicle roadway shall be
approved by the Meridian Fire Department and submitted to ACHD in writing.
6.1.6 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
7.2 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
7.2.1 Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
7.2.2 Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or
right-of-way.
7.2.3 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be
borne by the developer.
7.2.4 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.
7.2.5 Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy.
7.2.6 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.
7.2.7 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.
7.2.8 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.
7.2.9 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.
7.2.10 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 hnpact Fee Ordinance.
7.2.11 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 DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days
prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic
Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during
any phase of construction.
7.2.12 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.
7.2.13 Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subj ect 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 plalUled use of the subj ect property unless
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect
at the time the change in use is sought.
7.3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
7.3.1 The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of
Approval are satisfied.
7.3.2. 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.
8. Idaho Transportation Department
8.1 The applicant shall apply to rrD for the emergency access to US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd.) shown
on the proposed plat.
9. Central District Health Department
9.1 After written approval from appropriate entities is submitted, we can approve this proposal for
central sewage and central water.
9.2 The following plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health &
welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage and central water.
9.3 Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
Exhibit B - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map
rm
TEALEV'S LAND
SURVEYING
-
2501 80glls Basin Rd, . Boi58, IdahJ fl:~"(l~'
(208) 365-0636
F"" (206) 365-0696
Project. No.: 2981
Date: June 2, 2006
Revised: August 16.2006
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION fOR
SPURWING PATlOHOMES SUBDIVISION
A parcel of land being a portion of Lots 2 and 4 and all of Lot 3 of Block 1 of
Spurwing Subdivision, as filed for record in the office of the Ada County Recorder. Boise,
Idaho in Book 69 of Plats at pages 7104 thru 7108, and a portion of the SW 1/4 of
Section 23, T.4N_, R.1W" B.M., Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as
follows:
BEGINNING at a brass cap marking the Southwe5t corner of the said Section 23;
thence along the Westerly boundary of the said SW1/4 of Section 23; thence
North 00"20'40" Ea5t 324.83 fe8t to an iron pin; thence 5aid Westerly boundary
South 69.39'20" Ea5t 30.00 feet to an iron pin marking a point of curve; thence
continuing along an arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 20.00 feet,a
central angle of 104021'16", a length of 36.43 feet and a long chord bearing
South 51 "49'5B" East 31.60 feet to an Iron pin marking a point of tanl;lent; thence
continuing
North 75059'24" East 156.1 B feet to 8r:l Iron pin; thence continuing
North 00"48'28" East 164_90 feet to an iron pin; thence leaving said Westerly
boundary
North 10"58'41" Ea5t673.13 feet to an iron pin marking the Northwe5t corner of
said Lot 3; thencealon9 the Northerly boundary of said Lot 3
South 78036'59" East 106.97 feet to an iron pin; thence continuing
.South 62"24'58" East 127,74 feet to an iron pin; thence continuing
South 50"13'56" East 125.67 feet to an Iron pin; thence continuing
South 43002"58" East 160.00 feet to an iron pin; thence continuing
South 43000'12" East 160.00 feet to an Iron pin; thence continuing
South 52028'14" East 222.39 feet to an Iron pin; tnence continuing
South 87"44'25" East 290.67 feet to an iron pin; thence continuing
North 54048'27" East 242.01 feet to an iron pin; thence continuing
North 26"46'22" East 166,21 feet to an fron pin; thence continuing
North 19"22'35" East 116.96 feet to antron pin; thence continUing
North 43"12'34" We5t 265.25 feet to an Iron pin marking a point of curve; thence
continuing along an arc ofa curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 20_00 feet, a
central angle of 102"27'35", a length of 35.77 feet and a long chord bearing
South 85"33'38" West 31.19 to an Iron pin marking a point of ending of curve on
the South right-of-way line of West Balata Court; thence [saving said South right-of-way
line
North 55"40'10" West 25.00 feet to a point on thecentMine of said West Sarata
Court marking a point Of curve: thence along said centerliile along the arc of a curve to
the light, said curve having a radius of 350,00 feet, a central angle of 20"47'29". a length
of 127.01 feet and a long cnord bearlng
(::t,O~IilAd 6Imn~~~ 1JoC;.T"I!I'I''II~29b1-Bm8ll--&.tl.dlX~)d~
Exhibit C - Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING 15QI BOOUSaASlN ROAD, BOISUDAH0B3702'(208},&5--:"Y;
Project No,: 2961 Page 2
Date: June 2, 2006
Re~sed: August 16, 2006
North <<043'35" East 126.31 feet to a point marking a pOint of endIng of curve:
thence leaving said centerline .
South 34"52"40" East 25_00 feet to an iron pin on said South right-of-way line of
West Balata Court; thence leaving said South right-of-way line
South 05057'22" West 30.26 feet to an iron pin; then~
South 43012'34" East 266.19 feet 10 an iron pin marking a poinl of curve; thence
along the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 75.00 feet, a central
angle of 24020'33". a length of 31.86 feel and a long chord bearing
South 31002'18" East 31.63 feette an Iron pin marking a point of tangent; thence
South 18052'01" East 71.34 feet to an Iron pin on the East boundary of said Lot
3; thenc.e along said East boundary
South 00"46'28" West 789.24 feel to an iron pin marking the Southeast comer of
said Lot 3; thence along the Southerly boundary of said Lot 3
North 76039'48" West 691.47 feet to an iron pin: thence continuing
SoutM 62'16'37" West 505.59 feel to an iron pin; thence continuing
North 85'06'24" West 300.82 feet to an iron pin; thence continuing
South 75'59'24" West 194.94 feet to an iron pin mar\(ing a point of cUNe; thence
Continuing along the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of .20_00 feet. a
central angJe of 75036'44", a length of 26.41 feet Bl1d a long chord bearing
South 38'10'02" West 24.53 feet to an Iron pin marking a point of tangent; thence
continuing
South 00020'40" West 177.61 feel to an iren pin marking a point of curve; thence
continuing along the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 20.00 feet, a
central angle of 89"32'12", a length of 31.25 feet and a long chord bearing
. South 44"25'26" East 28.17 feet to an iron pin marking a point of ending of curve
on said North right-of-way line of Slate Highway 20.: thence leaving said North right-of.
way line
South 00'46'28" West 40,00 feet to a point on tile Soulh boundary of said
Section 23; thence along Baid. South boundary
North 8S"1 1'32" West 69.52 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said parcel of land contains 20,65 acres, more or less.
~~"'t."I'~'i~'
e'l~.
I '''-,
l ,:,..
<,\Jil\.le
\lIla\>.\O\...~OE.P1-
wo~"'~
Exhibit C - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARlMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
,-,.....~..~~,.- ..."~ .,.~,~-. ~.~..&~.
---
SPUR\.\I1NG SU~,^,';~SION
---71
,
,
I
\--.,~- k
ff-~--!""-_-----c
--o---_~ ~-
-~ ,
r-~ ~--'I
I ---J
C>-----. ('
(~---- ---= SPURWlNG SUBDIVISION
- ,
,
~~~ -,
i) ""
-=-1
,~-
--\
,
,
.'i.b. YO.I'.'.',','"
"\
.....a~lj
~J
-----1
arfij
-l-.._-l,\ (n" ;0'1.'
Nnwr.. ~
sa, ~
-...I!\ l StIF~
~~:!
_ Dr'1IEQOIIG
CURVE DATA
""" - '"'" .. -.. ..., .-..
" """ - "--', "-~ "lO !."!ftrI8"t
" II'" .......r ~ 1'," 111. I> -.I". .
" .... ...",. lit.l'. '''' "..,. lI4m.~t
.. "'''' WIIID' ..... ..~ loT.1S 5)1"',,, r
.. .... _.0- .... ,." "SI s.~'t
'" "'" -..' ")1 J~ "M .." .Wlnr'
~
""" '"-
.. - ... - . '.'.,', .',~w ....." ., ....
z
0
0;
:;:
"
~
~
~
~. I
...J
W
""
as "-
c
z
:;:
U
;:.:..
::"~
<~
-
I I
i
SPURWING PATIO HOMES SUBDIVI8ION
PROPOSED MERIDIAN ANNEXATION
ENS/NEERIIIG
SOLUTIONS...
/lIIt-M\[ ""171\11l *'
-, 00. ~":h
~ '01'
"
LCOlm IN lllE 5W '/4 Of SECTJJIl 23; 1.4".. R.I.., B.iI.
IlElllWt. 101>>. CllIJI/tf, llA/lO'
,sa to .lI1\Dl& mEET;, SIJlE D
, .~......, ....'G
--- ""~.........,
Exhibit C - Page 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19, 2006
D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Annexation Findings:
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation
and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation
and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
The applicant is proposing to zone all ofthe subject property to R-8. Staff finds that the
proposed zoning map amendment generally complies with the applicable provisions of
the Comprehensive Plan. However, Staff is recommending that a portion of this property
be zoned R-4. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff
Report.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed
district, specifically the purpose statement;
If approved, Staff finds that future development of this property will comply with the
established regulations and purpose statement of the R -8 zone. However, staff is
recommending that at least a portion of this property be zoned R-4.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,
and 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 fmding.
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; and,
Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact
upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site.
5. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC I1-5B-3.E).
Staff finds that all essential services can be made available or will be provided by the
developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public
funds. Staff is not recommending approval on the annexation as submitted. If the
applicant revises the annexation application as Staff has requested and re-submits a
revised plat, the property should be in general compliance with the City's Comprehensive
Plan. This is a logical expansion of the City limits. In accordance with the fmdings listed
above, Staff finds that annexinlZ all of the subiect property to R-8 is not in the best
interest of the City at this time.
Exhibit D - Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19,2006
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 fmds that the transitional densities proposed between the existing rural I-acre lots
and the proposed lots on the north boundary do not meet Goal I, Objective D, Action No.
8, of the Comprehensive Plan that requires new urban density subdivisions which abut
existing low density residential land uses to provide landscaped screening or transitional
densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban
level densities and rural residential densities. The applicant has proposed landscaped
screening which is intended to meet this requirement; however, the open space area
proposed does not meet the requirements for qualified open space in the UDC. For this
reason and other reasons stated in the analysis and Comprehensive Plan Policies and
Goals, Staff does not support the proposed plat layout Please see Comprehensive Plan
Policies and Goals, Section 8, and Analysis, Section 10 of the Staff Report for more
information.
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 Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service
providers.)
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the
City's capital improvement program;
Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their
cost, staff fmds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
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 fmding. (See finding
Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings, and the Conditions of Approval in
Exhibit B 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 and lID consider 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.
Exhibit D - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR lHE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 19,2006
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. Staff recommends that the
Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to
determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or
scenic feature( s) of maj or importance of which staff is unaware.
3. Variance Findings:
The City Council shall apply the standards listed in Idaho Code 67-6516 and all the
findings listed in Section 11-5B-4E ofthe UDC to review the variance request. In
order to grant a variance, the Council shall make the following findings:
A. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise
allowed in the district:
The UDC requires that no block face be more than 750-feet in length without an
intersecting street or alley or that no block face shall have a length greater than
1,300-feet without a connecting pedestrian open space and pathway. Therefore, if the
City grants the variance it would allow a right or privilege not usually allowed in a
residential district. However, since the property is irregularly shaped and the existing
surrounding development does not stub or have pedestrian connections to this
property, Staff believes the variance requested should be granted. This site is such
that full compliance with the UDC standards would be relatively impossible and
cause an undue hardship to the applicant.
B. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site;
Staff finds that this is an irregularly shaped lot, which limits design alternatives that
would allow for shorter block lengths. Further, the existing surrounding development
does not provide any stub streets or pedestrian connections to this property which
would allow the applicant to comply with the UDC. For these reasons, Staff believes
that a variance would relieve an undue hardship to the applicant because of the
characteristics of the site.
C. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Staff fmds that granting the subject variance should not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare. Further, staff recognizes that this is an unusually shaped
property and existing site conditions restrict compliance with the ordinance.
However, if the City grants the variance it would allow a right or privilege not
usually allowed in a residential district. Staff believes that in this case, site conditions
are such that would cause an undue hardship to the applicant and that a variance
should be granted. Staff is recommending approval of the Variance application. Staff
further recommends that this development be required to comply with all other
dimensional standards of the UDC.
Exhibit D - Page 3
\D\q
Joint School District No.2
911 Meridian Road · Meridian, Idaho 83642 · (208) 855-4500 . Fax (208) 888-6700
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr. Linda Clark
August 28, 2006
RECEIVED
A l' Ie ~, r "111'''''
. - u, , ,~vlJO
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
City of Meridian
City Clerk's Office
Attn: William G. Berg, Jr.
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, ill 83642
Dear Planners:
The Meridian School District has experienced phenomenal student growth the last ten
years. The high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools throughout the district
are operating over capacity.
Approval of the Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision will have a significant impact on
school enrollments at Andrus Elementary, Sawtooth Middle and Eagle High School.
We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house twenty-two (22) elementary
aged children, twenty (20) middle school aged children, and sixteen (16) senior high aged
students. Additional students will further compound the current overcrowded situation.
Residents cannot be assured of attending the neighborhood school, as it may be necessary
to bus students to other schools across the district.
School capacity is addressed in Idaho Code 67-6508. The Meridian School District is
currently operating beyond capacity. Future development will continue to have an impact
on the district's capacity. If you have any questions, please contact me at 855-4500.
~&8~
(Signed in his absence
by Kim Harp)
Wendel Bigham
Building & Construction Manager
~.. <7 ~("\~..
. ~" . '\:." U
". .'? :;..) ~\,
--~r--
~f-i-"""'7'~~
A~
\.
,,'~~
" '\ l'.J , ;j;?>~
,.0, ,0'fN.lJ
.\.. \ . .,<, - .., \-'-
t) '" ., )~, >':, 0"
. .,:1' ." l}-
\..,~;~t,,~b~G- i>-
,j' ,,"',~
~\-.p.,
~~ed~ ~c>>
John S. Franden, President
Carol A. McKee, 1st Vice President
Dave Bivens, 2nd Vice President
Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner
Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner
September 7,2006
To:
Spurwing Ltd. Partnership
200 North Foruth Street, Ste. 203
Boise, 10 83702
: : ~ "'l
(.,;,v'.'''.
Subject:
MPP06-045/ MAZ06-043/ VAR-06.020
Spurwing Pation Homes Subdivision
Northwest of State Highway 20/26 and North Spurwing Way
On September 5, 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.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (208) 387-6174.
Sincerely I
'- (:;;;--
.n II --I
/
Ryan McDaniel
Planner I
Right.of-way & Development Services
Ada County Highway District
CC: Project file, Utilities
City of Meridian
Pacific Links Ltd. Partnership
6800 North Spurwing Way
Meridian, 10 83642
Engineering Solutions, LLP -Becky McKay
150 East Aikens Street, Ste. B
Eagle, 10 83616
Ada County Highway District. 3775 Adams Street. Garden City, 10 · 83714 · PH 208-387-6100 . FX 345-7650. www.achd.ada.id.us
Project/File:
;:i~it~Right-O.f-Wlij1 & Development Services Department
~~"-
(k~utt;, ~
Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision I MPP06-045I MAZ-06-043I VAR-06-020
This is a Preliminary Plat Subdivision / Annexation and Zoning / Variance application
for 73-residentiallots and 6 common lots on 20.51 acres
lead Agency:
City of Meridian
Site address:
Northwest of the intersection of State Highway 20 & 26 and North Spurwing Way
Staff level
Approval:
September 5, 2006
Owners:
Spurwing Ltd Partnership
200 North Fourth Street, Ste. 203
Boise, 10 83702
Representative:
Pacific Links Ltd Partnership
6800 North Spurwing Way
Meridian, ID 83642
Engineering Solutions, LLP -Becky McKay
150 East Aikens Street, Ste. B
Eagle, ID 83616
Staff Contact:
Ryan McDaniel
Phone: 387-6174
Email: rmcdaniel@achd.ada.id.us
Tech Review:
August 31, 2006
Application Information:
Acreage: 20.51
Current Zoning: R-R
Proposed Zoning: R-8
Residential Lots: 73
Common Lots: 6
A. Findinqs of Fact
Existing Conditions
1. Site Information:
The site is currently an unimproved
area within the Spurwin9 Golf Course.
1
SpurwinA Patio Homes Subdivision
2.
Zoning
RR
RR
RR
RR
hole
hole
hole
3. Existing Roadway Improvements and Right~of-Way Abutting or Near the Site:
West Salata Court is currently improved with 2-traffic lanes, 36-feet of
pavement with curb, gutter and sidewalk adjacent to the site. Abutting the
site there is curb and gutter but no sidewalk. There is 50-feet of right-of-way
existing for West Salata Court( 25-feet from centerline).
4.
Existing Access:
5.
Site History:
Development Impacts
6.
Trip Generation:
7.
Impact Fees:
8.
Traffic Study:
9. Impacted Roadways:
North Spurwing Way is currently improved with 2-traffic lanes, 36-feet of
pavement with ribbon curb, gutter and sidewalk. There is 72-feet of right-of-
way existing for North Spurwing Way.
State Highway 20 & 26 is currently improved with 2-traffic lanes, and a center
turn lane only at North Spurwing Way, 40-feet of pavement with no curb,
gutter or sidewalk adjacent to the site. There is 64-feet of right-of-way
existing for State Highway 20 & 26 (38-feet from centerline). State Highway
20 & 26 is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department.
There is one delineated access point to West Salata Court from this property
and the site has frontage on State Highway 20 & 26.
ACHD has previously reviewed this site for a development application in 1994
with the Spurwing Subdivision Application.
This development is estimated to generate 622 additional vehicle trips per
day (0 existing) based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Single Family Detached Dwelling and Townhouse land use
designation.
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.
A traffic impact study was not required with this application.
Roadway Frontage Functional Traffic Count Level of Speed
Classification Service* Limit
West Salata 70-Feet Local Residential N/A Acceptable 20 MPH
Court planning
threshold for
this Road is
2000 ADT
State 40-Feet Principal Arterial 19,592 east of Under LOS "0" 50 MPH
Highway 20 & Road on 6/8/05
26 17,426 west of Under
2 SDurwina Patio Homes Subdivision
North O-Feet
Spurwing
Way
*Acceptable level of serv
* Acceptable level of serv
10. Capital Improvements
There are currently no ro
are currently listed in the
with Under Road and Te
signal upgrades.
B. Findinas for C
1. West Salata Court
District Street Section
District policy 7204.4.2 s
will typically provide stre
sidewalks. The total stre
this width may be allowe
development. Concrete
from the curb 5-feet or m
Applicant Proposal:
The applicant proposes t
Salata Court.
Staff CommentlRecom
The applicant's proposal
within 50-feet of right-of-
application as proposed.
There is a small portion
have sidewalk. When S
1994, the site was outsid
curb, gutter and sidewal
in front of all lots and in f
With this application, the
complete this portion of
Court, the District would
the subject site to the ter
2. Entry Road and th
~
Road on 4/19/05
Local Residential N / A Acceptable 20 MPH
planning
threshold for
this Road is
2000 ADT
ice for a two-lane arterial roadway is "0" (14,000 ADT).
ice for a three-lane arterial roadway is "0" (17,000 ADT).
Plan/Five Year Work Program
adways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity of the project that
Five Year Work Program. The intersections of State Highway 20 & 26
n Mile Road are listed in the Capital Improvements Plan for widening and
onsideration
and Right-of-Way Policy:
tates, "developments with any buildable lot that is less that 1-acre in size
ets having a minimum pavement width of 32-feet with curb, gutter and
et width shall be 36-feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. Variations of
d, depending on traffic volumes forecast to be generated by the
sidewalks shall be a minimum of 5-feet in width unless they are separated
ore in which case the sidewalk shall be a minimum of 4-feet in width.
o construct curb, gutter and 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk on West
mendation:
to construct West Salata Court as one half of a 36-foot street section
way where the subject site abuts the roadway is approved with this
of the street located to the east of the subject site boundary that does not
purwing Subdivision was initially processed as a non-farm development in
e of the City Meridian's area of impact and the District could not require
k. The applicant voluntarily chose to construct the roadway improvements
ront of the club house to benefit the future residents.
applicant is not required to construct sidewalk off-site, which would
West Salata Court; however, since this site is adding trips to West Salata
support the applicant completing the sidewalk from the east property line of
minus of the existing sidewalk.
e Internal Public Roadways
~nllnAlinn P:lItin ~nmAJ;t ~lIhtiivictinn
District Street Section and Right-of-Way Policy:
District policy 7204.4.2 states, "developments with any buildable lot that is less that 1-acre in size
will typically provide streets having a minimum pavement width of 32-feet with curb, gutter and
sidewalks. The total street width shall be 36-feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. Variations of
this width may be allowed, depending on traffic volumes forecast to be generated by the
development. Concrete sidewalks shall be a minimum of 5-feet in width unless they are separated
from the curb 5-feet or more in which case the sidewalk shall be a minimum of 4-feet in width.
District Offset Policy:
District policy 7204.11.6, requires local roadways to align or offset a minimum of 125-feet from
another local roadway (measured centerline to centerline).
Applicant Proposal:
The applicant proposes to construct all the internal roadways as 36-foot street sections within 50-
feet of right-of-way complete with curb, gutter and 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk. The applicant
proposes to locate the internal roadways not closer than 125-feet form one another.
Staff Comment/Recommendation:
The applicant's proposal for the internal roadways is approved with this application as proposed.
3. Knuckles and Turnarounds
District 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 OO-square foot area.
District Knuckle Policy:
District policy District pOlicy 7202.7 and 7207.5 and the local Fire District standards require an
island within a knuckle to be constructed with the island being a minimum of 4-feet wide with a
minimum area of 1 DO-square feet and designed to safely channel traffic. The roadway around the
traffic island should maintain a minimum of a 29-foot street section. The design should be reviewed
and approved by ACHD's Development staff.
Applicant Proposal:
The applicant proposes one knuckle on the south side of West Tramore Drive and one standard
cul-de-sac turnaround at the intersection of North Dunloy Way and North Castle Bar Way.
Staff Comment/Recommendation:
The applicant's proposal for the knuckle and cul-de-sac turnaround is approved with this application
as proposed.
4. Emergency Access
Applicant Proposal:
The applicant is proposing an emergency vehicle access on State Highway 20 & 26 located at the
west property line.
Staff Comment/Recommendation:
The applicant should install some restrictive device to stop the potential for general use traffic
through the emergency vehicle access road. The device used to control access on the emergency
vehicle roadway shall be approved by the Meridian Fire Department.
4
SDUlwina Patio Homes Subdivision
5. Driveways
District Driveway Policy:
Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being
tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with District policy, 7207.9.1, the applicant should be
required to pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of
pavement of the roadway and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii abutting the existing
roadway edge.
District Driveway Width Policy:
District Policy 7207.9.3 restricts residential driveways to a maximum width of 20-feet.
District Driveway Offset Policy:
District policy 72-F4 (1) and 72-F4 (2), requires driveways located on local residential roadways to
offset a controlled and/or uncontrolled intersection a minimum of 50-feet (measured near edge to
near edge).
Applicant Proposal:
The applicant has not specifically identified the location of any driveways on the Preliminary Plat
application or site plan.
Staff Comment/Recommendation:
Staff understands that the driveway locations are to be determined at a later time. The applicant is
being provided the current policy in effect at this time and is directed to work with ACHD
Construction Services staff in attaining driveway approach permits.
6. District Tree Planters
District's Tree Planter Width Policy 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 a-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.
Applicant Proposal:
The applicant has not specifically identified trees on the Preliminary Plat application or site plan.
Staff Comment/Recommendation:
Staff understands that the use of trees may be determined at a later time. The applicant is being
provided the current policy in effect at this time and is directed to work with Development Review
Staff in regard to potentially planting trees in the public right-of-way.
c. Site Specific Conditions of AR)lroval
1. Construct West Salata Court as one half of a 36-foot street section within 50-feet of right-of-way
complete with curb, gutter and 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk.
2. Locate the entry road intersecting West Balata Court as proposed.
3. Construct all the internal roadways as 36-foot street sections within 50-feet of right-of-way complete
with curb, gutter and 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk.
" ~ftllftA,i"n P!ilti^ ....^"'ACl: ~lIhlfi\liCl:i^"
4. Locate and construct one knuckle on the south side of West Tramore Drive and one standard cul-
de-sac turnaround at the intersection of North Dunloy Way and North Castle Bar Way.
5. Construct emergency access at the southwest corner of West Tramore Drive, as proposed. Utilize
some restrictive device to inhibit the possibility for cut-thru or general use traffic within the
emergency access. The device used to control access on the emergency vehicle roadway shall be
approved by the Meridian Fire Department and submitted to ACHD in writing.
6.
7. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
D. Standard Conditions of AlUJroval
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 issuaflce 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 is 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
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.
I::: ~r"''''A,i"ft Ps+i^ "'^nu:..:. c:::..hrli\lie:i^"
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.
7 ~nll".,in" D!:Iti.... ~I'\rn...c: ~lIhrli\lic:inn
Attachments
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan
3. Appeal Guidelines
4. Devalo ment Process Checklist
R
~nlll'\Alin" PlItin I-Inmillloct ~lIhrli\lictinn
on
~~ : - ~ ~ ~
~ I.
1;. ~ Ii
ill I I
~ I t
I'
~
Is
~
"'. ___"":.'.":::::_:,~,r...,
=lj::a:Cli~~1
mlm
~:~~~~: i
._~~.-
mml~
~n~551
.......
mml
I
~
. i
~
!/
I,
l!l .. . .. ~ . B~
" '1 fll- ,~
," I
"
~ .ril6 e:!~
~ " n;~
ill i~!
q, ~I d ~!I ~I
ij ~
I ~ ~ i!l~ ~r;
i
; ! ~ ~ SP1JWlNG uno BODS ENS/MEERING ...... PlANNER I CONTACT DEvELOPER OWNERS OF RECORD
- LJ 5. SUBDIVlSION '80LlJTlONS.. """"" ....., """"".............. ~L:IJ~I'i\CiR';LIIIII:liI.-.~
:0 - .. ~ i PREUlMNARY PlAT '.. Co.-:t115 =un: CI :ZOO"'..;HliI'.=ao:a ~J1.4Msr..a= . 1l.,.dHC'..At 2IIlI
m :: i'~ ~ """"'.1Hi.1/'""""''II,,.....,.,... .. ~-.oo~frll ==-=-:&~=: ~Dmg, --- -._""" --"""
';'cf:t:= ~~l!IIlI-1q:Q ~ ~ __l~ 1'tIIfI._~1Gl
S _.._._ It-. _ ___ rar D-Ott1 .~.IIiP_.__1IIII
"'__I#_~
9
SnUlwinn Patio Homes Subdivision
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.
10
~nllrwinn P::atin t-Inm~J;t ~lIhtiiviJ;tinn
II
Development Process Checklist
II
~Submit a development application to a City or to the County
~The City or the County will transmit the development application to ACHD
IElThe ACHD Planning Review Division will receive the development application to review
~The Planning Review Division will do Q!!g 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. .
~Write a Staff Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating
the proposal for its conformance to District Policy.
OWrite a Commission Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and
evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Policy.
~The 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 set of engineered plans directly to ACHD for review by the Development Review
Division for plan review and assessment of impact fees. (Note: if there are no site improvements required by
ACHD, then architectural plans may be submitted for purposes of impact fee calculation.)
· The applicant is required to get a permit from Construction Services (ACHD) for ANY work in the right-of-way,
including, but not limited to, driveway approaches, street improvements and utility cuts.
DPay Impact Fees prior to issuance of building permit. Impact fees cannot be paid prior to plan review approval.
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 s.t. 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 Stormwater
Division.
o Idaho Power Company
· Vic Steelman at Idaho Power must have his IPCO 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.
11
~nl"'Ulli"n Patin I-Inm".c: ~llhl'livic:in"
'\0\
\
('i--.I"1 ~~EEI~fTATRARR'^TcMlLTlN~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
... Environmental Health Division
Rezone #
Conditional Use #
Preliminary / Final/Short Plat
01.
02.
03.
04.
05.
06.
07.
47- 6(, -oV?
Return to:
o Boise
DEagle
o Garden City
~eridian
o Kuna
OACZ
Star
j?~ 06 -- O'/,r
~/"""~ C:le-' ~6'J b~
We have No Objections to this Proposal.
AUG 3 ri 200li
We recommend Denial of this Proposal. City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal.
We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of:
o high seasonal ground water 0 waste flow characteristics
o or bedrock from original grade 0 other
This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters andlor
surface waters.
This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and
water availability.
~ After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
~I sewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water well
o interim sewage ~tral water
o individual sewage 0 individual water
~he following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division of Environmental Quality:
~rrtralsewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water
o sewage dry lines ~ral water
k Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
o 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
o 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State
Sewage Regulations.
o 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
o food establishment 0 swimming pools or spas
o beverage establishment 0 grocery store
o child care center
Date: --.fLj...2fjO-"
Reviewed By: d..- ~
o 14. Please see attached stormwater management recommendations
o 15.
15726-001 EH0904
Review Sheet
Oct 11 2006 3:29PM
Engineering Solutions
209 939 0941
p. 1
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ~
COUNTY OF ADA )
I, Shari Sti1es~ Engineering Solutions. LLP, 150 E. Aikens Stree4 Suite B, Eagle, Idaho. 83616, being duly
swo~ 1,lpOn oath" depose and say:
I did personally post the subject property on the -fh day of October 2006 with the hearing signs. This is in
compliance with the ten (10) day posting as required by the City of Meridian for public hearings. Signs
were posted for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision.
Dated this
11 th day of
October
,2006.
c)k~
(Signature)
",
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written.
/IG
,.. ..............
';..c.CA L. ..ft. '.,~
r a1I"V:' .... c~...~
ti'j "OT A.t ~.,L '\
.. ..
-.- . ..
: .
JllI1B\.\C,./ i
tP". '-:'0 I
";, ....5... ~ A'
~#~~r.IJ Of \~~~-
"fQI1,,_..'"
My Commission Expires'
C:\Doeuments IIlIcI SettiDp\200S\11\S1l29\AFJlIDPOSTlNG.P&Z.doc
1
"'<
c
, "'. ~ (::-.:..<~:
['. ~-
.~,..
t-:, ~.
~
;;.'PAfCj
:"~~,--~.".
"-
':'~~i\:"
~'.;-~
'-"-..
<,,:I~,,:,,= :'
~..A:-~~
;.,~-."
.:=:;'.":)L~:'
'. L'_~-..-
:.'-=..::..1"-
Public Hearing - Meridian - US 20-26 - Spurwing Patio homes Subdivision
Page 1 of 1
Machelle Hill
From: Sonya Watters
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:22 AM
To: Machelle Hill; Sharon Smith; Tara Green; Will Berg
Subject: FW: Public Hearing - Meridian - US 20-26 - Spurwing Patio homes Subdivision
From: Sue Sullivan [mailto:Sue.Sullivan@itd.idaho.gov]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 20062:04 PM
To: Sonya Watters
Subject: Public Hearing - Meridian - US 20-26 - SpurwinQ Patio homes Subdivision
"
. ,
I~, .' I
:"\ -"',
.'. .."..-
Sonja,
This is just to let you know that the applicant has not applied to ITD for the emergency access to US 20-26 shown
on their plans.
Please note, the main access at spurwing will not be signalized in the future, so it is prudent to consider how may
households would be added to the intersection. I suspect the predominant movement from the subdivision would
be left turns onto the highway. Over time, congestion on the highway will make this a more difficult movement.
Since the development is not directly adjacent to the highway I have no comments on other issues such as
setback, noise abatement and pathways.
Thanks,
sue SuUtvClPt
Senior Transportation Planner
Idaho Transportation Department
District Three
(208) 334-8955 Office (208) 334-8917 Fax
E-Mail: sue.sullivan@itd.idaho.gov
10/1312006