HomeMy WebLinkAboutParkstone Subdivision AZ 02-033
February 18. 2003
AZ 02-033
February 20, 2003
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Hillview Development. Corp.
ITEM NO.
5
REQUEST Public Hearing - Request for annexation and zoning of 104.77 acres from RUT to R-8
zones for proposed Parkstone Subdivision - west of North Eagle Road and north of East Ustick
Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTlERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See lelters from Karl & Cheryl Smith. John & Shllley Schey & Linda & Marty Lindgren 1 \ \e1l1f.,
Contact~d' Date:.2....jg/D3 Phone: c..;fq-,~q(JL(
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:
See attached Staff Comments
See attached Comments
"Ok per Meridian Water Departmenf'
"No Commenf'
Re('O", mend Af:provOJ
40 CL+o CClUnw
"No Commenf'
See attached Comments
"We have No Objections to this Proposal"
No Comment
i~ meetings shall become property of lhe City 01 Meridian.
ltECB~ro ' ?-.IP I C~
~"~ ~/J.tp?4Z
C\1'I Of ME1<\OIJ'J'l /1'"
cl1'l CLa<\\ Off\r,F ' ~ ,1, ;20<> 2
~ (j"~.,t~ ~-_/
JE~~~
~.dU:w'.IJ ~ $ at. 7i' 2-
---------
II{' V'~~.
/J1i.I' ~ d ~)
Jl.ft/"~;r.tv.1 ;tb- k'-~- 7~
~~~k~
5> A' -1 r:.." ' . ,
~ A -1 J-":' P' ;tk- ~
-I'-I'~ ~ a,v ;{UI,:1. ~ '
;:t.W 1?-1 ~~ J4W~~
~::~ :::;:::~~
c:v~.
fr ~ ..;.,.v ~ M'<V tVV~
~ ~ ;;Civ 1?-3 J.-': ~ ~~
~..#'-' ~ ~ ~ 1f-1- T'
,~id.t~ ~_3 r"'~~
~~~~Jv~~
~~~~~'
'7~~~ft~~
~;tkv rf"':/- 8;liJ' /?- if
.~~~
4.-J~
MAYOR
Robert D. Corrie
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Tammy deW~erd
Keith Bird
Cherie McCandless
William LM. Nary
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 888-4433 . FAX (208) 887-4813
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218
MEMORANDUM:
To:
Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
David McKinnon, Planner II NA ~
Bruce Freckleton, Senior E~ri~g Tech ~
From:
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 288-2499 . Fax 288-250 1
PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 898-5500 . Fax 887-1297
PLANNING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533. FAX 888-6854
February 20,2002
RECEIVED
FEB 1 42003
Parkstone Subdivision City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
. Annexation and Zoning of 104.7 Acres from RUT (Ada County) to R.8
(Medium Density Residential District), by Hillview Development Corporation
(File No. AZ-02-033).
Re:
. Preliminary Plat Approval of Three Hundred and Thirty-four (334) Building
Lots and Thirty-four (34) Other Lots on 104.7 Acres in a Proposed R-8 Zone,
by Hillview Development Corporation (File No. PP-02-033).
. Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Planned Development Consisting of
Two Hundred and Seventy-five (275) Single Family Detached Building Lots,
Fifty-two (52) Townhouse Lots, Four (4) Office Lots, Two (2) Commercial
Lots, One (1) Mini-Storage Lot, One (I) Pocket Park, One (1) City
"Neighborhood" Park and Thirty-two (32) Common Lots on 104.7 Acres in a
proposed R-8 Zone. The Proposed Planned Development Includes a Request
to Allow a Land Use Exception (Office/Commercial Uses in a Proposed R-8
Zone), Reduced Lot Sizes, Reduced Frontage Requirements, Reduced
Setbacks, Reduced House Sizes and to Exceed Block Length Requirements,
by Hillview Development Corporation (File No. CUP-02-049).
We have reviewed the above referenced submittaIs and otTer the foUowing comments, as
conditions of approvaL These conditions shall he considered in full, unless expressly
modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council:
ArPLICA TIOli SUMMARY
The applicant, Hillview Development Corporation, has applied for the Annexation and Zoning,
Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit approval of a Planned Development consisting of
368 lots on 104.7 acres ofland located on the north side of Us tick Road, approximately a '.4 mile
west of Eagle Road and a '.4mile east of Locust Grove. The land is presently zoned RUT, and the
applicants have requested that upon annexation, all of the property be zoned R-8.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
February 20, 2003
Page 2
The applicant's preliminary plat approval request is for 334 building lots (275 single-family
detached building lots, 52 townhouse lots, 4 office lots, 2 commercial building lots, a mini-
storage lot) and 34 "other" lots. The "other" lots include a 6.03 acre City park, an irrigation
pond, a 1 acre "pocket" park, pedestrian pathways (micro-paths), landscape buffers and open
space/drainage lots. The proposed residential lot sizes range from the proposed minimum lot size
of 3,883 square feet for a townhouse lot up to a 19,710 square foot single family detached
housing lot. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 2.92 dwelling units per acre and the
net density of the subdivision is 4.68 dwelling units per acre. The project is a multi-phase
development with nine (9) separate phases.
The Planned Development application includes requests to allow reduced development standards
including reduced setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced frontages, and reduced house sizes and to
allow blocks within the subdivision to exceed length maximums (1000'+). The following is a
comparison of the City's minimum requirements and the reduced requirements that have been
proposed by the applicant:
Setbacks-
City Requirements (R-8)
Front: 15' living area, 20' garage
Rear: 15'
Side: 5' Iper story
Street side: 20'
Proposed Setbacks (single family)
Front: 20' or 15' for non-front entry garage
Rear: 15'
Side: 5' single story and two story buildings
Street side: 20'
(Attached single family dwellings will have
a zero [0'] side setback and a 15' side street
setback)
(Note: Setbacks for commercial and office uses, will meet City designated setbacks)
Lot Size- City Requirements (R-8)
6,500 sq.ft. (detached)
4,000sq.ft. (attached)
Lot Frontage- City Reauirements (R-8)
65'minimum (detached)
40' minimum (cul-de-sac)
Proposed Lot Sizes
5,888 sq.ft. (detached)
3,883 sq.ft. (attached)
Proposed Frontage
60' minimum (detached)
25' minimum (cul-de-sac)
House Size- City Requirements (R-8)
1,301 sq. ft. (detached)
Proposed Minimum Size
1,200 sq. ft. (detached)
Additionally, as part of the planned development request, the applicant has requested a twenty
percent (20%) land use exception to permit office uses, commercial uses and a mini-storage
facility in the proposed R-8 zone. The four (4) office lots contain 2.09 acres, the commercial lots
contain 1.18 acres and the mini-storage use contains 10.12 acres ofland, totaling 13.39 acres of
land, or approximately fourteen percent (14%) of the gross area of the development. The
applicant has not submitted detailed plans for the commercialloffice uses or the mini-storage use
and is requesting only conceptual approval of the aforementioned uses. The proposed
commercial uses will require a detailed conditional use permit in the future, prior to
development.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
February 20, 2003
Page 3
The applicant has proposed the following amenities to fulfill the requirement of the Planned
Development Ordinance to provide at least two amenities: A one (1) acre pocket park with a full
basketball court, seven (7) micro-path lots (with connections to the proposed park), and a 6.03
acre park to be donated to the City of Meridian.
There is not a school site proposed within the proposed subdivision; however, the City has
recently approved a new elementary school adjacent to the northwest edge of the proposed
subdivision.
The owner of record has requested that the City of Meridian recognize the existing and historical
agricultural uses on the subject property. The uses include farming practices and grazing
privileges for 150 head of cattle. The property owner has requested that they be allowed to retain
the rights to raise 150 head of cattle during construction of the development as a legal non-
conforming use. The applicant has agreed to end all livestock use of the property by the end of
2005 (12/21/2005.)
The legal description submitted with the application appears to meet the requirements of the City
of Meridian and State Tax Commission and places the parcel contiguous to existing city limits.
The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area and essential City services are or
can be made available to the subject property.
CURRENT OWNERS OF RECORD
Tom and Sue Davis are the current property owners and they have submitted an affidavit oflegal
interest to allow Hillview Development to apply for the three subject applications.
LOCATION
The property is located on the north side ofUstick Road, approximately a Yo mile east of Locust
Grove (adjacent to Summerfield Subdivision) and a Yo mile west of Eagle Road. The property
has approximately 1/3 ofa mile of frontage on Ustick Road and extends north of Us tick Road
approximately a Y2 mile.
SURROUNDING PROPERTlES
North: Heritage Subdivision (1+ acre lots), zoned R-t (Ada County) and a large single family
home on several acres, zoned RUT (Ada County).
South: Rural residential lots, zoned RUT and R-I (Ada County)
East: Summerfield Subdivision (single family residential), and the Education Campus (new
elementary and charter high school site) zoned R-4.
West: Rural residential, zoned RUT (Ada County), (depicted as "Regional Mixed Use" on the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map).
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
February 20, 2003
Page 4
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS
According to Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both
the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances
of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate
evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment."
The following is the list of standards found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff:
A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with aud in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment;
Staff finds that the requested zoning designation, R-8, is harmonious with and in
accordance with the effective Comprehensive Plan ('02) and the Future Land Use
Map, which designates the land to be "Medium Density Residential" with a
Community Park. The park indicated on the comprehensive plan at this location is
intended to be a community park rather than a neighborhood park as proposed by
the applicant.
The Comprehensive Plan also indicates that the subject property should have a
"Multi Use" pathway running north-south through the middle of the proposed
subdivision. Page 54 of the Comprehensive plan addresses the issue of pathways
and states that they should be in compliance with the Parks and Recreation
Comprehensive Plan (not yet adopted) and that the pathway should be located
"off street".
The applicant has indicted that they are willing to install a 10' asphalt multi-use
pathway along the east side of N. Park Place Way. The pathway can cross
Nakano Drive and proceed west to the pocket park and north along the edge of the
park to the pedestrian pathway (lot 16, block 19.) A multi-use pathway can be
added through block 18. This will align with the N. Conley Avenue stub street,
providing a pedestrian outlet to the north for future pathway extension. This issue
is discussed in further detail on page 9 below under preliminary plat additional
considerations.
Please review the Parks Department comments concerning the proposed
neighborhood park and need for a pathway within the subdivision.
The applicant's request to continue raising ISO head of cattle on this property
during development does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan's residential
designation of the subject property; however, staff does not object to the
continued agricultural use of the subject property during the phased construction
of the project. Please see site specific annexation comment #3 below.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
February 20, 2003
Page 5
B. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in tbe
future;
Staff does not anticipate that the applicant intends to rezone the subject property
in the future. The commercial uses (i.e. office, commercial and mini-storage) are
allowable as excepted uses if approved as part of the overall planned
development. Staff recommends that the land used for office use be rezoned to L-
0, and likewise the commercial property be re-zoned to CoG rather than R-8 as
proposed. The applicant should submit new legal descriptions for the properties to
be annexed, broken down by new zoning designations. This recommendation is
included in the annexation site specific comment number 2 below.
C. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the
fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning -for example, a
residential area turning into a commercial area by means of conditional use
permits;
Staff finds that the proposed single family residential subdivision with some
commercial uses would be allowed within the requested R-8 zone, if accompanied
with a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development
D. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that
the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new
railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed
in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area;
Staff finds that the land to the north and west of the property are developed in a
residential manner similar to the proposed subdivision and the land on the eastern
side of the proposed subdivision will most likely be developed in a commercial or
higher intensity use. Staff finds that the requested zoning designation of R-8 is
harmonious with the recently approved adjacent developments and should be
rezoned in the requested manner.
E. Will the proposed uses be designed, coustructed, operated and maiutained to
be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the e:tisting or intended
character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the
essential character of the same area;
Staff finds that the proposed uses (single family residential, office, commercial
and mini-storage) will not change the existing (single family) or intended
character (single family and mixed use) of the area.
F. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses;
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
February 20,2003
Page 6
The Commission and Council should rely on public testimony (oral and written)
to determine whether or not the proposed uses will be disturbing or hazardous to
the existing or future neighboring uses.
Staff does not anticipate that the proposed residential uses will be hazardous or
disturbing to future or existing neighbors.
G. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services
such as highways, streets, police and fU'e protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal. water, sewer or that the person responsible for the
establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide
adequately any ofsuch services;
Staff finds that the property to be annexed will or can be served adequately by all
essential public facilities and services. Applicant shall be required to extend
water and sanitary sewer mains to and through the proposed development, thereby
making them available to the adjacent properties.
Please review ACHD, Police and the Fire Department's comments concerning
this subdivision for further information regarding public services and facilities
The applicant has requested that the Davis home located near the southeast corner
be allowed to wait to hook up to City services until such time as the phasing for
the project brings services to the existing house. Staff does not object to this
request as noted in site specific comment number I below.
H. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of
the community;
Staff finds that there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost
for public services and facilities and that the annexation and zoning will not be
detrimental to the community's economic welfare.
I. Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any
persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of
traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not create excessive traffic, noise or
other nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the
surrounding area.
Staff recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase significantly upon
build-out of the proposed subdivision; however staff does not feel that the amount
generated will be detrimental to the public welfare of the city.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
February 20, 2003
Page 7
J, Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so
designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
Staff finds that the subdivision's vehicular approaches off of Ustick Road will
create new interference with the existing east-west traffic on Ustick Road,
however staff does not believe that the subdivision entrances will cause
significant interference on the surrounding public streets.
Please review ACHD comments concerning vehicular approaches and traffic
generation.
K. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance; and
Staff finds that no natural or scenic features of major importance will be lost or
damaged by approving the annexation and re-zone. Any existing trees larger than
4" caliper that are removed shall be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance.
L. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of
Meridian. (Onl. 592, 11-17-1992)?
Staff fmds services are available to the site and that the inclusion of a new City
Park within the subdivision makes the annexation of this property in the best
interest of the City.
ANEXATION AND ZONING CONDTIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are
available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation. The Davis home (2740 Ustick) shall connect to City services when the
phase of the proposed subdivision that includes the house is submitted for final plat.
2. The applicant shall submit new legal descriptions of the property to be annexed that match
the zoning district to the use proposed by the applicant (i.e. office uses should be rezoned L-
0, Commercial uses should be rezoned to CoG etc...) for staff approval prior to final
approval of the annexation.
3. A Development Agreement shall be entered into between the Developer and the City of
Meridian that will require, among other conditions that all future commercial uses obtain
detailed conditional use permits prior to development, the placement of limits on the hours of
operation of the commercial uses, the continued use of the land for agricultural and livestock
purposes (150 head of cattle) until 12/21/05, park construction/dedication and the pathway
construction and dedication.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
February 20, 2003
Page 8
PRELIMINARY PLAT FIlSDlNGS AND REOUIREMENTS
Sections 12-3-3 1.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance of a proposed
subdivision, the Commission/Council shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the
following:
a. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan;
Staff finds the subdivision to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
b. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
Staff finds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development.
c. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement
program;
Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement
funds.
d. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
developmellt;
Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing
supporting services.
e. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the
Commission's attention.
Staff finds that there should not be any other health, safety or environmental problems
associated with this subdivision that may be brought to the Council or Commission's
attention.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Interconnectivity: The applicant has designed the subdivision with one (1) stub-street to provide
interconnectivity with future development to the north. Staff strongly supports the proposed stub
street and we encourage the inclusion of additional pedestrian pathways to increase
interconnectivity in the following locations:
1. Add a pedestrian pathway the property in the northeast corner of the subdivision; a
possible location for the path is adjacent to Lot 25, Block 15 extending to the eastern
property line. The pathway would provide access to the adjacent commercial
development without providing vehicular access into the subdivision that could lead to
cut through traffic. Staff does not yet know how the development to the east will be
designed and a path at this location may not be viable if the pathway leads to a loading
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
February 20, 2003
Page 9
dock or back of a big box store; however failure to place a pathway at this location now
will eliminate any possibility of future connectivity.
2. Extend a pathway from the end of E. Nakano Drive to the western property line to
provide connection to the Hollister property to the west thereby breaking up the longest
block within the proposed subdivision.
Both of these recommendations are included in site specific condition of approval number 10
below
Block Length: Blocks 1, 9, 12, 15 and 19 all exceed the maximum block length of 1,000 feet
(MCC 12-4-5). The project is a planned development and therefore a variance is not required for
the proposed development. Staff does not object to the proposed block lengths, nevertheless the
Commission and Council should determine if the block lengths are appropriate for the proposed
development.
Multi-Use Pathways: As noted in the above findings for the annexation request, the applicant did
not originally propose the construction of an off street multi-use pathway through the
subdivision, (in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan). The pathway should be in an
easement and in accordance with the Parks Department design criteria. As noted above, the
applicant has indicated to staff that they will provide a multi-use pathway and will provide a
revised plat indicating the location of the pathway.
Modifications could be made to the plat that could place the pathway on the east side of the
collector roadway (N. Park Place Way) within the twenty foot (20') wide landscape buffer. At
the north end of the collector, the pathway could cross E. Nakano Drive onto Lot 25 Block 19
and travel westerly to the proposed pocket park. After traversing through the park area the path
could continue north through the proposed micro-path lot (Lot 16, Block 19), and finally
crossing across E Wigle Drive. At this point a new pathway lot would need to be created to cross
through Block 18 to provide access to E Troxel Drive and the northern boundary of the
Subdivision. The pathway could then cross E. Troxel Drive and be placed within a detached
sidewalk to connect to the Jasmine Acres Property to the north.
The scenario discussed above can be modified to prevent the pathway from being part of the
sidewalk system within the subdivision by modifying the plat in a manner that would move the
micro-path lot within Block 19 (Lot 16) to the east or west one or possibly two lots. Accordingly,
the new pathway lot within Block 18 would have to be moved to the west or east to align with
the pathway lot in Block 19 and a new pathway lot that could be created within Block 17 to
provide pathway access to the Jasmine Acres property to the north. Staff finds that re-aligning
the pathway to the east would be a better way to accommodate the re-development of the
Jasmine Acres property; however, either re-alignment would keep the pathway system separate
from the sidewalk system and would allow the path to be located off street.
Many modifications, other than those listed above, could be made to modifY the plat to include
an off-street multi-use pathway system, however staff would prefer that the pathway system not
include any sidewalks and that the pathway system be located off-street as much as possible.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
February 20,2003
Page 10
Staff recommends that the applicant provide a pathway through-out the subdivision and that an
additional condition of approval shall be added to the plat comments requiring a pathway. Please
see site specific comment number 13 below.
Reduced Lot Requirements: The lots dimensions within the proposed subdivision are less than
those required by the current Zoning Ordinance and would not be permitted without the
applicant's request for a Planned Development. Staff does not object to the requested reduced
dimensions of the
SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS I PRELIMlNARY PLAT
1. Sanitary sewer and water service to this site shall be via main line extensions from the
existing mains adjacent to the property. Applicant will be responsible to construct the
sewer and water mains to and through this proposed development, thereby making them
available to adjacent properties. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and
routing with the Public Works Department.
2. The applicant has indicated that a pressurized irrigation system will be provided within
this development, and has indicated that it will be a private system, owned and
maintained by the Parkstone Homeowners Association. Please revise the plat to show
how the system is going to be served (i.e. connection to an existing system, or
independent pumping facilities) Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be
provided to all lots within this development. The City of Meridian requires that
pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. Applicant
shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a
surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water
system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer shall be
responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on
the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer.
3. A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the final plat. A solid
fence shall be required around the perimeter of the subdivision unless the City agrees in
writing that such a fence is not required. Fencing adjacent to the proposed City Park shall
be approved of by the Parks Commission prior to submission of the detailed fencing plan.
A note restricting the fencing adjacent to the park shall be added to the Final Plat.
4. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted with the final plat application. The detailed
landscape plan shall include a 20' landscape buffer between land uses adjacent to west
side of Lot 3, Block 15 (the Mini-storage lot) and the western boundary of Lots 2 and 5
of Block 7 (Office Lots) as required by the Landscape Ordinance.
5. Detached sidewalks shall be required along the entire Ustick Road frontage and adjacent
to the designated collector roadways.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
February 20, 2003
Page 11
6. A circulation pump or other means of preventing the irrigation pond from becoming
stagnant shall be required to prevent the pond from becoming stagnant and thereby
becoming a nuisance.
7. Add micro-paths in the following locations:
. In between Lots 48 and 49, Block 12,
. In between Lots 24 and 25, Block 15.
8. Add or revise the following preliminary plat notes:
'Correct the "Preliminary Plat Development Features Data" to reflect the requested R-8
zoning designation (instead ofR-4 as shown).
'Add a note to the face of the plat restricting direct lot access to Ustick Road unless
specifically permitted by ACHD and the City of Meridian, excepting the existing single
family dwelling on Ustick Road. When the residential use of the home ceases access shall
be from the interior streets.
. Add a note to the face of the plat that requires any re-subdivision of this plat to be in
compliance with the most recently approved subdivision standllIds of the City of
Meridian.
. Add a note to the face of the plat that restricts fencing adjacent to the pathways within
the subdivision to being no greater than four feet in height if solid sight-obscuring
material is used for fence construction. .
'Delete the reference to lots 1, 16 & 25, Block 18 in note number 3.
9. Phasing for the overall project may be modified by staff level approval, provided written
explanation of phasing changes llIe provided by the applicant and final plat approval
request of said phases are contiguous to previously approved phases.
10. The plat shall be revised to include a multi-use pathway that connects the southern
boundary of the property with the northern boundary of the property, in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan and Parks Department design guidelines.
11. Extend the sanitary sewer main in Ustick Road to a point south of Lot 5, Block 7.
12. Ten (10) copies ofa revised plat shall be submitted to the City Clerk's Office at least ten
days prior to the next public hearing for this plat.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
February 20, 2003
Page 12
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Please submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's approval letter for the
subdivision name, and the lot and block numbering. Make any corrections necessary to
conform.
2. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
3. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing,
landscaping, play equipment, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to
signature on the final plat.
4. All pathways within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in accordance with MCC
12-13-15 "Micropath Landscaping".
5. A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the landscape ordinance shall be submitted
for the subdivision with the final plat application, the landscape plan shall include the
location and design of the playground equipment,
6. Sidewalks within the proposed subdivision shall be built in accordance with MCCI2-13-
10-8.
7. 100-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the
Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense.
Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations
and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power
Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public
Works Department prior commencing installations.
8. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting,
crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per
City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owner's), with written
approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users
association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the
meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature.
9. Please submit all updated groundwater/soils reports to the Public Works Department for
review. Any drainage areas (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that
water is retained only during 100-year storm events, and for a period of time not to
exceed 24 hours. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3: 1.
10. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by
installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that
were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for
those trees that have to be removed.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
February 20, 2003
Page 13
11. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
12. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their 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.
13. Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all
building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
14. Applicant's engineer will be required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifYing
that all street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the
highest established normal groundwater elevation.
STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USES
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed conditional use in terms of the following and may approve a conditional use permit if
they shall fmd evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (11-17-3):
A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open
spaces, parking landscaping and other features as may be required by this
ordinance;
Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested use
and all other required features as noted above.
B. That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance;
The current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the property as "Medium
Density Residential". Staff finds that the proposed residential uses are harmonious with
and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
The project is being proposed as a conditional use for a planned development in order to
allow reduced lot sizes, reduced street frontages, and reduced setbacks. If the project is
approved as a Planned Development, it will meet the minimum requirements of the
MCC.
C. Tbat the design, construction, operation, and maintenance wiD be compatible with
other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential
character of the same area;
Staff finds that the proposed residential subdivision use will be harmonious with the
intended and existing character of the area.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
February 20, 2003
Page 14
D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,
will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity;
Staff does not anticipate that the proposed project will have an adverse impact on other
properties within the vicinity; however, the Commission and Council should consider any
testimony (written and oral) presented at the public hearings before making this finding.
E. That the proposed use wlll be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services sucb as highways, street, police, and tire protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of
proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services;
Staff finds that the proposed development will be adequately served by the essential
public facilities and services listed above.
F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public
cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic
welfare of the community;
Staff finds that the proposed use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community, nor would it create the need for any new facilities or services to be paid for
by the public that would be considered excessive.
G. That tbe proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment,
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare or odors;
Staff finds that there will be an increase in traffic and noise in the general vicinity if the
subdivision is approved, but that approval of the subdivision will not lead to a major
increase in smoke, fumes, glare, odors or other disturbances that will be considered
detrimental to the welfare of the City and the subdivision's neighbors.
H. That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to tbe property which shall be
so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
Staff finds that the proposed use will not create significant interference with any traffic
on the surrounding public streets.
Please review the ACHD report for this project for additional information regarding this
finding.
L That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or bistoric feature considered to be of major importance.
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
February 20,2003
Page 15
Staff does not find that any natural or scenic feature will be lost, damaged or destroyed
by issuance of this conditional use. Existing trees greater than 4" caliper must be retained
or mitigated for, ifremoved.
FINDINGS FOR USE EXCEPTIONS WITHIN A PLAJ'fflED DEVEWPMENT
MCC 12-6-3 "Use Exceptions" require the Commission and Council to make the following
findings in order to authorize specific uses that are not normally pennitted by the use regulations
of the zone in which the development is located (no more than 20% of the gross area of the gross
project):
1. The uses permitted by the exception are strongly related to the principal use of the
development. and have the purpose of providing services or facilities useful or
complementary to the primary use.
Staff finds that the office/commercial and mini. storage uses are related to the primary use of
the development (R-B). The office uses can provide services (medical, dental, optical etc...)
that will be complementary to the residents of the subdivision, and will provide employment
opportunities as well. The mini-storage use is often associated with residential use and the
commercial property is adjacent to commercial property.
The mixing of residential uses and commercial uses will encourage the office development to
be constructed in a manner that will be pedestrian friendly in design. The proposed medium-
density housing will provide an immediate consumer base for the office/commercial
development.
2. No more than twenty percent (20%) ofthe total area of the project shall be devoted
to the uses permitted by the exception. The percentage of use exception allowed will
be determined by the Commission and Council based upon the size of the project
and intensity of the use exceptions.
Staff finds that the office/multiple-family housing/commercial uses are less than 20% of
the total area ofland included in the planned development.
Staff finds that the size and intensity of the excepted uses is appropriate for this location
and size of development.
3. The development will be phased so that construction of the excepted use or uses will
be justified by construction of all or a proportionate amount oftbe principal or
primary use or uses.
Staff finds that the excepted uses (office, mini-storage and commercial) will be phased
and constructed in a manner that justifies there inclusion as part of the project's primary
residential uses.
4. Tbe uses permitted by the exception are integrated into the overall project by:
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
February 20,2003
Page 16
a. Being located in proximity to and within convenient walking distance of the
primary uses.
Staff finds that the office/commercial uses are located along the eastern and
southern periphery of the overall development. Staff finds that the excepted uses are
within convenient walking for many of the residents within the proposed
subdivision.
b. Utilizing one or more of the main vehicular accesses to the primary use site as
the main access to the exception site or inten:onnection through a system of
private roadways and/or pathways.
Staff finds that the site design incorporates interconnectivity though shared
vehicular access points. The applicant has provided a pathway system and has
proposed a private roadway system for access to the excepted uses from the
proposed residential uses.
c. Providing pedestrian and bicycle pathway connections with the primary use
site.
Staff finds that, with the addition of the micro-path lot in townhouse part of the
subdivision, the applicant will provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle
connections with the development.
d. Orienting buildings on the exception site to facilitate vehicular and/or
pedestrian access from the primary use site.
Staff finds that the excepted uses are located in a manner that will facilitate
vehicular access from the residential uses.
e. Continuing arehitecture, landscaping, and building bulk concepts from the
primary use into the use of the exception site so they are consistent and
harmonious throughout the development.
Staff finds that the landscaping is consistent throughout the development.
Architectural and building bulk concepts will need to be submitted with a new
detailed conditional use permits for each of the future office, commercial and mini
storage uses.
The Commission and Council should determine what, if any, architecturaVdesign
concepts (residential and/or commercial) should be incorporated into all buildings
within this development at this time.
5. The use(s) permitted by the exception are neighborhood or community serving in
size and character and not regional, and are not detrimental to adjacent
neighborhoods in location and character.
Staff finds that the office, commercial and mini-storage uses are not regional in size
or character.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
February 20,2003
Page 17
SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS (Conditional Use Permit)
1. Applicant shall meet all of the requirements of the preliminary plat as a condition of the
Conditional Use Permit.
2. All development shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair
Housing Act.
3. A new detailed Conditional Use Permit will be required prior to development of any of
the commercial, office or mini-storage lots within the Parkstone Subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation/rezone, preliminary plat, and conditional
use permit with the aforementioned findings and conditions.
,
RECEIVED
FEB 1 3 2003
2/13/03
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
To the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee-
My husband and I are residents of the Summerfield Subdivision here in Meridian and we
recently received a notice concerning the Parkstone Subdivision that is in the planning
stages for the area to the east of us. We are very concerned about the density of houses
that is proposed to be built in that subdivision. Our major concerns are overcrowding the
new school much sooner that anticipated, increased traffic congestion around the area,
decreased property values, and irrigation water supply.
I was a member of the boundary committee that drew the boundaries for the new school
located off of Locust Grove Road. The Parkstone Subdivision's application implies that
because it is being built next to a new school that the addition of the subdivision will not
cause any problems as far as supplying the needed schooling for the children. This is not
necessarily true. When the boundary committee drew the lines, we did consider growth
in the area and tried to plan for it, but Parkstone (which does fall within the boundary of
the new school) was not platted yet and therefore we did not consider it. As of now, we
have the new school becoming overcrowded within three to four years based on the new
developments going on in the square mile west of Locust grove to Meridian road and
north of Us tick to McMillian. There is also continuing growth in the areas ofEdinburg
Place and Vienna Woods. Our hope was to start the school with a small emollment and
let it grow with the community, and I thought we had done a good job of that until I saw
this notice. We have estimated that with the growth I have already mentioned,lliot
including Parkstone) the total emollment in two to three years will be 794 for a school
with a capacity of 650. As you can see, the school becomes overcrowded quickly if the
growth continues as scheduled. As a committee, we were hopeful that on the next bond
there would be a school built in the area to relieve the overcrowding, but we knew that
we would be competing with other areas such as Bridgetower that are growing just as fast
and need the schools also. We did the best we could as a committee with what we had
and now I would like to ask you as a board to think about the children that get bounced
from school to school because they become overcrowded before you can build enough
schools to accommodate growth. In the fall of this year my daughter will have attended
three different elementary schools in her six years of living in the same place.
Our next concern is the traffic. Ustick Road can back up from Eagle Road to
Summerfield in the mornings. This doesn't happen all the time but if you add 275 homes
and 52 townhomes in Parkstone, the traffic will only get worse. Also, making a left turn
into Summerfield going east on Ustick is dangerous already. We do not have a turn lane
and most people will pass on the right if we have to wait for oncoming traffic. Adding
more traffic may aggravate this problem.
,
Summerfield homes are larger custom-built homes on larger lots. IfParkstone is allowed
to proceed as the developers propose, the homes will be much smaller and much closer
together than those in Summerfield are. We believe that it is the responsibility of your
committee to ensure that property values of existing homes are maintained or increased
with new development. The small homes and especially the townhomes built too close
together in Parkstone will definitely impact property values of nearby homes. Parkstone
Subdivision should be similar to nearby subdivisions to preserve property values.
Our last concern was about irrigation and how all the extra housing would effect the
Summerfield supply of irrigation water. We didn't see in the submittal what the
Parkstone Subdivision was planning to do with the irrigation ditch that comes into the
Summerfield pump house.
We would like you as a board to consider requiring that the Parkstone developers reduce
the dwelling unit density significantly. Larger homes on larger lots will help address all
the concerns we have identified. Fewer homes mean less school crowding, less
additional traffic, and maintain area property values.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
d~ ~~~~~
Lynda and Marty Lindgren
3389 N. Summercrest Way
Meridian,Id 83642
(208)884-1972
To the Meridian Planning and Zoning Board:
RECEIVED
FEB 1 2 2003
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Our names are John and Shirley Schey and we have resided on the comer of Wingate
Lane and Ustick Road at 2425 E. Ustick Road for over 35 years.
At this time we want to apologize for not being here at this hearing, as we had planned well
in advance for this trip south, and at this time for John Blakeslee a special thanks for reading this
letter to you.
When we received your letter we were both shocked and dismayed, not with the fact that
things do change and progress, but what shocked us was the overwhelming density of the layout
of this planned unit development. The small lots and the density of a large portion of these homes
and townhouses is not even close as comparison to the surrounding existing subdivisions and or
neighbors in the area, therefore this proposal is not in the best interests of the neighborhood and
their existing residences.
One of our first major concerns of this proposal is the traffic impact on Ustick Road as
getting onto and or getting off Ustick Road is already, at times a tJying situation. It seems to me the
interstructures of this proposal and primarily the widening of Ustick Road should be completed and
in place before anything ofthis density should even be considered.
We ask the Planning and Zoning Board to consider the fact that the city limits of Boise just
across Eagle Road, and to the North some even on the west side of Eagle Road, for the most part
have kept their developments much less dense than this proposal. Cutting the number of lots in
half would in essence cut the traffic in and out of this development in half, thereby impacting the
area much less. This also would increase property values of both existing and new development.
Also, if a more reasonable development was proposed - why not consider locating the
'Park" out adjacent to Ustick Road and the townhouses back where the park is now proposed, this
could enhance the beauty and the values and help ease the impact of this development on the
adjacent properties in the area.
At this point we would like to state that John and Julie Blakeslee speak for us in our
concerns for this proposal.
Thank you everyone,
fO,J,,9J -<f
iVIA'{OR
ROBERT D. CORRIE
CHIEF
KEN W. BOWERS
DEPUTY CmEF - FIRE PREVENTION
JOSEPH SILVA
COUNCIL MEMBERS
WILLIAM L.M. NARY
KEITH BIRD
TAMMY DE WEERD
CHERIE MCCANDLESS
RORAL FIRE COMMISSIONERS
RICHARD GREENE
TERRY LEIGHTON
STEVE ELLIOTT
_____(J /' crr~ OF .t~ "
L/YLerldl:;;~
DEPUTY CHIEF - TRAINING
B(LL JOHNSON
.;'~!>;;;;;:':::~:;~:~':;':;~\~. ~::'~!;':>~:":;;:."""
.
l~,
V
v 540 East Franklin Road
\ ~.. 1l),\HO t'
~ ;p Meridian, 1D 83642
.c",,,,,.,, '. . .,~r (208) 888-1234
--"'-~__!...~_!"'''''';\'''',!, V~-, ~~ Fa.x (::!08) 895-0390
MERIDIAN CITY/RURAL FIRE DEPARTMENT
..... ,.,::=~:",=,::::,:,.,:.:"..",.,..""".,..,.==",=.:..,,:.:,.''''''''''RE'eE'IV'ED''''.....
~;::3 1 1 2003
February 10,2003
CITY OF MERIDIAN
SITY CLERK OFFICE
TO: Mayor, City Council and the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM:
Joseph Silva, Deputy Chief, Fire Prevention
I
SUBJECT: Parkstone Subdivision AZ 02-033, CUP 02-049, PP 02-033
The following will be the requirements and/or concerns to provide minimum levels of fire
protection for the proposed project:
I. The portion of the project which is one and two family dwellings will require a fire-flow
of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of2 hours to service the entire project.
Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix III-A
2. Commercial, office and storage occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with
the Uniform Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed
an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix III-A
3. The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of
the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe
and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of
this installation is to be borne by the developer.
4. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian
Water Department.
5. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire
Department. The proposed fire hydrant locations will be submitted to the Public
Works for plan review.
6. All roads and fire lanes shall have a turning radius of28' inside and 48' outside.
7. Insure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation
per section 1103.2.4 of the Uniform Fire Code.
8. All access roads within the project shall have a clear driving surface with a minimum
width of 20' available at all times. The typical street width of34' will be allowed to
have parking on both sides. The typical street with a minimum width of 29' will be
required to have restricted parking to only one side. UFC 902.2.2.1
9. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before
combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3
10. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than ISO' in length that is
not provided with an outlet shall be required to have a turn around.
II. A minimwn of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project,
which serves more than 50 homes. UFC 902.2.1
12. The proposed 275-lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household
would have a total estimated population of 947 residents at build out. The 2
commercial lots, 4 office lots and 1 storage lot will have an unknown transient
population and will have an unknown impact on Meridian Fire Department call
volwne.
13. It is requested that all landscape islands at the entry points be moved back a
minimum of IS' to improve turning radiuses at these entrances.
3496 N. Summercrest Way
Meridian, Idaho 83642
February 2, 2003
RECEIVEI
:=EB - 3 2003
To Whom It May Concern:
RE: Parkstone Subdivision
Cit]' Of Meridifu,-
',~ity Clerk Office
My husband and I both grew up in Boise Valley. We have always looked at this place
as home. For several years, we lived in other places, but when the opportunity to
return came, we buill a home where we wanted to stay. That decision has been
seriously challenged.
Since returning to Boise Valley five years ago, we have watched alarming changes.
The air is ollen polluted to the point of making us sick (inversion is common now), the
water in our home is sometimes discolored, the roads have become mini-freeways
where traffic is bumper to bumper at 50 miles per hour. Any time close to a rush hour,
it is virtually impossible to get onto Ustick, where traffic is a steady stream from Eagle
through Locust Grove and beyond.
Meridian has recently approved a new subdivision on Locust Grove, the other access
road to our home, telling us that several thousand homes will be buill there, along with
businesses, and a forestation. I am appalled that planners thought this a good idea.
So, are we going to see Ustick and Locust Grove look like Eagle? Will they be
continually torn up trying to meet the increasingly heavy traffic?
And now, another 275 homes, 52 town homes, 4 office lots, two commercial lots, and
storage sheds are being planned just beyond our back door. YUCK!
At what point will the greed of developers be stopped and the quality of life be
addressed in this valley? When the ground water is gone, when crime has increased
beyond two or three murders in a week, when there are no open areas for wildlife,
when people are unable to travel safely from their homes, when students are stacked
in increasing numbers in schools, then It will be too late. The developers will be rich
and the valley will be trashed. How sad. This has been a beautiful place. Isn't it
worthwhile to try and keep a little of that beauty? Must every square inch be sacrificed
to an unnecessary building frenzy?
I seriously question the need of another subdivision, except to line the pockets of
builders who simply move on and build another subdivision and another and another.
Meridian already has overcrowded schools, understaffed police departments,
problems with water, problems with losing the quality of life that made this a desirable
community in which to grow up and settle down. In this subdivision alone, no fewer
that five homes are for sale at any given lime, ollen twice that number.
If this new subdivision is approved, the problem will only be extended; one more piece
will be broken away from a beautiful valley and we will live under a little thicker dirty
cloud of pollution.
In these economic times, how long will it be before houses stand empty, subdivisions
become slums? The builders won't care. They will simply move on.
Please consider rejecting this bid for growth beyond need or desirability.
.
'~c_
'~
.
---......-..
.....i-....,l"..~,
. AC~
Ada County Highway District
SherT)l R. Huber, President
Susan S. Eastlake, 1 st Vice President
Dave Bivens, 2nd Vice President
David E. Wynkoop, Commissioner
John S. Franden, Commissioner
318 East 37th Street
Garden City ID 83714-6499
Phone (208) 387-6100
FAX (208) 387-6391
E-mail: tellus@ACHD.ada.id.us
January 30, 2003
RECEIVED
JAN 3 1 2003
To:
Hillview Development Corporation
150 East Aikens, Suite A
Eagle, Idaho 83616
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Subject:
Parkstone Subdivision
2470 East Ustick Road
334-lot mixed-use subdivision
On January 29, 2003, the Ada County Highway District acted on the above referenced application. The
attached report lists the conditions of approval.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 208-387-6177.
Andrea N. Tuning
Principal Developme nalyst
Right-of-way & Development Servi
Planning Division
CC: Planning & Development Chron/project file
City of Meridian
Construction Services
Drainage
Utilities
Tom & Sue Davis
2470 East Ustick Road
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Becky Bowcutt-McKay
110 East Valli-Hi Lane
Eagle, Idaho 83616
4I*:._7--...-
. ~ Ada County Highway District
Right-of- Way & Development Department
Planning Review Division
This application requires Commission action due to the size of the development and it's location is near the North
Meridian Planning Area and wilhin the area that was evaluated with the North Meridian Traffic Study. This item is
scheduled 10 be on the consent agenda on January 29,2003 at 12:00 noon. Tech Review for this item was held with
the applicanl on Friday January 17, 2003. Please refer to the attachment for request for reconsideration guidelines.
Staff contact: Andrea N. Tuning, 208-387-6177, atuning@achd.ada.id.us
File Numbers:
Parkstone Subdivision
Site address:
2470 East Ustick Road
Owner:
Tom & Sue Davis
2470 East Ustick Road
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Applicant:
Hillview Development Corporation
150 East Aikens, Suite A
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Representative:
Becky Bowcutt-McKay
110 East Valli-Hi Lane
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Application Information
The applicant is requesting annexation, rezone, conditional use and preliminary plat approval for a 334-lot
mixed-use subdivision. The subdivision is proposed to contain 275-single-family residential lots, 52-
townhouse lots, 4-office lots, 2-commerciallots and 1-mini storage 101. The proposed subdivision is located
on 104.77-acres. The development is currently zoned RUT and is proposed to be rezoned to R-8. The site
is located on the north side of Ustick Road just east of Locust Grove Road.
Acreage: 104.77-acres
Current Zoning: RUT
Proposed Zoning: R-B
Proposed buildable lots: 334-lots
275-single-family residential lots
52-townhouse lots
4-office lots
2-commerciaJ lots and
1-mini storage 101.
Proposed common lots: 34-lots
1
-,
Vicinity Map
A. Findings of Fact
1. Trip Generation: This development is estimated to generate 3,954 additional vehicle trips per day
(10 existing) based on the submitted traffic study.
2. Impact Fees: There will be an impact fee that is assessed and due prior to issuance of a building
permit. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is effect at that time
3. Traffic Impact Study: A traffic impact study was required with this application. The traffic study was
compiled by Washington Group International and the following is a summary of the findings:
. The traffic study assumes that the development will reach full build-out by the year 2007.
. Ustick Road is an east-west roadway classified as a Minor Arterial Roadway. The roadway
adjacent to the proposed development currently consists of two-lanes. At the intersections with
both Eagle and Locust Grove roads there is a separate left-turn lane.
. Eagle Road is a five-lane north-south facility classified as a Principal Arterial. This roadway is
under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department.
. The intersections of Locust Grove/Ustick and Eagle/Ustick are both signal-controlled.
. The proposed development is projected to generate an average daily traffic (ADT) of 3,964
vehicles per day (vpd), of which the peak hour traffic (PHT) is projected to be 440 vehicles per
hour (vph). The traffic study assumes that 15% of the trips generated by the residential uses will
be captured by the office and commercial developments in the subdivision and the elementary
and high school in the adjacent educational campus.
. An eastbound left-turn lane is required on Ustick Road at each of the site intersections. The
westbound right-turn movements warrant a right-turn lane at each access point.
. At build-out, in 2007, the daily traffic on the main roadways is estimated to be 1,400 vehicles on
the west access road and 1,100 vehicles per day on the east access road.
2
--
~ -::
Locust Grove Nt Ustick 4.179 16.003 14.000 2- Lane Minor Arterial
Road
Eagle Road (SH N/Ustick 23.910 35.525 37.000 5-Lane Principal
55) Arterial
* Based on North Meridian Traffic Study
The following are recommendations of the study:
1. A separate eastbound left-turn lane is required on Ustick Road at each of the site access
intersection. A separate westbound right-turn lane is required for westbound right-tum lane at
both site access intersections. These requirements were determined using ACHD's warrant
for right-turn bays and left-turn bays.
2. The site access intersections are both proposed to be controlled by a stop sign on the north
leg of the T-intersection with Ustick Road. These intersections are projected to operate under
capacity for year 2007.
In addition to the submitted traffic impact study, staff has included the executive summary of the
North Meridian Traffic Study.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE NORTH MERIDIAN TRAFFIC STUDY
The proposed 12-square mile study area between US 20/26 and Ustick Road and between
McDermott Road and Eagle Road (Sections 25-28, 33-36 ofT4N R1W and sections 29-32 ofT4N
R1E), is selected Ada County Highway District (ACHD) for anticipated development build out. The
following are the principal findings and recommendations of the study:
. By the year 2020 the study area is anticipated to develop an additional 17,599 dwelling units,
2,744,000 sq. ft of office buildings, 1,929,000 sq.ft. of retail buildings, 12 elementary schools, 2
senior high schools, 2 junior high schools, 38,260 sq. ft of church buildings, and approximately 60
acres of park.
. The build out scenario of the study area is projected to generate an average daily traffic (ADT) of
276,764 vehicles per day (vpd) , of which the peak hour traffic (PHT) will be 28,206 vehicles per
hour (vph). Out of these trips approximately 10% of the trips remain internal within each section,
and 6% of the trips are pass-by trips.
. The distribution of the traffic from all of the study area sections indicate that approximately 30%
traffic directed towards south, 27% of the traffic directed towards east, 21 % of the traffic directed
towards west and north. The remaining 22% of the traffic is distributed within the study area.
. At build out, traffic on the arterials is expected to significantly increase (see Table 4).
. All of the arterial intersections in the study area are currently operating at acceptable level of
service of "C" or better.
. By the year 2020, the majority of study intersections are projected to meet the peak hour traffic
signal warrant.
. A proportionate share of the impacts of the individual sections at each of the study area arterial
intersections is summarized in Table 6.
. Several mid-mile intersections may warrant traffic signals due to the heavy left turn traffic volume.
3
.'!. ~
. Chinden Boulevard is forecasted with 5-lane section in the study area. Right turns lanes may be
required at some access and arterial intersections.
. McMillan Road is forecasted with a 5-lane section east of Black Cal. McMillan Road is forecasted
with a 3-lane section west of Black Cal. At arterial intersections and at access intersections right
turns lanes may be necessary.
. Ustick Road is forecasted with a 5-lane section east of Black Cal. Ustick Road is forecasted with a
3-lane section west of Black Cal. At arterial intersections and at access intersections right turns
lanes may be necessary.
. Linder Road forecasted with a 5-lane section in the study area. At arterial intersections and at
access intersections right turns lanes may be required.
. McDermoll Road is forecasted with a 3-lane section in the study area. At arterial intersections and
at access intersections turn lanes may be required.
. Black Cat Road is forecasted with a 3-lane section in the study area. At arterial intersections right
turn lanes may be required.
. Ten Mile Road is forecasted with a 5-lane section in the study area. At arterial intersections and at
access intersections turn lanes may be required.
. Meridian Road requires a 3-lane section north of McMillan and 5-lane section south of McMillan in
the study area. At arterial intersections right turn lanes may be required.
. Locust Grove Road requires a 3-lane section in the study area. At arterial intersections right turn
lanes may be required. At Ustick Road a 5-lane section is forecasted.
4. Site Information:
The site currently has one existing single-family dwelling.
5. Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area:
a. North: Single-family residential subdivision (Heritage Subdivision)
b. South: Single-family residential lots (1-acre to 11-acres)
c. East: 3 large undeveloped parcels (16.4-acres, 28.050-acres, 13.19-acres)
d. West: Single-family residential subdivision (Summerfield Subdivision) and Education Campus
Subdivision
6.
Impacted Roadways
Locust Grove Road
Frontage:
Functional Street Classification:
Traffic count:
None
Minor arterial
South of McMillan Road was 4,719 on 6/28/01
North of Ustick Road was 5,709 on 6/20/01
Currently better than "C"
35 MPH
Level of Service:
Speed limit:
Ustick Road
Frontage:
Functional Street Classification:
Traffic count:
2,000-feet
Minor arterial
West of Locust Grove was 6,510 on 6-20-01.
East of Locust Grove was 7,640 on 6-20-01.
Currently better than "C'
35 MPH
Level of Service:
Speed limit:
4
,
7. Roadway Improvements Adjacent To and Near the Site
Ustick Road is improved with 2-traffic lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site.
Locust Grove Road is improved with 24-feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the
site. Locust Grove Road will have a 5-foot detached sidewalk constructed on the west side of Locust
Grove Road as a part of the Heritage Commons Subdivision.
8. Existing Right-of-Way
Locust Grove Road currently has 50-feet of right-of-way abutting the site (25-feet from centerline).
9. Existing Access to the Site
The site currently utilizes two driveways that intersect Ustick Road. The first driveway intersects
Ustick Road approximately 25D-feet west of the east properly line. The second driveway intersects
Ustick Road approximately 44D-feet west of the east properly line.
10. Site History
The District has not previously reviewed an application for this site.
11. Five Year Work Program and Capital Improvement Program
There are no projects within this area that are scheduled in the District's Five Year Work Program.
Ustick Road is in the current CIP for the year 2011.
12. Other Development in Area
Staff has recently been receiving large amounts of inquiries from developers in the northwest
Meridian area. Many developers are prepared to plat entire section-miles, and have site plans
developed. The preliminary plans generally include upwards of 700 to 900 residential lots, schools,
office/commercia/lots. and city and neighborhood parks.
Some of the large developments within the North Meridian Planning area include: Bridgetower
Subdivision, Keltic Heights Subdivision, Baldwin Park Subdivision and Utility Subdivision.
. On October 17, 2001, the Commission approved a rezone application and a sketch plat for Keltic
Heights Subdivision. Keltic Heights Subdivision is proposed to be 1,522 lots. The applicant
proposed 929 residential lots, 8 commercial lots and a 585-unit multi-family subdivision on
452.16-acres.
. On October 17. 2001 the Commission approved a rezone and preliminary plat application for an
8-lot industrial subdivision on 34.6-acres (Utility Subdivision).
. On November 7,2001 the Commission approved rezone and annexation application for 370.55
acres. The Commission also approved a preliminary plat for 336 lots on 175.91 acres and
conditional use approval for a total of 692 single-family residences, 59 senior housing units, 17
office lots. 10 commercial lots, and an elementary school (Bridgetower Subdivision).
. On February 6, 2002, the Commission approved a preliminary plat application for a 272-lot
residential subdivision on 78-acres (Baldwin Park).
. On April 17, 2002, the Commission approved a preliminary plat application for a 285-lot
subdivision on 75.4 acres (Heritage Commons Subdivision).
. On May 22, 2002, the Commission approved a preliminary plat application for an 876-lot mixed-
use subdivision. The subdivision consisted of 862 single-family dwellings, 171 multi-family
dwellings, 11 office buildings, 1 commercial building, 1 fire station, 1 city park and 1 private park
(Lochsa Falls Subdivision).
5
. On July 17, 2002, the Commission approved a request for approval for an annexation and rezone
for a 135,000 square foot Middle School within the Meridian School District.
. On August 21, 2002, the Commission approved a preliminary plat application for a 144-lot
residential subdivision on 43-acres (Sundance Place Subdivision).
. On August 28, 2002, the Commission approved a preliminary plat application for a 12-lot
residential subdivision on 5-acres (Drawbridge Subdivision).
. On October 23,2002, the Commission approved an 89-lot residential subdivision on 15.4-acres
(Cobblefjeld Crossing Subdivision).
. November 6,2002, the Commission approved a 327-lot residential subdivision and 1 school site
on 119.83-acres (Havasu Creek Subdivision).
. On November 6, 2002, the Commission approved a 3-lot commercial subdivision that is
anticipated to include a new Meridian School District Educational Campus that will include one
elementary school, two senior high charter schools, two senior high professional technical high
schools and one District administration building on 39.23-acres (Education Campus Subdivision).
. On November 20, 2002, the Commission approved, Burney Glen Subdivision, a 117-lot single-
family residential subdivision on 35.94-acres
. On November 26, 2002, the Commission approved Cedar Springs North Subdivision, a 229-lot
mixed-use subdivision consisting of 184-single-family residential lots, 12-office lots, 32-common
lots and 1-lot that is anticipated to redevelop into attached single-family residential lots (town
houses).
. On January 8, 2003, the Commission approved Watersong Estates Subdivision, a 125-lot single-
family residential subdivision located on 39.92.
. On January 15, 2003, the Commission approved Silverleaf Subdivision, a 73-lot mixed use
subdivision. The subdivision is proposed to contain 72-single-family residential lots and 1-
elementary school lots located on 38.65-acres.
Due to the large number of inquiries and submitted development applications in this area, staff and
the development community realized that the potential for development in this area is extreme and
the traffic impact studies that each individual developer was submitting did not include the major
surrounding developments that are "in the works". If staff examines each development individually,
the roadway system appears adequate, but when staff begins to add in a second or third large-scale
development, the traffic capacities of the surrounding roadways reach their 2020 planning thresholds.
Based on development patterns in this area, and the concem surrounding the abutting roadways,
ACHD hired Washington Group to conduct a traffic impact study of the northwestern Meridian area
from Ustick Road to Chinden Boulevard, and from Meridian Road to one-half mile west of Black Cat
Road.
One option for funding improving these roadways is the implementation of an extra-ordinary impact
fee overlay district. Parkstone Subdivision may also be subject to any extraordinary fees that the
District may impose.
B. Findings for Consideration
1. Right-of-Way
District policy requires 96-feet of right-of-way on arterial roadways (Figure 72-F1 B). This right-of-way
allows for the construction of a 5-lane roadway with curb, gutter, 5-foot concrete detached sidewalks
and bike lanes.
6
The applicant has expressed an interest in dedicating less right-of-way (38-feet from centerline) and
placing the sidewalk on Ustick Road within an easement. The District is supportive of the applicant
dedicating the amount of right-of-way that is required for the construction of the roadway due to the
fact that the District may construct the roadway without having to compensate the applicant for
additional right-of-way. The applicant should dedicate an adequate amount of right-of-way (38-feet
from centerline) that can accommodate one half of a 72-foot street section with curb, gutter and a 2-
foot utility easement with an easement for the 5-foot concrete sidewalk. On August 28, 2002, the
Commission voted to approve the above requested modification.
Due to budgetary constraints and changes to the CIP and Impact Fee Ordinance, the Commission
has directed staff to only purchase right-of-way on roadways that are in the Five Year Work Program.
Ustick Road is not in the Five Year Work Program, but is in the current CIP and is anticipated to be
reconstructed in the year 2011. Due to the fact that this project is primarily residential and Ustick
Road is considered a priority corridor for the North Meridian area, staff is recommending that right-of-
way be acquired with this project.
2. Sidewalk
District policy requires 5-foot wide (minimum) concrete sidewalk on all collector roadways (7204.6.5).
The applicant should construct a 5-foot concrete sidewalk located 2-feet within the new right-of-way.
If the sidewalk meanders outside of the right-of-way, the applicant should provide the District with an
easement for the sidewalk.
3. Roadway Offsets
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).
District policy 7204.11.6, requires local roadways to align or offset a minimum of 150-feet from a
residential collector roadway (measured centerline to centerline).
District policy 7204.11.6, requires local roadways to align or offset a minimum of 150-feet from a
collector roadway (measured centerline to centerline).
District policy7204.11.6, requires local roadways to align or offset a minimum of 300-feet from an
arterial roadway (measured centerline to centerline).
The applicant is proposing to construct North Park Place Way (a residential collector) to interest
Ustick Road approximately 630-feet east of the west properly line. This roadway is proposed to
directly align with Wingate Lane on the south side of Ustick Road. This roadway location meets
District policy and should be approved with this application.
The applicant is proposing to construct North Leslie Way (commercial roadway) to intersect Ustick
Road approximately 150-feet west of the east properly line. This roadway is proposed to offset North
Leslie Way on the south side of Ustick Road by approximately 17-feet (measured centerline to
centerline). District policy requires roadways on arterial to directly align or offset a minimum of 300-
feet from any existing or proposed roadway. The applicant should align North Leslie Way with the
existing roadway located on the south side of Ustick Road.
All of the internal roadways meet District policy in regard to roadway offsets.
4. Driveways
7
District policy 72-F5, requires driveways located on collector or arterial roadways with a speed limit of
35 to align or offset a minimum of 150-feet from any existing or proposed driveway.
The applicant is proposing to continue to utilize the driveway that intersects Ustick Road
approximately 200-feet west of North Leslie Way for the existing single-family residential home. The
applicant will eliminate this driveway once the residential use is no longer present. This driveway
meets District policy and should be approved with this application.
The applicant is proposing to construct a shared driveway on the east side of North Leslie Way for
commercial lots 1 and 2. This driveway meets District policy and should be approved with this
application. The applicant should provide the District with a cross-access agreement for the parcels
to access the public roadway system.
The applicant is proposing to construct a shared driveway on the west side of North Leslie Way for
office lots 2, 3, 4 and 5. This driveway meets District policy and should be approved with this
application. The applicant should provide the District with a cross-access agreement for the parcels
to access the public roadway system.
The applicant is proposing to construct a driveway to intersect with North Park Place Way on the east
side of the roadway approximately 160-feet north of East Van Oker Street. This driveway is proposed
to access the proposed City of Meridian Neighborhood Park. This driveway location meets District
policy and should be approved with this application.
5. Street Sections
District policy 7202.8 and 72-F1 B, requires roadways abutting commercial developments to be
constructed as a 40-foot street section with curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk within 54-feet of
right-of-way.
District policy 72-F1A, 7202.3.2 and 7202.3.5, requires that residential collectors be constructed as
36-foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks with no front-on housing.
The access restrictions for these street segments should be stated on the final plat. Unless otherwise
noted, parking should be prohibited on these street segments. Coordinate the signage plan with
District staff.
District policy 7204.4.2 states, "developments with any buildable lot that is less that 1.5-acres 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 policy 72-F1A, allows local residential publiC roads with a 33-foot street section with parking
on both sides of the roadway, if the amount of vehicle trips per day on the street does not exceed
1,000 and the appropriate fire department reviews and approves the street section. The proposed
density of development that will utilize the internal local residential streets is anticipated to generate
less than 1,000 vehicle trips per day.
District policy 7204.4.1 states that right-of-way widths for all streets and highways shall not be less
than 50-feet wide except in unusual cases~ Any request to the District to approve a street with a
right-of-way width less than 50 must prove by clear convincing evidence that the facts and
circumstances of the development warrant a finding of an exceptional case. The applicant must
8
show that the roadway will be used for residential purposes, there will be no possibility that the street
will be extended in the near future and the traffic volumes on the street are not forecast to exceed
200 vehicles per day.
District policy7240.4.3 allows a developer to construct a local urban residential street with a reduced
width of 29-feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Policy restricts
parking on reduced street sections.
The applicant is proposing to construct North Leslie Way abutting the commercial portion of the site
as a 36-foot street section with curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk within 50-feet of right-of-
way. District policy requires roadways with a commercial or industrial use to construct a 40-foot
street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk within 54-feet of right-of-way.
The applicant should construct North Leslie Way as a 40-foot street section with vertical curb, gutter
and 5-foot concrete sidewalk within 54-feet of right-of-way for approximately 540-feet north of Ustick
Road.
Modification of Policy
The applicant is proposing to construct North Park Place Way as a residential collector extending
from Ustick Road north to East Bowman Street. The applicant is proposing to construct this roadway
as a 36-foot street section with vertical curb, gutter, 5-foot concrete sidewalk on the west side of the
roadway and a 10-foot asphalt pathway on the east side of the roadway within 50-feet of right-of-way.
This street section modifies District policy by utilizing a 1 a-foot asphalt pathway on the east side of
the roadway as opposed to a standard 5-foot concrete sidewalk. District staff is supportive of the 1 a-
foot asphalt pathway if the pathway is owned and maintained by the homeowners association due to
the fact that the pathway will abut the City of Meridian's Neighborhood Park and will provide a larger
travel area for pedestrians and bicyclists. This roadway should be approved with a modification of
policy. Due to the fact that this road is classified as a residential collector no front on housing or
direct access will be prohibited. These restrictions should be noted on the final plat. Parking will also
be prohibited on this roadway. The applicant should coordinate the signage plan with District staff.
The applicant is proposing to construct North Leslie Way (from 540-feet north of Ustick Road to East
Nakano Drive), East Nakano Drive and North Dixon Avenue (from East Nakano Drive to East Herons
Crossing Drive) as 36-foot street section with rolled curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk within
50-feet of right-of-way. This street section meets District policy and should be approved with this
application.
The applicant is proposing to extend East Herons Crossing Drive as a 36-foot street section with
rolled curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk within 50-feet of right-of-way. The subdivision to the
west of this site (Education Campus Subdivision) will be constructing East Herons Crossing as a 33-
foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk within 50-feet of right-of-way.
The applicant should construct East Herons Crossing as a 33-foot street section with vertical curb,
gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk within 50-feet of right-of-way to match the improvements that
were approved with the Education Campus Subdivision.
The applicant is proposing to construct North Leslie Way (north of East Nakano Drive, North
Mahoney Avenue, North Petty Way, East Omera Street, East Charleton Street, North Gaviola
Avenue, East Woolsey Street, East Satterfield Street, North Dixon Avenue (between East Van Oker
Street and East Satterfield Street and between East Conner Street and East Bowman Street, and
north of East Herons Crossing), East Summer Dawn Drive, East Van Oker Street, North Cafferty
Way, North Hawkins Avenue, East Conner Street, East Bowman Street North Pandratz Way, East
Vigle Way, East Troxell Drive and North Conley Drive as 33-foot street sections with rolled curb,
9
gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk with parking on both sides of the roadway within 50-feet of right-
of-way. District policy allows 33-foot street sections with rolled curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete
sidewalk with parking on both sides of the roadway within 50-feet of right-of-way with fire
departmental approval.
The applicant is proposing to construct East Swindell Drive as a 29-foot street section with curb,
gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk with parking on one side of the roadway within 42-feet of right-of-
way. The site is surrounded by residential uses, is not anticipated to extend, and will carry traffic
volumes of less than 200 vehicle trips per day. This street section meets District policy and should be
approved with this application. Due to the fact that this roadway is a reduced street section, parking
will be restricted to one side of the roadway. The applicant should coordinate the signage plan with
District staff.
6. Stub Streets
District policy 7203.5.1 and 7205.5 requires stub streets to provide intra-neighborhood circulation and
to provide access to adjoining parcels. District policy also requires temporary tumarounds with a
temporary easement provided to the District at the end of stub streets that serve more than one lot, or
are greater than 150-feet in length with a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS
ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE".
The applicant is proposing to extend two existing (approved) stub streets and construct one new stub
street.
The applicant is proposing to extend East Summer Dawn Drive from the west property line
approximately 400-feet north of Ustick Road. This stub street was approved as a part of Summerfield
Subdivision. Staff is supportive of the extension of this roadway.
The applicant is proposing to extend East Herons Crossing Drive from the west property line
approximately 61 O-feet south of the north property line. This stub street was approved by the District
on November 6, 2002 as a part of Education Campus Subdivision. Staff is supportive of the extension
of this roadway.
The applicant is proposing to construct a stub street, North Conley Avenue, to the north property line
approximately 8,500-feet east of the west property line. This stub street is proposed to access a
large single-family residential lot that is 8.2-acres in size. Staff is supportive of the location of this
stub street. Due to the fact that North Conley Avenue is proposed to be less than 150-feet in depth
and 1-lot in depth, the applicant is not required to construct a temporary turnaround at the terminus of
the roadway. The applicant should install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS
ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE".
The applicant is not proposing to construct a stub street to the east due to the fact that the parcel to
the east is proposed to be a commercial/retail center (similar to the commerciallretail center that is
located on the southeast comer of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue). The City of Meridian would
like to see a pedestrian path to this parcel. District staff supports some type of access to the
commerciallretail center.
7. Turnarounds
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 100-square foot area.
10
The applicant is proposing one cul-de-sac turnaround with a center island. The applicant should
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 4cfeet wide to total a minimum of a
100-square foot area.
8. Knuckles
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 100-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 Planning and Development staff.
The applicant is proposing to construct four knuckles without islands throughout the subdivision.
Staff is supportive of the location of the proposed knuckles.
9. Islands
District policy 7202.7 and 7207.5 requires any proposed landscape islands/medians within the public
right-of-way dedicated by this plat should be owned and maintained by a homeowners association.
Notes of this should be required on the final plat.
The applicant is proposing to construct islands within the right-of-way of North Leslie Way, North Park
Place Way and East Bowman Street. The applicant should provide a minimum clear distance of 21-
feet (measured back-of-curb to back-of-curb).
10. Turn Lanes
According to the submitted traffic impact study, a separate eastbound left-turn lane is required on
Ustick Road at each of the site access intersection. A separate westbound right-turn lane is required
for westbound right-turn lane at both site access intersections.
The applicant should construct an eastbound left-turn lane on Ustick Road at the intersection of
Ustick Road and North Park Place Way.
The applicant should construct an eastbound left-turn lane on Ustick Road at the intersection of
Ustick Road and North Leslie Way.
The applicant should construct westbound right-turn lane on Ustick Road at the intersection of Ustick
Road and North Park Place Way.
The applicant should construct westbound right-turn lane on Ustick Road at the intersection of Ustick
Road and North Leslie Way.
11. Other Access
North Park Place Way is classified as a residential collector. Front on housing and direct lot access
to North Park Place Way will be prohibited. Notes of this should be placed on the final plat.
Other than the access points specifically approved with this application, direct access to Ustick Road
is prohibited. Notes of this should be placed on the final plat.
11
C. Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. Dedicate 48-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Ustick Road abutting the parcel by means of a
warranty deed. The right-of-way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be completed and
signed by the applicant prior to scheduling the final plat for signature by the ACHD Commission or
prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to
30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The
owner will be paid the fair market value of the right-of-way dedicated which is an addition to existing
ACHD right-of-way if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to
breaking ground, in accordance with the ACHD Ordinance in effect at that time (currently Ordinance
#196), if funds are available.
2. Construct a 5-foot concrete sidewalk located 2-feet within the new right-of-way. If the sidewalk
meanders outside of the right-of-way, provide the District with an easement for the sidewalk.
3. Construct North Park Place Way (a residential collector) to interest Ustick Road approximately 630-
feet east of the west property line, as proposed.
4. Construct North Leslie Way (commercial roadway) to intersect Ustick Road to align with North Leslie
Way on the south side of Ustick Road.
5. Construct North Leslie Way as a 40-foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete
sidewalk within 54-feet of right-of-way for approximately 540-feet north of Ustick Road.
6. Construct North Park Place Way as a residential collector extending from Ustick Road north to East
Bowman Street as a 36-foot street sections with vertical curb, gutter, 5-foot concrete sidewalk on the
west side of the roadway and a 10-foot asphalt pathway on the east side of the roadways within 50-
feet of right-of-way, as proposed. The asphalt pathway must be owned and maintained by the
homeowners association. Front on housing or direct access will be prohibited. These restrictions
shall be noted on the final plat. Parking will also be prohibited on this roadway. Coordinate the
signage plan with District staff.
7. Construct North Leslie Way (from 540-feet north of Ustick Road to East Nakano Drive), East Nakano
Drive and North Dixon Avenue (from East Nakano Drive to East Herons Crossing Drive) as 36-foot
street sections with rolled curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk within 50-feet of right-of-way, as
proposed.
8. Construct East Herons Crossing as a 33-foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and 5-foot
concrete sidewalk within 50-feet of right-of-way to match the improvements that were approved with
the Education Campus Subdivision.
9. Construct North Leslie Way (north of East Nakano Drive, North Mahoney Avenue, North Petty Way,
East Omara Street, East Charleton Street, North Gaviola Avenue, East Woolsey Street, East
Satterfield Street, North Dixon Avenue (between East Van Oker Street and East Satterfield Street,
between East Conner Street and East Bowman Street, and north of East Herons Crossing), East
Summer Dawn Drive, East Van Oker Street, North Cafferty Way, North Hawkins Avenue, East
Conner Street, East Bowman Street North Pandratz Way, East Vigle Way, East Troxell Drive and
North Conley Drive as 33-foot street sections with rolled curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk
with parking on both sides of the roadway within 50-feet of right-of-way, as proposed. Submit
12
. ,
documentation showing that the fire department has reviewed and approved the proposed street
section.
10. Construct East Swindell Drive as a 29-foot street section with curb. gutter and 5-foot concrete
sidewalk with parking on one side of the roadway within 42-feet of right-of-way, as proposed. Parking
will be restricted to one side of the roadway. Coordinate the signage plan with District staff.
11. Extend East Summer Dawn Drive from the west property line approximately 400-feet north of Ustick
Road.
12. Extend East Herons Crossing Drive from the west property line approximately 61 O-feet south of the
north property line, as proposed.
13. Construct a stub street, North Conley Avenue, to the north property line approximately 8,500-feet
east of the west property line, as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that,
"THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE".
14. Utilize the driveway that intersects Ustick Road approximately 200-feet west of North Leslie Way for
the existing single-family residential home, as proposed. Eliminate this driveway once the residential
use is no longer present
15. Construct a shared driveway on the east side of North Leslie Way for commercial lots 1 and 2, as
proposed. Provide the District with a cross-access agreement for the parcels to access the public
roadway system.
16. Construct a shared driveway on the west side of North Leslie Way for office lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, as
proposed. Provide the District with a cross-access agreement for the parcels to access the pUblic
roadway system.
17. Construct a driveway to intersect with North Park Place Way on the east side of the roadway
approximately 160-feet north of East Van Oker Street, as proposed.
18. Construct one cul-de-sac turnaround with a center island, as proposed. Provide a minimum tuming
radius of 45-feet for the turnaround. Provide a minimum of a 29-foot street section on either side of
any proposed center islands within the turnarounds. The medians shall be constructed a minimum of
4-feet wide to total a minimum of a 100-square foot area;
19. Construct four knuckles without islands throughout the subdivision. as proposed.
20. Construct islands within the right-of-way of North Leslie Way, North Park Place Way and East
Bowman Street, as proposed. Provide a minimum clear distance of 21-feet (measured back-of-curb
to back-of-curb). Any proposed landscape islands/medians within the public right-of-way dedicated by
this plat shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this shall be
required on the final plat.
21. The applicant should construct an eastbound left-turn lane on Ustick Road at the intersection of
Ustick Road and North Park Place Way.
22. The applicant should construct an eastbound left-turn lane on Ustick Road at the intersection of
Ustick Road and North Leslie Way.
13
23. The applicant should construct westbound right-turn lane on Ustick Road at the intersection of Ustick
Road and North Park Place Way.
24. The applicant should construct westbound right-turn lane on Ustick Road at the intersection of Ustick
Road and North leslie Way.
25. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with ACHD that outlines right-of-way
acquisition, costs, timing and payment; and shall also include an agreement that this development
shall be subject to any extraordinary impact fee, LID or other funding source established by the
District to improve the surrounding roadways; or shall be subject to the development's proportionate
share of surrounding roadway improvements as established by the applicant's traffic impact study.
26. Other than the access points specifically approved with this application, direct access to Ustick Road
is prohibited.
27. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
D. Standard Conditions of Approval
1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
2. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne
by the developer.
3. 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.
4. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by
the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details.
5. 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.
6. 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. 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.
8. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with
Ordinance #195, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing
utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACHD. 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-
14
6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of
construction.
10. 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.
11. 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 and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity
impacted by the proposed development.
Attachments
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan
3. Appeal Guidelines
15
.
Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action
1. Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action: A Commissioner, a member of ACHD staff
or any other person objecting to any final action taken by the Commission may request
reconsideration of that action, provided the request is not for a reconsideration of an action previously
requested to be reconsidered, an action whose provisions have been partly and materially carried
out, or an action that has created a contractual relationship with third parties.
a. Only a Commission member who voted with the prevailing side can move for reconsideration,
but the motion may be seconded by any Commissioner and is voted on by all Commissioners
present.
If a motion to reconsider is made and seconded it is subject to a motion to postpone to a
certain time.
b. The request must be in writing and delivered to the Secretary of the Highway District no later
than 3;00 p.m. on the day prior to the Commission's next scheduled regular meeting following
the meeting at which the action to be reconsidered was taken. Upon receipt of the request,
the Secretary shall cause the same to be placed on the agenda for that next scheduled
regular Commission meeting.
c. The request for reconsideration must be supported by written documentation setting forth new
facts and information not presented at the earlier meeting, or a changed situation that has
developed since the taking of the earlier vote, or information establishing an error of fact or
law in the earlier action. The request may also be supported by oral testimony at the meeting.
d. If a motion to reconsider passes, the effect is the original matter is in the exact position it
occupied the moment before it was voted on originally. II will normally be returned to ACHD
staff for further review. The Commission may set the date of the meeting at which the matter
is to be returned. The Commission shall only take action on the original matter at a meeting
where the agenda notice so provides.
e. At the meeting where the original matter is again on the agenda for Commission action,
interested persons and ACHD staff may present such written and oral testimony as the
President of the Commission determines to be appropriate, and the Commission may take
any action the majority of the Commission deems advisable.
f. If a motion to reconsider passes, the applicant may be charged a reasonable fee, to cover
administrative costs, as established by the Commission.
16
..
.
Ii! h ffi5 IIIIIIIIUI
I p
I
~ 'I II
--' III
l/
-'-- ~
~ ~T
"-Q
L ~~ ~
I liiI
-
- """lI
-
- 1
> EDUCATION fJIJlfiiI1iii1f" I
11
CAMPUS ,
~ SUBD IVIS ION
~ :40..:i~~1t
() ~ J..' :-:"':-:f..tH!~
i )..: i-
"" ,
~ """
'.~
IIII I~ .A'k'"~
./ rr n, i*i111.tll~I~~t~
~ U ~. ~ L
-
r-- -
~ -
,\, r- ~
II LLI ,
. lilT 1111 -
W - \-r
~~ / \
I III J
f- -I
II. 1111/ . 71 / \ /
---I If- II II ,
17
. C'U ~u U.:I u.,: U7p
p.2
BECIY BO.m PlIIIIIIIG SEBVlCES
1100 E, Valli Hi Ln.
Eagle::, Idaho 83616
PhoJle: 484-3904 fSK: 938-15210
February 19, 2003
City of Meridian
Attn: Planning and Zoning Commission
33 East Idaho
Meridian, Idaho &3642
RECEIVED
FEB 2 0 2003
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Re: rarkstone Subdivision (AnneKation, Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Comments) File No. AZ-62-633,
PP.02-033 and CUP-il2-049
Dear Commission Members:
ANNEXA nON AND ZONING COMMENTS (AZ-02-03J)
t. The applicant is in agreement.
2. The appll.ent prefe", .... R-8 zoning designation on tbe entire subject property_ The applicant's
request for R.8 is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Future Lend Use Map designation of
Medium Density Residential. The Planned Unit Development Ordinance allows for a 20%
non-conforming \Ille to be incorporated into a development with ao underlying residential zoning
designation. This provision allows for cIlvel'!iity in uses and more balanced developmenls. To zone
each use separately defeats the purplllie and intenl ofthe PlanBed Development Ordinance.
3. The applicant is in agreement
Additionsl Cnn5ideratioDS
1. The applicant agrees with stafl's recommendation. However, the applicant would like to
eDlpMsize that if the property adjoining the e...t boundary develops in 8 malUler which is not
eoaduclve to a pedestrian connection; then at tinal platting the requirement for a patbway sbowd be
eliminated.
2. The applicant is in agreement and the preliminary plat will be modified accordingly prior 10
the City Council meeting.
Block Length: The Planned Unit Development request in~ludes .. provision for deviation from the 1000
foot block length.
Multi-Use Pathways: The applicant has modified the preliminary plat to include tbe 10 foot asphalt
pathway in the alignment suggested by tJae staff. However, the applicant disagrees with stall's
ree_dation to add ooother mi~ro path Iliseeting block 17. The applicanl suggests a separate
20 foot landscape lot be added along lbe east side of Conley Avenue. The lot would accommodate a
10 foot pathway detached fMm the roadway. This idea would promote the mwti-use pathway
Detwork without disrupting block 17.
Page 1
PAr; "'"
FEB 20 '03 18:00
reO C:U U;:! U":08p
Reduced Lot Requirements: The applicant is in agreement.
PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENTS (pP-tI2-&;JJ)
Site SpeelfielP'l'1lliminaJ:)' Plat
1. The applicant will comply with staff's requirement.,
2. The applicant will comply.
3. The conditiOll states a ".olid feDce shall h. required around the perimeter of the subdivision." The
applicant wants tbe record to renee! the fact that an emting chain liak tenc. i. located along a
portion of tbe wesl common bowIdary wilb the Meridian School District property. The applicaDt
does not want to build a fence nen to tbe uiating fence. The Commission should also b. aware that
an existiDg , foot wdar fence adjoin. th. subject property next to Summemeld Subdivision. A
pri\1lte drain runS along the north boundary, but does not adjoin the subject property, wbich may
reqllire a non-eGmbustible tenee depending on tbe _inleDance history of tbe dileh.
4. The appli.ant's Planned Unit Development site plan proposes a (6) foot landscaped area
separating the miDi-storage fa.Uity from the single family resideotiallots. Tbe applieaDI's
inteDt was to create a vegetative harrier with column juniper tr.... Tbe applicant wiD prOl'ide a 2&
foollandseape easement alOng tbe west side of the office lots to Imffer tbe townbomes.
5. The applicant will comply.
6. The applicant will comply and consult with staff on the method for water circulation within the pond.
7. Tbe applicant ill In agreement with providing a micrOopalh between lots 48 and 49, block 12.
However, tbe applicant requests that the second mi......path be located between lots 25 and 26,
block 15.
8. The applleant is in agreement with all lb. revisions to the preliminary plat notes with one
exception. The applicant would like the option of a four root feDee with two foot Iatticc along tbe
pathways.
9.The applicant is in agreement.
10. The applicant is in agreement and has revised the preliminary plat accordingly.
II. The applicant wilt comply.
12. The applicant will comply.
Genera) CDmments
1. The applicant will comply.
2. The applicant will comply.
Page 2
PAGE. 03
FEE 20 '03 18:00
p...
reo "U U3 u":08p
3. The applicant will comply.
4. The applicant will comply.
5. Tbe eooditioo sbould be mocJified to read "tbe landscape plan sball include the location and desigo
nfthe basketball court."
6. The applicant will comply.
7. The applicant will comply.
8. The applicant will comply wilb the requirement under seetion 11-4-13. The applicant wants the
reeord to reflect that lbe drain ditch along the DOJ1bero bouudary does oot adjoin or abutlbe
subjed property. Tberefore, the appJiCllllt will Pot pipe Ibe private drain.
9. The applicant will comply.
10. The applicant will comply.
II. The applicant will comply.
[2. The applicant win comply when that area is final platted.
13. The applicant will comply if applicable.
14. The applicant's engineer will comply.
CONJlmONAI. USE PERMIT (Sitc SpeclOc Commenn.) CUP-01-049
J. The applicant will comply with the requirements taking into consideration those exceptions noted
in the previous ~omments,
2, The applicant will comply,
3. The appllcaot is iD agreemeut that a detailcd conditional lUll permit will be required prior to
development of any commercial, olTree or mini-storage 1015. The applicant does request that the
uses be recogni7.ed in tbe approval of the .onceptual site plan.
Meridian Fire. ~I'tIneDt Cnmmll!JDb
The applicant agre.s wilb aU Fire Department requirements with exception of (item 8). Item 8
stales that a 34 foot.treet oeclioa is required for parking 00 both oldes to b. allowed. Ada County
Highway District polky plan allows for a 33 foot street section. This differeoee in street widtbs bas
been addressed before wilb other projects. The Clly Council has approved the 33 foot slreet section
since that is Ibe ACBD slandard.
Sincerely,
, I
fr)IIK /!Ivf:4
-
Page 3
PAGE. 04
FEB 20 '03 18:01
p. "
reb 20 03 07:07p
RECEIVED
FEB 2 0 '001
. -, ; \ ( ~
. .
.j. " .,; ....
";.:i'
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
1100 E. Valli-HIla."
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Pilon.: (208)484-3904
Fax: (208) 938-6210
Send 10: From:
CllY OF MERIDIAN Becky Boweult
Attention: Will Berg Dal&:2-20..03
Re: PBr1<stone Subdivision
Fax Number. 888-4218 Phone Number. 484-3904
'-'." ,
Total pages, Including cover. 4
Comments:
Will:
Please provide the Commisslon with . copy of my comments.
Thanlls,
Becky
PAGE.01
~~R 20 '03 18:00
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
lWCEIVED
FEB 20 2003
CITY OF MERIDWi
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ss
COUNTY OF ADA )
I, Angie Clapier-Corta Rt. 1 Box 465
(name)
(address)
Marsiru!:
( city)
,Idaho
(state)
. being first duly sworn upon
oath, depose and say:
I have personally posted the subject property with the hearing notice sign one week
prior to the public hearing for the (annexation. conditional use and preliminary plat
for Parkstone Subdivision.)
Dated this
:;;J. () ",",.f, 3:" \,:JQ.no Ai ~OO3
ahA" : ,(; 0 ~ - /:,~
~~C/
,',..u...."
,~, B 'Ih_
~" ~ \,.. o~~.~..
"'(jC ~P'$eco. Co,
..... cl" "- ~\
/:;l o'fARl" ........;:
, ", . ,",,' ...
. -., e \7"" ~ ,*"
: ~ : .-.ootP ! :
! b \ .ole, J ::
_ '". ... ..~ . ;J
~ l!i~ rUB Y f'J' 0 {lj
.. -III ~o~1I
~'#;>~ ~~~OS&9~\~ ~/
~" _ B Of .....
<< ,,,...,,.,,,\:
to "'fu~ = '? z;:;;;;; writton
otary Public for Idaho
Residing at Boise, Idaho
My Commission Expires:
i/z(,lb~
J
I
~I
W.H. MOORE
COMPANY
Real Estate Development
600 N. STEELHEAD WAY, SUITE 144 (63704)
P.O. BOX 6204
BOISE,IDAHOB3707.2204
TELEPHONE (2061323,19191 FAX 323.7523
Date:
February 20, 2003
RECEIVED
FEE 20 2003
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY C! I=RK' OI=i:'Irr:-
To:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
From:
Jonathan R. Seel
Subject:
Development Application -Parkstone Subdivision
Winston Moore owns approximately 57 acres of land at the northwest corner of Eagle and
Ustick Roads that is contiguous to the proposed Parkstone Subdivision.
In meeting with the applicant, Hillview Development Corporation, it is our understanding
they plan to develop the project principally as residential, with 20% of the land desiguated
for office and a mini-storage facility. The developer advised us that the project will be
built in nine phases with the mini-storage being part of the latter phases, possibly in 2005
or 2006.
Because this storage facility will border Mr. Moore's property, we are concerned about the
possible visual impact it might have on our future development plans. Storage facilities
run the gamut from block structures with attractive fencing and landscaping to metal sided
buildings and chain link fence. The developer mentioned that their plans were not for the
metal type buildings, but at this point they could not provide us with specific design plans
for the facility.
Therein lies our concern. At this point Mr. Moore has not made specific plans for his land.
However, it will be developed as some type of commercial project which very likely will
be a class "A" business campus, similar to the approved project at the corner of Overland
and Eagle Roads (El Dorado Business Campus). If the storage facility is eventually
constructed without consideration to quality of construction, fencing and landscaping, its
appearance could be a serious detriment to successfully marketing office buildings that
border the facility.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Parkstone Subdivision
February 20, 2003
Page 2
We understand that the mini-storage facility is conceptual at this point and a detailed
conditional use permit will be submitted prior to development. Accordingly, we are not
asking the Commission to establish any specific design requirements on the mini-storage
with this application; however, we do ask that the Commission require that the conditional
use pennit for the mini-storage take into consideration the layout, quality of construction
and visual barrier (i.e. fencing, benning, landscaping), and how it could affect the
development and marketing of Mr. Moore's land.
We appreciate your consideration to this matter and will be present at the February 20,
2003, hearing to answer any questions the Commission or staff has regarding this matter.
cc: Meridian Planning & Zoning, David McKinnon
Hillview Development Corporation, Becky McKay
RECEIVED
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
FEB 2 0 2C~3
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
DATE
February 20,2003
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 02-033
PROJECT NAME
Parkstone Subdivision
NAME FOR AGAINST
r .,//0 ~c..t4-iUC L/
Mv'vA fyLkM O.AJJ PO 1./
JL;Jt7~;-- ~ V
~V'A 0. , ~14'~~. L--
~....AO ~" L ~ ~ ) L---
v </